A Wounded Lion or a Beaten Mule: HF, TSLA, FOTSBA

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.

Introducing the all-new Adobe Acrobat Studio now with AI-powered PDF spaces.

Do more with PDFs than you ever thought possible.

Need AI to turn a hundred pages of market research into five insights with a click?

Do that with Acrobat.

Need templates for a sales proposal that'll close that deal?

Do that with Acrobat.

Need an AI specialist to tailor the tone of your market report to sound real smart in real time?

Do that with the all-new Adobe Acrobat Studio.

Learn more at adobe.com/slash do that with Acrobat.

Every business has an ambition.

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

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

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

Grow today at PayPalOpen.com.

Loan subject to approval in available locations.

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.

Katie, you know what my main career career aspiration is?

Tell me.

It's to lose a billion dollars

and come out better for it.

Well, you can't not.

Yeah, in this environment.

Well, it's not the best possible career move, but up there, surprisingly high up there on the list of career moves that you can make is losing a billion dollars if you're a hedge fund trader or a bank trader.

Because, like, there's just got to be something special about you to lose a billion dollars.

Well, you know what I always say?

No.

A wounded lion is still a lion.

so bloomberg's nishan kumar has a great story about how hedge fund traders who lose money are in high demand and hopping among multi-strategy hedge funds and it does feature a quote from a hedge fund recruiter named jason kennedy who says even a wounded lion is still a lion and the lion isn't mortally wounded he will heal and when he's fully back that lion is worth a lot more money.

I do love that like by the end of the metaphor he's like also there's money.

He's like wait wait, let me tie this back into what we're talking about.

That's an incredible quote.

Sometimes you read an article and you come across a passage that just makes you pause.

That was this for me.

I would definitely rather be a wounded lion than a beaten mule, which is a callback to our mailbag episode.

I'm the title of our episode.

Jason Kennedy has a very optimistic take on this that the lion will heal.

Sometimes lions do get wounded and then they just die or they're never the same.

I grew up in sort of an efficient markets world.

I find it fascinating

how confident people are that they can identify investing skill.

Clearly, people believe it and like they have good reason to believe it, right?

These are like large, successful firms that for many years produced good returns.

But it's fascinating to me that you can be like, wow, this guy who lost a billion dollars, he's great.

He's so skilled.

You know, we'll get him on the downswing.

Get him at a discount?

Yeah, we'll get him at a discount and he'll be great, right?

Yeah.

As opposed to like, the regime has changed or he was lucky before or something and now he's not a wounded lion he's just a guy who loses money he's a gazelle so there's a lot of recent examples of this happening basically these battered former stars getting picked up perhaps at a discount i was struggling to find a success story it felt like this article named a lot of bad examples or how this could go wrong i wonder if this ever works out it's weird like you probably don't hear about the ones that work out because like they're not going around bragging about how they lost a lot of money at their previous firms.

They're back to just being lions.

They're back to just being lions.

But

right.

The other thing is that this has always been a thing that happens.

Yeah.

It is definitely there's been an uptick in it recently just because there's been such a talent war among the big multi-strategy hedge funds.

And so there are all these people on very large compensation packages that are moving around between these firms.

And if you run these firms, the people you can

pick off from your competitors are often the people who have lost money.

That's partly because, like, they're out of favor or whatever.

Some of them have potentially been fired, right?

Because, like, traditionally, these firms, if you have a big drawdown, you get fired.

Although the article mentions some of these people are stars who that doesn't happen to.

They have a big drawdown, and it's like, oh, it's okay.

You can stay here, but they get picked off anyway.

The other reason they're attractive is because they have to leave.

If you lose money,

even if you don't get fired, you're now like below your high watermark.

And so you have to earn back all the money you lost before you can get a big bonus again, you know, more or less, traditionally.

And so if that's the case, it's very tempting to quit and start at a new firm where your high watermark is reset back to zero.

Yeah, you're not in the penalty box.

Yeah.

And, you know, the article points out that it's not great for investors, like particularly if you're in multiple firms, like, and people are just moving around to like reset their high water marks.

