T+Lunchtime: Settlement, Musk, Hwang

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

It's

in 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, touchdown.

It's all here, baby.

Fox One.

We live for live.

Streaming 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.

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.

I'm a reporter with Bloomberg News and an anchor for Bloomberg Television.

Katie did that off-script and was sort of clutching the table as she did it.

I forgot.

Usually you print out the intro.

I forgot to do that this week.

But I do have a strong sense of self.

Okay.

What are we talking about this week, Katie?

Great.

Great question.

Breestyle.

Yeah.

T plus one.

T plus one.

It's finally here in the US and in Canada and Mexico.

It's possible.

Maybe it's...

happening in India soon.

But we're going to talk about Elon Musk.

We have a few different things to talk about with Elon Musk, but I really like the attention auction that you wrote about this week.

So we're going to talk about that and we're going to talk about Bill Wang.

Anything's possible.

And there'll be a

meal bag.

I like that you sang and I didn't.

Usually it's the other way around.

T plus one,

it's here.

It feels like this was abrupt.

Maybe I just haven't been paying attention.

I think that if you had been reading articles for the last three months being like, T plus one settlement is coming the week after Memorial Day, you would have grown very bored.

I think that's news for a long time.

I think that's like news the week before and then news the week it happens.

But yeah, it's T plus one.

It's T plus one.

It happened at the start of this week that we're recording the podcast.

And there was a beautiful day where trades from both Tuesday and Friday settled on the same day.

It was like a lunar eclipse or a solar eclipse, whatever you wanted to call it.

It seems like things are actually going fine.

Right.

I know you root for chaos.

I do.

I

root for having funny things to write about.

And so clearly, it would have been more chaotic had T plus one kind of broken the financial system.

But in fact, things seem to be going very smoothly.

And in fact, the fail rate so far seems to be a little bit lower than the fail rate last week.

Meaning that if you do a securities trade and it settles t plus two last week t plus one this week then like in two days you have to deliver the stock and the other person has to deliver the money and if you don't do that in time it's called a fail and people keep track of the fail rate and every so often people have conspiracy theories about naked short selling because of like the fail rate that's going up or whatever and the fail rate like last week was like two percent or whatever 2.0909 and then this week like the first day of t plus one it was like a little bit lower it was 1.9

so everything's going great.

I was wondering what that means, like that the fail rate is lower.

Like one possibility is that they spend all this time modernizing their systems and they turn on the modernized systems and it just works better, right?

There you go.

That's a possibility.

Another possibility is that everyone's in the office this week.

If you work in settlement, you're definitely not on vacation this week.

No.

You're definitely like paying total attention to making sure the fail rate stays low.

Yeah, maybe the real thing to watch will be, of course, next week.

Yeah.

We do have another test coming up on Friday.

The MSCI indexes are going to rebalance.

So that's another potential hurdle.

But yeah, definitely the optimistic take here is that all the preparation that Bloomberg News and other outlets have been writing about, that the banks and everyone else are undertaking, maybe it paid off.

And this is a total Y2K moment.

Y2K in the sense of it's not like that the fears were misplaced.

It's just that people worked really hard to fix them and they succeeded.

We did it, guys.

Yeah.

Congratulations, all the settlement professionals.

I think probably if you're a settlement professional and you spent like the last three months complaining about this, like probably some part of you wants there to be a disaster.

So you can be like, I told you, but it seems like.

Yeah.

I was saying to Matt this morning that this would be a lot more fun had there been a disaster.

But I guess it comes into question what's next.

I know that some people talk about T plus zero.

Gensler himself actually suggested that T plus evening could be a possibility, but what's the point?

Well, part of why.

they moved to T plus one is like the credit risk involved in waiting two days to settle a trade.

And I think the big impetus was the meme stock failures in 2021 when a lot of brokers got large margin calls because of the crazy volatility in the meme stocks and Robinhood had to go out and raise money and like a lot of brokers shut off trading in GameStop for a while.

