November 7, 2025 • 25 mins
Katie and Matt discuss tariffs, skeptical questions, nondelegation, major questions, reimbursement, the Metsera deal, amylin targeting, Sam Bankman-Fried’s appeal, alleged fraud at First Brands, factoring due diligence, the blockchain and short memories in the credit market.
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.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
I'm having a horrible week. Let me tell you about it.
I heard it gets worse, It gets worse. I was
getting on the subway and I was looking at my
phone as one does, and I didn't notice in time
that there was a just huge pool of oatmeal on
the floor of the subway car. When I'm ninety percent
(00:31):
confident it was oatmeal, I'll tell you why. There was
a lid next to it, so I don't know. Maybe
someone vomited and then threw a lid down, but I'm
hoping that it was oatmeal. Anyway, it splotted up the
back of my jeans. That was yesterday. I was walking
with my lunch in my hand and just stepped in
(00:51):
dog feces. Just I'm so upset. I hate this city.
It's horrible here. You have to always be on high alert,
and I'm tired of it. Man, I'm just I'm worn down.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
Yeah, since I moved to the suburbs, I have not
necessarily seen a decrease in my incidence of stepping on
gross things.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
Yeah, but I feel like you're part of the dog community.
Speaker 1 (01:14):
Yeah, sure, bringing on myself.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
I'm kind of asking for it, but I'm not. I'm
specifically not in the dog community. I have a cat,
and I moved to New Jersey, so I try to
avoid disgusting things, and I just I can't. It all
found me this week and bad luck comes in three.
So something hideous is going to happen.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
You're going to step on something real bad.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
Something is going to step on me. I don't know.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
Hello, and welcome to the Money Stuff Podcast, your weekly
podcast where we talk about stuff related to money. I'm
Matt Levine and I write the Money Stuff column for
Bloomberg Opinion.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
And I'm Katie Greifeld, a reporter for Bloomberg News and
an anchor for Bloomberg Television.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
You know who else is having a bad week?
Speaker 2 (01:56):
The list goes on.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
I was gonna say Donald Trump, but there's no real
reason to think that Donald Trump's tariffs have a bad
day Wednesday in the US Supreme Court because they're illegal,
and every court that has considered them found them illegal.
And the Supreme Court has generally been more willing to
let Donald Trump do illegal things than other courts are, because,
(02:25):
like you know, the other courts, there's like a law,
the law, and the Supreme Court is like, yeah, we
get to make up the law. So they've been a
little more generous. But it seems like from the oral
argument on Wednesday, it seems like they might have hit
their limit on Donald Trump's universal tariffs.
Speaker 2 (02:40):
Yeah, it's funny. It seems like skepticism was the word
of the day, I think, almost every meeting.
Speaker 1 (02:45):
So you can't really tell what they think from the
oral argument, so you have to write that they were skeptical.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
Yeah, yeah, asked skeptical questions, things along those lines. Yeah,
we're talking about the nineteen seventy seven International Emergency Economic
Powers Act AIPA, if you will. So Donald Trump says
that it's in the interest of national security that he's
basically able to levy blanket tariffs around the globe. And
that's what's in question right now, defining the limits of
(03:11):
this nineteen seventies law.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
Yeah, normal people and lawyers and economists believe that tariffs
are taxes because they are, and the US Constitution says
that only Congress can impose taxes. And in APA, Congress
gave the president the power to regulate importation in an emergency,
but it doesn't say you can tax them. And it
(03:35):
seems to me and many other people, and probably five
or so justices of the Supreme Court, that that does
not give Donald Trump the power to unilatterally impose taxes
on the imports of every country in the world. Donald
Trump disagrees, and in the Supreme Court argument, his lawyer
(03:55):
Solicitor General, argued that these are not taxes. They're not
designed to raise rev and the goal of the tariffs
is to make everyone. Essentially, actually said the fact they
raise revenue is only incidental. The tariffs would be most
effective if no person ever paid them, because there were
no imports.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
I think amazing.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
Yeah, but no one believes that, certainly not Donald Trump,
who has talked about how much revenue they're raising, and
certainly not the strim Court.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
So you know, yeah, I feel like it's been pretty
nakedly a goal of the tariffs is to raise tariff
revenue and trying to shrink the budget.
Speaker 1 (04:30):
Justice it sure, because they're at tax Yeah, so it's
very hard to argue that, and they tried, and it
doesn't seem like it went that well.
Speaker 2 (04:38):
Yeah, again, we don't know what they were thinking. We
might get a decision by the end of the year,
which is exciting. But I have a quote here from
Chief Justice John Roberts saying that the tariffs were quote
an imposition of taxes on Americans, and that has always
been the core power of Congress. That's a direct quote.
And then you also it's literally.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
Read a front of the Constitution, like the Constitution is
like an actual favorite you can read right, you actually
see that. It says Congress has a parat advice.
Speaker 2 (05:02):
I've carused it now and again a lot of amendments. Anyway,
this is really enough front, right up front. And then
you had Trump appointed justices as well, Neil Gorsuch and
Amy Cony Barrett apparently also asking skeptical questions as well.
But again it's very hard to know.
Speaker 1 (05:19):
It's hard to know. Neil Gorsuch, I have a certain
personal fondness for no goar, such pause, go on. I
think you talked about this on the podcast, But my
wife argued a case in the Supreme Court that was
a non delegation doctrine in case. The non delegation doctrine
has been around for a long time. Basically, it says
that Congress can't just hand over its powers to the
(05:39):
executive branch without giving it an intelligible principle how to
regulate that doctrine has been around for a while, but
never really worked for the last hundred years. Like, the
Supreme Court has never found a violation of the non
delegation doctrine. It's never said Congress deligated too much power here,
But Neil Gorsuch believes in it and has like tried
(06:01):
to find violations of it and has like dissented from
decisions including on and Following My Wife and saying that,
like the non delegation doction should have some real power.
And it seems here that if Congress intended to delegate
the power to unilaterally tax all imports forever to the president,
(06:21):
that would be quite a striking delegation that would perhaps
exceed the ability of Congress to delegate, so like there's
natural reason to think that he would oppose these tariffs. Similarly,
John Roberts invented the thing called the major questions doctrine,
which has become a big part of Supreme Court jurist prudence,
even though he kind of made it up a few
years ago. And in the major questions doctrine, basically it's like,
(06:43):
if Congress is going to give the executive like some
huge new power. It has to do so clearly. And
here AIPA gives the president the power to regulate imports,
which is not taxing them. So it doesn't seem like
it does it clearly.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
So like if you look at you know, if you count,
like three liberal justices are going to sign out. One
John Roberts loves his major question doctrine, and one new
of course such loves his non delegation doctrine. You kind
of get to the doors being stricked down.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
Yeah, which is interesting and exciting because the question has
also been raised, would reimbursement.
