Thin Gruel: Tetrahedron, Target, Firing

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

But with EasyCater, 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.

Every business has an ambition.

PayPal Open is the platform designed to help you grow into yours with business loans so you can expand and access to hundreds of millions of PayPal customers worldwide.

And your customers can pay all the ways they want with PayPal, Venmo, Pay Later, and all major cards so you can focus on scaling up.

When it's time to get growing, there's one platform for all business, PayPal Open.

Grow today at PayPalOpen.com.

Loan subject to approval in available locations.

So, have you heard the story about the prescription plan with savings automatically built in?

It's where a family of any size can feel confident the cost of their medication won't hold them back.

Go to cmk.co/slash stories to learn how CBS CareMark helps members save just by being members.

That's cmk.co/slash/sto r i e s.

Bloomberg Audio Studios.

Podcasts, radio, news.

This is the day it all crashes in Burns.

Yeah.

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.

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

I also write a newsletter called ETFIQ.

Katie, you're like gracing us with a little bit of your presence between sessions at the big ETF conference, huh?

Yeah, you know, we were, well, I was joking as I walked in 10 minutes late.

Matt had been sitting here mic'd up.

There's an ETF conference at Bloomberg.

It's Thursday when we're recording this.

Matt's a celebrity in a lot of contexts.

I'm a celebrity in an ETF context.

And, you know, walking through an ETF event, it's hard to get anywhere on time.

I feel like this is a challenge, and I'm going to have to come back to the ETF event.

Yeah, I mean, now you're going to walk upstairs and everyone's gonna just stop in their tracks.

Bloomberg once had a crypto conference in which I interviewed Sam Bankman Fried on stage.

I remember a real highlight, but at a Bloomberg crypto conference, I'm like a little bit of a celebrity and like before this interview people were coming up to me and being like, I'm a fan.

And then after this interview, I walked back to the green room with Sam Bankman Fried and like he

was a celebrity.

People were pushing each other aside to get to Sam Bankman Fried.

There's

better times for him.

Certainly levels.

Yeah, that's a real

time gap.

Yeah, when was that was like it was like summer 2021.

I introduced him on stage.

I said something like,

Sam Bankman Fried probably needs no introduction.

He's probably bought most of your companies.

Like this is back between like when everything else crashed and when FTS.

Yeah, like the Terra Luna stuff.

Yeah, yeah.

Man.

Anyway.

Well,

anyway.

What are you talking about today, Katie?

We're going to talk about the Onion and InfoWars.

We're going to talk about

it

and some proof that everything is securities fraud.

I described that correctly, right?

Sure.

Okay.

And then we're going to talk about Ken Peterman, who

was fired.

Right.

But did he?

So he's.

So the onion.

This was interesting.

I haven't checked in on this story in a while and then you published on it and I thought that the onion was for sure buying Infowars.

That's the the surface-level headline reading that I had done, but turns out not exactly.

Right.

So InfoWars, Alex Jones is a company that he used to

spread various right-wing conspiracy theories, one of which is that the Sandy Hook massacre was a hoax.

The parents of the Sandy Hook children who were killed sued him and won like a billion dollars of damages, which is considerably more money than Alex Jones and InfoWars have.

And so they filed for bankruptcy.

And

you know, like, kind of that means that the Sandy Hyac parents kind of own his assets, kind of.

But like, what it literally means is that the bankruptcy trustee has an auction of the assets, which is basically like the InfoWars, like company and brand and website and stuff.

And the highest bidder at the auction.

wins the assets and like the money from the bid goes to Alex Jones's creditors, which means mainly the Sandy Huck families, but there are also some other people who he owes money to, either because he borrowed money from them or because because they also sued him.

And so they had an auction, and there were two bidders.

And one of them was this thing called First United American Companies.

FUAC.

FUAC, which is like

kind of Alex Jones.

It's like someone's putting up money for Alex Jones to buy back InfoWars so he can continue running it as Infowars.

And then the other bidder was The Onion, or it's Corporate Parrot, which has the great name Global Tetrahedron LLC.

Beautiful.

Great name.

