Learn to Perch: WFC, BBB, TOPS

On Fox One, you can stream your favorite news, sports, and entertainment live, all in one app.

It's f ⁇ ing roll and unfiltered.

This is the best thing ever.

Watch breaking news as it breaks.

Breaking tonight, we're following two major stories.

And catch history in the making.

Gibby, meet Freddy.

Debates,

drama, touchdowns.

It's all here, baby.

Fox One.

We live for live.

Streaming now.

I don't mean to interrupt your meal, but I saw you from across a cafe, and you're the Geico Gecko, right?

In the flesh.

Oh, my goodness.

This is huge to finally meet you.

I love Geico's fast-and-friendly claim service.

Well, that's how Geico gets 97% customer satisfaction.

Anyway, that's all.

Enjoy the rest of your food.

No worries.

Uh, so are you just gonna watch me eat?

Oh, sorry.

Just a little starstruck.

I'll be on my way.

If you're gonna stick around, just pull up a chair.

You're the best.

Get more than just savings.

Get more with Geico.

how many vendors does it take to meet all your organization's food needs just one easy cater the workplace food platform that lets teams order from a huge variety of restaurants over a hundred thousand nationwide all through a single vendor In addition to all that variety, Easy Cater also gives you full visibility of your organization's food spend with invoicing, centralized reporting, and seamless integration with expense management systems, all on one platform.

EasyCater, EasyCater, your business tool for food.

To learn more, visit easycater.com/slash podcast.

Bloomberg Audio Studios.

Podcasts, radio, news.

There was a comment on Spotify on our most recent podcast, last week's.

Let me just find it.

I thought it was a good thing.

Got a lot of bird feedback.

Hello, and welcome to the Bird Stuff Podcast, your weekly podcast where we talk about stuff related to birds.

And the European starling, he's doing quite well.

He's perching.

He started to feed himself.

Oh, great.

Two out of three.

Exactly.

He's stopped screaming quite as loudly as my parents to feed him like a baby.

The flying, we need to work on, though.

He's really good at flapping, but you know, he's lacking some confidence when it comes to flight.

Do you have a training program ready for working on the flying?

I think we just need to let him out of the cage, similar to Wells Fargo, which we'll talk about.

Oh, what a transition.

Hello, and welcome to the Bird Stuff Podcast, your weekly podcast where we talk about stuff related to birds.

I'm Matt Levine and I write the Money Stuff column for Bloomberg Opinion.

And I'm Katie Greifeld, a reporter for Bloomberg News and an anchor for Bloomberg Television and a bird owner.

It's actually the Money Stuff podcast, in case anyone has any doubts.

It's going to be weird if this was your first episode.

Speaking of being let out of your cage, Wells Fargo let out of its cage.

Charlie Sharp

playing offense.

This was expected, but I think it was still somewhat surprising to get this news this past week that the asset cap the Fed had imposed on Wells Fargo back in 2018 has been lifted.

So the Bloomberg article about this reported that when Charlie Scharf, the CEO of Wells Fargo, he joined the bank like a year after the asset cap was imposed.

And when he was like interviewing, he was aware of the asset cap because it was a pretty high-profile thing.

But according to the article, they couldn't tell him exactly how they were doing

with progressing to fix it because that was confidential supervisory information and it would be illegal to leak it to anyone, including the CEO candidate.

So basically, he was like, so how's it going with the Fed?

And they're like, eh, can't tell you.

And then they hired him and he came in and he's like, okay, so how's it going with the Fed?

And they're like, really bad.

Sorry we didn't tell you earlier.

Surprise.

I think he sort of came in expecting it to be a one-year process

after he joined.

And it turned out to be like a five-year process after he joined.

But now it's all better.

Yeah, our reporting on the matter suggested the same.

Well, fast forward to 2025, and we're finally here.

It's,

again, somewhat interesting that it happened this week.

There had been a lot of anticipation about this.

If you just look at the share price, for example, since President Trump's election in November, I think Wells Fargo heading into this week was up like 20% on a total return basis.

And the KBW bank index as a whole was only up about 7% in that time.

So there was the anticipation was there, but also according to our reporting, it took some senior executives by surprise.