Speaker 1 (07:18):
Oh yeah, have to happen?
Speaker 2 (07:20):
What on earth would that possibly look like?
Speaker 1 (07:22):
Right? If you just went to the Supreme Court, you know,
a year ago and asked them would this pay legal?
I think they'd all say no, Yeah, but it's already happened,
right for sure, it's already raised hundreds of billions of
dollars or whatever, and so unscrambling the egg is really hard,
and I don't know what will happen. I will say
that you could imagine the government being like it would
(07:42):
be impossible to pay refunds. And that's the reason not
to strike this down. And they haven't done that. They've
been like, yeah, I would pay refunds. Yeah, I do
think anythink that's a little interesting, is that if you
think about the incidents right, like on the one hand,
like I don't think consumers have paid a lot of
these times.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
Yeah, it seems like so far companies have you know,
a lot.
Speaker 1 (08:00):
Of the costs. So pretty strong consensus is that tariffs
have not been passed on to consumers nearly as much
as economists expected. And I don't know exactly there isn't
for that. Some of it it's just like a you know,
good profit environment, and some of it is like everyone's
a little bit waiting and seeing and like if the
tariffs continued forever, they might pass them on.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
But the yeah, what happens.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
But at the same time, like if there are refunds,
I don't know who gets the refunds. I think a
lot of like the importers have sold refund claims to
like hedge funds. Yeah, this is a real Wall Street
trade where like some banks have been arranging trades where
hedge funds will buy refund claims it like forty cents
on the dollar. And if the stream court strikes them down,
(08:41):
then like they get their money, and if it doesn't
then they lose the forty cents on the dollar. So
it would be more interesting if the tariffs like had
been passed on to consumers and then they were like
ultimately a transfer of money from consumers to hedge funds. Yeah,
but instead I think there's just a transfer of money
from companies stage funds.
Speaker 2 (08:57):
Well. Amy Coney Barrett did ask the lawyer for the
small businesses that sued basically how the process would work
should the terroriffs be overturned. His answer was that if
they are overturned, then businesses may seek the return of
the billions already paid to the US Treasury. So in
that scenario, like the businesses have sold them.
Speaker 1 (09:15):
Yeah, there's some interesting questions about whether the government would
stone while a hedge fund that has bought Tireff claims,
you know, yeah, but probably it'd be fine. Probably some
hedgehunds are going to do well out of this.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
So the most interesting possibility for this podcast is that
these terrafts are overturned.
Speaker 1 (09:32):
Well, yes, and then a hedge fund sues the government
for a refund that the government says now and it
goes to the Supreme courtly, that's a fun one.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
It's a fun one.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
That's a fun be interested in a tiff refund hedge
fund case.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
I do want to put some numbers around the terriff
revenue so far, because I think it's interesting. Apparently it's
helped bring the national budget deficit down to one point
seven eight trillion dollars for the most recent fiscal years.
That's a drop of two per from twenty twenty four,
which is good news. But you think about the overall
trajectory of spends and tax cuts, it's probably not going
(10:10):
to really change things that much.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
But even still, but else it's getting reversed.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
Maybe maybe we don't know that right.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
And like again, like the government can't argue about this.
They can't be like, we need these tariffs to keep
the deficit down. Yeah, I mean they can. They can
say it, but they can't say it in the Supreme
Court because to the Supreme Court, they're saying, this isn't attack.
We're not raising revenue, so we can't talk about the revenue.
Speaker 2 (10:31):
Yeah. Well, kind of reminds me of the situation with
Nvidia and AMD chips in terms of the idea was
floated that the government would take a cut of Chinese revenues,
like the revenue that they.
Speaker 1 (10:42):
Need in China, like a reverse taff.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
Yeah, but it's also like, how do you argue that's
for national security that also seems to be just nakedly revenue.
It's crazy.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
It's like you can tell advanced technology to our enomy
as lone as we got to cut.
Speaker 2 (10:56):
Yeah right, cony up, what do you want to talk
about next?
Speaker 1 (11:13):
Met Sarah?
Speaker 2 (11:14):
I love this story so much drama in the healthcare.
I'm an ice bace for this very hot, promising obesity startup,
met Sarah.
Speaker 1 (11:25):
Yeah, it's good to have an obesity drug.
Speaker 2 (11:27):
Yeahs I wish I had won.
Speaker 1 (11:30):
Yeah. So, Metsarah is a like US biotech company that
has an obesity drug that seems to be promising.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
Not on the market yet, no, but it did recently
complete a mid stage trial.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
Yeah. So it's a promising but not yet commercialized the
obesity drug. And Pfizer, a big US from a company
that had a notable failure in trials of it's obesity drug. Yeah,
and it's kind of like adrift without an obesity drug,
agreed to buy met Sarah in September and since then,
no Nordisk, which you know is a giant Danish pharmaceutical
(12:03):
company that notably makes ozepic yep and we go vi yes,
has come in with a higher bid for Metsarah, which
surest all has interesting drama. But secondly, because Novo has
the leading obesity drugs, there's a huge anti trust problem
with it buying met Sarah. Yeah, and met Sarah with
(12:24):
the board of directors is choosing between a higher offer
from Novo that might not go through or a lower
offer from Pfizer that has like very little anti trust risk.
And Nova got around that problem, or thinks it got
around that problem, or probably got around that problem by
basically paying the money upfront. So instead of like signing
a deal and going to get anti trust approval and
(12:45):
when you get anti trust approval paying the money for
the shares, Novah is just going to hand over the
money upfront. It's going to be dividended out to met
Sarah shareholders like as soon as they signed the deal,
and then Nova will get back like sort of this
like debtlike claim, so that if they get a distress approval,
the deal will close and nov will end up owning Metsarah.
And if it doesn't close, then Metsarah can sell itself
(13:08):
to someone else, and Nova gets the first like six
point five billion dollars of proceeds. It's a very weird structure.
Speaker 2 (13:15):
It is super weird. I had to reread it a
number of times, and then listening to you describe it,
I feel like I need to go back and play
it again.
Speaker 1 (13:23):
Yeah. Basically, they're just paying for the company, even if
they can't end up buying the company, which is wild.
