January 3, 2025 • 28 mins
Katie and Matt answer reader questions about their paths into the world of finance, goth closing bell ceremonies, government insider trading, buying shares of other people's houses, "body language," the maximum number of ETFs and Martha Stewart.
Become a Bloomberg.com subscriber using our special intro offer at bloomberg.com/podcastoffer. You’ll unlock deep reporting, data and analysis from reporters around the world, plus access to a suite of subscriber-only newsletters.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Hello and welcome to the Money Stuff Podcast. You're a
weekly podcast where we talk about stuff related to money.
I'm Matt Levine and I write the Money Stuff column
for Bloomberg Opinion.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
And I'm Katie Greifeld, a reporter for Bloomberg News and
an anchor for Bloomberg Television.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Happy New Year, Katie, Happy.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
New Year, Matt Levine, twenty twenty five. It's going to
be great when we're recording.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
Great already. Yeah, and can you believe the news and
financial markets?
Speaker 1 (00:37):
Jeez, Louise, it's amazing to see what's already happens in
these first few seconds. Honestly, of twenty twenty five.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
It's been it's been a while. I wouldn't miss it.
We're recording this on my December ninetheen.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
It is December nineteenth. It is three oh two pm.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
So we have powerful skills of pronuncication. What are you
talking about today or in the future, Katie.
Speaker 1 (00:57):
Mail bag, let's dive right in. This is a question
from Mitch. Mitch wants to know how we were each
introduced to the world of finance. And I appreciate Mitch
because we both wanted questions about ourselves and we'll get
to some like more substantive questions. But what a nice
(01:17):
first question of twenty twenty five, Matt, how are you
introduced to the world of finance?
Speaker 2 (01:22):
I don't know. I have like two answers. So I
was a classics manager in college. I was like the
most unworldly person, Like I did not do job interviewing
my senior year of college and I graduated. I was like,
oh my god, I need a job. I did. I
interviewed her like one kind of job, which is McKenzie
like sent me a letter being like you should interview
at McKenzie And so I did you know, the like
on campus first try and interview at mckensey. But of course,
(01:43):
like I wasn't prepared and I was terrible. So I
had like an incredibly unworldly college experience. And then I
actually taught high school a lotin for a year after.
Speaker 1 (01:50):
I love that.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
It was great. It was really fun. But it turns
out that a classics manager really suits you for one thing,
which is going to law school. And so I went
to law school. Law school. I was like, I'll be
like a constitutional law professor, right, But then I went
and like con social law is kind of dumb, and
like contracts are really interesting, and so I was like
I like contracts, and so then what do you do
(02:11):
with that? Well, you go, like, you know, you have
like a summer associate job as an M and A lawyer,
because like they write contracts, why not you know, I
was getting like very unworldly. I applied to all the
law firms and I was like, I want to get
a job at these law firms. I don't know anything
about M and A. And then they all hired me
because like they don't care. And then I went and
worked in an M and A law firm. I was
like I love this, it's great. And then I, like,
you know, I went from there and I was an
(02:33):
MNI layer for a brief period and an investment banker
for a longer period.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
And so was that one answer too, because you said
there was one answer.
Speaker 2 (02:40):
Okay, that's like the sort of real, sort of direct
path answer. I will say, though, like the other answer
is that when I was like in middle school high school,
I did read Liar's Poker. I don't know why, but
I liked it. And I read The Barbarians at the Gate,
which is even more fun and wait, edit that out.
Speaker 1 (02:59):
Michael Lewis listens, Fine, you're saying nice things. Keep that in.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
I thought, this is really cool, and like there was
probably like a period in like I don't know, high school,
junior high school where I was like I want to
do high finance M and A and that totally faded
and it was not on my radar in college or whatever.
But at some point I like rediscovered it and like
I was an M and A layer. I was like,
oh yeah, I remember like liking this stuff as a kid,
(03:24):
and so there was something latent in me like that
was like I want to do finance stuff, and like
it came out of me eventually, even though I tried
to tamp it down by majoring in Greek poetry in college.
Speaker 1 (03:35):
You can't deny who you are seriously anyway.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
So what's your story?
Speaker 1 (03:40):
So I feel like it's not what people typically expect.
My dad, who's listening right now, was the CEO of
Nastac for a long time. He took over when I
was in fourth grade, and he stopped being CEO of
NASAK after I started Bloomberg, so it was a long time.