Like really like The Onion, you know, although at the corporate structure, they're committed to comedy.

They committed to the bid.

Yeah.

And so they were, they bid for the assets, and they had less cash than Fouak,

but what they had was the support of the Sandy Hook parents.

Because if you think about the parents, like one thing they want is money.

Another thing they want is for Alex Jones to stop running InfraWars and stop broadcasting conspiracy theories.

And then a third thing they want is that I think they liked what the Onion's plans for InfraWars were, which is sort of like running it as a satire of his this conspiracy side.

And also, I think, you know, there was like a teaming up with Every Town for Gun Safety, the Michael Bloomberg-backed initiative.

They would use InfoWars in part to sort of work against gun violence.

And so the parents liked that plan and they supported it.

And so you had this auction in which on the one side was a higher cash bid from FUAC.

And then the other side was like the bid that was supported by...

the lion's share of the creditors.

And so the bankruptcy trustee said that the Onion won, and then FUAC went to court to stop it.

And the judge said, actually, this was not a fair auction.

You have to run the auction again and kind of give it the highest bidder.

So is that what happens now that we have another auction?

I think what happens now is we have another auction.

And it seems like the decision was that the bankruptcy trustees' procedures weren't good enough.

And like you can have another auction where the onion could win.

The way it worked is that Fouak's bid was cash, it was $3.5 million.

The onion's bid was $1.75 million in cash.

And also, the parents, the Sandy Hook parents, signed a waiver basically saying

whatever money

other creditors, other people who Alex Jones had money to, whatever money the other creditors would get from any other bid,

they will get $100,000 more from this Onion bid.

So basically, like, you know, if the Onion puts in $1.75 million,

as much as all of that can go to the other creditors.

Whereas if Fouak puts in $3.5 million,

you know, three-quarters of that or something is going to go to the Sandy Lake parents because they have most of the claims in bankruptcy.

And so because of that waiver, they could go to the court and say, look, we can guarantee that the other creditors will get more money from our bid than from any other bid.

And like these creditors support it.

So it's the highest bid, even though it has less money.

Interesting.

So what needs to happen in round two of this auction for the onion to be successful?

Do they just simply need more money?

Well, so there's a couple of things.

One is that the procedure at the auction got sort of wonky at the end where like it was supposed to be an open auction and it sort of turned to a sealed bid auction.

And part of that is because the onion bid was we will pay $100,000 more than anyone else.

So there's not really a point of having multiple rounds of bids.

But you could imagine just structuring the bid again so that they can do a more open auction and then sort of coming to the same result.

The other possibility is that

a reader suggested this to me.

Like if Fuak says this waiver from the parents isn't real, like it doesn't count as real value.

And I I think the trustee argued, and the onion argues, and I think this is clearly true, that this is like a normal way to provide value in bankruptcy.

You know, I wrote about credit bids where the creditor who has a mortgage on a house could get that house without paying more cash for it because they can bid the amount of their lien.

Here, you know, these parents have a huge claim in the bankruptcy, and if they waive a portion of their claim, then that provides value to the other creditors.

But if you don't like that, then the answer is finance it.

The answer is the onion could go out and borrow like $2 million from a bank and pay it back.

That $2 million would then go to the Sandier parents when they win the auction, and then they could route it back to the onion and then to the bank, right?

If the parents want a non-financial benefit from this and like are bidding a portion of their claims, you could probably find a way to get the bank to put up the money and then have it circle back to the bank.

So that might be another thing that happens here.

Do you think that something like that actually would?

I mean, how do the bids change, but also how the auction changes when it's run again?

I think that if the auction is run again, it might be more transparent or whatever, but the trustee thinks that the waiver of claims provides a lot of value.

And I think he's right.

And it's sort of hard to imagine the trustee changing his mind on that.

And I don't think the court ruled that he was wrong.

But you could imagine something where the onion puts up more cash and then gets the cash back so that they have a higher optical cash bid, but like ultimately come to the same place.

Well, this will be interesting to follow, but I kind of wish that I had just stayed in my ignorant little bubble and only had read the first headline because it seems like really good poetic justice that the onion, with the backing of the parents, would buy Infowars.

