[Beeeep] $: Elon, Jane Street, Hunterbrook

The global industrial renaissance is transforming our world.

Over the next decade, industries like energy, infrastructure, and technology will need an estimated $75 to $100 trillion to modernize and meet demand.

Long-term projects need long-duration capital.

That's where Apollo steps in.

With scale, flexibility, and a focus on growth, we're partnering with companies to drive the future, one innovation at a time.

Learn more at thinkitnew.com/slash renaissance.

These days, AI can help you adopt better time management, but it can't stop colleagues booking meetings during lunch.

But how about being able to easily adopt industrial AI to streamline your business?

Siemens Accelerator helps you find the right AI providers and easily understand what they offer, so you can use modular solutions to quickly scale up and grow your business.

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

Learn more on usa.seemens.com/slash AI.

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

I'm Matt Levine.

I've written the Money Stuff column for Bloomberg Opinion.

And I'm Katie Greifeld.

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

It's the best day of our lives.

It is the best day of our lives, which happens every day on Fridays.

We have a lot to talk about today.

We have to talk about Elon Musk, of course.

We had a whole week without Elon Musk, I think.

I know, it was weird that we didn't get to it in the first week.

So we'll talk about Elon Musk and that pay package, $56 billion, and of course his issues with Delaware.

We're also going to talk about Jane Street versus Millennium.

You just published on this.

By the time you hear this podcast, I will have published on it roughly 24 hours ago.

I'm re-recording it shortly after I published on it.

It's Thursday right now, and Matt published 20 minutes ago, so this is the one I'm least prepared for.

And we're also going to talk about Hunterbrook, the hedge fund that's also a newspaper question mark.

Indeed.

Before we get into this week's topics, it's our second episode.

It's our second episode.

We got a lot of feedback on the first episode.

We got a lot of feedback.

A lot of it was about

a comment that I made about the doped Olympics.

Surprised they already exist and they're funded by Peter Thiel.

Well, they don't exist.

They're like launching.

Yeah, the idea is out there.

The enhanced games that would have no drug testing.

So if you didn't want to do performance-enhancing drugs, you could still enter.

You would just lose.

Yes.

Or you could do the regular Olympics, which you'll still have drug testing.

Yeah, and you'll probably still lose.

I wonder if, like, presumably day one, the best athletes will still do the regular Olympics.

Yeah.

I wonder how long it'll take for the enhanced Olympics to have faster times and

higher jumps.

It's a great question.

Because if you're like the 10th best track athlete and you do a lot of drugs, are you better than the best?

Probably.

Probably, yeah.

Probably.

There's only one way to find out.

Peter Till's going to do it.

These games need to happen.

The event roster includes individual sports such as athletics, meaning track and field, aquatics, gymnastics, strength, and combat.

I would watch these.

But

what we don't have on that list

is dressage.

Dressage.

Yeah.

No, doped dressage.

For the uninitiated, dressage is horse dancing effectively.

Just go on YouTube, look it up.

It's a ridiculous sport that, for better or worse, I partake in.

I'm not sure if when I enter the enhanced games, which I will, whether I take the drugs, the horse takes the drugs.

Do we both take the drugs?

We both take the drugs.

Have you or your horse ever been like offered drugs?

Has there ever been a controversy at your dressage?

We're not that good.

Maybe in higher levels of the sport, but what we're doing, it's very loosely dressage.

Let's talk about the controls.

Moving gracefully along.

Elon.

Elon Musk.

The big news this week is that Tesla came out with their proxy statement.

Two items of interest.

They're going to ask shareholders to vote again on that 2018 pay package of $56 billion that was voided by a Delaware judge.

And related to that, they're going to vote on whether to move Tesla's state of incorporation from Delaware to Texas.

What do you want to start with?

They're interrelated.

Yes.

Right?

He got paid a giant stack of options in about 2018.

Everyone says they're worth $56 billion.