We never talked about business or finance or the market
(04:05):
or like stock exchanges. So I ended up at Bloomberg,
and I think people, especially outside sources, expected me to
know a lot more than I did, and I did not.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
I talked.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
No. I actually I went to the market side a lot.
There's pictures of me, like in my goth phase, like
at like a closing like at a closing bell ceremony
and stuff, which is really sweet. Yeah, I'll show no
one else can see it, because like it was a
pain painful, awkward phase. I talked my dad about how
I was going to answer this question, and he was like,
(04:38):
make sure they know we talked, like we did talk,
just not about anything else. My dad is one of
my closest friends. I got into this world from a
journalist first perspective, Like I was the editor of my
college newspaper, and then I went to Columbia for journalism
grad school, and then I applied for an internship at
(04:59):
Bloomberg because I was thinking where might I make the
most money as a journalist, and I was like, probably
reporting on money. And then I ended up at Bloomberg
and here I am, here you are, Yeah, but it
definitely was through writing. I consider myself a writer first,
and then a markets person, and here.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
I am a podcaster first, right.
Speaker 1 (05:20):
For sure, podcaster above all else, and then somewhere in there. Anyway,
that was a fun first question mail bag mail Bag.
Seth wants to know why doesn't the government insider trade?
And then Seth goes through his logic. The government gathers
(05:40):
and releases a lot of market moving information. This information
is worth a lot of money in theory belongs to
the American taxpayer, does it The government should establish a
department of insider Trading which gets early access to all
this information and is able to trade on it in
order to raise revenue for the government. But why would
anyone ever take the other side of the government.
Speaker 2 (06:01):
Then, Right, that's one good objection to this.
Speaker 1 (06:04):
Yeah, Like.
Speaker 2 (06:07):
One good objection to it is it wouldn't really work
that well, yeah, no, it kind of would, right, Like
if you had economic data you could buy or sell
SMP in tax funds or whatever, right, and like there's
enough of a market for that that like you could
probably sneak in some trading. Yeah, I do think the
main answer is that this is a tax, right, anything
the government does to raise revenue from people who are
(06:29):
not the government is a tax classically, like inflation is
a tax, right, Like, one way for the government to
raise revenue is to like never impose any taxes and
just print currency to pay for all of its stuff.
And the reason governments don't do that is because inflation
is also a tax, and it is a worse constructed
tax than like a progressive tax system. I think that's
(06:50):
something similar here, where it's like if you raise money
for the government by trading against counterparties, one, it's like
an unfair tax, right, like you're taking them from people,
you know, retirement savers rather than like the broad tax base.
But then too, your like undermining the capital markets to
raise these taxes, and so like you're making the overall
financial system worse to raise revenue for the government. Like
(07:12):
you can raise revenue for the government in a more
neutral way by like, you know, imposing taxes. So I
think that's true of like a lot of stuff like this.
Like there's like a well known trade in like fixed
and come arbitrage, which is like you buy off the
run treasuries which tend to trade at a slight discount
to on the run treasures, and you sell the on
the run and they eventually converge because they eventually both
become off the run. And I've often wondered, like, why
(07:33):
doesn't the government just buy all the off the runs
and like issue new on the runs to fund it,
because like they could clip that spread too. I think
it's the same kind of answer, which is, like, why
would they make that money at the expense of the
financial markets instead of just imposing broad taxes.
Speaker 1 (07:45):
Well, great questions stuff comes from Max. Why is it
so difficult for small retail investors to get diversified exposure
(08:05):
for real estate despite the fact that real estate is
such a large part of many people's assets. For example,
even as a broke college student, I can very easily
invest in a diversified collection of stocks in almost any industry.
I like, why aren't there ETFs, thank you, Max, that are,
for example, a bunch of residential properties in a particular city.
I would expect these kinds of products to be very
(08:26):
popular for homeowners to hedge their own homes and whatnot.
There's definitely some intrepid etf issuers out there that agree
with you and are working on it. Are there probably? Yeah,
not on the record about author I mean just ah, yes,
the sanctity of this small room with the micros, not
(08:49):
like particular city ETFs. But people are trying to figure
out how to fit private assets in general largely into ETFs.
Speaker 2 (08:59):
Like private assets, right, assets are one thing. Houses are differently.