I still would guess that that's what's going to happen, but I'm not sure.

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.

These days, AI can help you write emails, summarize long meetings, and even create presentations that impress your most demanding customer.

But how about industrial AI that uses data and simulation to boost productivity on the shop floor?

AI tools that help you understand machine language.

AI that helps you grow your business.

With Siemens Accelerator, you can use AI services, software, and consulting from a single trusted digital business platform.

Plus, you can find the right AI partner without having to search through hundreds of providers.

That's AI for real from the global market leader in industrial AI, Siemens Accelerator.

Learn more at Siemens.us slash accelerator.

At GSK, we believe that to get ahead of disease, you need to understand its root cause.

And that's why we combine our deep understanding of immune science with cutting-edge technology.

It helps us to create targeted therapies that match the right treatment to the right patient, transforming the lives of millions.

By uniting science, technology, and talent, we work tirelessly to get ahead of disease together.

Visit gsk.com to discover more.

Let's talk about Target.

Do you remember the 2023 Pride marketing event from Target?

No, I remember solely the controversy about it.

I don't remember it either.

I also remember the controversy, but only very vaguely.

I mean, they had like LGBT pride-themed merchandise at like the end of the aisle or something.

People got really mad about it.

Was this before or after the Bud Light thing?

I want to say it was after the Bud Light thing, but I'm not sure.

Man.

Was it around the same time?

It was after the Bud Light.

It was after.

Man, why do companies keep doing this?

It led to a boycott.

The stock went down.

Yeah.

Target has a lot of problems that aren't related to this, whereas it feels like the Bud Light thing really jeopardized jeopardized Bud Light's position as

the Bud Light thing was like a sort of switch-flipped on Bud Light.

But in any case, securities fraud.

Yeah.

So you do something and their stock goes down, someone's going to sue you for securities fraud.

And here, what happened is that America First Legal Group, like a Stephen Miller-backed, like sort of Trump official-backed

anti-woke, anti-DEI sort of legal entity, sued Target.

Very in vogue right now, it feels like.

Very in vogue right now.

They sued Target for securities fraud.

And what they said was that

you did this thing, you did this marketing event,

you didn't disclose that it would cause a customer boycott and your stock went down.

And so therefore we were defrauded because we bought the stock not knowing that you were doing this thing that would cause a customer boycott.

And then when the stock went down, we lost because of that fraud.

Which struck me at the time, this is they sued in like August of last year.

It struck struck me as sort of a crazy theory because it's not like Target was concealing that they were doing a pride marketing event.

It was marketing.

It was quite public.

And you might say, well, okay, but they didn't warn investors that this event might lead to a boycott.

But they actually did do that.

There's actually a risk factor in their annual report saying that our position or perceived lack of position on environmental, social, and governance, ESG, matters such as sustainability, responsible sourcing, and diversity, equity, and inclusion, D-E-NI, could harm our reputation and

could result in consumer boycotts.

That's pretty clear.

Well, not enough, Matt.

That you're saying our DEI initiatives could harm our reputation and lead to consumer boycotts.

And so what the people suing said is, well, okay, you said that, but you didn't say specifically this 2023 marketing initiative could lead to a consumer boycott.

You didn't specifically call out this thing as a problem.

And last week, week a judge agreed with them and said, yes, this is not sufficient disclosure.

And the case can go forward because Target really might have defrauded shareholders by not telling them about the possibility that there would be a boycott for this marketing initiative.

So that's wild.

It's pretty wild.

Yeah.

And you talk about this in the column, but it's kind of fun to imagine like, what does this mean going forward?

Like when you see a Target ad on TV, I like to imagine like, you know, at the end of medicine and like pharmaceutical ads, ads, they have that sped up voice talking about the side effects.

Like they should have that at the end of every commercial, that sped up voice.

No, it's not in the ads.

It's in the 10K.

The securities filings have to be much, much longer and say every possible risk.

But I don't think that's really important.

They should go overboard.

I don't think that's really what it means.

I think what it means is like, technically, this is about disclosure, but it's not really, because you can't possibly disclose everything that could go wrong, right?