So all that stuff felt kind of bad and rickety.

And so they wanted to change it.

But I do think another part of the impetus for this is just like there's a general sense that payments and like financial transactions should be real-time.

That wasn't always people's sense, right?

They used to like mail a check or whatever, but now, you know, you look at the Venmo sort of, you know, like people's desire to be able to make real-time payments on their phone.

And people find it weird that the US banking system doesn't support that.

And with securities transactions, I do think there's the example of crypto where crypto doesn't always move like instantly, but like a crypto trade on the blockchain settles when it happens, right?

It's like it's instantaneous settlement.

And

people sort of are introduced to the financial world through that.

And then they look at stock trading and they're like, why does this take two days or even why does it take one day?

So I think there's just like a sort of of sense that, like, in a modern computerized age, it shouldn't take any time to settle a transaction.

And I think that's like wrong.

I think it's like people confuse like the computer mechanics of like moving the stuff around with the actual sort of like financial mechanics of it.

Minus stock trading is like very efficient and very sort of just in time.

And so when people want to buy stock, they don't have money sitting in their account.

Most people do, but when big hedge funds want to buy stock, they don't have money just like sitting around in their account.

They have to like go to their financing prime broker to like lend them the money the moment after they agree the trade, right?

There's a lot of like you agree to a trade before you have the money sitting in the account sometimes you agree to the trade before you have the stock right all the sort of business processes happen after you agree to the trade and if you moved to like very fast settlement which i don't know exactly what a very fast means like maybe t plus evening is still like slow enough i want like t plus lunchtime yeah if you move to like instantaneous settlement then like everything changes like you have to pre-fund trades you have to have the money sitting in the account before you do the trade and again like in crypto it kind of works that way like in crypto crypto, you kind of pre-fund everything.

And so people are like, there's like a model for that, but it's not really how the modern financial system works.

Yeah.

I know I'm being dramatic when I say this, but I don't know

the notion of taking pages out of crypto infrastructure and bringing it into like the equity market feels very weird for me.

This is the second time that we're sort of talking about that.

Like we talked about 24-hour trading a few weeks or months or years ago at this point.

I can't remember what it feels like.

But the idea that maybe stocks being able to trade 24-7 or 24-5, maybe that's a reality in the future.

Crypto does it.

And here, instantaneous settlement, crypto does it.

Why not equities?

Crypto is a financial system that grew up entirely around computers and in the computer era, right?

Like it dates to like, you know, 2009.

I think if you were just like designing a financial system from first principles, you'd be like, well, it'll be on computers.

And it'll be like, well, should it open at 9.30 in the morning?

No, it's on a computer.

The internet is open 24 hours a day.

So you'd sort of design a system like that.

And similarly, if you're like, well, I've got a database of stocks and a database of dollars.

And like when I agree a trade, we swap the dollars to the stocks.

It's like, yeah, that should happen like on a computer, like immediately, right?

If you're designing a financial system in 2009 or in 2024 around computers, like you'll naturally have 24-hour real-time trades, right?

It just so happens that the actual financial system grew up over hundreds of years and wasn't built around computers.

And the processes that have built up around that are very path-dependent and historically determined.

But some of them are good-ish or like they work for humans or they work for a financial system.

So with 24-hour trading, what we talked about was, in fact, in modern markets, people like concentrated liquidity.

You know, the stock markets open six and a half hours a day, but like people actually like largely trade at the close because that's when everyone else is trading.

And it's good to be able to trade when everyone else is trading.

And if you spread out your trading over 24 hours, you'll have fewer people to trade with in like 3 a.m.

And similarly here, it's yeah, like if everything moved instantaneously, like in some ways that would look more efficient, but it would mean that you'd need to have the money in your account before you did a trade.

And so there'd be like weird stuff.

A lot of the problems that people were worried about with T Plus One were foreign investors having to convert currency.