Speaker 2 (13:30):
It's a very bold move by Novo. You mentioned that
they have the leading of a BCD drug. I will
put an asterisk there that they have seeded market share
to Eli Lilly in the US. So they're trying to
regain grounds.
Speaker 1 (13:43):
Okay, so one possible is they're trying to regain ground
by getting Metsara's awesome new drugs.
Speaker 2 (13:48):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (13:48):
Pfizer has a different theory, which is that they don't
care about this drug. They're just trying to catch and
kill it. They're trying to prevent Pfiser from getting an
ibcit drug by doing this deal where where they will
lock up met Sarah in like trying to get regulatory
approvals for two years. And Pfizer says the deal with
(14:09):
Nova will never close, They'll never get an anti trust approval,
but like it'll take so long that the actual purpose
of this deal is to prove ad pviser from buying it,
so sort of like maintain Nova's position. So that's Pfizer's view.
They've sued in multiple courts. They kind of lost around
this week Deliery Chancery Court refused to stop Metsarah from
(14:30):
taking the Nova deal, but you know there's still lawsuits
kicking around.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
Yeah, that is a very cynical take. I feel like
the fact that it's not Eli Lilly doing this maybe, Yeah.
Speaker 1 (14:40):
It's a cynical take. I mean, it's very weird to
pay for the company up front, even if you might
not get it right. And like one possibility is that
Novo is like, we don't think there's how much anti
trust risk. We understand Metsarah is worried about it, so
we're going to bear that risk ourselves by paying everything
up front. But are other possibilities that everyone thinks there's
a lot of anti trust risk and they're like, we
don't even care if we don't get the company.
Speaker 2 (15:01):
Yeah, I will say we heard from the CFO of
Novo talking about why they wanted this company, and they're
promising drug in particular, and the CFO said that they're
particularly interested in Metsarah's amelin targeting drug. Okay, if anyone
falling along at home is really well versed in this stuff.
Apparently amelin is another potential target in obesity treatment, and
(15:23):
just on Thursday, actually Eli Lilly said that it's amelin
targeting helped patients lose up to twenty point one percent
of their body weight over forty eight weeks. So I
don't know, like Pfizer has their take, but Novo seems
to have their own.
Speaker 1 (15:40):
Right, you can't fully believe the extremely cynical take of
like never spending billions of dollars just the stobviser from
getting out of PCD DUG that's adviser also has like
a sort of like patriotic argument. Yeah, like you know,
kind of playing to the Trump Justice Department. Should in
an American company end up buying this American obesity rather
(16:00):
than giving it to the Danish And.
Speaker 2 (16:02):
The government's going to be like what if we got
a golden chair perhaps something along those lines, perhaps a
kind of revenue.
Speaker 1 (16:10):
I'm sorry, because like this is what's going to happen.
Speaker 2 (16:12):
Yes, this is.
Speaker 1 (16:13):
Totally what's going to happen.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
Speaking of drama, this has nothing to do with obesity.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
Well, the story about a guy who's been five hundred
thousand dollars on his personal.
Speaker 2 (16:38):
Chef talk about a fat wallets. So stupid.
Speaker 1 (16:42):
Yeah, I think about Like so, uh, Sam bankman Fred
had his appeal this week. Oh yeah, it didn't go well. Oh,
I mean we don't know the result that skeptical.
Speaker 2 (16:51):
Questions, skeptical skepticism.
Speaker 1 (16:53):
And Sam bankman freet has said that all of his
problems started when he handed over control of FTX to
people who are running it in bankruptcy, file for bankruptcy,
and like someone else takes over the company.
Speaker 2 (17:07):
That was the starting point of well, that was.
Speaker 1 (17:09):
In the starting pipe. He was like, I could have
recovered before that, but then after they took over the company,
like the new CEO has an incentive to throw the
old management under the bus, right and find as many
problems as possible. And I was thinking about that because like,
so we're going to talk about First Brands, which is
a auto parts conglomerate that went bankrupt and this week
(17:31):
sued its former CEO and soul shareholder Patrick James, for
various alleged badness basically like doing a lot of fraud
to borrow from various like factoring companies, and like taking
all of that money and giving it to himself and
spending it on seventeen exotic cars, lavish homes and Malibu
(17:52):
and the Hampton's six figure bills for a celebrity chef
other stuff like that. And I just think about it
because like it's the same kind of dynasm where like
you file for bankruptcy, like essentially a bankruptcy firm takes
over the company and they're like, you know, let's be
as negative as possible about the previous management, and so
do you know they seem to have found a lot
(18:12):
of stuff. Yeah, but you know you have to be
a little skeptical, right because like they were running the
company on behalf of the creditors, right, and like this
is a company that was one hundred percent owned by
Patrick James, and so they're like he used it as
his personal piggy bank. He absolutely did, Like of course
he did, because he owned the company, and so he
didn't like follow a lot of like formalities, and like
(18:32):
when he needed money, he just sent himself some money
from the company, and now they want all that money
back to pay to the creditors, right, and so they're like, oh,
he did lots of fraud. Like I guess I believe them,
But it's just like and it's an interesting dynamic, like
so incentives to say he did lots of fraud.
Speaker 2 (18:47):
If I own one hundred percent of an autoparts supplier,
I can take the money out and buy cars.
Speaker 1 (18:53):
Well, the question is who's going to object to that?
And if there are no other soulders in the ordinary course,
no one's going to object it. Now if the company
goes extremely bankrupt, the creditors are going to object it.
They're gonna be like giving back the money, and they're
going to look very carefully to see if you did
anything bad. And I do think that like they found
(19:13):
that he did bad stuff in terms of like I mean,
like the real allegation here is that most of their
borrowing was secured by invoices. So I could sell auto
parts to like a car dealership, and they get an
invoice and they'd borrow against the invoice from like a
factoring company. They would like send over lists of thousands
of invoices to borrow the money and they would just
change the numbers on the lists to get more money,
(19:35):
and like that's fraud if that's true, right, Like that's
really bad. And so the creditors have like allegedly found
a lot of that. But then there's just like the
other question of like, if you have a company that
borrows money, can you take money out of the company?
And it's like, well, it depends on what the credit
agreements say, and like they make a lot of noise
about how he didn't follow a lot of formalities, but
they don't say like it was forbidden by the credit agreements.
(19:57):
I don't know. So I don't mean to defend him.
Speaker 2 (19:59):
I feel I mean, I feel like someone listening cold
because I know you want to know.