Like, you're not getting the benefit of the high watermark.

That's true.

To that point, there was a quote from a woman who now is a performance coach.

She used to be the ex-head of a Georgia Bank unit that linked investors with hedge funds, saying that after a bad year, the pitch is simple.

Check, clean slate, chill.

And let's be honest, some of these steals are the definition of an offer you can't refuse.

So it makes sense psychologically.

Yeah.

I wonder about chill, right?

Like, what are your incentives at your new firm?

On the one hand, you want to prove that

You still got it.

You're still lying.

On the other hand, one thing the article points out is: like, you get one of these,

you can't continually lose a billion dollars.

So, if you lose a billion dollars, it's like you did great.

You like took a lot of risk, you've learned from your mistakes, you move on, you go to a new firm, it's great, but you lose it again, then you're done.

So, like, you have incentives to be more conservative at your new firm.

Well, to that point, we already have an example.

There is this man, his name is Rob Banham.

He was at point 72, then he moved to Citadel.

He's already been let go after making tens of millions of dollars of more losses.

So I guess he found his second strike.

Right.

Again.

This is not what people assume, but it is possible that you've lost a lot of money because you're really talented at losing money.

Yeah.

But no, I love the like hedge fund compensation structure of like, like, I think a lot of people would like.

to be able to find a system where if you lose money, that's your problem.

Right.

Not so much in multi-strategy funds, but I've said about this before with like single-manager hedge funds, where if they lose a lot of money for their investors and they're below their high water mark, they will shut down the fund and spend like six months doing penance on a beach.

And then they'll like start a new fund with a new name.

And the investors will be like, what the hell?

You got to earn back your high water mark.

And every so often, people will be like, I'm going to indenture myself for years to my old investors and just earn back every penny of my high water mark and

conflation.

Right.

like people do that, but not everyone does that.

I think limited partners would love to have some incentive structure, some comp structure, some contract where

they could make the losses fully the hedge fund manager's problem, but it's hard to do.

It's hard to do.

No one's quite cracked at the code.

The other thing I should point out is after I wrote about this, I learned of a paper by Maury El-Saifi Duke called Hedge Fund Incentives, Risk Taking and Asset Prices.

What I wrote about is like the hedge fund managers, including at multi-thread firms, have like incentives to optimize their bonus and their high watermark.

So what that means is like if it's getting to be the end of the year and you're up a lot, you like

chill because you don't want to lose all the gains you've made because those gains provide your bonus, right?

If you're down a little bit, you have a lot of incentive to take big risks because if you're down a little bit or flat, you don't get a big bonus.

But if you're up a lot, you get a big bonus.

And if you're down a lot, you don't do any worse than if you're down a little bit.

So you might as well take big risks.

And what I'll say Safi finds is that one, that's true.

And two, you can see it in asset prices where like basically more high beta, more volatile stocks go up when a lot of hedge funds are below their high watermark because they're gambling on redemption.

And so like you actually see stock prices react to the year-end bonus structures of hedge fund managers.

Man.

I'm going to borrow this paper for when I'm on television at the end of the year and things are going bananas.

I'm just going to say, well, I guess a lot of hedge funds.

Yeah.

Anything that happens at the end of the year is like probably someone

optimizing their bonus.

I use it all the time, month-end, quarter-end.

It's like, well, looks like things are just weird today.

Can't explain this tick and this stock, but right.

I think that, as we've said on this podcast, the market is a conversation among poor hedge funds.

I'm like, you know, if they need their bonus, that's what happens.

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.

Introducing the all-new Adobe Acrobat Studio now with AI-powered PDF spaces.

Do more with PDFs than you ever thought possible.

Need AI to turn 100 pages of market research into five insights with a click?

Do that with Acrobat.

Need templates for a sales proposal that'll close that deal?

Do that with Acrobat.

Need an AI specialist to tailor the tone of your market report to sound real smart in real time?

Do that with the all-new Adobe Acrobat Studio.

Learn more at adobe.com/slash do that with Acrobat.

It is time to talk about Elon Musk.

It's been, what?

At least a week.

At least a single week.

Has it only been one week?