Whatever.

They're worth like $40 billion.

$56 billion is just like a conventional number that people attach to it because, you know, it goes up and down with the stock.

But right now, it's worth $40 billion.

And the judge took them away in January.

I said that was too much to pay him, and it wasn't properly approved by the shareholders.

And so they're going back to the shareholders to one, get it properly approved, and two, never have to deal with a Delaware judge again because they're going to move to Texas.

Like you said, these are two intimately related issues, but sticking with the pay package, which everyone is saying is $56 billion, maybe it's $40 billion, but the vote is in June.

Yeah.

Are they going to approve it again, these shareholders?

I think so.

The proxy quotes a lot of letters from individual shareholders saying how much they love Elon Musk and how they're going to approve it.

And also, by the way, letters from like T-Row Price.

Right.

Like big shareholders too.

Right.

It's interesting.

If you're a shareholder in 2021 or even like December of last year, I think you'd say this pay package was worth it.

In 2018, they said, we're going to pay Elon Musk $56 billion if he takes the market cap of Tesla from like $60 billion to like $650 billion.

And at the time, that seemed like a real stretch goal.

And then he did it really quickly.

And so all of the shareholders got rich.

Like they made a lot of money on Tesla.

And I think they felt a real sense of gratitude.

And so I think very few shareholders were complaining about his pay package, but one did and sued, right?

Yes.

I think the shareholders were happy with it.

But now, if you go back to them and say, you want to approve it again, they can be like, we already got whatever he did.

He did the stuff that made it a $650 billion company.

So if we can get those past efforts for free, why shouldn't they get it for free?

They feel grateful, but do they feel $56 billion grateful?

With that said, if you're a Tesla shareholder at this point, you're playing a longer game.

And rightly or wrongly, I think Tesla shareholders assume that Elon Musk and his continued affection are essential to the value of Tesla stock.

And so if they vote down this pay package, like, will he quit in a huff?

Maybe he's got a lot going on, right?

like he's got a lot of distractions so he could quit in a huff and although his mercurial stewardship has not been great for the stock price in the last couple of years he quits in a huff that's going to tank the stock i think yeah i mean the stock's already down 40 year to date so like it's been a rough ride but still i think they want him there it's not like if they vote this down he'll come back and be like okay fine can you be like two billion dollars like i think like if they vote this down he's gonna be really mad like really mad i guess i have two kind of related points to that to what you're saying what is the key man risk to Tesla?

Like, how much does Tesla need Elon Musk at this point is something I think about all the time.

This is an established company at this point.

No, I agree with that.

It's an established company that could probably operate on its own.

It's not like the stock has been continuing to go up from strength to strength.

It's been a rough time.

I do think that there's probably still a valuation premium for Elon Musk.

And I think, like, it's a

somewhat retail-heavy stock.

There are a lot of people who like Elon Musk in this stock.

And I think if he were to leave, that would be bad.

But I'm not sure of that in the way that I might have been in like 2021.

Yeah.

I also think, by the way, whatever your sort of economic calculation, I do think that some of the shareholders at least are like, we agreed to pay him these options.

We voted on it.

A court, in a weird technical opinion, struck that down.

And we don't think that's fair.

We think it's like bad for corporate democracy and also bad for like fairness to Elon Musk.

And so we're going to give him that $56 billion back anyway.

I think there's probably some of that going on among some of the shareholders, including some of the institutional shareholders.

Even if this is approved, will it just get voided again?

Like, how does this work if they approve it again?

It's a fascinating question.

I think, and Tesla thinks the answer is that if they approve it again, this time it'll stick, right?

Because what happened last time is they approved it, and the judge found that the shareholders were not fully informed of all the conflicts of interest involved in setting his pay package.

Now they're fully informed, in part because Tesla went back and gave disclosures, but also they just attached the judge's opinion to the proxy statement to be like, anything that the judge found bad here, you can read it.