Oh, yeah, one of them was like doing an intern visit or something.

I think the chairman was celebrating his 73rd birthday.

So this is a nice surprise.

Before we talk about like what this means for Wells Fargo, the future of Wells Fargo, Matt, I wasn't really paying that close attention to Wells Fargo when this cap went into place in 2018.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on the lead up there and how unprecedented this was.

I feel like in 2018, everyone was paying attention to Wells Fargo.

I was worried about currencies.

I have rarely seen a bank scandal get people so angry as the Wells Fargo fake account scandal, which I'm not sure was like the direct precipitator of this, but it was like one of the big things they pointed to to be like, you can never grow again.

Wells Fargo opened millions of fake accounts because they had like a culture of cross-selling and also

not a culture of supervising people very closely, I guess.

And so like they told thousands of bankers, your job is to open eight new financial products a day.

And so they're like, okay, fine.

Everyone who signs up for a checking account, we're going to give them a credit card too.

And like didn't tell the customers.

And so people got all these credit cards they didn't sign up for.

and that got wells fargo in trouble and also made people really mad because it just sounds bad i think it like it sounded a little worse than it was but it was pretty bad and i thought it was an interesting scandal because people disagreed with me about this but like It didn't help Wells Fargo to open these fake accounts.

There were like a few accounts where like, you know, you open a credit card and you charge a credit card fee.

So like Wells Fargo made a little bit of money from the fake accounts, but it's like negligible.

Almost all of these fake accounts were like nothing happened in them.

It was truly just like the employees gaming the management, right?

Like the employees were told you got to open eight accounts a day.

They're like, fine, we'll do this.

But like, it was just these meaningless accounts that didn't help Paul's Fargo, but that like met quotas.

And that is not a problem of a bank with like evil intent at the top.

That is the problem of a bank that

has management troubles and like trouble like supervising its thousands of employees and trouble like designing incentives and designing programs to make sure that people are operating in the best interests of the bank.

And, you know, you always used to read like people talking about banks being too big to manage.

And, you know, like you look at that scandal and you're like, yeah, like this is maybe a bank that doesn't have a handle on all of its employees and all of what it's doing, right?

This is a bank that has not figured out how to manage its bigness.

And so I always thought that there was like a poetic justice to like the punishment for some of these scandals being bank regulators saying you can't grow your balance sheet anymore.

Because, you know, that's like a direct cap on bigness.

It's not a cap on like employee numbers, but it's a cap on size.

And it sort of focuses the mind on like, okay, we got to be able to manage the bank at the size that it is before we grow any bigger.

The punishment is like an asset cap and then like stays in place basically until they convince their regulators that they have improved their risk management and board processes such that, you know, they can like run their business in a safe way.

And I don't know, it seemed like sort of a reasonable punishment.

I have two thoughts.

One, I have a Wells Fargo account, which is funny.

So, you know, the extent of me thinking about this in 2018 was, I wonder if they gave me a credit card, too.

I don't have a Wells Fargo account account.

I do have a Wells Fargo credit card, and I use it almost never.

It's just like a spare credit card, and like once every like two years, I get a letter from them being like, we're going to close your credit card unless you tell us not to.

or use it and I'll like go to the store and buy a pack of gum so that I can get the credit card open.

Oh, you want it?

I don't care.

Okay.

It's like sitting at my desk.

It doesn't bother me.

Right.

I wonder if I get those letters because they're like, you know, they're looking at my account and they're like, oh, no, what if this is a fake account?

So they're making sure that my credit card is not fake.

I will say I decided to specifically open a Wells Fargo account right before I went to college because I was going to Haverford College, which we'll actually get to in a little bit.

But it was very close to campus.

And they had horses on the card, the stagecoach, which is one of the things that Charlie Sharp did away with.

He did away with the logo.

To keep them under the asset cap, they fired the horses.

They actually, they fired the horses.

They also fired tens of thousands of employees.

The other thought that I had was that it's interesting that it feels pretty binary.

Like, the cap was on, and now it's off.

There wasn't any step like, oh, you can grow the balance sheet by half a trillion, one trillion, because you're doing such a good job.

Yeah, it's a super weird regulatory move.

It's not a common punishment.