If you're a foreign investor and you want to buy a US stock, you can just decide to do that and then figure out how to convert your Euros into dollars later.

Not like much later, but like two minutes later.

And in an instantaneous settlement world, you wouldn't be able to do that.

No, maybe your FX transaction would also settle instantaneously and everything would like just in time work out, but it's like trickier.

It does seem really complicated, especially, I mean, the FX piece.

Talking about T plus One when it comes to just domestic U.S.

equities, that's somewhat easy to wrap one's mind around.

But thinking about the FX piece and the international investor piece, I was talking to someone on TV sometime this week and they said you went from having 12 hours to source your U.S.

dollars to having like two hours.

Yeah, and like, I don't know, you say that to a normal person, and it's like, how long does it take for your bank to convert your Euros into

computer, right?

Like, yeah, it should theoretically kind of take a millisecond.

Yeah.

Right.

Well, maybe that's computer entries.

But still.

That's the world we're rapidly hurtling towards, or maybe we're already in.

Can we talk about the thing I really want to talk about?

Okay, so I cover ETFs in my day job.

And a thing that a lot of ETF issuers do is securities lending.

They lend out the securities in their portfolio.

It gets them a few basis points for doing that.

They make that.

But you think about the expense ratios on a lot of these ETFs, and they're like three basis points.

So a couple of basis points is super meaningful.

I don't really understand

how securities lending is impacted by this move to T plus one.

It seems like it would be a headache, not just in ETFs, but mutual funds, et cetera.

It's a huge headache, I think.

So here's the way it works.

So like you're a mutual fund or you're an ETF.

You like lend out your stocks.

You own stocks, you lend them out.

Then you decide to sell them, right?

Because you have outflows or because your index is rebalancing or whatever.

You decide to sell your stocks.

So between the minute you sell the stock, the minute you like your sell order executes on the stock exchange, and the settlement date, you have to get the stock, right?

Like you've loaned it out.

You don't have it in your possession.

So you have to call back the borrow.

So

you had two days to do that.

Now you have one day to do it.

Right.

Now you call back the borrow by like you've loaned the stock out probably through a broker who's loaned it out to like a short seller.

So you call your broker and you say, call the intermediary and you say, I want the stock back.

And the intermediary calls the hedge fund who borrowed it and said, we want the stock back.

And the hedge fund doesn't have it either.

They've sold the stock.

So they have to find it somewhere else, right?

Now, maybe they borrow it from some other mutual fund or some other lender, right?

And then they borrow it in like four hours and they deliver it to you within 24 hours.

And then you deliver it to settle your sale.

But another possibility is like they can't borrow it and they have to buy in their short, but then that settles T plus one.

So they're doing a trade after you that has to settle before you in order to give you the stock so that you can deliver it on your sale.

So it's like very tricky.

And I think that like one thing that mutual funds have been at least talking about doing to address this is calling in their borrow before they sell their stock.

If you know you're having like an index rebalancing or whatever, instead of hitting sell and then calling back your borrow, you call back your borrow the day day before, so you make sure it settles and then you hit sell.

Larry Tabbitt, Bloomberg Intelligence, has written about like the problems of that in terms of both you lose like a day of that lending income, but you also maybe tip your hand that you're going to be selling the stock because you're calling a sophisticated hedge fund and saying we need our borrow back.

The hedge fund gets some information from that.

They know you're selling.

Yeah.

I guess from my perspective as someone who cares about the ETF and a little bit the mutual fund world, the fact that you do lose a day of that fee coming in and I don't think that's a big deal.

You lose a day on a day.

One day of 20 basis points of earnings.

Hey, that sounds pretty good.

I mean, we're talking about razor-thin margins on some of these ETFs.

I'm wondering if it'll make securities lending a less appealing proposition for some of these companies.

I'd be surprised if it moves the needle on that because it's still money.

