Don’t Hate the Player: DJT, Bets, Funds

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.

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.

cocks, small business insurance.

Bloomberg Audio Studios.

Podcasts, radio, news.

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.

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

What's going on, Katie?

All right, we are going to talk about DJT and Yorkville.

We're going to talk about sports gambling.

Sure.

And we're also going to talk about Ron Barron and Elon Musk.

Who is Elon Musk?

All right.

It's been a while, though.

It's true.

Hey, so we tell you to email us every week.

We're specifically looking for questions, though.

We want to do more of a mailbag so that Katie and I can sing mailbag.

Yeah.

And to do that, we need questions, so send us your questions.

All we need is a prompt All we need is a prompt We we don't want to make up questions.

No, don't make us make up questions

Send us your best questions at moneypod at bloomberg net and then if you send us a good question We'll answer it on air and if you send us only bad questions We'll be forced to answer those on air.

We can work with that

DJT, Trump Media and Technology.

DJT.

They should sell stock.

They can't sell stock yet, as you write, because they're not yet a year old.

But there's a way for them to get more shares out there into the hands of the bank.

Well, they can sell stock.

What they can't do is an ATM, which is the silly finance term for an at-the-market offering.

If you're a meme stack, this is like as meme-y as a meme stock gets, right?

Like it has like a business that I sometimes say it's like a moderately successful substack.

They make like, you know, a million dollars a quarter in advertising revenue.

It's not bad.

It's not bad for like a one-man operation, but it's got a bunch of employees and it's got a $7 billion equity market cap, which seems high for a million-dollar a quarter revenue operation.

That, by the way, lose a lot of money because they have to pay a lot of people to generate that million dollars of revenue.

And so probably some people there think that it's a business, right?

And like it's going to be like the future of media, right?

They're going to get into television and they're going to be the biggest social media platform there is.

They're not now, but maybe one day they will be.

But my impression is that it largely trades like a meme stock.

It trades as a bet on the newsworthiness of Donald Trump.

And

so it has this valuation that is largely not driven by business fundamentals.

And I've written about that sort of thing a lot over the years.

And my feeling is like if you have a valuation that's not justified by fundamentals, you should sell as much stock as you can because then you'll have money and you've transformed your irrational public valuation into an actual pot of money that you can use to build the business.

And they seem to agree.

So they're like, we're going to sell stock.

And the way you sell that stock has to be to retail investors, right?

You have to go out and sell it in the market to retail investors.

You can't do a standard book-built offering where like you hire a big investment bank and they call big mutual funds and hedge funds and they say, would you like to buy stock?

Because like, yeah, like, what does that pitchbook look like, right?

Like, what does the, what does the investor deck look like?

So they want to do an aftermarket offering.

They can't because they haven't been public for long enough, basically, because they're a D-SPAC company.

And so they are doing this weird quasi-ATM offering where like they've hired Yorkville Advisors, which is like a smallish fund in New Jersey that Mountainside.

Mountainside, New Jersey.

You're this podcast expert on New Jersey.

Close to where I grew up.

Has your horse been to Mountainside?

Probably not.

They hired this Mountainside.

fund to basically like these guys will buy their stock whenever they want to and then they'll turn around and sell it into the market and they'll collect like a 2.75% fee and it's like a sort of quasi-atm offering And so they then sell it over the course of like three days.

Yeah, I think it's like one or three days, yeah.

The deal is for $2.5 billion, but it's not like that's happening today.

It's like $2.5 billion over the course of up to three years.

And so on any day in that three-year period, the company can call Yorkville and say, hey, we're going to do like 20 million today.

I think they say a number of shares.

We're going to do like a million shares today.

And Yorkville will sell it those shares over like three days and give them the money.

Reading it kind of made me think of them as just basically very slow slow market makers.

I know that's super reductive and simplistic, but that's how I talked about it in my head to myself.

They're like a broker in an ATM offering, you hire a bank or a broker and you tell them to sell stock over the day, yeah, and they sell the stock and they charge you a fee.

And this is the same thing, only like they're not technically a broker, they're not technically doing it as a broker, they're doing it as a principal.