It wouldn't be normal to say, okay, you can grow by $100 billion.

This would be weird, right?

They're just like, they've put this very draconian punishment on, and now it's been fixed.

And they're like, okay, fine, grow again.

So it'd be funny if they doubled in size next month, but I assume that they won't.

If you think about the last seven years for Wells Fargo, I was obviously fiddling with the charts.

JP Morgan's balance sheet, one of our reporters told me, has grown by an entire Wells Fargo since this cap went into place.

You take a look at Wells Fargo's shares since the start of February in 2018.

They're up 43% in total return terms since that time.

You compare that to JP Morgan up 178%,

Goldman up 160%.

This has been crippling for the performance of this company.

Yeah, I mean, like the Bloomberg reporting suggests that there is some amount of like, if you can't grow, you have to focus on the businesses that you really like.

But

that only does so much much for you in an environment of tailwinds for banks.

Yeah.

Also, this one was kind of funny.

I was looking at its valuation as well.

It's price to book.

Wells Fargo trades at a price to book of 1.5.

You compare that to JP Morgan's.

JP Morgan trades at like 2.2.

City, City trades at 0.7, which I think says more about City than it does about Wells Fargo.

But that was kind of fun.

Okay, City catching astray here.

The global industrial renaissance is transforming industries and reshaping our world.

Over the next decade, sectors like energy, infrastructure, and technology will require an estimated $75 to $100 trillion in CapEx to modernize and meet the growing demand.

This unprecedented level of investment is beyond the scope of public markets alone.

Long-term projects need long-duration capital.

That's where private capital comes in.

And that's where Apollo leads.

With significant scale, the flexibility to adapt to evolving CapEx needs, and a steadfast focus on enabling economic growth, we're partnering with companies to provide the financing solutions that fuel the future.

Learn more at thinkitnew.com slash renaissance.

For enterprise organizations, managing all your food needs is a tall order.

But with Easy Cater, you get a single workplace food vendor with the tools and resources to make it easy, giving teams across your organization an easy way to order from a huge variety of restaurants, all on one platform.

All while consolidating your corporate food spend so you can control costs, streamline billing and payment, and simplify reporting.

EasyCater, your business tool for food.

To learn more, visit easycater.com slash podcast.

Let's be real.

Life happens.

Kids spill, pets shed, and accidents are inevitable.

Find a sofa that can keep up at washable sofas.com.

Starting at just $699,

our sofas are fully machine washable inside and out.

So you can say goodbye to stains and hello to worry-free living.

Made with liquid and stain-resistant fabrics.

They're kid-proof, pet-friendly, and built for everyday life.

Plus, changeable fabric covers let you refresh your sofa whenever you want.

Neat flexibility?

Our modular design lets you rearrange your sofa anytime to fit your space, whether it's a growing family room or a cozy apartment.

Plus, they're earth-friendly and trusted by over 200,000 happy customers.

It's time to upgrade to a stress-free, mess-proof sofa.

Visit washablefas.com today and save.

That's washable sofas.com.

Offers are subject to change and certain restrictions may apply.

Speaking of Haverford, Pennsylvania, you know what else is there besides Katie's College?

The Egan Jones Rating Company.

No, it was the branch of Wells Fire that you banked out in college.

But yes, the Egan Jones Rating Company

operates out of a house in Haverford, Pennsylvania, where they rate thousands of private credit deals.

They actually have since relocated to King of Prussia, which is also in the suburbs of Philadelphia.

But we'll get to that.

Yeah,

this

ratings company, which calls itself the biggest rating company in the private credit space, operated out of a four-bedroom colonial in Haverford, Pennsylvania on Haverford Station Road, literally across the street from my college.

And it's a pretty interesting business model.

Pretty scrappy.

I love the ratings business model, right?

I mean, like...

So Egan Jones is founded by Sean Egan, who kind kind of made a name for himself in the financial crisis, criticizing the big three ratings agencies for their conflicts of interest, right?

People think of ratings agencies as organizations that write reports saying whether an issuer is a good credit risk, right?

I mean, like, this came up a lot recently when Moody's was the last agency to downgrade the U.S.

government.

And I was like, ooh, like, what does it mean, right?