You know, if you're like an indexee, you're not selling stock that often.

All right.

That's everything I wanted to know about this.

That's probably everything I wanted to say about it.

I guess we'll talk about it when we do move to T plus zero because actually it surprised me to learn that we only moved to T plus 2 in 2017.

Oh yeah, I remember.

I was there.

I was like...

I was not.

I mean, I was there, actually.

I just was not paying attention.

Yeah, yeah.

No.

What was I doing?

It was early 2017.

Yeah, I remember that.

Yeah, yeah.

It was T plus 3 for my whole career.

And it was like T plus 5 in like the 60s or something.

Yeah, we moved to T

plus 3, I guess, in 1993.

My favorite part is that I didn't know this till like this week.

It was T plus 1 in

the 1970s.

I always sort of imagined that the reason it was T plus three or whatever, you know, I grew up in T plus three, the reason it was T plus three is because like you needed to like load the stock certificates on a horse and buggy and take them across town and count them by hand.

That was happening in the 90s.

Yeah, no, it was happening in the 20s, but like there were only so many stock certificates, so you could do all of that in one day, right?

Yeah.

And so it only became like a longer settlement process when there were more trades and they were not like fully computerized.

And so you had, you know, it maxed out at T plus five where it was like still a pretty manual process, but there were a lot of trades.

And now there are many more trades, but it's a much less manual process.

process.

Okay.

There we are.

First and values.

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 easycator.com/slash podcast.

Oh boy, Elon Musk.

It's been several weeks since we really, really dug in.

Part of me feels like Elon Musk.

It's always the same story.

Matt is checking his phone.

He just checked the time.

He doesn't want to talk about this.

We are drawing closer and closer to that shareholder vote.

Yeah.

So Elon Musk, he had a huge package of options from Tesla in like 2018.

You know, everyone says it's $56 billion.

It doesn't really matter.

And

then this year, a Delaware judge said, no, we're taking those back.

And in reaction to that, Tesla wants two things.

They want the shareholders to vote to give him back the options.

And they want the shareholders to vote to reincorporate the company in Texas so that no Delaware judge can ever again take away Elon Musk's money.

Both of those votes is June 13th.

Like he met the targets that he was supposed to hit.

Like, Like, I'm not a big Elon Musk booster necessarily, but I feel like he earned this money.

I feel like he should get the money.

Maybe this is just projecting, but my impression is that the

maybe like most standard view among the institutional investors in Tesla is one, he should get the money.

Fair is fair.

And two, they should not reincorporate in Texas.

Yeah.

So let's attack the first point.

Because I've been thinking about why that doesn't feel great.

So, yes, fair is fair, here in the money.

But, like, I feel like you have to kind of forget about everything that has happened in the past year or so.

I mean, I'm talking pretty short term when I talk about the year-to-date performance of Tesla, but it's been pretty bad.

We've seen a big drawdown in market cap, and they're facing real business problems right now.

Right.

When I say here in the money, I mean, like, he was granted this money in 2018 with the goal of taking the market cap from like 50 billion to 650 billion dollars.

And he did that by like 2021.

Yeah.

And so he earned the money and they gave him the grants.

And then now they've been taken away.

But like since then, yeah,

things have changed.

It's weird.

It's a very backward-looking pay award.

Yeah.

Because it was a forward-looking pay award in 2018.

That has now been reversed.

But the question is, should they give him this backward-looking pay award because he did accomplish all these things in the past?

And I kind of think the answer is yes, that's fair.

But I do think that if you're a just hyper-rational investor looking at things today, it's like, is it a good idea to give him all this money given what has he done for me lately?

Yeah.

Yeah.

I mean, Tesla has a pretty sizable retail.

I mean, a lot of them are huge fans of Elon Musk, but I would just imagine that human psychology is going to play in.

Is in what has he done for me lately?

Oh, yeah.

Yeah.

The retail people are there because they love Elon Musk.