They're buying the stock for their own account and then they're selling it into the market.

The thing that makes them a principal rather than just the broker is that

if they sell stock for $35 or whatever, they don't pay

DJT

the price they got.

They pay DJT, the company, Trump Media, DJT is the ticker.

They pay DJT the volume-weighted average price over the period they sell at.

Actually, it's more complicated than that.

But they pay them like a price that is objectively determined.

It's not like if we sell stock for $35, we'll pay you $35.

It's like we'll sell stock or we won't.

And so the natural thing to do is if you're paying the VOP over some period, you sell the stock over that period and then you've eliminated the risk, right?

Like you sell at the VOP and you pay the VOP.

But like there's no obligation for them to sell, no obligation to them to sell during the pricing period.

And so because of that, everyone can say this is not.

a deal in which DJT is selling stock to the market.

This is just a deal in which DJT is selling stock to Yorkville.

And what Yorkville does with the stock is its own business.

Now, clearly, because they're paying like the volume weighted average price over like this period of time their incentive is to sell the stock over that period of time and like there are like various indications that they're not gonna like hold on to the stock right like they're a 300 million dollar assets lender management fund buying 2.5 billion dollars of trump stock right there's like a limit like they can't buy more than 4.99 of the stock 2.5 billion is like a quarter of the stock so they're not gonna like hold on to the stock but they're gonna sell the stock but they don't have to and there's no arrangement for them to sell the stock the other thing i would say is like the way the pricing works is that each day they look at the volume-weighted average price and they take the lowest of those view-ops and that is the price that they pay.

And so that creates incentives, right?

If you sell the stock like one-third each day, then like the lowest day is the price you pay and the other two days are like gravy for you.

So, you know, their incentive is to have one day be really bad so that they can pay DJT a low price for the stock and like sell it for a high price.

And with a meme stock, that's probably going to happen.

You're going to have one rocky day.

You're going to have volatility, right?

Essentially, what Yorkville is getting is a series of short-term options that they're getting kind of for free, right?

Because if the stock is like $40 one day, $35 the next day, and $40 the following day, then like they sell stock at an average price of like $38, but they pay like $35 to DJT because that's the lowest of the three view-ups.

To just tie a bow on this, so they're a broker in an ATM, but it's totally on DJT's terms.

No.

Well, DJT is selling them the stock.

So a broker in an ATM, like a bank, the way it works is that the company calls them every day and says, hey, we want to sell $20 million of the stock or whatever.

And the broker sells that stock for the company and then pays the company the money it received minus a fee, right?

Yeah.

And this is different.

Like this is the DJT calls Yorkville and says, hey, we want to sell some stock.

And Yorkville says, okay, we'll give you the money in three days, but they don't have to sell the stock.

And they're acting as principal and they're getting a lot of like little options on DJT stock, right?

So basically, if the stock is volatile, they make more money.

That's not true of a broker and an ATM, right?

A broker and ATM, if the stock is volatile, then like they're just selling it on behalf of the company.

Here, because they are a principal, they are making probably a lot more money than a broker and an ATM would.

Also, they're not a broker because that's sort of important for legal reasons.

If they're just doing it as a broker, then this is an ATM and it doesn't really work.

And by the way, this is not an uncommon uncommon thing where a company wants to sell stock to investors in the market and like there's some impediment.

And so they do this sort of thing where they instead sell the stock in some structured way to some investor who specializes in intermediating these trades.

Some of those people get in trouble for doing a sort of like the SEC says, you know, you're doing a...

brokered offering and you're not supposed to do that or you're supposed to be registered as a dealer.

So like there's some possibility of getting in trouble here when companies do this.

Yeah.

I think Yorkville has a track record of doing it, not getting in trouble.

So it seems okay, but it's a complicated kind of trade.

Yeah, as you can tell, I'm trying to work through this.

So Bailey Lipschultz wrote the article on Yorkville for Bloomberg News, and I was chatting with him about it.

And I have to say, I've never thought about this before.

And I was like, is this like a booming business?

Like, who else does this?

SPACs.