Because these agencies are sort of seen as the arbiter of credit risk.

And his criticism in 2008 was these agencies are paid by the issuers of the bonds, and therefore the issuers want to have high ratings.

And so if a ratings agency gives them a low rating, the issuers say,

we won't pay you anymore if you don't give us a high rating.

And the agencies say, fine, fine, fine, we'll give you a high rating.

And this is like the sort of conflict of interest model.

And it's particularly a concern in the structured product rating, where you have a bank that gets ratings on hundreds of products.

And if it isn't satisfied with the ratings it gets, it can like take its enormous book of business to another ratings agency.

And the Egan Jones model was, I think this is not 100% true now, but like the general idea of the model was they would get paid by consumers, they would get paid by people who wanted to buy the debt, and therefore they would have fewer conflicts of interest because they would be looking out for the interests of the investors, the lenders, rather than the interests of the issuers.

And so when they told you this is a good credit risk, you would know they mean it because you were paying them.

And I don't think that's the right way to understand a ratings agency.

I think that like if you're a buyer of credit, if you're a lender and you're getting a rating, you're not doing it for you.

You're not doing it to figure out if the company is a good risk or not, right?

Because like you're a lender.

You're in the business of knowing whether it's a good risk or not.

You might be interested in like the credit ratings.

It might give you some sort of baseline understanding of what the credit is like, but you can probably do your own credit analysis.

The reason you're getting a rating is you have some constraint on who you're allowed to lend to or like what your book is supposed to look like.

So if you're an insurance company and you make investment grade loans, you buy investment grade bonds, then you don't have to hold very much capital against them.

And if you make non-investment grade loans, you have to hold a lot of capital.

You know, you get the rating to satisfy your capital regulators that you are running your business prudently.

And so you have the same incentives as an issuer, right?

You want a high rating.

You don't care.

Like if the world worked in such a way that like every bond could be rated AAA, you'd be like, great, I can buy every bond I want.

You wouldn't buy like the worst bonds, you'd do your own credit analysis, but you wouldn't have to worry about regulation anymore.

Of course, regulators don't like that, right?

And so, the ratings agency ultimately is not really working on behalf of the issuer, and it's not really working on behalf of the lender, it's working on behalf of like the lender's regulator or the lender's ultimate customer, right?

Like the insurance company customer or the bank customer or whatever.

And

so,

you know, you read at Egan Jones, like

you know, there's a big Bloomberg article about their process and their being run out of a four-bedroom house.

And also about, like, you know, there's a couple of deals that they rated that kind of went bad.

And like, there's some criticism of them.

And there's some, like, people are like, other ratings firms issue 20-page ratings reports.

And they issue one-page rating reports.

It's like, no one cares.

No one reads that.

Like, the goal is like a regulatory goal.

And

they are providing a product that consumers in the market want.

But like, you know, you might not like why they want the product.

Yeah.

So basically, what you're saying is that it just transfers the risk that is conflict of interest.

And the heavy insinuation in this article, which you alluded to, is that they're basically just rubber stamping these ratings on private investments.

I don't think that that's right.

I don't think that they're

not the rubber.

One of the things the article describes is that, I mean, you mentioned that they have a small staff and they have one-page reports.

Bloomberg News colleagues also write that they offer their initial workups within 24 hours, a formal verdict in less than five days, whereas you compare that to an S ⁇ P or a Fitch, and those rating decisions can take months at a time.

So they're working with a much smaller staff and in very compressed timeframes.

Yeah.

Right.

They say their ratings generally perform well, right?

I mean, you can always like find some ones that aren't very good.

The default rate on like a, you know, triple B company is not supposed to be zero.

So you can always find some triple B company that defaults.

And then it's like, oh, that was wrong.

But it's like statistically, you have to have some of those.

But if you ran a ratings agency that gave everything a triple A, like there would be demand for that, but like you wouldn't last long.

There wouldn't really be demand for that.

It'd be great to get

everything rated AAA, but it wouldn't really satisfy your regulators.

It wouldn't really satisfy anyone.

So I don't think that they're a rubber stamp.

I think that they're doing genuine credit work, but I think there's some insinuation that they have a tendency to rate stuff higher than other people would rate it.