Yeah.

The institutions, I think, is more.

I mean, you have seen like Las Lewis come out and say that they probably shouldn't vote for this.

There are a few of them.

Las Lewis came out against it in 2018 as well.

And they voted for it then.

Something that keeps coming up is, is and this is something you've written about is just that he's got a lot going on this man is the ceo of six companies it's clear that tesla isn't like really the only thing occupying his mind share right now he was really into his ai startup spacex scarc i forgot actually that the pouring company was still in there as well uh the poring company is the one i always mention because it's like i think if you rank how much does elon musk speak publicly about pay attention to, and care about his companies,

Tesla is really volatile.

And like right now, Tesla may be like having some problems in terms of getting his attention, although the vote complicates that.

But like Boring Company is usually toward the bottom because its name is the Boring Company.

It digs tunnels.

It's like just sort of less.

It's like the cash in the portfolio.

You know, you don't really talk about it.

Sort of.

It's not literally like that because no.

Just in terms of like a small allocation that you don't really think about.

Neuralink is real, obviously.

When you look at the portfolio of his companies, Twitter is the weirdest one to me.

X.

I'm sorry.

Elon Musk is really into AI, right?

Yeah.

He's kind of always been into AI.

He was a founder of Open AI, right?

He's now not affiliated and angry about suing Open AI, but he was like there at the beginning.

And he's very into AI right now.

And everyone's kind of really into AI right now.

And in some ways, it's like weirdly trend following for Elon Musk to be like, I also have a large language model startup, right?

That's never been his thing, right?

He's not like, oh, I'm founding the 10th electric car company or the 10th commercial rocket company, right?

He's not like, you know, in fierce competition in like the tunnel digging business, right?

Like, it's like all of his ideas have been sort of unusual.

And then XAI, he's like, yeah, I'll do a large language model.

Why not?

But it did seem like he had big AI plans for Twitter.

And like Tesla does do a lot of, not like large language models, but like a lot of AI for like the self-driving cars.

And it's a little strange, though.

He has instead started a separate company for AI and ramped it up and has a $24 billion valuation now and is raising money and seems to be, to some extent, the apple of his eye.

And Tesla is maybe a little neglected.

Yeah, it does feel like that.

And you think about, I mean, his threat is that if he doesn't get this pay package, then he'll devote his energy and time elsewhere.

It seems like he's doing that already.

And even if the pay package was re-approved again on June 13th, I believe the vote is, it's not clear that would get him re-excited about Tesla.

So two things.

One, like Glass Lewis, one of their objections to his pay package is that he has clearly not been focused on Tesla.

Tesla put out this response that says, stockholders should care enormously about value creation and not about whether Elon's perceived focus in scare quotes was strong enough.

And like, that's fair, but it depends on your timeframe.

And in recent months, the value creation has maybe tracked his lack of focus, right?

Since the Twitter deal, like his lack of focus has been bad for shareholders.

Now, again, this pay package is for like the work he did from 2018 to 2021.

So I can see approving it.

But as a going forward batter, yeah, you'd be worried about his lack of focus, not only because you keep reading articles about the other stuff he's doing, but also because the stock price is down and like it's facing business challenges.

The other thing I'd say is Tesla's in a weird position in terms of like how much of Elon Musk's focus it gets or it will get going forward.

because it's his only public company and also it's his biggest company.

And so on the one hand, that means it is his like cash source.

It is, I think, more important to his fortune than any of the other companies.

Yeah.

Because it's if he needs a billion dollars, he can get it by selling Tesla stock, borrowing against Tesla stock much more easily than he can from his other companies.

And so he sometimes has a need for large amounts of money, for example, to buy Twitter.

Yeah.

And when he does that, he sells Tesla stock.

So Tesla's really important to him.

And if some of his other companies like evaporated, he'd be fine.

But if Tesla evaporated it, it would be a big problem.