Yorkville does a ton of these for SPACs.

Yeah.

Well, he was saying Yorkville is kind of one-of-one when it comes to this.

They are one-of-one in this particular flavor of it.

Yeah.

But like when Bed Bath and Beyond was sliding into bankruptcy, they did not this, a different kind of trade.

But it kind of looked the same.

It was kind of like also a deal where like a investor agreed to buy stock from a company and sell it out into the market, but they weren't required to sell it out into the market.

And so it was like, they're like flavors of this.

You know, there was for a while a business of what are called death spiral convertibles, which are not this, but they're not unrelated to this, right?

So yeah, Yorkville is one of one in this particular line of business.

And this seems to be a better way of doing it than some of the other ways.

But like, yeah, like this sort of thing of like selling stock to an intermediary to like sell out to the market is a thing that people do.

So I mean, does this business go away for Yorkville once DJT is more than a year old?

Maybe, but there's always more companies that need it.

That's true.

I'm just wondering, Yorkville has done a ton of these, but it's a moment in time.

Yeah, that's probably right.

It's a moment in time for each company, but there's always like companies that need weird financing, right?

And so like this is the being in the financing weird companies kind of business.

Which is one that I like.

Into weird companies.

Yeah.

I don't know.

Sure, just move on.

I think so.

Okay.

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, 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.

From providing extra support during busy seasons to replacing vacant roles, you need Express employment professionals on your team.

Express can handle everything from contract placements to finding the right full-time team member.

Solve your workforce challenges when you let Express deal with the workers' compensation, payroll, benefits and more so you can concentrate on what really matters, growing your business.

Go to ExpressPros.com.

If you've never used a staffing company, here's how Express has helped businesses like yours to balance their workforce to meet production demands, reduce stress and burnout, which reduces turnover, access a local talent pool ready to work for all types of jobs and a variety of reasons.

Choosing Express Employment Professionals is the move to make this year.

With more than 870 locations, find the one near you at expressprose.com.

That's expresspros.com.

So sports gambling.

So sports gambling.

You can't be too good at it.

If you run a sports gambling website, what you want is

problem gamblers.

Right?

I'm sorry to laugh at that, but like what you want is people who bet a lot of money and are very bad at it.

Now, there are regulatory problems with that because

if you mostly get problem gamblers, eventually you're going to get shut down or like regulators are going going to step in or limit you in some way, right?

What you don't want as a sports gambling website is people who are really good at gambling and keep making money off of you.

And so there's a Wall Street Journal article this week about basically

some people who have built reasonably good sports gambling systems and actually make money doing it find that the big sports gambling sites limit their accounts so they can't bet very much money because

they were making too much money and the gambling sites don't like that and so they make them smaller amounts.

And they complain and like regulators and politicians say, that's not fair.

But of course, the sports gambling sites, they control the entire apparatus, right?

They're both the market maker for the bets and also they provide the website and they take the client information.

So they know who's good and who's bad.

And they're like, we don't want to bet against the people who are good.

We're going to bet against the people who are bad.

So they cut people down or they limit their bet sizes.

Seems like you got a lot of emails about this.

I don't follow sports gambling that closely, but I'm interested in like market structure.

And I read a a lot about equity market structure.

And in equity market structure in America, people are also very into this question of like, I don't want to bet against people who are good.

I want to bet against people who are bad.

And so what that means in practice in like U.S.

equity markets is that big market makers pay retail brokerages to trade with their order flow.

Because the idea is if you're a market maker, basically like...

The person on the other side of the trade is either informed or not, right?

Either their order is informative or it's not, right?

And if you are constantly trading with smart hedge funds or with giant asset managers, then every time you sell them stock, that stock is going to go up, right?

So every time you sell them stock, you like lose a little bit of money.

If you're constantly trading with retail traders, their orders are not informative.

They're not going to buy a million shares.

They don't like have inside information.

And so every time you sell them stock, the stock doesn't go up.

And so you don't lose money.

So you'd rather trade with the retail traders.

And so you can pay Robinhood or Fidelity or whatever to get their retail orders.