And particularly they're working in the private credit space where the ratings are not for broad public consumption because it's a handful of lenders making the loans and those lenders can kind of pick their own rating agency.

And yeah, they're going to want the one that works with them nicely and is maybe a little bit generous.

Well, to the point on generosity, there is a description in this article about the kerfuffle that was raised by this report from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.

Apparently, they rescinded this report, but it showed that smaller outfits such as Egan Jones tended to rate private investments three notches higher on average than the association's in-house valuation office.

This report was rescinded, but it was heard around the industry.

Apparently, it was rescinded, according to people familiar, because of backlash from insurers as well as some of the ratings firms.

But kind of, I mean, there's some evidence there.

there yeah I've never fully understood it like there's there's some real controversy going on at the National Association of Insurance Commissioners like yeah

there are a lot of insurers who

really like

private credit let's say really like alternative asset managers some of these insurers are big customers of those alternative asset managers some of them are owned by those big asset managers.

And so all those insurers are like, basically like, we would like to chuck a lot of our money into private credit.

We think we're getting paid for the liquidity and like it's a good investment and we should be doing this and it's professionally managed and like, you know, we're doing a good job.

And then there are a lot of other insurance companies who do more traditional bond investing and are really mad at the private credit insurance companies and think that they are taking wild risks with customer money.

You know, they think the asset manager-owned insurance companies are like making too much money.

So there is like controversy within the insurance world where like some some insurers are trying to basically stop people from investing in private credit, and other insurers are saying, We want to back up the truck for private credit.

And so some of that controversy has played out in the issuing and rescinding of reports.

It's a point of contention.

And

the report about ratings is, I think, part of that.

I don't have it in front of me, but there is a professor quoted in the piece, I believe, that was talking about the performance of their rated companies.

And the professor made the point that the public investments that they rated tended to do okay.

It's just that it kind of deteriorated as it got into more private sort of investments.

I guess kind of the whole point of their business though is to rate private investments.

And you can cherry-pick examples and any rating agencies will have that.

But there were some great examples in this piece as well.

And most of them were triple B rated, it seemed like, before they blew up.

When I was a banker, we like did this analysis for companies that was like, what is the optimal credit rating to have?

And

I never fully understood them.

There was like some complicated, you know, model that told you what the optimal credit rating to have was based on your unique facts and circumstances.

But the answer was always triple B minus, which makes total intuitive sense.

Because basically there's like a breakpoint where investors can buy anything rated triple B minus or above, and they can't buy anything rated double B plus or below.

And so you get access to the investment grade buyers, which lowers your cost of debt if you're triple B minus or above.

But anything better than that, you're leaving money on the table.

You're like under-levered, right?

Like you want to be as levered as possible and still have access to investment-grade credit.

And,

you know,

like in the private credit world, same story, right?

Like you want to lend money to the most exciting, riskiest companies that will pay you the most.

consistent with getting a triple B rating.

And so if you can push out the boundaries of risk on triple B a little bit more, then that's a better deal for you.

Similarly, like you wouldn't get a lot of A ratings because if a company doing a private credit deal would get an A rating, then you're just like, well, let's borrow more then until we can get down to triple B.

But like below triple B is bad.

So there's a reason it's all triple B.

But yeah, there's a couple of examples in the story of which the funniest is probably Chicken Soup for the Soul, which I think I wrote about back in the day.

Like Chicken Soup for the Soul had a weird slide into bankruptcy, but it was triple B rated at Egan Jones until like through like 2023.

Yeah.

14 months after Egan Jones reiterated its triple B rating for the company, it filed for bankruptcy, and its lawyer said at the time it only had 25 grand left in the bank.

So that one was pretty funny.

Can I tell you what the most surprising thing in this article was, though?

Yeah.

Okay, bringing it back to Haverford.

I knew it was going to go back to Haverford.

A beautiful Philadelphia suburb on the main line.

Apparently, they sold the four-bedroom colonial on Haverford Station Road in late 2024 for $865,000, which seems pretty cheap.

It's funny when you said, can I tell you the most surprising thing?

I was like, it's probably going to be a Haverford real estate thing.

Yeah, it does seem cheap on the main line.

Yeah.

Four bedrooms.