On the other hand, he hates running a public company.

He's not a public company guy.

It doesn't work.

He goes around saying, I do not respect the SEC.

He gets in trouble.

He gets sued by shareholders.

He pushes the boundaries in a way that when you have a private company where all of the shareholders are your fans and understand that they're there to support you, it kind of works.

But in a public company where anyone can buy stock and then sue you, and like a judge or the SEC can just get involved, it doesn't work that well.

And he clearly clearly hates it.

He sort of tried to take Tesla private in a

deal that got him in trouble with the SEC.

And

he's said off and on over the years that he hates running a public company.

And

will SpaceX eventually go public?

Probably.

I would love that.

It's possible that it would have gone public before now, were it not run by Elon Musk, who has had a bad experience of running public companies.

So if he has some great idea, does he want to do it at Tesla where it's going to be subject to public company scrutiny, or is he going to want to focus on his other companies that he has much more control over?

Trevor Burrus, Jr.: It feels like we're heading towards a rubber meets the road moment when it comes to the shareholder vote.

I mean,

either it's reapproved and he's a happy man, maybe, or maybe he leaves.

And then we, as we spoke about a few weeks ago, maybe we find out what the Musk premium to Tesla actually is.

And we find out, I don't know, whether Tesla needs Elon Musk at this point, whether it would do better with

a traditional auto-type CEO when you think about, I don't know, the fact that EV demand is drying up for everyone, not just for Tesla.

It feels like a kind of existential moment for the EV market.

Yeah.

It's not clear that his skill set is what's really needed at Tesla right now because it's like a mature auto company with auto company problems and he's off putting wires in people's brains, right?

Maybe the move is in fact for him to step back as CEO.

But that's hard for the stock price.

Like you get a lot of valuation premium from the retail investors who love him.

I mean, that's the other thing about it being a public company, it's the only place that his retail investors can invest with him.

Yeah, like you can't buy SpaceX, but you can.

You know what a neat solution would be?

Taking SpaceX public.

A closed-end fund.

Sure, sure, sure, sure.

And invest in all the Elon Musk companies.

We can publicly list it too, and that would be really fun to watch.

That is actually a really good idea.

Thanks.

That one's for free, but no,

you get a commission on that one.

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 easycator.com/slash podcast.

It seems everyone gets a tip these days.

Deliver food?

Get a tip.

Drive around town?

Get a tip.

Serve a drink?

Get a tip.

But here's one tip that can help you find a higher paying career.

Merit America can help you get the training and support to find and succeed in an in-demand job, like data analytics or HR admin or supply chain planning.

It may be the last tip you ever need.

Learn more at meritamerica.org.

Bill Wang.

Bill Wang.

So Bill Wang is on trial for his family office, Arkegos Capital Management, and Floated a while back and lost.

$30-something billion-dollar fortune for him and billions of dollars for several banks, including Credit Suisse, which didn't fail because of Arkegos.

It's not here anymore.

Yeah, it didn't help.

But he's on trial for kind of two things, like market manipulation, because he bought all these stocks and pushed them way up, and then they crashed when he stopped buying them, and for lying to banks, because basically he like borrowed a lot of money from banks to buy all these stocks.

And had the banks known the true extent of his positions, they wouldn't have lent him all the money.

And he's on trial this week.

And I have to say, it seems to be kind of going okay for him in the sense that they haven't really done the market manipulation case yet but like it just sort of sounds like the evidence is like he bought a lot of these stocks which is weird but is not proof of market manipulation by itself it doesn't seem to be any smoking gun of him being like i'm buying these stocks so that i can like artificially inflate their price so that i can do something right because he didn't do something he like bought all the stocks and then they crashed and he lost all his money he wasn't like doing it for some nefarious plan as far as we can tell but the other thing he's on trial for is lying to the banks and like there was definitely some lying to the banks there's a a lot of testimony that there was lying to the banks, but it wasn't from him.