So I think they have to be fully informed.

There's no problem with the vote, but

the law on this is not super clear.

And they say in the proxy statement, we're not totally sure what the effect of this will be.

I think there's some argument that the disgruntled shareholder can sue again and the judge again gets to decide if the pay package is fair.

And we kind of know she thinks it isn't.

So like it might get struck down again.

By the way, the other thing I want to say is that I don't know what the discreditable shareholder is.

A guy named Richard Tornetta.

I don't know what he thinks.

I don't know if he wants to do this again.

But you know who cares?

His lawyers, who, when they won in the Delaware court and they struck down this $56 billion pay package, they went to the court and they said, we want $5.6 billion worth of Tesla stock as a fee for this win, right?

And their theory is we saved shareholders all this money by clawing back this $56 billion from Elon Musk.

If the shareholders give Elon Musk the $56 billion back, they haven't gotten the fee yet, right?

It's still in court.

If they give the money back, what is their argument that they save the shareholders any money?

Like they've got a lot of money riding on the argument that Musk's compensation actually got clawed back, so they care.

Yeah.

Let's talk about the second part of what happened, Texas.

Are they going to run into this problem again in Texas?

Moving to Texas, what does that do for Tesla?

They say that moving to Texas makes sense because their big factory is in Texas, their headquarters in Texas, Elon lives in Texas, and so they have to move their incorporation to Texas because that just makes sense.

No other company thinks that, right?

Like, that's not really a thing.

Like, every company is incorporated in Delaware, and very few are located in Delaware.

But it's what they say.

The answer is nobody knows.

There's a lot of Delaware corporate law, and there's not a lot of corporate law anywhere else because most big companies that have big lawsuits are incorporated in Delaware, and so that's where all the cases are.

Tesla says in its proxy that they think the law in Texas is mostly the same as the law in Delaware.

I think it's probably true.

But

everyone kind of assumes that if

this had all happened in Texas and if a shareholder had sued Elon Musk in Texas to get back the $56 billion,

a Texas judge would have been like, nah, Elon Musk can keep that money.

There's no basis for assuming that.

Nobody knows.

It just seems that way.

And clearly Elon Musk assumes it because as soon as the Delaware opinion came out, he's like, we're moving to Texas.

By the way, that happened.

The opinion came out and he was like, like, we're moving to Texas right away.

He was saying it on Twitter.

But Tesla now, in its proxy statement, has to explain why it's moving to Texas.

And it describes this very thorough process that it did to evaluate moving to Texas.

So it formed a special committee of independent directors.

There's one person on the committee.

Was his name Elon Musk?

No, no, no, no.

It's a truly independent director.

Her name is Kathleen Wilson Thompson.

The special committee met 16 times for more than 26 hours, says the proxy, which is like a fun thing to imagine.

Like, I first imagined it as like, I I met four hours today with the Money Stuff Committee.

Like, I was like typing on my computer.

I was like, oh, there's a meeting.

But in fact, she met with like her lawyers.

Oh, for sure.

So she did, there were real meetings, but just she was the only director at the meetings.

But she, they, the committee evaluated all 50 states to decide which like throwing darts being like, which state should we move to?

And like, it just so happens that the best state turned out to be Texas.

Coincidentally, the same thing that Elon Musk was tweeting about like two months ago.

It's beautiful.

So it worked out nicely.

Yeah, it's good that it turned out that way.

By the way, you asked if the laws move with them.

I wrote this before.

There's some small chance of a Delaware judge saying, no, you're not allowed to move to Texas because you're only moving to Texas to pay Elon Musk more.

And

that is like a violation of your fiduciary duties to your Delaware shareholders, so we're going to stop you.

I wrote that in like January.

I thought that was like some extremely funny theoretical chance of that happening.

Since then, there's been like a Delaware court decision that makes it less likely.

So I don't think that's going to happen, but it would be really funny.