Speaker 1 (20:05):
I just think it's an interesting dynamic that the creditors
have every incentive to look for fraud, and that they
are like, he took money out of this company, which
leads like, fine, if you you know it's his own company,
but it's not his own company because he like borrowed
a lot of money.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (20:20):
That said, I do want to emphasize that the stuff
they say about crossing out the numbers on the invoices
and writing much larger numbers is really bad fraud.
Speaker 2 (20:28):
Yeah, like much larger numbers, adding a digit maybe too. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (20:33):
Yeah, Like there's an example in the complaint of like
they patch together two million dollars worth of invoices, like
thousands of invoices that total two million dollars, and they
change them to make them eleven million dollars. Yeah, they
borrowed eleven million dollars. Like that's really bad.
Speaker 2 (20:47):
Yeah, that's super bad. That's flagrant if you really think
about it. I do wonder if anyone in his family
was like, Patrick, you run an auto part supplier. How
do you have so many houses? How do you have
so many car.
Speaker 1 (21:00):
No, it's a big it's not like a yeah, but
even still think a multi billion dollar conglomerate of auto
parts supplayers.
Speaker 2 (21:06):
Yeah, that's true, But I don't know with the benefit
of hindsight, it seems a little sketchy.
Speaker 1 (21:12):
But I know he's a billionaire. I gotten myself into
this anyway, I think completely innocent.
Speaker 2 (21:21):
I do think it's interesting that I don't know. It
feels like every week more news breaks about first brands
and the unraveling here.
Speaker 1 (21:28):
Even before I went bankrupt, like people are raising concerns
about double pledging, and like, yeah, it makes sense that,
Like when their bankruptcy team did a Friends of examination,
they're like, oh wow, there's tons of double pledging here.
Speaker 2 (21:39):
Yeah. You aptly linked to a Wall Street Journal report
talking about how now you have a lot more firms,
perhaps suggesting that we should up our due diligence. There
was an interesting report too from the Financial Time today
talking about how UPS is going to liquidate its funds
with major first brands exposure. Apparently they have a fund
(22:00):
specializing in invoice finance, specifically at O'Connor that is owned
by UBS in the process of being sold to Canter Fitzgerald,
which is pretty funny just in terms of obviously when
the steal was signed in May, things were much different.
Speaker 1 (22:17):
And invoice financing fund now not so much.
Speaker 2 (22:20):
Yeah, and they're even liquidating a high grade fund that
invested in invoices linked to less receive companies without any
first brand's exposure. But right also, no one's like.
Speaker 1 (22:32):
Looking to get into like invoice financing right this minute.
I will say, you know, I've talked about diligence on
this sort of thing where you know, it's literally like
you send over an Excel file with thousands of invoices
and then they just send you the money. I'm like,
you're edit that excel file. I will say I got
at least two emails that included the word blockchain.
Speaker 2 (22:52):
Oh, you know, that's what we've found a use case.
Speaker 1 (22:58):
Whether or not it's blockchain, it does kind of feel
like we have the technology to not just take it
on faith that that's just a pile of PDFs is real.
But not everyone deploys that technology. And you know, there's
a lot of trust in the financial system and sometimes
sometimes people buy seventeen exotic cars on the back of
(23:19):
that trust.
Speaker 2 (23:20):
It's really funny. Blockchain does seem like an obvious answer here,
But don't put that in there.
Speaker 1 (23:24):
Nope, we're putting them in.
Speaker 2 (23:28):
No, oh, invoice financing funds. I don't know you say
that now, Maybe isn't a great time for them. I
want to read the story in like the next three
months about someone coming in and moving aggressively here, because
what was what was that?
Speaker 1 (23:43):
It's a real business, Like, yeah, I feel like people
only ever talk about it when someone goes up in
a flaming pile of fraud. But like it's a real business. Yeah,
it's mostly fine.
Speaker 2 (23:53):
It kind of reminds me of the credit sweet blob.
Wasn't it eighty ones? What am I trying to remember?
Speaker 1 (23:59):
I don't know what credits. We had that Green Soul problem,
which was with the invoice financing from.
Speaker 2 (24:03):
No, I'm definitely not thinking would.
Speaker 1 (24:04):
Not oh the at ones in that Yeah, yeah, because
credit series wiped out billions of dollars of at ones
and for like twenty minutes people were like, I'll never
buy an at one again, and then like the at
one market came roaring back. Yeah, yes, I have to
say that. Like the day that was happening and people
were like, I'll never buy an at one again. I'm
pretty sure I wrote in a column like they will
(24:26):
definitely buy eight ones.
Speaker 2 (24:27):
Next week, and they did.
Speaker 1 (24:29):
The credit market has no memory whatsoever.
Speaker 2 (24:31):
Maybe that will happen with I think, yeah, voice finance advice.
Speaker 1 (24:34):
Financing, Like I don't think that like invoice financing will
be dead, but like I think people might do a
little bit more to a divillidence for a while. And
that was the Money Stuff podcast.
Speaker 2 (24:48):
I'm Matt Levine and I'm Katie Greifeld.
Speaker 1 (24:50):
You can find my work by subscribing to The Money
Stuff newsletter on.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
Bloomberg dot com, and you can find me on Bloomberg
TV every day on the Clothes between three and five
p we'd love to.
Speaker 1 (25:01):
Hear from you. You can send an email to Moneypod
at Bloomberg dot net, ask us a question and we
might answer it on the air.
Speaker 2 (25:08):
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 (25:14):
The Money Stuff Podcast is produced by Ana ma Aserakas.
Speaker 2 (25:17):
And Moses on don Our theme music was composed by
Blake Maples.
Speaker 1 (25:21):
Amy Keen is our executive.
Speaker 2 (25:23):
Producer, and Sage Bauman is Bloomberg's head of Podcasts.
Speaker 1 (25:27):
Thanks for listening to The Money Stuff Podcast. We'll be
back next week with more stuff.
Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
I'm having a horrible week. Let me tell you about it.
I heard it gets worse, It gets worse. I was
getting on the subway and I was looking at my
phone as one does, and I didn't notice in time
that there was a just huge pool of oatmeal on
the floor of the subway car. When I'm ninety percent
(00:31):
confident it was oatmeal, I'll tell you why. There was
a lid next to it, so I don't know. Maybe
someone vomited and then threw a lid down, but I'm
hoping that it was oatmeal. Anyway, it splotted up the
back of my jeans. That was yesterday. I was walking
with my lunch in my hand and just stepped in
(00:51):
dog feces. Just I'm so upset. I hate this city.