Yeah.

It was like from his employees.

Yeah.

So far, we've heard from Scott Becker, for example, who was a risk manager at Archegos.

And he testified that he lied.

He told several banks that Archegos was heavily invested in Fang stocks like Apple, Amazon, et cetera, et cetera.

In actuality, actually, they were really invested in ADRs for companies like Tencent and Baidu, et cetera.

That was a large part of the portfolio.

So that was a lie.

And he was.

But also, like, you know, Viacom was like

70% of the company or something.

They own absurd quantities of a few, like a handful of stuff.

Yeah.

But I guess what looks good for Bill Wang so far is that

it's not clear that he necessarily told those employees.

Yeah, there's still an email from him being like, make sure to lie to the banks.

Which sometimes in some cases they have that.

Yeah.

That's when they don't.

Yeah.

But I mean, you raised the point, why did they they lie then i don't i was thinking about that there's a sort of like

he was the boss there's some sort of implicit assumption of well if the employees were lying to the banks to keep our keggos going they were doing it because that's what their boss wanted of them which first of all i'm not sure is enough for it to be a crime but secondly i'm not sure that's true i feel like people who have jobs are motivated to do a good job at work it's not like they're like i need to make this trade work out because my boss told me to it's i need to make this trade work out because I'm like trying to be a good employee and like you know you sort of have a general

create value yeah you want to create value yeah and you're whatever you've been at that company for a while and you have some sense of commitment to the company and some sense of professional desire to do a good job at whatever it is you do and if what you're doing is keeping this extremely concentrated portfolio from crashing then maybe you'll lie to a bank to do that right and maybe you're just doing it because that's in the very short term the way to improve your own performance and you're just trying to do a good job so So, is that his fault?

I don't know.

It's like kind of his fault.

So, we're a couple days into testimony.

It seems okay-ish for Bull Wang at the moment just to meditate on Scott Becker a little bit longer.

He's definitely not having a great week or a great last couple weeks.

Again, he testified.

He did say he lied.

He also apparently texted in 2018 that he hoped that his boss would die in a plane crash, and then in 2020, he hoped that he would die a quote, slow, painful death from COVID.

And then he said of the text, I obviously regret that.

This is not inconsistent with what I said before.

You can be like really motivated to do a good job and also have days when you wish your boss would die in a plane crash.

That's why I never want to get sued.

I mean, for a lot of reasons.

I don't want anyone to go through my text messages.

They're all super clean, though.

But anyway, that was a fun little detail.

We'll go through the outtakes of the Money Stuff podcast.

Exactly.

We burn every recording.

We smash it with bats.

Anyway, that was a fun little detail that came out in testimony.

Also coming out was the Goldman Fatfinger, which wasn't previously known, I believe.

That's amazing.

Yeah.

It's amazing.

At the end of Arkegos, they had scraps of money at different banks and they were getting furious margin calls and they were also trying to buy more of these stocks to prop them up.

And so they were going to every bank and saying, oh, we have $100 million at your bank.

Send us the $100 million.

And some banks were doing it, even though they were a day away from bankruptcy.

And so they did that to Goldman.

They're like, we have $470 million at Goldman.

Can you send it to us?

Except they like hit the wrong button.

And instead of asking for $470 million from Goldman, they sent $470 million to Goldman.

And then they called Goldman and they're like, hey, can we get that money back?

And Goldman was like, no.

Or sort of.

They were like, oh, we need to like, they like sort of dragged their feet a little bit.

And then by the time they stopped dragging their feet, like, it was clear that Arkegos was bust.

And Goldman kept the money.

Didn't they request a meeting with their...

Yeah, they were like, yeah, you get have the money back let's just talk to your chief trader to make sure everything's okay they were like he's busy right now yeah i think anyone if you get a call saying can we have all of our money back you're like well everything okay there because goldman they weren't just holding 470 million dollars for them they were also lending them enormous amounts of money against concentrated stock positions and if you're like oh our kegos needs money your next thought is are all these derivatives positions that we have with them are they good for them yeah and the answer was very much no and And so Goldman cut the money.