So I have one point, and I also have a question.

I guess I'll start with the point.

And that is that there is like a human psychology component to this.

Because I remember when this happened in January, that it was voided, this pay package.

My suggestion to Elon Musk would be: why don't you just have Tesla do a dividend?

Mark Zuckerberg did that with Meta.

Now he's going to make like $700 million a year.

Mark Zuckerberg obviously owns a lot more Meta shares, so it makes more sense there.

But you made the point to me that Elon Musk isn't trying to make normal, extremely wealthy man money.

He has like insane aspirations that he needs all this money for.

He owns a minority of Tesla.

He's a controlling share already.

He owns like 20% of the stock.

So a dividend would go mostly to other people.

And like they're not so rolling in cash, they could pay out like tens of billions of dollars of dividends.

Mark Zuckerberg gets a dividend because he likes to go.

water skiing or whatever it is that he does, right?

Hoverboarding.

He has cows, right?

Cows.

Yeah.

Archery.

I don't know.

All sorts of

hobbies.

Yeah.

Like moderately expensive hobbies, some of them.

But Elon Musk's hobbies are like brain implants, going to Mars, buying Twitter.

I'm forgetting a few, but like he's not like looking to spend money on a nice vacation.

He's looking to have tens of billions of dollars to fund going to Mars.

And so he needs these giant pay packages every now and then to pursue his next ambition.

You're not going to get that from your dividend checks.

And then my question for you is, what do you think is the most interesting way that this proxy vote could turn out?

What would be the most interesting chain of events for you?

Look, I love the idea of a Delaware court preventing Musk from leaving for Texas.

I think that would be extremely funny.

But I actually think the simpler answer is funnier, which is if the shareholders vote this down, that's wild.

Like he'll quit in a huff on Twitter like that day.

It'll be an amazing thread of tweets and it will be an amazing corporate debacle.

Whatever time he's devoting to Tesla, he'll go and devote to some other wild thing and that'll be wild.

And Tesla will like find its way as a, you know, it'll get back that $50 billion and find its way as a company not controlled by Elon Musk.

It'll be a wild, wild sequence of events.

That, in my mind, would be the most interesting scenario as well.

And then we could truly find out what the Elon Musk premium is.

The thing about Elon Musk companies is that if you're an investor in Elon Musk's companies, like you like Elon Musk.

That's just how it goes, right?

Like you're not there because you like the assets but think they're mismanaged.

Like you're there because you like Elon Musk.

It would be really shocking for the investors in an Elon Musk company to vote against them in such a striking way.

Do you want to talk about Elon Musk for like 25 more minutes, or do you think we should move on?

I saw your look of like, I have wrapped this up so nicely.

And then Matt comes in with more stuff.

I have some more stuff, but I'm going to wrap it up.

Never mind.

Stay tuned.

Stay tuned.

There's always more Elon.

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 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.

Katie, you're so impatient to get to Jane Street.

Jane Street, yeah, and I don't really know why.

Not that it's not super interesting.

Set the scene for us.

What's going on?

So I wanted to talk about this because Jane Street sued Millennium.

Two Jane Street traders left Jane Street.

They went to Millennium.

And Jane Street thinks they took a complicated secret trade with them and are now making money for Millennium at the expense of Jane Street.

And so they sued.

I wanted to talk about it because the complaint is public, but it's heavily redacted because Jane Street is like, we have this secret trading strategy that's being ruined by someone else copying it.

They don't want to say what the strategy is, right?

But they have to say what it is.

They just have to black it out in the publicly filed version.

Yeah.

So I want to read the complaint and all the beeps.

Go for it.

Okay.

I'm not really going to read the whole complaint.

Oh, okay.

They did a trading investigation.

They had this idea and they like tested it out.

And the results confirmed Jane Street's initial findings, notwithstanding their facial improbability, and revealed that the market was beep for certain classes of trades in the presence of specific market signals and underlying conditions.