And then you get a better pool of orders than you would with just trading in the public market with like potentially institutions.

And, you know, so I wrote about that.

I was like, you know, like these market makers in traditional finance and in equities also try to segment their order flow to trade with the bad people rather than the good people.

But what I said was like, what I don't know of is any cases where people who are just good at bets or who keep making good bets get cut off by their broker, right?

I said, except there's an example that I'm aware of because like they've talked about it publicly.

Three Irish Capital, you know, the crypto hedge fund.

Oh, yeah.

Haven't heard that name in a long time.

So those guys, before they became a crypto hedge fund, they were like currency traders at a bank and then they started a currency trading hedge fund that eventually morphed into a crypto fund.

And then it was an existential event when it went down.

But in any case,

like great for crypto.

But like, sorry,

super bad for crypto.

Super bad for crypto.

A big crypto story.

But before that, they were like a little FX story.

And what they did was they went to every bank and they signed up for the bank's FX trading platform where basically the bank would like say, we'll trade currencies with you and we'll post prices and you can

click and trade at those prices and we'll take the other side of the trade.

And three hours would sign up for every bank's platform and they just look at all the websites and they'd see like sometimes one bank would post a lower price than another bank so they could buy from one bank and sell to another bank and make a guaranteed risk-free profit.

And they did that and the banks got mad.

because that's just like taking money from them.

And so they kicked three hours off their platform and they said, we don't want to trade with you anymore.

So I mentioned that when I wrote about it and someone else emailed me to be like, when he was an FX options trader, he had access to a bunch of different banks, single dealer platforms.

And he also arbed the banks against each other.

And he said,

I can confirm that they really don't like that.

And a salesperson from each chewed me out and threatened to yank my access.

I don't really understand why that's bad.

It's bad because the banks lose money.

It's not like illegal.

People do it.

But the banks feel like it's rude.

So they don't.

It's the same as with sports gambling.

The point is not that it's bad.

The point is that if you have a client relationship and the client keeps making money off of you at your expense, you can just stop having that client relationship.

And that's what the sports sites do.

See, that seems more rude to me, but in any case.

Really?

Yeah.

Why?

You're just arbitraging, you know?

Why should I let you keep arbitraging me?

I guess that's a good question.

If I keep betting with you and I keep losing money, I'm going to stop betting with you.

Don't hate the player.

Hate the game.

I'm not hating you.

I'm just not playing the game with you anymore.

Fine.

I mean, right, it's a little weird that they actually call him up and yell at them instead of just stopping trading with them.

But like, yeah, they stopped trading with them.

I will say that.

First of all, don't call me, number one, please.

But I also got an email from another reader saying that he worked at a market maker, like one of the big, you know, electronic trading firms that do trade with retail orders.

And he said, we built monitoring to isolate and identify professional traders out of the stream of retail orders.

And so like they did identify people who were

doing arbitrages on broker dealers, basically like people who are good at trading stock options, not because they were like geniuses, but because they could like arb different broker dealers against each other.

And so he said, we called up their broker and said, you have to kick them off because they're making too much money off of us.

And the broker apparently did.

This is like a thing that sort of happens in

equities and equity options, like in retail market making.

It is apparently possible to get kicked off your retail brokerage for being too good at trading retail options, just as it is in sports gambling.

Exactly.

And then you take a look at the Wall Street Journal story, and you put an excerpt of this in your newsletter, but the example they used is Dave Holmes, sports veteran Chicago, said that he started to win more using a math-based wagering strategy.

He ultimately got kicked off.

But I would love to know what that strategy is because you think of where we sit as journalists, and we can't day trade.

And if I wasn't a financial journalist, I would would be a fiend.

But I think we can sports gamble.

I think I can scratch this itch.

So my understanding is that a lot of the winning strategies are much like the three hours, guys.

It's like you sign up for a bunch of different sports betting platforms and you see where the odds are different.

And you like...

buy the cheap odds and sell the expensive odds so that you end up neutral and you just have a guaranteed profit because you're basically arbing the sports books against each other.

There are other ways like where you can be really good at knowing who will hit a home run or whatever.

Study.