It's horrible here. You have to always be on high alert,
and I'm tired of it. Man, I'm just I'm worn down.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
Yeah, since I moved to the suburbs, I have not
necessarily seen a decrease in my incidence of stepping on
gross things.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
Yeah, but I feel like you're part of the dog community.
Speaker 1 (01:14):
Yeah, sure, bringing on myself.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
I'm kind of asking for it, but I'm not. I'm
specifically not in the dog community. I have a cat,
and I moved to New Jersey, so I try to
avoid disgusting things, and I just I can't. It all
found me this week and bad luck comes in three.
So something hideous is going to happen.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
You're going to step on something real bad.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
Something is going to step on me. I don't know.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
Hello, and welcome to the Money Stuff Podcast, your weekly
podcast where we talk about stuff related to money. I'm
Matt Levine and I write the Money Stuff column for
Bloomberg Opinion.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
And I'm Katie Greifeld, a reporter for Bloomberg News and
an anchor for Bloomberg Television.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
You know who else is having a bad week?
Speaker 2 (01:56):
The list goes on.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
I was gonna say Donald Trump, but there's no real
reason to think that Donald Trump's tariffs have a bad
day Wednesday in the US Supreme Court because they're illegal,
and every court that has considered them found them illegal.
And the Supreme Court has generally been more willing to
let Donald Trump do illegal things than other courts are, because,
(02:25):
like you know, the other courts, there's like a law,
the law, and the Supreme Court is like, yeah, we
get to make up the law. So they've been a
little more generous. But it seems like from the oral
argument on Wednesday, it seems like they might have hit
their limit on Donald Trump's universal tariffs.
Speaker 2 (02:40):
Yeah, it's funny. It seems like skepticism was the word
of the day, I think, almost every meeting.
Speaker 1 (02:45):
So you can't really tell what they think from the
oral argument, so you have to write that they were skeptical.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
Yeah, yeah, asked skeptical questions, things along those lines. Yeah,
we're talking about the nineteen seventy seven International Emergency Economic
Powers Act AIPA, if you will. So Donald Trump says
that it's in the interest of national security that he's
basically able to levy blanket tariffs around the globe. And
that's what's in question right now, defining the limits of
(03:11):
this nineteen seventies law.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
Yeah, normal people and lawyers and economists believe that tariffs
are taxes because they are, and the US Constitution says
that only Congress can impose taxes. And in APA, Congress
gave the president the power to regulate importation in an emergency,
but it doesn't say you can tax them. And it
(03:35):
seems to me and many other people, and probably five
or so justices of the Supreme Court, that that does
not give Donald Trump the power to unilatterally impose taxes
on the imports of every country in the world. Donald
Trump disagrees, and in the Supreme Court argument, his lawyer
(03:55):
Solicitor General, argued that these are not taxes. They're not
designed to raise rev and the goal of the tariffs
is to make everyone. Essentially, actually said the fact they
raise revenue is only incidental. The tariffs would be most
effective if no person ever paid them, because there were
no imports.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
I think amazing.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
Yeah, but no one believes that, certainly not Donald Trump,
who has talked about how much revenue they're raising, and
certainly not the strim Court.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
So you know, yeah, I feel like it's been pretty
nakedly a goal of the tariffs is to raise tariff
revenue and trying to shrink the budget.
Speaker 1 (04:30):
Justice it sure, because they're at tax Yeah, so it's
very hard to argue that, and they tried, and it
doesn't seem like it went that well.
Speaker 2 (04:38):
Yeah, again, we don't know what they were thinking. We
might get a decision by the end of the year,
which is exciting. But I have a quote here from
Chief Justice John Roberts saying that the tariffs were quote
an imposition of taxes on Americans, and that has always
been the core power of Congress. That's a direct quote.
And then you also it's literally.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
Read a front of the Constitution, like the Constitution is
like an actual favorite you can read right, you actually
see that. It says Congress has a parat advice.
Speaker 2 (05:02):
I've carused it now and again a lot of amendments. Anyway,
this is really enough front, right up front. And then
you had Trump appointed justices as well, Neil Gorsuch and
Amy Cony Barrett apparently also asking skeptical questions as well.
But again it's very hard to know.
Speaker 1 (05:19):
It's hard to know. Neil Gorsuch, I have a certain
personal fondness for no goar, such pause, go on. I
think you talked about this on the podcast, But my
wife argued a case in the Supreme Court that was
a non delegation doctrine in case. The non delegation doctrine
has been around for a long time. Basically, it says
that Congress can't just hand over its powers to the
(05:39):
executive branch without giving it an intelligible principle how to
regulate that doctrine has been around for a while, but
never really worked for the last hundred years. Like, the
Supreme Court has never found a violation of the non
delegation doctrine. It's never said Congress deligated too much power here,
But Neil Gorsuch believes in it and has like tried
(06:01):
to find violations of it and has like dissented from
decisions including on and Following My Wife and saying that,
like the non delegation doction should have some real power.
And it seems here that if Congress intended to delegate
the power to unilaterally tax all imports forever to the president,
(06:21):
that would be quite a striking delegation that would perhaps
exceed the ability of Congress to delegate, so like there's
natural reason to think that he would oppose these tariffs. Similarly,
John Roberts invented the thing called the major questions doctrine,
which has become a big part of Supreme Court jurist prudence,
even though he kind of made it up a few
years ago. And in the major questions doctrine, basically it's like,
(06:43):
if Congress is going to give the executive like some
huge new power. It has to do so clearly. And
here AIPA gives the president the power to regulate imports,
which is not taxing them. So it doesn't seem like
it does it clearly.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
So like if you look at you know, if you count,
like three liberal justices are going to sign out. One
John Roberts loves his major question doctrine, and one new
of course such loves his non delegation doctrine. You kind
of get to the doors being stricked down.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
Yeah, which is interesting and exciting because the question has
also been raised, would reimbursement.
Speaker 1 (07:18):
Oh yeah, have to happen?
Speaker 2 (07:20):
What on earth would that possibly look like?
Speaker 1 (07:22):
Right? If you just went to the Supreme Court, you know,
a year ago and asked them would this pay legal?