Probably we could have like a podcast producer put a real beep over that, but I think, I think I did a pretty, pretty good beep.

Yeah, no, that definitely was a beep.

Anyway, so yeah, they have this trade.

Yeah.

We don't know what it is.

I want to know what it is.

But what we know about it is one, it makes money like reliably for like some number of months at least.

And two, it's weird.

Yeah.

They really emphasize that it's weird.

It's facial improbability.

And they say that it was counterintuitive, unexpected, and initially met with significant skepticism and incredulity internally at Jane Street.

It's really tantalizing.

They're like, we found this trade that you would not believe.

It's so crazy.

They like discovered it and like the data, and they all sat around being like, this can't be real.

And then they tested it for like a year and like, oh, wow, it's real.

This is kind of silly, but reading about it and reading that line specifically made me think of like Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer, how everyone made fun of him.

And then his nose actually lit up and illuminated the night sky.

And they were like, wow, this works.

It's sort of a similar situation.

Something else.

In the Bloomberg News article, apparently Jane Street saw evidence that one of the traders who left in February, he was using the strategy.

They figured it out because Jane Street said that its profits from using the strategy fell by 50% in March, a drop it said could only be attributable to, quote, the entrance of a competitor using the same strategy.

What is this trade?

It's apparently a trade where there's like capacity to make, I don't know, I'm going to make up a number, make a million dollars a day, right?

And Jane Street was doing it and making a million dollars a day, right?

And then Millennium starts doing it.

Now they each make half a million dollars a day, right?

Yeah, because it's not like they lost money because someone else started doing it.

They're just, they're not the only person in this market anymore, whatever this market is.

It's some sort of options market, it seems clear.

It's like some sort of options trade.

Rumor is that it's not in the United States, but I don't know what it is.

How does this work?

Are we ever going to find out what the trade is, or is it just a secret?

I'm going to keep asking.

One of my favorite things about this complaint is that one of these traders leaves Jane Street for Millennium, and the complaint mentions how much money he's getting.

Because they're making the point, like, he's getting paid so much money.

It can't be just because, yeah, he's like whatever experience, whatever skill.

He wouldn't be making that much money.

He's getting paid that much money because he's bringing this Jane Street trader.

I think he told people how much he's making.

Yeah, yeah.

The complaint says, based on conversations between Shadowwald and his colleagues at Jane Street, his compensation for Millennium,

but so they don't know.

He told his friends at Jane Street, and then like Jane Street asked his friends how much he was making.

And they're like, oh, man, he's getting.

And then they put that thing to plane.

I can't imagine telling people so casually what I make, especially if it's a lot of money.

I can't.

He's leaving a financial firm for another financial firm.

And he goes out to drinks with his friends.

And they're like, oh, man, what are they giving you?

And he's like,

right?

Like,

that's why he's leaving.

This is a very mercenary business.

I don't know.

He should have just bought a huge apartment and let that speak for itself.

That is how much I'm making.

Well, he hadn't made it yet.

I feel like like the day of, he's like, oh my, look at how much money I'm making.

I also love the best possible amount of money to make is beep, right?

Like a number so big that they can't publicize it.

That is pretty amazing.

So I guess, yeah, the two things I want to know, what the trade are, how much this guy was making.

Also, is this an unforced error by Jane Street, which doesn't have non-competes?

Like, could this all have been avoided?

had they had a non-compete?

There are really like two different things, right?

There's a non-compete, which usually it's like time-limited.

You You can't go to another firm for six months, a year, two years.

Yes, I think that would avoid that here because what's it going to be like in a year?

Like it seems unlikely.

I don't know what the strategy is, but it seems unlikely Jane Stewart will still be making a lot of money on the strategy in a year because someone will notice it somehow.

Alpha gets competed away all over the place.

Whatever this weird counterintuitive strategy is, probably it'll decay.