Anyway, yeah, Elon Musk is back in the news this week.

Yeah.

Well, actually, last Friday.

Last Friday.

Yeah.

You famously don't publish on Fridays.

Oh,

I'm busy crafting an email for this.

That's true.

Yeah.

It takes hours.

So Elon Musk, $1 trillion.

I really don't like this framing.

Everyone says this.

Everyone does.

Elon Musk is the CEO of Tesla and the techno-king of Tesla.

He's also controversially, let's say he's the founder of Tesla.

That is a controversial statement.

He didn't found Tesla, but he's the founder of Tesla.

Right, for sure.

For theoretical purposes, he's the founder of Tesla.

And so like many founder CEOs, he's a big shareholder in Tesla.

And depends how you count because of like the weird option stuff, but he owns like 12 to 20% of Tesla.

It's not enough.

It's not enough, but it's a lot, right?

And you look at a lot of these big tech companies that are run by their more or less founders.

They don't get huge compensation packages.

And they don't get huge compensation packages because it's just assumed that they profit from the upside in the company by owning a lot of the company.

So Jeff Bezos ran Amazon, Mark Zuckerberg runs Meta.

These people don't get paid hundreds of billions of dollars.

They just own hundreds of billions of dollars of stock.

And when they do good stuff, the stock goes up.

And so, anyway, Elon Musk is not like that for reasons.

And he instead gets huge compensation packages.

And the board or Tesla just asked shareholders to vote on a new comp package

that targets growing Tesla from today about a trillion-dollar company into a $8.5 trillion company.

Which is two NVIDIAs.

Two NVIDIAs.

Yeah, right.

More or less.

Two NVIDIAs now.

Yeah.

Who knows what in 10 years that'll be.

But if he succeeds in growing Tesla to an $8.5 trillion company, they will give him a trillion dollars worth of stock which is great but like also he will have a trillion dollars worth of stock anyway like he already owns a lot of stock and if he 8.5 times the company then the stock will be worth a trillion dollars so like it's not like they sat down and thought if we give elon musk a trillion dollars he will turn this into an 8.5 trillion dollar company it's like if we give him another trillion dollars on top of the trillion dollars he'd already get for that then i'll turn it into an 8.5 trillion dollar company

it's not a trillion.

It's like whatever.

If he does this, he would have a trillion dollars anyway, because he's a big shareholder.

This is all in the shadow of like, he had this comp package that a Delaware court strike down.

And like the judge at the time wrote, like,

the board

did not analyze

whether it was necessary to give him all of this, given that he's a huge shareholder anyway.

And like the comp set, the Zuckerbergs of the world, don't get, you know, trillion-dollar payback.

Just they benefit from their share ownership.

Once again, the board does not think that Elon Musk gets much incentive effect from the shares he already owns.

They're just like he needs more shares.

And it's like clearly not true that he is being incentivized by a trillion dollars.

What's happening here is that Elon Musk wants to own 25% of the company.

And so the board is like, how do we get him 25% of the company?

And they just give him 25% of the company.

They'd be like, well, if we don't give him 25% of the company, he'd quit.

So here it is.

But that looks really bad.

Even to a Texas court, that would look bad.

So what they're doing is they're saying, oh, we have these super ambitious performance goals.

And if he meets these goals, then we'll give him a trillion dollars.

It's probably a reasonable solution.

But it's so like he's owned 25% of Tesla.

Then he's sold down to buy Twitter and stuff.

It's very strange that he just, he thinks he deserves to perpetually own 25% of Tesla.

And the board is like, well, you have to give it to him.

Well,

people have tried to stop him.

From what?

From owning that much.

Or, I don't know.

You think about the 2018 experience.

Yeah, right.

I think that, you know, Elon Musk says the funniest outcome is the most likely.

Like, you could sue

Texas to stop this.

Everyone assumes you would lose, but no one really knows.

That's true.

I am really.

What if someone sued and won?

Wouldn't that be funny?

That wouldn't be funny.

Maybe not the funniest thing, though, so it probably won't happen.

He'd be so mad, though.

I think it'd be pretty funny, but whatever.