I think they'd all say no, Yeah, but it's already happened,
right for sure, it's already raised hundreds of billions of
dollars or whatever, and so unscrambling the egg is really hard,
and I don't know what will happen. I will say
that you could imagine the government being like it would
(07:42):
be impossible to pay refunds. And that's the reason not
to strike this down. And they haven't done that. They've
been like, yeah, I would pay refunds. Yeah, I do
think anythink that's a little interesting, is that if you
think about the incidents right, like on the one hand,
like I don't think consumers have paid a lot of
these times.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
Yeah, it seems like so far companies have you know,
a lot.
Speaker 1 (08:00):
Of the costs. So pretty strong consensus is that tariffs
have not been passed on to consumers nearly as much
as economists expected. And I don't know exactly there isn't
for that. Some of it it's just like a you know,
good profit environment, and some of it is like everyone's
a little bit waiting and seeing and like if the
tariffs continued forever, they might pass them on.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
But the yeah, what happens.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
But at the same time, like if there are refunds,
I don't know who gets the refunds. I think a
lot of like the importers have sold refund claims to
like hedge funds. Yeah, this is a real Wall Street
trade where like some banks have been arranging trades where
hedge funds will buy refund claims it like forty cents
on the dollar. And if the stream court strikes them down,
(08:41):
then like they get their money, and if it doesn't
then they lose the forty cents on the dollar. So
it would be more interesting if the tariffs like had
been passed on to consumers and then they were like
ultimately a transfer of money from consumers to hedge funds. Yeah,
but instead I think there's just a transfer of money
from companies stage funds.
Speaker 2 (08:57):
Well. Amy Coney Barrett did ask the lawyer for the
small businesses that sued basically how the process would work
should the terroriffs be overturned. His answer was that if
they are overturned, then businesses may seek the return of
the billions already paid to the US Treasury. So in
that scenario, like the businesses have sold them.
Speaker 1 (09:15):
Yeah, there's some interesting questions about whether the government would
stone while a hedge fund that has bought Tireff claims,
you know, yeah, but probably it'd be fine. Probably some
hedgehunds are going to do well out of this.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
So the most interesting possibility for this podcast is that
these terrafts are overturned.
Speaker 1 (09:32):
Well, yes, and then a hedge fund sues the government
for a refund that the government says now and it
goes to the Supreme courtly, that's a fun one.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
It's a fun one.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
That's a fun be interested in a tiff refund hedge
fund case.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
I do want to put some numbers around the terriff
revenue so far, because I think it's interesting. Apparently it's
helped bring the national budget deficit down to one point
seven eight trillion dollars for the most recent fiscal years.
That's a drop of two per from twenty twenty four,
which is good news. But you think about the overall
trajectory of spends and tax cuts, it's probably not going
(10:10):
to really change things that much.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
But even still, but else it's getting reversed.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
Maybe maybe we don't know that right.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
And like again, like the government can't argue about this.
They can't be like, we need these tariffs to keep
the deficit down. Yeah, I mean they can. They can
say it, but they can't say it in the Supreme
Court because to the Supreme Court, they're saying, this isn't attack.
We're not raising revenue, so we can't talk about the revenue.
Speaker 2 (10:31):
Yeah. Well, kind of reminds me of the situation with
Nvidia and AMD chips in terms of the idea was
floated that the government would take a cut of Chinese revenues,
like the revenue that they.
Speaker 1 (10:42):
Need in China, like a reverse taff.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
Yeah, but it's also like, how do you argue that's
for national security that also seems to be just nakedly revenue.
It's crazy.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
It's like you can tell advanced technology to our enomy
as lone as we got to cut.
Speaker 2 (10:56):
Yeah right, cony up, what do you want to talk
about next?
Speaker 1 (11:13):
Met Sarah?
Speaker 2 (11:14):
I love this story so much drama in the healthcare.
I'm an ice bace for this very hot, promising obesity startup,
met Sarah.
Speaker 1 (11:25):
Yeah, it's good to have an obesity drug.
Speaker 2 (11:27):
Yeahs I wish I had won.
Speaker 1 (11:30):
Yeah. So, Metsarah is a like US biotech company that
has an obesity drug that seems to be promising.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
Not on the market yet, no, but it did recently
complete a mid stage trial.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
Yeah. So it's a promising but not yet commercialized the
obesity drug. And Pfizer, a big US from a company
that had a notable failure in trials of it's obesity drug. Yeah,
and it's kind of like adrift without an obesity drug,
agreed to buy met Sarah in September and since then,
no Nordisk, which you know is a giant Danish pharmaceutical
(12:03):
company that notably makes ozepic yep and we go vi yes,
has come in with a higher bid for Metsarah, which
surest all has interesting drama. But secondly, because Novo has
the leading obesity drugs, there's a huge anti trust problem
with it buying met Sarah. Yeah, and met Sarah with
(12:24):
the board of directors is choosing between a higher offer
from Novo that might not go through or a lower
offer from Pfizer that has like very little anti trust risk.
And Nova got around that problem, or thinks it got
around that problem, or probably got around that problem by
basically paying the money upfront. So instead of like signing
a deal and going to get anti trust approval and
(12:45):
when you get anti trust approval paying the money for
the shares, Novah is just going to hand over the
money upfront. It's going to be dividended out to met
Sarah shareholders like as soon as they signed the deal,
and then Nova will get back like sort of this
like debtlike claim, so that if they get a distress approval,
the deal will close and nov will end up owning Metsarah.
And if it doesn't close, then Metsarah can sell itself
(13:08):
to someone else, and Nova gets the first like six
point five billion dollars of proceeds. It's a very weird structure.
Speaker 2 (13:15):
It is super weird. I had to reread it a
number of times, and then listening to you describe it,
I feel like I need to go back and play
it again.
Speaker 1 (13:23):
Yeah. Basically, they're just paying for the company, even if
they can't end up buying the company, which is wild.
Speaker 2 (13:30):
It's a very bold move by Novo. You mentioned that
they have the leading of a BCD drug. I will
put an asterisk there that they have seeded market share
to Eli Lilly in the US. So they're trying to
regain grounds.
Speaker 1 (13:43):
Okay, so one possible is they're trying to regain ground
by getting Metsara's awesome new drugs.
Speaker 2 (13:48):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (13:48):
Pfizer has a different theory, which is that they don't
care about this drug. They're just trying to catch and
kill it. They're trying to prevent Pfiser from getting an
ibcit drug by doing this deal where where they will
lock up met Sarah in like trying to get regulatory
approvals for two years. And Pfizer says the deal with
(14:09):
Nova will never close, They'll never get an anti trust approval,
but like it'll take so long that the actual purpose
of this deal is to prove ad pviser from buying it,
so sort of like maintain Nova's position. So that's Pfizer's view.