God, I wish I had bought it.

I guess it was zoned for commercial use, though, because apparently a psychotherapy practice took over the space.

Egan Jones is now legally headquartered in King of Prussia.

So there you go.

But very close to Haverford College, beautiful, great nature trail, which I've run hundreds of miles on.

How many vendors does it take to meet all your organization's food needs?

Just one.

EasyCater, the workplace food platform that lets teams order from a huge variety of restaurants, over 100,000 nationwide, all through a single vendor.

In addition to all that variety, EasyCater also gives you full visibility of your organization's food spend with invoicing, centralized reporting, and seamless integration with expense management systems, all on one platform, EasyCater, your business tool for food.

To learn more, visit easycater.com/slash podcast.

Life's messy.

We're talking spills, stains, pets, and kids.

But with Anibay, you never have to stress about messes again.

At washablesofas.com, discover Anibay sofas, the only fully machine-washable sofas inside and out, starting at just $699.

Made with liquid and stain-resistant fabrics.

That means fewer stains and more peace of mind.

Designed for real life, our sofas feature changeable fabric covers, allowing you to refresh your style anytime.

Need flexibility?

Our modular design lets you rearrange your sofa effortlessly.

Perfect for cozy apartments or spacious homes.

Plus, they're earth-friendly and built to last.

That's why over 200,000 happy customers have made the switch.

Upgrade your space today.

Visit washable sofas.com now and bring home a sofa made for life.

That's washable sofas.com.

Offers are subject to change and certain restrictions may apply.

In business, they say you can have better, cheaper, or faster, but you only get to pick two.

What if you could have all three at the same time?

That's exactly what Cohere, Thomson Reuters, and Specialized Bikes have since they upgraded to the next generation of the cloud.

Oracle Cloud Infrastructure.

OCI is the blazing fast platform for your infrastructure, database, application development, and AI needs, where you can run any workload in a high availability, consistently high performance environment and spend less than you would with other clouds.

How is it faster?

OCI's block storage gives you more operations per second.

Cheaper?

OCI costs up to 50% less for computing, 70% less for storage, and 80% less for networking.

Better?

In test after test, OCI customers report lower latency and higher bandwidth versus other clouds.

This is the cloud built for AI and all your biggest workloads.

Right now, with zero commitment, try OCI for free.

Head to oracle.com/slash strategic.

That's oracle.com/slash strategic.

I have to go in nine minutes, Matt.

Well, then, let's talk about whatever the third thing was.

Let's talk about

Paul Marshall and Ian Wace.

Yes.

The billionaire odd couple, as the Wall Street Journal called them in a recent profile.

This was so well written.

I really enjoyed reading this by Caitlin McCabe over at the Wall Street Journal.

Right.

There's a great anecdote at the end about, you know, like any hedge fund, they like give job applicants like puzzles and challenges and stuff, as you know from our discussion of puzzle hunts.

Still recovering from that episode.

And

they

Wace once challenged a group of hires to visit the most countries in Europe within 24 hours.

And one guy went to every embassy in London.

So he like won on a technicality.

And they hired him.

Waze says, it was a bit too cute.

I was really thinking about, like, you know, it's not like everyone at a hedge fund needs to be like a person who can find a game to, you know, get around the stated rules of a problem.

But, like, you want some of those people at your hedge fund.

That's a useful still.

And, like, you know, if you like give someone a challenge like that and they come back and they're like, ah, I cheated.

Gotcha.

You're like, okay, fine.

You got a job.

Come on in.

Yeah, right.

That amused me.

I mean, the main thing that is so interesting about Marshall Waste is like they have found this way, they call it TOPS,

to

monetize sell-side research and sell-side stock tips, right?

Like, you know, you run a hedge fund, like people are calling you all day from banks saying, like, yeah, you should buy this stock.

And conventionally, the response is, well, I run a hedge fund.

and you don't.

So why are like if you're telling me to buy this stock, like clearly I'm better at this than you are.

So why, why would I listen to you?