Yeah, like learn learn football.

But I think like the people who like really do that like kind of work for the sports market makers.

So I think that typically the arbitrage method is the one that people reliably make money on.

I want to say though, he didn't get kicked off.

This is the other thing that's interesting about it.

It's not that when you win too much money, they kick you off your platform.

It's that when you win too much money, they lower your bet size.

Oh, yeah.

So you can still win.

Usually you win like 20 bucks instead of 20,000 bucks.

And part of the reason for that is if they kicked you off, there'd be more of a a backlash, right?

It's like the limits are a little bit more opaque.

And so you have a little bit less trouble with like politicians and regulators.

But another part of it is they do want your bets, right?

It's not bad to have on your platform someone who's really good at betting because that's informative to you.

If you know someone always wins, then when they make a bet, you can bet along with them, which means basically adjusting the odds so that like you're informed by their bets.

And this is true in like market making too, right?

Like if you're a bank and you have a client who's like, you know, whenever they buy stock, the stock goes up, like that's useful information for you.

You can probably make some money on that, right?

Even if like you're the one selling them the stock and so you lose money on each trade with them, like having good information is useful.

Similarly with the sports gambling sites, like you want to keep the people who are winning betters because they're giving you information.

I've written a little bit over the years about insider gambling in sports

because like in the U.S., like the rules of insider trading for stocks are like kind of clear.

The rules of insider betting on sporting events are like less clear and like it's more controversial.

And every so often, you know, someone who knows about, you know, a football player's injury will bet on a game and then it's like oh is that illegal or what and someone once told me that it used to be when sports gambling was more of a sort of mob controlled activity you could get in trouble for insider gambling you know with the mob but also there was a certain amount that was tolerated because like what they would do is like they would set a line set like an opening line on a sporting event and then like the people with inside information would come in and put bets or like the informed gamblers like the good gamblers but also the people at inside information would come in and make bets and then the bookies would get information from that and they would adjust their lines so they'd be able to make more money off the general public.

So there's a little of that here where like if you're a really good better, the sports betting sites can use that to make money, but they don't want to just also pay you at millions of dollars because you keep winning your bets.

So they'll pay you at $20.

Yeah.

And the mob's involved.

Well, the mob is not involved probably in the legal sports gambling sites.

For sure.

That's a good disclaimer.

Just thinking back to Dave Holmes, if they cut him down to 20 cents, like he should just increase his volume and make them pay.

First of all, first of all, that's a very bad job, right?

If you're constantly making 20 cent bets,

your return on your time goes down.

But secondly, assuming your math-based strategy generates 100 bets a day, you can't make a million bets a day, right?

This is true.

Yeah.

There you go.

Well, anyway, God bless them.

Pick it up in volume.

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.

From providing extra support during busy seasons to replacing vacant roles, you need Express Employment Professionals on your team.

Express can handle everything from contract placements to finding the right full-time team member.

Solve your workforce challenges when you let Express deal with the workers' compensation, payroll, benefits, and more, so you can concentrate on what really matters, growing your business.

Go to ExpressPros.com.

If you've never used a staffing company, here's how Express has helped businesses like yours to balance their workforce to meet production demands, reduce stress and burnout, which reduces turnover.

Access a local talent pool ready to work for all types of jobs and a variety of reasons.

Choosing Express Employment Professionals is the move to make this year.

With more than 870 locations, find the one near you at expresspros.com.

That's expresspros.com.

So, Ron Barron loves Elon Musk, one of Elon Musk's biggest backers when you think about who invests in various Tesla properties.

And Ron Barron, of course, you think of him as a mutual fund manager.

And now he's putting together these funds that are just for Elon Musk's private companies.

Like for individual.

Yeah.

It'd be fun to have like an Elon Musk mutual fund.

A few weeks ago, I said, I want to launch a closed-end fund of just Elon Musk companies.

He's doing that for one

separate funds for one for each.

Yeah.

There's enormous retail demand for Elon Musk, right?

And you can get a certain amount of Elon Musk by buying Tesla, but you can't get...

Twitter slash X or XAI or SpaceX or the boring company or Neuralink or all these other things that he does.