Yeah, okay.

I am curious to see what happens over the next decade, obviously, because $8.5 trillion.

I mean, you think about the incentive structure that was put in place the first time around.

That was very ambitious as well.

And he did it.

When he got his 2018 package, like the idea of making Tesla a trillion-dollar company, which is not exactly the target, but like, which he did, would have seemed kind of absurd.

And then he did it in fairly short order.

Yeah.

I don't know.

A decade's a long time.

One of the things that you mentioned in your column is that Elon Musk, the world's richest man, that briefly became not true this week.

That's right.

Larry Ellison briefly became the world's richest man.

Now they're, I don't know, I think like a billion dollars separates them at this exact moment.

But you think about the future, I think the fact one or both of them is like watching the chart as the lines cross.

I would like to think that both of them are.

But in any case, obviously Oracle had insane earnings and had an insane outlook.

Right, like flattish earnings and an insane outlook.

But yeah.

Well, it's mostly the outlook.

Yeah.

And you think about the billings growth and whatever and where the future is going to go, it really just underscored why Elon wants to turn Tesla into an AI company.

Because, okay, maybe EVs still are the future.

They don't feel as immediately the future as AI is right now.

Oh, yeah, right.

I mean,

you can point to your billings, your potential future sales as an AI company to your $300 billion worth of contracts that you signed with OpenAI.

And

it's sort of worth that much in market cup.

Right.

That's why Elon Musk is turning his focus to AI.

And it's also why

Tesla needs to pay up to keep him, right?

Because there are more obvious AI players like his AI company.

Also in the Tesla proxy,

there's a shareholder proposal to invest in XAI.

And it's funny because like there's some business rationale for Tesla to invest in XAI, AI companies.

Put the chatbot on the dashboard, which they've done, I think.

Talk to your car.

Yeah.

But so like, there's some business case.

There's a very big like Elon Musk personal business case, which is that Tesla is not the most obvious AI company, right?

It's not going to capture the public imagination the way like Oracle is.

Yeah.

But then like XAI, which is a more obvious AI play, AI plays are very expensive and it needs money and Tesla has money.

So like it does make sense for Elon Musk to like merge them or like take some Tesla money and give it to XAI or whatever.

But even in the current situation, even in Texas, it does seem a little hard for Tesla to just decide on the CEO's whim to invest billions of dollars in the CEO's other company.

But if the shareholders ask for it,

and then it's funny because someone tweeted about it, and Elon Musk was like, it's not up to me.

The shareholders have to ask for it.

And so some shareholder duly went and proposed.

Me, Elon, I'll do it.

Exactly.

And then

the shareholders were overwhelmingly voting in favor of it.

And then the voter was like, oh, did they give shareholders what they want?

Well, we're going to give Elon his money, and then someone will negotiate it.

It's not how one normally runs a company, but it's like it's happening.

It's how Elon Musk runs a company.

Hey,

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

But with Easy Cater, you get a single workplace food vendor with the tools and resources to make it easy, giving teams across your organization an easy way to order from a huge variety of restaurants, all on one platform, all while consolidating your corporate food spend so you can control costs, streamline billing and payment, and simplify reporting.

EasyCater, your business tool for food.

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

Introducing the all-new Adobe Acrobat Studio, now with AI-powered PDF spaces, do more with PDFs than you ever thought possible.

Need AI to turn 100 pages of market research into five insights with a click?

Do that with Acrobat.

Need templates for a sales proposal that'll close that deal?

Do that with Acrobat.

Need an AI specialist to tailor the tone of your market report to sound real smart in real time?

Do that with the all-new Adobe Acrobat Studio.

Learn more at adobe.com/slash do that with Acrobat.

Every business has an ambition.

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

And your customers can pay all the ways they want with PayPal, Venmo, Pay Later, and all major cards.

So you can focus on scaling up.

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

Grow today at paypalopen.com.

Loan subject to approval in available locations.

All right.

Eric Adams.

Thank you to friend of the show Bill Ackman, the actual Bill Ackman, for teeing us up for this titillating conversation.