And Marshall Waste is like, we're going to write them all down and we're going to see if any of them provide useful signals and now they have this like very complicated quantitative system that that like extracts signals from what like their cell side coverage tells them and that is endlessly fascinating because like like one thing that is happening here is like the cell it's like they can understand the cell side analysts like better than those people understand themselves because like they're you know putting it into a quantitative model and the cell side guys are just like you know calling clients all day and so like yeah you know they have the anecdote of like you know a a research analyst who has really good ideas, but tells you to take them off too soon.

He cuts his winners too soon.

And they will analyze that and see that he always cuts his winners too soon.

So they'll just ignore him when he cuts his winners.

And like, they will do better with his recommendations than he will do with his recommendations.

And so there's a lot of stuff like that where like, you know, if you know that someone is really good in the morning and really bad in the afternoon, then you only trade on her ideas in the morning.

And you make more money than like if you just naively took her ideas.

There's sort of two skills at a, at a hedge fund, right?

There's being an analyst, which is like understanding companies and coming up with ideas.

And there's being a portfolio manager, which is like making like the last step of like turning it into a trade and taking off the trade and figuring out how much risk to take.

And they are like being the portfolio manager with like thousands of analysts who work for their sell-side coverage.

And they are.

taking the like raw information of the analysts and turning it into useful trades that make money for them.

Or that's like the basic idea.

Yeah.

It very loosely reminded me as I was reading this profile of something we've talked about before, which is you have short sellers who write research reports and then they sell them to hedge funds to actually do the trades.

Yeah, and they do some of that too.

They do that.

Like there are some like other hedge funds who are like, we can't do this trade for whatever reason.

But like, you run a giant multi-strategy fund.

You could put this trade into your portfolio.

And so they do it.

Yeah.

Also.

thought it was funny.

I mean, the article in the Wall Street Journal spent some time talking about how they have many fewer employees than a Citadel, for example.

I think they have 750 employees versus Citadel's hedge fund has somewhere in the ballpark of 3,000.

But it feels like, you know, they've outsourced for a lot of their trade ideas.

So that potentially lightens the headcount needs.

Yeah.

Those headcount comparisons are always like, I never understand them because

conventionally you need less headcount to do quantity things than to do, you know, like there are different kinds of businesses in a hedge fund and some of them require more headcount than others.

But yeah, like intuitively, if like instead of employing a lot of analysts to find ideas, you just like employ your cell side coverage to find the ideas, then you need fewer analysts.

I will say that when I write about this, I get a lot of emails from people who are cynical.

And the cynical take on this system, and like other funds have done this, and like BlackRock ages ago got in trouble for doing something, not this, but like a somewhat related thing, which is like sending out an analyst survey.

People don't like this because they worry about fairness, right?

Like if you send out a survey of analysts and you say, what do you think about this stock?

Some of the analysts might say, oh, I think it's bad while they still have a buy recommendation on because they're going to later change their buy recommendation, right?

They're going to like, you might get like a more updated view than like the published sell-side research analysis.

Similarly, if you're like surveying your salespeople and you say, what's a good trade idea?

One worry that a lot of people have is that your salespeople will say to you, not like the idea they just thought of, but rather something that is predictive of like client flows, right?

Like the salespeople know a lot about what other people are doing.

And if you ask them for their best trade ideas, they might be leaking information to you.

This is a worry that people have.

I don't know if it's true.

And like in this, in this journal article, they point out that like because of the way that Marshall Waste does it, which is like with this automated system that like has lots of time stamps and a lot of data, like they have a better audit trail than like, you know, the conventional hedge fund approach of like calling up your sell, your salesperson and saying, hey, what are other people doing?

Right.

Like it's, it's arguably a more transparent and like less risky thing than like the normal fundamental manager model.

But it is a thing that a lot of people worry about, that like you're leaking other institutional flows because your salesperson is like trying to compete to give Marshall Ways the best ideas.

Yeah.

And the article does mention that when this started in the late 90s, there was some skepticism, some suspicion that is this even legal?

I can report from my email that that skepticism remains.

It remains, yeah.

Well, something I always think about when I read that is, you know, I try to imagine a hedge fund like this launching in 2025 and what the reception would be.

Like, it's easy to read this and be like, oh, well, it's been around for 30 years, so it must be okay.

But I imagine something like this launching now.

You know, there would be endless ink spilled.

about that.