And a lot of people want that.

A lot of people want SpaceX, right?

And there's like, you know, there's, there's, I think we've talked about people like want to stay on the golf course.

Oh, I own some SpaceX.

Yeah.

And so there's a booming business in giving it to them, right?

If you're like institutional investor or like a friend of Elon Musk and you can put a slug of SpaceX into a vehicle and sell shares of that vehicle, like people will pay you a lot of money for it.

I don't know if they would describe themselves as friends, but Ron Barron and Elon Musk have a good relationship.

They met originally in 2010.

And I mean, Baron has just been buying Tesla stock forever.

It feels like.

I think this is really interesting.

I mean, for a lot of reasons, but also we've definitely talked about on this program, beyond just Elon Musk, there's just a lot of demand among retail investors for private companies.

It feels like a lot of the exciting companies right now are private companies, SpaceX probably being one of the best examples of that.

And this is a way to do it.

Is it the most efficient?

I mean, compared to some of the other vehicles that we've talked about, thinking about Destiny, for example.

It's way more efficient than Destiny.

Exactly.

So there you have it.

Right.

Like there's a scarce supply of these private companies.

There's a lot of desire to invest in them.

There are

some

legal restrictions, but not that many, right?

A lot of the investor class now are incredited investors and can buy private funds.

And so there is a real demand for this stuff.

What I think is interesting is like the fact that there's a real demand for this stuff and like a limited supply mostly means that people who have that supply can make a lot of money, right?

And so we've talked about the Destiny Tech 100 fund where it traded at an enormous premium to the net asset value because they had this limited supply of cool private tech stocks.

And so they could sell that at 10 times asset value.

Or

there are a number of other SpaceX or whatever vehicles where it's like the manager of that vehicle, the person who has actual SpaceX shares, can charge like two and 20 style fees to just own one stock.

The story about Ron Baron's SpaceX funds is that they're not doing that, right?

They're charging like a mutual fund-y kind of fee structure where it's not an incentive fee and like relatively cheap.

And so, what he's doing, which I think is more interesting, he's not like gouging it for money.

He is using it as essentially advertisement for active management.

Yeah.

Because like the point is, like, if you run a mutual fund company, it's like a secularly rough time to run a mutual fund company, right?

Because index funds and ETFs are really taking away market share from actively managed stock mutual funds.

And if you're running an actively managed stock mutual fund and you're like, no, I'm really good at picking stocks.

So you should invest with me and pay me, you know, 100 basis point fees instead of paying BlackRock, you know, one basis point fees.

That's like not a message that

people are very receptive to now because like there's been a real like popularization of the idea that index funds are better.

There's a lot of data on like the persistence of mutual fund performance where it's like, the people who are good at picking stocks aren't that good at picking stocks, right?

And there's not a lot of persistence from year to year of people who are good at picking stocks.

And so just saying, like, I'm a good stock picker and you should invest with me because I'll pick the right stocks for you is not a good message anymore.

But if you're like, I will pick the right stocks for you and SpaceX, like that's not in the index fund, right?

That's you can't get SpaceX in the index fund.

And so if you're a stock picker who has some mixture of private assets, like that is a more appealing message.

Yeah.

So two points there on the fees, to be specific.

So So these funds charge, this is according to a story from Miles Weiss, according to a person familiar with the matter, the funds charge an annual management fee of around 1%, lock up investor capital for about eight years.

Rival single-purpose funds typically charge management fees of 1% to 2% annually with that performance fee of as much as 20%.

And in an interview, Ron Barron said exactly what you said.

We're doing this because we want people to know about our mutual funds.

I want my business to last last for 100 years.

And I mean, that ties into the ETF story that I love that you mentioned.

But I will say that stock picking and ETFs is coming.

You're supposed to say coming back, but it's not coming back.

It's becoming more of a moment.

Yeah, but I think that the old model of like running a stock picking mutual fund and charging 100 basis points is like

if you are running a sort of like actively managed mutual fund complex and you want your business to last for a hundred years, you're thinking

something about private markets, right?