I have an idea.

What?

Maybe it's, this is half a joke.

This is a joke, actually.

Closed to end fund arbitrage.

Oh, man.

You love closed-end fund arbitrage.

I'm thinking it's not that.

But right, so if you have have a non-compete and like the guy goes and sits on a beach for a year and then he comes back, whatever he knew a year ago is just not valuable anymore.

It's not as valuable.

And so that solves the problem.

Now, it doesn't always solve every problem because you do have like a confidentiality agreement about IP because like there's some stuff that

has value longer term.

Like if you really know how like Chain Street systems work, there's some chance that two years from now, you could sell that to someone and it would be valuable to them, right?

So Jane Street does not have non-competes, but they have confidentiality agreements that say you can't use what you learn here somewhere else.

You know, they say in the complaint, like, well, it's typical for people to take some time off between firms.

This guy didn't.

It's like, it's not typical.

It's not like people just feel like taking some time off.

Although sometimes they do.

Yeah.

I would, but a lot of people don't.

It's typical because usually firms have non-competes that require them to take time off.

Yeah.

And he didn't.

And so the impression from the complaint is that he had a real time-sensitive trade.

And he's like, I got to start the next day to make as much money as I can from this trade.

And that's what he did.

Allegedly.

I don't know.

I think it's interesting because like the non-compete is a really good solution because like it's clear.

You know that whatever the time period is, so let's say it's a year, you know you can't go work for a competing firm for a year.

And then after that, you can.

What's interesting here is Jane Street is arguing that these guys stole their intellectual property.

As of today, Thursday, we don't have Millennium's response, but I assume their response will be something like, no, we didn't.

We didn't steal their intellectual property.

But there's like this wide overlap where if you work at a financial firm doing closed-end fund arbitrage, and then you leave and you go to another financial firm and you're like, I'm going to do closed-end fund arbitrage.

I'm going to find closed-end funds with huge discounts.

Right.

You're not going to like forget everything you learned at the first firm, right?

Like there's some amount of just like general skills and knowledge building and just like market experience that everyone understands is portable and goes with you.

Like if you like download the code from your first firm, like that's bad, right?

But a lot of stuff, it's like the general experiences that you have at one firm are going to inform what you do at the next firm.

And it's, I think, sort of hard to tease out which is which sometimes, which is why gardening leave is such a good solution, because it's like, you do nothing for a year, and then after that, it's like, we don't have to worry about it.

Here, like, Jane Street makes it sound like this is a very complicated, very counterintuitive and weird trade that, like, is their secret sauce.

But what if it's just like noticing that the prices of some options are like too low and like clicking on them, right?

Like, then, like, it's kind of weird to say, like, you have to forget that you notice that when you move to another firm.

My heart heart always hurts when I'm in a conversation about gardening leave because I've never been on gardening leave.

I will never be on gardening leave.

It sounds idyllic.

When I left investment banking for Dealbreaker, the great Wall Street comedy blog,

I had, I want to say, three months of gardening leave.

Sounds great.

What did you do?

I sat on my couch being terrified.

I regret it so much.

I really wasted my gardening leave because I was like, I have made this huge career change.

I'm getting paid so much less money.

This is around the time that Goldman had that programmer who stole code.

They had him prosecuted for stealing code and he went to jail for a while.

And so I spent some of my time thinking Goldman's going to kill me.

Eventually, like my last week of gardening leave, I talked to a Goldman PR person.

He's like, no, this is great.

We're excited for you.

I was so worried.

But in any case, I spent my gardening leave being nervous and not partying.

Oh, I hate that.

Yeah.

Yeah.

It's really a shame.

I did get to experience gardening leave once, but I didn't get to really enjoy it.

Gardening Leave.

Wasn't that great?

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 easy cater 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.

Take a big sip of water.

Let's get into Hunter Brook.

This is a meaty one.

Hunter Brook.

It's a hedge fund.