Friend of the show, Bill Ackman, went on Twitter to try to persuade Eric Adams to drop out of the New York City mayoral race, which is a, for our purposes, let's say, three-way race between Zaran Mamdani, who's, you know.

Fan favorite.

Oddlots guest.

Betting market favorite, polling favorite, Zoran Mandani.

And then there's Andrew Cuomo, who's

Bill Ackman favorite.

Yep.

And

then there's Eric Adams, who's the current mayor and seems to have no shot.

But so like a prediction market, the polymarket has Zoran at like 80% odds, Cuomo at like 18%,

and then like, you know, Adams like 1 or 2% or something like that.

And so Bill Ackman went on Twitter to be like, Ari Adams drop out.

Because Mdani seems to have a plurality.

And so like if everyone else drops out, then like maybe Cuomo consolidates enough support to win.

And so if Eric Adams drops out, that like really materially improves Cuomo's chances.

And so Ackman went on Twitter to be like, Eric Adams drop out.

But he also said,

and to fund your future, you could place a large bet on Andrew Cuomo and then announce your withdrawal from the race.

There is no insider trading on Polymarket.

What a crazy thing to say.

I mean, God bless.

He's not even wrong.

He's wrong in the sense that he says you could place a large bet on Andrew Cuomo.

I don't think that's true.

I don't think the the liquidity in these markets is enough.

One thing we know about Eric Adams is that he enjoys luxury plane trips to Turkey.

Yes.

I don't think he could make a ton of money betting on endrachroma.

But yeah, some liquidity.

But as a general proposition,

is this a thing that will become

popular in politics, which is betting against yourself and then dropping out of the race?

Yeah.

I would like to see that world, that future actualized.

I think it would be funny.

And it would provide a lot of fodder for this podcast.

Oh, yeah.

Oh, yeah.

Right.

I mean, because traditionally you're not, you're not supposed to pay people to drop out of political races.

Seems a little icky.

Seems a little bribey, right?

Yeah.

But then, like, the prediction markets are sort of like a distributed way to pay you for dropping out of your race.

And I mean, and it's insider trading.

It's great.

And Bill Ackman didn't say, I will be on the other side of this trade.

So that was good.

Right.

I mean, one thing I wrote about this is that there's not a ton of liquidity.

Eric Adams couldn't make a ton of money by doing this unless someone were to step in and be on the other side of the trade.

Right.

Which, again, he didn't offer, but like would have been, you know, would be the logical next step.

But then the other question is, is he right about there being no insider trading?

And nobody really knows.

Yeah.

It's like.

Don't know until you try.

Or for years afterwards.

So by the way.

Another independent reason that Eric Adams couldn't do that is because, and no one believes this, it's still illegal to trade on polymarket if you're a U.S.

person.

Like, Polymarket is not available in the U.S.

No one ever talks about that.

No one ever talks about it.

They used to chuckle about it.

Be like, oh, you can't, you know, like, Polymark is like advertising all over New York, and everyone's like, oh, you can't trade on Polymarket in the U.S., but like everyone did.

If you go to their website now, they're like, Polymarket is coming home.

The website actually has a little eagle on it.

It's so good.

If you click it, it screens.

It's so good.

No, it's like, it's just like, you know, it looks like

it looks like a Trump son designed it.

But anyway, Polymarket is coming home.

Polymarket will soon be available for U.S.

traders, says the website, right?

But it's not now, right?

So

you can't do it.

But so, right now, like, if you want to trade prediction markets in the U.S., you can trade on Calci,

which you talk about all the time because you can predict sporting events on Calci.

And Calci has insider trading rules, quite strict insider trading rules.

So you can't trade if you have material non-public information or if you can influence the outcome of the event.

Polymarket's rules are less clear.

And I imagine that when Polymarket is available in the U.S.,

it will

look more like

real commodities exchanges, which don't say you can't trade on material non-public information,

because that's not how commodities markets work.

I quoted Carolyn Phamm, who's the acting commissioner of the CFTC.

Right.

You talked about the special characteristics of the derivatives markets where end users necessarily trade on the basis of their own proprietary information in order to hedge their risks.