Like you have a risk factor that's like, what we do about DEI could cause a customer boycott.

That's pretty good.

That's like a pretty specific disclosure, but it's not specific enough.

I think that what it means on its face is that everything is securities fraud.

What it means on its face is that if you do something and the stock price goes down, it doesn't matter what your disclosure said.

There's some problem with the disclosure, no matter what.

There's always something that you could have said that you didn't say, and you can always get sued.

And so it's a true case of everything is securities fraud.

It's a true case of like...

Any bad thing that a company does that causes its stock price to go down can be securities fraud without worrying about what its disclosure is of.

That's like one possible reading.

I don't think that's the right reading.

I think the right reading is that this is a conservative legal group picking a place to file this case with like a very Republican judge.

And this sort of like anti-DEI, anti-woke advocacy is like on the rise politically.

And I've been writing about like the idea that everything is securities fraud for a long time, right?

Like the idea that like anything you don't like that a public company does, you can say, well, what they really did is they failed to disclose it.

And so it's securities fraud.

And when I started writing about this like a decade ago, it was because I think the New York Attorney General was suing, I think, ExxonMobil for not disclosing enough about climate change.

And basically saying, well, climate change is this like fraught political topic, but we can point to your...

securities disclosure and say, oh, you didn't like warn investors enough that like climate change was coming and would be bad for oil companies.

And therefore, you're committing securities fraud.

Ultimately, the New York AG lost that case.

But that was like where this idea started, was this idea that like we can use securities laws to pursue substantive political purposes.

And what's happening now is like the same thing, but like from the other side politically, right?

Like what's happening now is like if you don't like DEI initiatives, you can sue and call them securities fraud.

And like now you can win or you can like, you know, your case doesn't get dismissed.

You've seen in the current SEC like there's been a lot of securities cases about climate disclosure there's a case that I talk about a lot this is a long time ago the SEC sued SeaWorld for mistreating its orcas I remember that that was securities fraud and it's like all these like things that like you can wrap up into securities fraud in the next four years with like a very Republican judiciary and like a Trump SEC, it's going to be the reverse.

It's going to be everything that conservatives don't like is going to be securities fraud.

fraud.

How does that make you feel?

Because that feels like a lot of fodder for the Money Stuff column and potentially the podcast.

Does that excite you or do you feel tired?

I feel tired.

This decision seems wrong and not like traditional securities fraud reasoning.

So I think there's going to be a lot of stuff where it's like, yeah, this doesn't really make sense.

Yeah.

But, you know, fodder for the column.

Totally different from ESG or DEI.

But in just talking about the disclosures and like thinking about, you know, how does this change things about, you know, how companies disclose possible risks?

It kind of reminded me of that short seller.

I think it was Carroustale Capital with that very tongue-in-cheek letter, which was basically just like, assume we don't hold the stock anymore.

I don't know.

I could see some parallels there.

Yeah, I think it's harder to do in like the corporate risk factor

context.

You can't be a sarcastic.

No, that's too bad.

I do wonder at what point, you know, it turns in on itself, if it does at all.

Like if you're disclosing every possible risk factor, if the stock does go down because of that risk factor, I mean, could they then get sued because, hello, you knew this was going to potentially hurt the stock price and you did it anyway, or is that silly?

Technically, that's not a securities fraud claim.

That's a like state law fiduciary duty claim.

Yeah.

Which people are less excited to bring for various reasons.

But no, sure.

I mean, like, even when it's in a risk factor, like often what happens is like a company says, if we got hacked, that would be really bad for us.

And then once they get hacked, it's like you have this risk factor saying if we get hacked, but you already got hacked and you haven't updated that risk factor.

You're deceiving us by saying if we get hacked when you did get hacked.

So there's a lot of that where

even the existence of the risk factor creates a potential for more liability because you have to update the risk factor to sort of cover what's actually happened already.

How should we end this section?

My summing up would be, I've said for 10 years that every bad thing that a public company does is securities fraud.

And like what's happening now is that what counts as a bad thing is shifting, right?

Like you might think that like polluting is bad, but the new vibe is that having ESG policies is bad.