That's a newspaper.

That's also a newspaper.

Yeah.

This is something that you and I have talked about a lot.

Yes.

In our private conversations.

In our private conversations.

Maybe explain what Hunter Brook is.

And we're pronouncing it with vowels.

Yes.

The thing is called Hunterbrook.

Their website is Hunterbrook.

That's H-N-T-R-B-R-K.

Hunterbrook is...

I don't know how to describe it.

I say it's a hedge fund that's also a newspaper.

Sometimes I think it's a activist short hedge fund that is very good at getting me to pay pay attention to it.

Yeah.

I don't know if I've seen it anywhere else, but

maybe I'm just not looking at the reports.

No, Henderbrick is a media organization that does like investigative reporting around the world to find interesting news,

and

it

funds its reporters by

they take their scoops and they give them to its affiliated hedge fund.

And if the hedge fund is like, this is a market-moving scoop, then they trade on it and then they publish the scoop and then the stock goes up or down or whatever it's about, the market moves.

And then the hedge fund makes money and it gives some of the money to the reporters to pay for the continued reporting.

It's not a typical journalistic business model.

True.

All journalistic business models involve some conflicts of interest.

True.

Possibly.

Maybe it involves a little bit more conflict of interest.

Yeah.

Because like

your incentive is to make your story as market moving as possible.

If you find some like bad stuff about a company and then also you find some good stuff about the company and like also it's like not that bad and like there's some mitigating factors, you're tempted to just be like,

this is the worst company in the world or this is the best company in the world because you want to move the stock price as much as possible.

Yeah.

So it is a conflict in that.

I guess the part that

feels strange to me is that the hedge fund sees it first before it's published.

That's the whole part.

I know.

There's no other part.

That's how they make money.

Well, in terms of like how they report things out, they don't talk to insiders.

They can't talk to insiders.

If you're like a regular journalist at a regular journalistic publication, you can call an insider at a company and be like, hey, is it doing fraud?

And if the insider is like, yes, it's doing fraud.

Here are some secret documents proving it.

You're like, oh my God, this is a great scoop, right?

But if you're Hunter Brook and you do that, then you're like, oh, no, this is inside information.

We can't trade on it.

So they try to stay away from inside information and rely on published sources.

So let's talk about what Hunter Brook has done so far.

They officially debuted in early April, I believe.

Their first article was on United Wholesale Mortgage.

Now they've come out with another splashy report that you wrote about.

I'm impressed, honestly, by the volume so far because there's a lot of work that goes into investigative journalism of this degree.

Also like into activist short selling.

The sort of like well-known activist short-selling funds.

You know, every so often they'll put up a short report, but it's not like a daily news meeting to figure out what's going to go on.

Hunter Brook is like somewhere in between, right?

my question when they launched was like what's it going to look like on the second day because the first day it launches the big investigation the second day is that like bumped down the new the feed so they can do like more local news and the answer is no it kind of looks like a short seller's website where it's like that big report is on top for for a week or so but now it looks a little bit more like a news organization where like they've had two like big stories in the sense of like kind of short investigations this week, but there's like a spin-off story for one of them.

It's like, there's like a lot of stuff.

So one of the stories this week was like an oil company that like has been telling investors it's going to reopen a drilling platform and Hunter Brook thinks they're not.

And it's just like a very straightforward, kind of small, short bet.

It's like, this company is going to have like a little bit worse news than the market expects.

So they traded on that.

I don't know.

That almost feels like something like a hedge fund analyst would come up with and trade on and not bother to publish because it's just not that interesting a news story.

Right.

But the other one they had was about Posca, the big Korean like steel company and conglomerate doing a lot of work with very unpleasant military junta in Myanmar.

And that one they didn't trade on.

Yeah.

They said, they did this big investigation and they said, we're not trading on this.

And I was curious why.