There was testimony from a Jeffries

managing director as well, who, when she got the call, her reaction was, What's the emergency?

Like,

we need all the money back right now.

When you get a call from your customer being like, I need every penny in my account, wired to me immediately.

If you're just their bank, maybe you'd do that, right?

But if you also have like an enormous loan out to them and you're like, wait a minute,

Mailback.

On this very podcast last week, we talked about, well, we talked about several city fat finger errors.

It seems to be a somewhat regular occurrence.

But we talked specifically about the one where they like sold a ton of European stocks and crashed all the markets.

And then we're like, oops, we meant to sell $50 million, but we sold $440 billion.

Who Among Us?

Who Among Us indeed?

Because every time I write or talk about a Fat Finger, I get emails from people about, like, yeah, here's my fat finger story.

I got a good one from a reader.

He said that he's trading in his personal account.

He made some money on call options, right?

So he like bought some call options on some stock.

He sold the call options.

He had the $100,000.

And he says, well, he's trying to figure out what to do with the money.

He decided to put it into the bill ETF, like a short-term money market ETF.

It's like $100,000.

And he says on his brokerage screen, like when you sell an option and then you go to do another trade, it defaults to doing an options trade.

And so he was like, I'm going to put $100,000 into bill.

And instead, he bought $100,000 of call options on the Bill money market ETF, which is like, there is no more boring investment than the Bill ETF, but there's no crazier investment than call options on the Bill ETF.

That's wild.

And so he bought a lot of the, or he hit by on a lot of these options.

And he said that they executed like one contract and moved the market and he noticed and canceled the rest of it and was only a few hundred dollars.

But I thought it was an amazing because we were talking in relation to the city system, how it was maybe just designed poorly.

And I mean, here's a great example, a real life example of a person in their personal account falling victim to maybe an unintuitive trading screen.

Right, right.

If I were designing a trading system, I would probably make it default to...

trading cash, not options, every trade.

But of course, if I were a retail broker, I would want to encourage as much option trading as possible because that's how the retail brokers make money.

So maybe I would, you know, maybe I would encourage.

I would want the text to be as big as possible, like a really large font size.

Those always make me feel safe.

Anyway, time to go.

That was the Money Stuff Podcast.

I don't have my script.

And that was the Money Stuff Podcast.

I'm Matt Levine.

And I'm Katie Greyfeld.

We're not actually doing that.

And that was the Money Stuff Podcast.

I'm Matt Levine.

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 between 10 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 Andan.

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.

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.

Feel a pulse of adventure at every turn in the plug-in hybrid electric Jeep Wrangler 4xE, designed with intention and loaded with power, the Jeep Wrangler 4xE will help keep you moving towards endless coastlines without sacrificing the comfort and legendary capability you expect.

Thanks to its hybrid powertrain, the Wrangler 4xE delivers the same epic off-roading endurance as its gasoline counterpart.

And with three different driving modes, electric, hybrid, and e-save, versatility follows you at every turn.

Visit your local Jeep brand dealer today and take advantage of the EV lease incentive going on now.

But hurry, this offer ends soon.

Right now, well-qualified current FCA lessees get an ultra-low mileage lease on the 2025 Jeep Wrangler Sport S4xE for $189 a a month for 24 months with $3,079 due at signing.

Tax, title, license extra.

No security deposit required.

Call 1-888-925-JEAP for details.

Requires dealer contribution and lease through Stellantis Financial.

Extra charge for miles over 10,000.

Current vehicle must be registered to consumer at least 30 days prior to lease.

Includes 7,500 EV cap cost reduction.

Not all customers will qualify.

Residency restrictions apply.

Take delivery by 9:30.

Jeep is a registered trademark.