And so a lot of stuff is going to be treated as bad and is then going to be treated as securities fraud because everything is securities fraud.

I don't know.

That was a very good summing up.

That was good.

It's fine.

Everything's subjective.

What is bad?

I don't know.

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 a hundred thousand 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 easycator.com/slash podcast.

These days, AI can help you write emails, summarize long meetings, and even create presentations that impress your most demanding customer.

But how about industrial AI that uses data and simulation to boost productivity on the shop floor?

AI tools that help you understand machine language, AI that helps you grow your business.

With Siemens Accelerator, you can use AI services, software, and consulting from a single trusted digital business platform.

Plus, you can find the right AI partner without having to search through hundreds of providers.

That's AI for Real from the global market leader in industrial AI, Siemens Accelerator.

Learn more at siemens.us slash accelerator.

At GSK, we believe that to get ahead of disease, you need to understand its root cause.

And that's why we combine our deep understanding of immune science with cutting-edge technology.

It helps us to create targeted therapies that match the right treatment to the right patient, transforming the lives of millions.

By uniting science, technology, and talent, we work tirelessly to get ahead of disease together.

Visit gsk.com to discover more.

You know what's bad?

No.

Being fired.

Oh, yeah.

But you know what else

is super bad is insider trading.

Wow.

I don't want to be fired.

I like insider trading.

Oh.

I mean.

Huh.

No.

Go on.

I enjoy writing about insider trading.

I have a soft spot for insider traders.

So, incredible SEC case this week.

Ken Peterman was the CEO of a pretty small company called Comtech Telecommunications.

And the following sequence of events allegedly occurred.

One, he got like their earnings results like a few weeks before they were announced.

They were terrible.

Two, he got called into a meeting with like a lawyer doing an investigation of his alleged sexual relationship with a subordinate.

In this meeting, he one, confessed to that relationship, and two,

confessed that he had had someone else watch the like mandatory sexual harassment training video for him because he was too busy to do it.

Which is like a reality.

He was busy.

He was busy doing sexual harassment.

Right, right.

Probably not.

But I write a lot about like accounting firm partners or whatever who you know, don't take their regulatory continuing education requirements seriously.

But if you're like doing sexual harassment, you should really watch the sexual harassment video.

Yeah.

Like you'll learn something.

Well, maybe he thought it wasn't, which is also why he should have watched the video.

Right.

Would have maybe realized the error of his ways.

Anyway.

Anyway.

So that happened at this meeting.

Cool.

And shortly after the meeting, the board called him and said, we're going to fire you for cause.

And then

he called his broker and tried to sell all of his stock in the company.

Sell it all.

Then

the next day, the company announced that he was fired and the stock fell like 27%.

And then like a few days later, they announced the earnings and the stock fell even more.

So by selling the stock, he avoided something like $12,000 of losses, which is like, this is a small company.

Right, right.

Anyway, the SEC says this inside of Trading.

You read the description of what he was doing.

He was in a blackout period, right?

So the company had a policy saying executives can't trade the stock in the like couple of of weeks before earnings are announced, right?

Because like they worry about exactly what happened, which is that here he knew the earnings before they were public and he was trying to trade stocks during the earnings.

And so he tried to sell stock and his broker was like, aren't you in a blackout period for executives?

And he said, I'm not an executive anymore.

Yeah.

He's not an insider.

It's not insider trading.

That seems pretty watertight.

No, it's not.

I'm just kidding.

I promise, I promise.

But in any case, it's a little unclear what his defense or what his reasoning was.

But to me,

one, you're not an insider anymore, not subject to the blackouts.

And by the way, the company told him he was subject to the blackout even after he was fired.

And like he probably was, but there's an argument.

Ah, I didn't know I was subject to a blackout.

I had been fired.

But then the other thing is, like, I just think that you should be able to do a little insider trading out of like peak.

He was mad at them.

They fired him.

Why should he keep owning the stock?

Are we all entitled to fits of passion where we just sell a lot of stock?

Right.