They've sued in multiple courts. They kind of lost around
this week Deliery Chancery Court refused to stop Metsarah from
(14:30):
taking the Nova deal, but you know there's still lawsuits
kicking around.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
Yeah, that is a very cynical take. I feel like
the fact that it's not Eli Lilly doing this maybe, Yeah.
Speaker 1 (14:40):
It's a cynical take. I mean, it's very weird to
pay for the company up front, even if you might
not get it right. And like one possibility is that
Novo is like, we don't think there's how much anti
trust risk. We understand Metsarah is worried about it, so
we're going to bear that risk ourselves by paying everything
up front. But are other possibilities that everyone thinks there's
a lot of anti trust risk and they're like, we
don't even care if we don't get the company.
Speaker 2 (15:01):
Yeah, I will say we heard from the CFO of
Novo talking about why they wanted this company, and they're
promising drug in particular, and the CFO said that they're
particularly interested in Metsarah's amelin targeting drug. Okay, if anyone
falling along at home is really well versed in this stuff.
Apparently amelin is another potential target in obesity treatment, and
(15:23):
just on Thursday, actually Eli Lilly said that it's amelin
targeting helped patients lose up to twenty point one percent
of their body weight over forty eight weeks. So I
don't know, like Pfizer has their take, but Novo seems
to have their own.
Speaker 1 (15:40):
Right, you can't fully believe the extremely cynical take of
like never spending billions of dollars just the stobviser from
getting out of PCD DUG that's adviser also has like
a sort of like patriotic argument. Yeah, like you know,
kind of playing to the Trump Justice Department. Should in
an American company end up buying this American obesity rather
(16:00):
than giving it to the Danish And.
Speaker 2 (16:02):
The government's going to be like what if we got
a golden chair perhaps something along those lines, perhaps a
kind of revenue.
Speaker 1 (16:10):
I'm sorry, because like this is what's going to happen.
Speaker 2 (16:12):
Yes, this is.
Speaker 1 (16:13):
Totally what's going to happen.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
Speaking of drama, this has nothing to do with obesity.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
Well, the story about a guy who's been five hundred
thousand dollars on his personal.
Speaker 2 (16:38):
Chef talk about a fat wallets. So stupid.
Speaker 1 (16:42):
Yeah, I think about Like so, uh, Sam bankman Fred
had his appeal this week. Oh yeah, it didn't go well. Oh,
I mean we don't know the result that skeptical.
Speaker 2 (16:51):
Questions, skeptical skepticism.
Speaker 1 (16:53):
And Sam bankman freet has said that all of his
problems started when he handed over control of FTX to
people who are running it in bankruptcy, file for bankruptcy,
and like someone else takes over the company.
Speaker 2 (17:07):
That was the starting point of well, that was.
Speaker 1 (17:09):
In the starting pipe. He was like, I could have
recovered before that, but then after they took over the company,
like the new CEO has an incentive to throw the
old management under the bus, right and find as many
problems as possible. And I was thinking about that because like,
so we're going to talk about First Brands, which is
a auto parts conglomerate that went bankrupt and this week
(17:31):
sued its former CEO and soul shareholder Patrick James, for
various alleged badness basically like doing a lot of fraud
to borrow from various like factoring companies, and like taking
all of that money and giving it to himself and
spending it on seventeen exotic cars, lavish homes and Malibu
(17:52):
and the Hampton's six figure bills for a celebrity chef
other stuff like that. And I just think about it
because like it's the same kind of dynasm where like
you file for bankruptcy, like essentially a bankruptcy firm takes
over the company and they're like, you know, let's be
as negative as possible about the previous management, and so
do you know they seem to have found a lot
(18:12):
of stuff. Yeah, but you know you have to be
a little skeptical, right because like they were running the
company on behalf of the creditors, right, and like this
is a company that was one hundred percent owned by
Patrick James, and so they're like he used it as
his personal piggy bank. He absolutely did, Like of course
he did, because he owned the company, and so he
didn't like follow a lot of like formalities, and like
(18:32):
when he needed money, he just sent himself some money
from the company, and now they want all that money
back to pay to the creditors, right, and so they're like, oh,
he did lots of fraud. Like I guess I believe them,
But it's just like and it's an interesting dynamic, like
so incentives to say he did lots of fraud.
Speaker 2 (18:47):
If I own one hundred percent of an autoparts supplier,
I can take the money out and buy cars.
Speaker 1 (18:53):
Well, the question is who's going to object to that?
And if there are no other soulders in the ordinary course,
no one's going to object it. Now if the company
goes extremely bankrupt, the creditors are going to object it.
They're gonna be like giving back the money, and they're
going to look very carefully to see if you did
anything bad. And I do think that like they found
(19:13):
that he did bad stuff in terms of like I mean,
like the real allegation here is that most of their
borrowing was secured by invoices. So I could sell auto
parts to like a car dealership, and they get an
invoice and they'd borrow against the invoice from like a
factoring company. They would like send over lists of thousands
of invoices to borrow the money and they would just
change the numbers on the lists to get more money,
(19:35):
and like that's fraud if that's true, right, Like that's
really bad. And so the creditors have like allegedly found
a lot of that. But then there's just like the
other question of like, if you have a company that
borrows money, can you take money out of the company?
And it's like, well, it depends on what the credit
agreements say, and like they make a lot of noise
about how he didn't follow a lot of formalities, but
they don't say like it was forbidden by the credit agreements.
(19:57):
I don't know. So I don't mean to defend him.
Speaker 2 (19:59):
I feel I mean, I feel like someone listening cold
because I know you want to know.
Speaker 1 (20:05):
I just think it's an interesting dynamic that the creditors
have every incentive to look for fraud, and that they
are like, he took money out of this company, which
leads like, fine, if you you know it's his own company,
but it's not his own company because he like borrowed
a lot of money.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (20:20):
That said, I do want to emphasize that the stuff
they say about crossing out the numbers on the invoices
and writing much larger numbers is really bad fraud.
Speaker 2 (20:28):
Yeah, like much larger numbers, adding a digit maybe too. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (20:33):
Yeah, Like there's an example in the complaint of like
they patch together two million dollars worth of invoices, like
thousands of invoices that total two million dollars, and they
change them to make them eleven million dollars. Yeah, they
borrowed eleven million dollars. Like that's really bad.
Speaker 2 (20:47):
Yeah, that's super bad. That's flagrant if you really think
about it. I do wonder if anyone in his family
was like, Patrick, you run an auto part supplier. How
do you have so many houses? How do you have
so many car.