If you're an oil company trading oil futures, you know something about oil production that other people don't know.

You're totally allowed to trade it.

So in U.S.

regulated commodities markets, you're not allowed to trade with misappropriated information.

So if you work at an oil company and you trade for your personal account based on the oil company's production plans, that's probably insider trading.

That's probably not allowed because you're misappropriating that information.

You have some duty to keep that confidential.

Right.

But like the oil company itself can trade commodities.

And if you like read that through to election markets, which are not commodities, none of this makes any sense in election markets, but they are treated as commodities.

If you read it through to election markets, then it's like, well, if Eric Adams' campaign manager placed an insider bet, that would be bad.

It would be misappropriation.

For sure.

If Eric Adams does it himself,

maybe it's fine.

So I really don't know.

I really don't know what the sort of like future rules around insider trading prediction markets will be.

Because like

there are a lot of people, including like

Kelchie and the people who got Kelshi to be a regulated US derivatives exchange there are a lot of people who are like that's icky and unfair and we do not want to have the trouble that would come with allowing insider trading right but there are a lot of people who are like the whole point of prediction markets is insider trading right the whole point of prediction markets is to get accurate predictions by like incentivizing insiders to bet on stuff they know Like that's like when economists set up prediction markets like that's the whole point.

Yeah.

And so Kelchie has spent years trying to become a regulated exchange and like

wanted to appeal to conservative regulators.

We don't live at a time where people are that concerned about insider trading anymore, so I think they don't really know what's going to happen.

You could build a case that Eric Adams did listen to Bill Ackman, which I find tickling about this story.

He hasn't dropped out yet, right?

He hasn't dropped out yet, but this is Thursday.

On September 11th.

Yes.

On September 5th, Eric Adams had a press conference.

I believe that was Friday.

He He said that he's staying in New York City's mayoral race.

He also said that Andrew Cuomo is a snake and a liar.

That's a direct quote.

So on Friday of last week, he was very committed to staying in.

September 6th is when we got the Bill Ackman tweet, which was awesome.

And then today,

on Thursday, the 11th of September, Bloomberg News reported

that New York City Mayor Eric Adams did tell a group of civic and business leaders that he's conducting his own polling to decide the future of his re-election campaign.

This is according to people who attended the meeting.

So he's at least thinking about it.

He's still.

He's not going to make any money on it.

Like, that's like.

I just love the money.

As a political matter, Bill Eckman would like him to drop out.

As a financial matter, Billy Eckman's like, you can make a lot of money by dropping out.

I don't think it's true, but it would be funnier if it was true.

Maybe he's thinking about it.

Who knows?

I'm not, you know.

Are you buying Ender Chromo contracts?

I'm certainly not.

Should I be?

I don't know if we can, man.

Step away from the mic first.

No, as I said, I don't think there's a lot of money to be made at it, and there's a lot of unpleasantness around it.

But maybe.

It looks like the market is discounting this, right?

Like, the market is aware of Bill Akron's tweets.

That's true.

Adam's at like 3%, right?

I wonder if Cuomo's chances would go up that much if Adams jumped out.

I don't know.

We'll see.

I was going to say, we've still got a long way to go, but there's not that much longer.

Time marches

on.

All right.

Well, we've collectively sighed, so I think that's the end.

That's the final sigh.

Yeah.

And that was the Money Stuff Podcast.

I'm Matt Levine.

And I'm Katie Greifeld.

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

And you can find me on Bloomberg TV every day on the close between 3 and 5 p.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 the 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 Rosa Zanda.

Our theme music was composed by Blake Maples.

Amy Keen 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.

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.

Top Reasons Data Nerds Want to Move to Ohio.

High-paying careers for business researchers, analysts, project managers, and more.

So many jobs, you can take your pick.

What else does the data say?

How about a bigger backyard, a shorter commute, and a paycheck that goes further?

So crunch the numbers and our world-famous pickles.

It all adds up.

The career you want and a life you'll love.

Have it all in the heart of it all.

Dive into the data at callohiohome.com.

I already love same-day delivery with shipped, but it's so much better since I 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.