And like a lot of that is like these traditional asset managers are buying private credit managers so that they can get into that more lucrative, more not indexable business.

Yeah.

But this thing where it's like, oh, SpaceX stocks, I can do something with that.

That's another way to do that.

But like something in privates.

Yeah.

You know, or the alternative is like enormous scale and automation.

You can be a mutual fund manager if you're running gigantic index funds and you can afford to do that at two basis points.

But like I like to pick my stocks is like a harder business to stay in for the long run.

Yeah, I don't know.

Again, I find the idea of a highly concentrated portfolio of just these are my stocks that I like.

Here's like a dozen to two dozen of them.

And I'm going to beat the market that way.

I find that very compelling.

And you can beat the market.

Yeah.

If you beat the market, that's a big if.

Look, that is still a pitch that works, right?

I mean, Bill Ackman is outraising a

$25 billion fund to pick 12 stocks.

But that's not really true, but it's partially true.

I think the

academic sort of consensus, the regulatory consensus, there's been a real move to indexing and a real move to suspicion of active stock picking.

Yeah.

And for good reason.

Yeah, and a lot of suspicion that if you are a long-only equity mutual fund manager getting paid no incentive fees, there's a lot of suspicion that you're generating very much alpha there, right?

And if you're not generating alpha, then like there's a good chance you're probably like a closet indexer and you're not actually doing too much different from the benchmark.

Yeah, and you're charging a lot bigger fees than an index fund, right?

Right.

Even if you're not consciously a closet indexer, right?

Even if you're like consciously like trying to pick the best stocks, like the track record of active equity mutual fund management, like people have a lot of suspicion about it now.

And so like

having something that is just objectively differentiated from like I'm buying stocks is just what this moment calls for.

And it feels like that's secularly true.

It feels like it's not like in five years people will be back to like wanting a 25 stock equity mutual fund.

It feels like that was a model from the last century.

I think I'm taking the other side.

I think I am.

You're watching the cool ETFs.

For example, in ETF launch, I was really excited to see Aleister Hibbert from BlackRock.

He's like their star hedge fund manager.

He was once paid more than Larry Fink.

He just launched an ETF.

The whole idea is like, here are my best picks.

It's 20 to 25 stocks.

We're going to hold them for a while.

And it's in an ETF wrapper.

That's really cool.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So Ron Baron should launch an ETF, but then you can't have, of course, SpaceX in it.

Though there are a lot of people trying to figure out how to put private assets in an ETF.

I don't know how you do that, but but

that seems fine.

Yeah.

You could do that.

I don't think I could do that.

I don't know.

I don't know how you would do it, but listen, we've got some of our best and our brightest on it.

I'm excited for that.

Yeah.

Is there anything else we should say?

Today, in Money Stuff birthday announcements, we have Bob Greif, loyal listener and father.

Huge Matt Levine fan.

This is a great presentation.

Katie Greifelt.

This is a great present, the shout-out.

Even better would be him meeting you.

You haven't actually met.

You've spoken on the phone, though.

That's true.

And now he's gotten the shout-out on the podcast.

This is huge.

And that was the Money Stuff Podcast.

I'm Matt Levine.

And I'm Katie Greifelt.

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 between 10 to 11 a.m.

Eastern.

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 Andon.

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.

I already love Same Day Delivery Was Shipped, but it's so much better since I signed signed up for Target Circle 360.

Why?

Because I no longer pay price markups from the majority of stores through shipped.

Only a handful of alcohol retailers and items don't count.

That means no markups on groceries, pet food, even home goods and makeup.

So to recap, I have more time to catch up on life while someone shops for me and I spend less.

It's a win-win.

Order now at shipped.com slash 360.

Terms apply.

This is Jonas Knox from Two Pros and a Cup of Joe.

And on Fox One, now you can stream your favorite live sports so you can be there live for the biggest moments.

That means NFL Sundays, college football games, NASCAR, MLB postseason, and more.

With Fox One, you'll get it all live: edge of your seat plays, jaw-dropping, high-octane moments, and that feeling like you're right there in the action.

Fox One, we live for live streaming now.