It's not that he was, I mean, it probably was, but like, it maybe wasn't that he was like trying to sell the stock before it went down he was just like mad that the company didn't want to own the stock anymore yeah very reason people have been ticked off before so would it i should be his defense lawyer not really

maybe hey ken peterman if you're listening but i mean it's insider trading whatever but what if the earnings had been really great and the stock actually went up by 25 after earnings but he had sold all his stock do you think that you know he would still be in hot water no because they've only really been cases where it's like you had material, non-public information, and like acted on it.

And here,

in your hypothetical, it wouldn't seem like he was acting on material information because it went the other way.

He was just following his emotions.

He was following his emotions.

Yeah.

I don't know, man.

Like, you like sell the stock like an hour after you get fired.

You're not like making a calculation of like.

No.

Maybe you are.

I don't know.

I wrote once about the CEO of IOX, the Dutch soccer club.

Yeah.

They hired him.

And after his like job interview, he was like, I'm going to be the CEO.

I crushed that.

I crushed that.

I'm going to be the CEO.

I want on the stock of the company.

I'm the CEO.

So he went out and bought a bunch of stock.

And then they rescinded the job offer because they were like, he's insider trading.

Whoa.

Ultimately, he got a different job there.

They toned down the punishment, but they initially thought it was not okay for him to buy the stock before he was announced as CEO.

That feels like thin gruel.

But what do I know?

I cover ETFs in a newsletter called ETFIQ.

People love it in the ETF world.

You're a celebrity.

I mention it because we got an email to the podcast mailbag asking why I don't promote the fact that I also have a newsletter, but it just felt, you know.

Some emailers to the podcast wish that it was much, much more about ETFs.

Others, much less.

Some writers to the mailbag wish that we didn't talk about ETF so much.

But thank you for writing in and thank you for reading ETFIQ.

Mailbag.

Mailbag.

Hey, write in to the podcast.

Moneypod at Bloomberg.mat.

Yeah, the holiday is quickly approaching.

We want to do another mailbag episode.

Appreciate everyone who's written in so far, but keep them coming.

And that was the Money Stuff Podcast.

I'm Matt Levian.

And I'm Katie Greyfeld.

You can find my work by subscribing to the Money Stuff newsletter on bloomberg.com.

And you can find me on Bloomberg TV every day on Open Interest between 9 to 11 a.m.

Eastern.

We'd love to hear from you.

You can send an email to moneypod at bloomberg.net.

Ask us a question and we might answer it on air.

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.

The Money Stuff Podcast is produced by Anna Mazarakis and Moses Andam.

Our theme music was composed by Blake Maples.

Brendan Francis Newnham is our executive producer.

And Sage Bauman is Bloomberg's head of podcasts.

Thanks for listening to the Money Stuff Podcast.

We'll be back next week with more stuff.

Thanks for listening to the Money Stuff Podcast.

If you never want to miss a story, become a Bloomberg.com subscriber today.

Check out our special intro offer right now at bloomberg.com slash podcast offer, or click the link in our show notes.

You'll also unlock deep reporting, data, and analysis from reporters around the world.

Hiscock Small Business Insurance knows there is no business like your business.

Across America, over 600,000 small businesses, from accountants and architects to photographers and yoga instructors, look to Hiscox Insurance for protection.

Find flexible coverage that adapts to the needs of your small business with a fast, easy online quote at Hiscox.com.

That's HISCOX.com.

There's no business like small business.

Hiscocks Small Business Insurance.

At GSK, we believe that to get ahead of disease, you need to understand its root cause.

And that's why we combine our deep understanding of immune science with cutting-edge technology.

It helps us to create targeted therapies that match the right treatment to the right patient, transforming the lives of millions.

By uniting science, technology, and talent, we work tirelessly to get ahead of disease together.

Visit gsk.com to discover more.

Every business has an ambition.

PayPal Open is the platform designed to help you grow into yours with business loans so you can expand expand and access to hundreds of millions of PayPal customers worldwide.

And your customers can pay all the ways they want with PayPal, Venmo, Pay Later, and all major cards so you can focus on scaling up.

When it's time to get growing, there's one platform for all business, PayPal Open.

Grow today at PayPalOpen.com.

Loan subject to approval in available locations.