And I think the two leading answers are, one, that it might not be that market moving, which is like, you can think of that as being like a depressing story of like complicity in human rights abuses actually doesn't matter to shareholders.

Cold embrace of capitalism.

Or you can be like, you know, one reader emailed me to be like, Posca's involvement in Myanmar has actually been known for a long time.

It's like been on an ESG exclusion list.

It might not be market-moving because it's news to you.

It's news to many people.

It's news to many of your general interest readers, but it may not be news to the market.

Right.

The other explanation for why they didn't short Posco that I find much funnier is that South Korea has banned short selling.

That sounds

maybe like the winner there.

It could honestly be either because it's not like it's hugely market-moving news.

I don't know.

It just seems like a hard business.

Journalism?

Yes.

It's bone-crushingly hard.

But also, short-selling is super hard too, especially in this market.

But also, there's the question of like, even if you are right, your thesis is right,

there's no guarantee that the stock is going to do what you think it's going to do.

And I think that's happened to a lot of short sellers in recent history.

People hate short sellers.

Yeah.

Is part of it.

And in particular, like when you talk about recent history, like since like the meme stock era, if it gets out that you are short a stock, that stock could go to the moon just because people are mad at you.

To the point that like some number of activist shortsellers have gotten out of the business or said they'd get out of the business.

They just have gone underground.

Gone underground.

Because, like, it used to be that if you found a company that you thought was a fraud and you published a report saying it's a fraud, people would read it.

And if you were right and convincing, then the stock would go down.

Now, if you think a company is a fraud and you publish that report, people on Reddit might say, we have to make that stock go up to punish the evil short seller.

So it's just not as worth it.

One possible advantage of the hunter-brick business model is like

to the extent they convince people that they're a media company and not a short seller, you like somewhat avoid that

instead of being like, oh, this hedge fund is shorting this stock, let's make it go up.

You're like, oh, they've published, this media company published a report about human rights abuses.

That's bad, right?

Like, there's some chance of you getting a little bit more of a sympathetic audience.

Well, we'll see if they do take a shot at a stock that has any.

It would be amazing if they were like, GameStop, not a very good company.

I was going to say, like, if they come after a company that has any chance of becoming a meme stock, like I think about United Wholesale Mortgage, I don't even think Wall Street Pets could get excited about that one, it just doesn't have that curb appeal.

That's right.

The oil company they went after this week is interesting just because it's like a $600 million market cap.

Like, you're now playing in territory where, like, Wall Street Bets can have some fun.

Do you want to talk about Elon Musk for?

And that is 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 BOOM!

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 Andam.

Our theme music was composed by Blake Maples.

Brendan Francis Newnham is our executive producer.

And Sage Bauman is Bloomberg's head of podcast.

Thanks for listening to the Money Stuff Podcast.

We'll be back next week with more.

Hi, I'm Lisa Mateo, introducing you to the new Stock Movers Report from Bloomberg.

These are short audio reports, five minutes or less, delivered right to your podcast feed throughout the day.

Stock Movers fills you in on the day's winners and losers on Wall Street and tells you about the news and data that's driving those gains and losses.

If you want to stay plugged into the stock market but don't want to spend all day watching tickers scroll across your screen, then Stock Movers is a place for you to get informed.

Listen a couple times throughout the day to find out what's moving equities and why.

Search for stock movers on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or anywhere else you listen.

Get the latest stock news and data backed by reporting from Bloomberg's 3,000 journalists and analysts across the globe.

Subscribe to Stock Movers wherever you get your podcasts.

Cozy up with fragrance that feels like fall and smells unforgettable.

Pura's smart, app-controlled diffusers pair with premium scents from brands like Nest New York, Capri Blue, Anthropologie, and more.

Whether you're craving spiced pumpkin, warm amber, or nostalgic woody notes, there's a scent to match every mood in every space.

Discover why Pura is the go-to for premium home fragrance.

Start your fall refresh now at Pura.com.