Speaker 1 (21:00):
No, it's a big it's not like a yeah, but
even still think a multi billion dollar conglomerate of auto
parts supplayers.
Speaker 2 (21:06):
Yeah, that's true, But I don't know with the benefit
of hindsight, it seems a little sketchy.
Speaker 1 (21:12):
But I know he's a billionaire. I gotten myself into
this anyway, I think completely innocent.
Speaker 2 (21:21):
I do think it's interesting that I don't know. It
feels like every week more news breaks about first brands
and the unraveling here.
Speaker 1 (21:28):
Even before I went bankrupt, like people are raising concerns
about double pledging, and like, yeah, it makes sense that,
Like when their bankruptcy team did a Friends of examination,
they're like, oh wow, there's tons of double pledging here.
Speaker 2 (21:39):
Yeah. You aptly linked to a Wall Street Journal report
talking about how now you have a lot more firms,
perhaps suggesting that we should up our due diligence. There
was an interesting report too from the Financial Time today
talking about how UPS is going to liquidate its funds
with major first brands exposure. Apparently they have a fund
(22:00):
specializing in invoice finance, specifically at O'Connor that is owned
by UBS in the process of being sold to Canter Fitzgerald,
which is pretty funny just in terms of obviously when
the steal was signed in May, things were much different.
Speaker 1 (22:17):
And invoice financing fund now not so much.
Speaker 2 (22:20):
Yeah, and they're even liquidating a high grade fund that
invested in invoices linked to less receive companies without any
first brand's exposure. But right also, no one's like.
Speaker 1 (22:32):
Looking to get into like invoice financing right this minute.
I will say, you know, I've talked about diligence on
this sort of thing where you know, it's literally like
you send over an Excel file with thousands of invoices
and then they just send you the money. I'm like,
you're edit that excel file. I will say I got
at least two emails that included the word blockchain.
Speaker 2 (22:52):
Oh, you know, that's what we've found a use case.
Speaker 1 (22:58):
Whether or not it's blockchain, it does kind of feel
like we have the technology to not just take it
on faith that that's just a pile of PDFs is real.
But not everyone deploys that technology. And you know, there's
a lot of trust in the financial system and sometimes
sometimes people buy seventeen exotic cars on the back of
(23:19):
that trust.
Speaker 2 (23:20):
It's really funny. Blockchain does seem like an obvious answer here,
But don't put that in there.
Speaker 1 (23:24):
Nope, we're putting them in.
Speaker 2 (23:28):
No, oh, invoice financing funds. I don't know you say
that now, Maybe isn't a great time for them. I
want to read the story in like the next three
months about someone coming in and moving aggressively here, because
what was what was that?
Speaker 1 (23:43):
It's a real business, Like, yeah, I feel like people
only ever talk about it when someone goes up in
a flaming pile of fraud. But like it's a real business. Yeah,
it's mostly fine.
Speaker 2 (23:53):
It kind of reminds me of the credit sweet blob.
Wasn't it eighty ones? What am I trying to remember?
Speaker 1 (23:59):
I don't know what credits. We had that Green Soul problem,
which was with the invoice financing from.
Speaker 2 (24:03):
No, I'm definitely not thinking would.
Speaker 1 (24:04):
Not oh the at ones in that Yeah, yeah, because
credit series wiped out billions of dollars of at ones
and for like twenty minutes people were like, I'll never
buy an at one again, and then like the at
one market came roaring back. Yeah, yes, I have to
say that. Like the day that was happening and people
were like, I'll never buy an at one again. I'm
pretty sure I wrote in a column like they will
(24:26):
definitely buy eight ones.
Speaker 2 (24:27):
Next week, and they did.
Speaker 1 (24:29):
The credit market has no memory whatsoever.
Speaker 2 (24:31):
Maybe that will happen with I think, yeah, voice finance advice.
Speaker 1 (24:34):
Financing, Like I don't think that like invoice financing will
be dead, but like I think people might do a
little bit more to a divillidence for a while. And
that was the Money Stuff podcast.
Speaker 2 (24:48):
I'm Matt Levine and I'm Katie Greifeld.
Speaker 1 (24:50):
You can find my work by subscribing to The Money
Stuff newsletter on.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
Bloomberg dot com, and you can find me on Bloomberg
TV every day on the Clothes between three and five
p we'd love to.
Speaker 1 (25:01):
Hear from you. You can send an email to Moneypod
at Bloomberg dot net, ask us a question and we
might answer it on the air.
Speaker 2 (25:08):
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 (25:14):
The Money Stuff Podcast is produced by Ana ma Aserakas.
Speaker 2 (25:17):
And Moses on don Our theme music was composed by
Blake Maples.
Speaker 1 (25:21):
Amy Keen is our executive.
Speaker 2 (25:23):
Producer, and Sage Bauman is Bloomberg's head of Podcasts.
Speaker 1 (25:27):
Thanks for listening to The Money Stuff Podcast. We'll be
back next 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!
Ruthie's Table 4
For more than 30 years The River Cafe in London, has been the home-from-home of artists, architects, designers, actors, collectors, writers, activists, and politicians. Michael Caine, Glenn Close, JJ Abrams, Steve McQueen, Victoria and David Beckham, and Lily Allen, are just some of the people who love to call The River Cafe home. On River Cafe Table 4, Rogers sits down with her customers—who have become friends—to talk about food memories. Table 4 explores how food impacts every aspect of our lives. “Foods is politics, food is cultural, food is how you express love, food is about your heritage, it defines who you and who you want to be,” says Rogers. Each week, Rogers invites her guest to reminisce about family suppers and first dates, what they cook, how they eat when performing, the restaurants they choose, and what food they seek when they need comfort. And to punctuate each episode of Table 4, guests such as Ralph Fiennes, Emily Blunt, and Alfonso Cuarón, read their favourite recipe from one of the best-selling River Cafe cookbooks. Table 4 itself, is situated near The River Cafe’s open kitchen, close to the bright pink wood-fired oven and next to the glossy yellow pass, where Ruthie oversees the restaurant. You are invited to take a seat at this intimate table and join the conversation. For more information, recipes, and ingredients, go to https://shoptherivercafe.co.uk/ Web: https://rivercafe.co.uk/ Instagram: www.instagram.com/therivercafelondon/ Facebook: https://en-gb.facebook.com/therivercafelondon/ For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iheartradio app, apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.