Yeah, I mean, you really do need scale to do this because like you need people to fill out your little form.

Like,

when, you know, like the company that got in trouble for doing this was 10 years ago, they settled with New York.

It was BlackRock.

Because like, yeah, BlackRock, they can do whatever they want.

If they ask analysts to fill out forms, they'll fill out the forms, right?

If you started a new hedge fund today and you asked every research analyst to fill out a form, they wouldn't do it.

But yeah.

There was also, I forget what it was called, but like there was this startup hedge fund in the last year or two that was like their business model was we're going to have analysts and we're not going to have portfolio managers.

We're going to have like an algorithmic thing that will aggregate the analysts' recommendations into a portfolio.

Basically, we're going to keep having human analysts because they're valuable, but we're going to automate the portfolio manager job.

That's not exactly this, but it's related, right?

Like this one, you know, they do the portfolio manager job, but it's very quantity, right?

Like they're using algorithms to aggregate the like investment ideas that they get from like the sell side.

And also doing other stuff.

I don't mean to suggest that's all they do, but like that's, you know, the thing they're kind of famous for.

But like the

no PM thing was a little similar idea.

There's a quote from either Marshall or Wayson there talking about how we're not just taking Joe Schmoe's stock ideas.

We do more than that.

They do have, in addition to this, TOPS is about 40 billion of their 70 billion in assets.

They do have a fundamental stock picking side of the business as well.

Yeah, sampling analysts.

I assume that, by the way, like, isn't that in the article?

And I don't actually know how true this is, but like, certainly if you run a business, that rigorously analyzes the investment ideas of like hundreds of sell-side people.

If you notice that one of them is really good, you should probably hire that person, right?

Like, you should probably move them over to your fundamental stock picking site rather than just let them give their ideas to everyone.

This Wall Street Journal article spends a lot of time talking about how different these two guys are.

And it was a lot of fun to read this, but it's unique to see this hedge fund work so well.

They founded it in 1997 or something, and we have the very recent example of Two Sigma, for example.

Its co-founders getting in such a brawl that they had to be separated.

Two Sigmas also worked quite well, though.

Yeah, I know.

But just in terms of the relationship

there at the very top, you know, there was some intervention.

So that was a charming factor in this article.

I found it refreshing when two people are like, yes, we've worked together for 30 years.

It's a really good professional partnership.

We don't socialize.

It's just the job.

I don't know.

That's kind of cool.

It's like us.

Yeah, exactly.

It's like our podcast.

It's all for the camera.

You guys can't see, but it's all I'm looking at is myself in the return.

Okay, I have to go now.

How many vendors does it take to meet all your organization's food needs?

Just one.

EasyCater, the workplace food platform that lets teams order from a huge variety of restaurants, over 100,000 nationwide, all through a single vendor.

In addition to all that variety, EasyCater also gives you full visibility of your organization's food spend with invoicing, centralized reporting, and seamless integration with expense management systems, all on one platform.

EasyCater, your business tool for food.

To learn more, visit easycater.com slash podcast.

Tired of spills and stains on your sofa?

WashableSofas.com has your back, featuring the Anibay Collection, the only designer sofa that's machine-washable inside and out, where designer quality meets budget-friendly prices.

That's right, sofas started just $699.

Enjoy a no-risk experience with pet-friendly, stain-resistant, and changeable slip covers made with performance fabrics.

Experience cloud-like comfort with high-resilience foam that's hypoallergenic and never needs fluffing.

The sturdy steel frame ensures longevity, and the modular pieces can be rearranged anytime.

Check out washable sofas.com and get up to 60% off your Anibay sofa, backed by a 30-day satisfaction guarantee.

If you're not absolutely in love, send it back for a full refund.

No return shipping or restocking fees.

Every penny back.

Upgrade now at washablesofas.com.

Offers are subject to change and certain restrictions may apply.

What happens when Delta Airlines sends four creators around the world to find out what is the true power of travel?

I love that both trips had very similar mental and social perks.

Very much so.

On both trips, their emotional well-being and social well-being went through the roof.

Find out more about how travel can support well-being on this special episode of The Psychology of Your Twenties, presented by Delta.

Fly and live better.

Listen wherever you get your podcasts.