Speaker 1 (09:02):
I know, there's like two.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
Answers to question. One is like, why can't I buy
a diverst fied real estate portfolio? And the other is
why can't I sell a share of my house?
Speaker 1 (09:08):
Right?
Speaker 2 (09:09):
The diverse wide real estate portfolio is a thing that
people have been working on for decades, and there didn't
used to be reats. A READ is a real estate
investment trust.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
Right.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
It's like a pool of real estate assets that you
can buy a share in. Right, And that's like a
relatively new that's like like the seventies or eighties is
relatively new technology that people developed in order to allow
retail investors on the stock exchange to buy exposure to
real estate. Now most roads are not single family homes, right.
One thing that is happening is that like single family
(09:39):
homes have become like a real investor asset class, right,
Like you know, like big asset managers now own a
lot of single family homes and rent them out to
people to live in them. And I think that doesn't
really exist in like read or ETF form yet, but
then yeah, you could spin that out like sell stakes
in your like single family home portfolio, and like, I
don't know, I'd imagine in like five years if investor
(10:01):
owned single family homes are a big deal, like someone
will have a reate of them, so that you can
buy diversified exposure to single family homes. What you can't
buy is diversified exposure to owner occupied single family homes
because the owners occupy them and so they're not selling
a stake. And like that's a thing that people have
thought about for a long time too. And like financial
(10:21):
engineers love the idea of like, okay, you own house,
you sell ten percent of your home equity to me,
and I put it in a pot and I sell
it to investors, right because like for you, you get
some form of like hedging your house pass exposure and
you get cash that is arguably not debt, has like
somewhat more attractive properties than debt perhaps, And for me,
(10:44):
I get exposure to your house and then if I
pool that with a bunch of other houses, then I've
created something like an investable fund of owner occupied homes
and like, that's a cool product. A lot of people
would like to swap where it's like, if you have
one hundred thousand dollars of equity in your house, you
would perhaps rather have fifty one thousand dollars of equity
in your house and fifty thousand dollars of like diversified
(11:04):
home equity like across the country or whatever, so that
you're not as invested in your single house. People try
that all the time. And I wrote about a company
called Point in twenty sixteen. I was doing something like this.
I think it's hard in part because, like startup founders
and money stuff podcast listeners love this idea, many normal
people may not be that interested in it, and so like,
(11:24):
you can't necessarily get a huge diversified pool of people
who are like, oh yeah, I want to like go
through the headwreich of like signing a contract to sell
ten percent of my home equity. You also have like
weird dynamics where you know, a mortgage you pay back
every month until it's paid off, home equity whatever, you know,
selling a portion of your home equity, how does the
buyer monetize it? I think the answer is like they
(11:46):
wait until you sell the house, like that could be
a long time, or it's like not an obviously cash
flowing outset if it's owner archiped real estate. And so
it's like a weirder dynamic of like how the market
would work, but people do keep trying it. And also
the other thing I should say is people try to
make derivative products. There's like a case sholl or derivative
products at some point where it's like based on some
(12:07):
like observed index and like you have futures contracts side
to the index. Because people really like the idea of
being able to buy diversify a single family home exposure.
And I feel like no one has really corracked it yet,
but people.
Speaker 1 (12:18):
Are gonna keep working on They're going to keep working on.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
The thing I always I also compare it to is
the other like form of equity that people want to
buy is like human equity, Like people want go on.
So this is like you know, college students, MBA students,
minor league baseball players, Like there are people who will
come to them and say, sell me ten percent of
your future earnings or like you know, your future earnings
(12:42):
over the next ten years or whatever, and I'll give
you a pile of cash today, and I will sell
your future earnings to some investor class And like people
do this like NBA students or like the NBA students
pool and with minor league baseball players too. You get
like ten players and you pool yourselves and then like
one of you makes it big, then he writes a
check to the other nine, and so you have like
a sort of like diverseifaication benefit.
Speaker 1 (13:02):
That's crazy. I've never heard of this.
Speaker 2 (13:04):
Oh, people love it. It's not a huge business. It's
like a thing that people are constantly per forming startups
to do because like it's a great abstract idea and
then like in practice it's like, oh it's a mass,
but like there is more progress being made on those
than on the house stuff. The house stuff seems really hard.
Speaker 1 (13:18):
Thank you for the thought provoking question, Max mail Bag
mail Bag, let's move on to Kevin. All men so far,
but we do have a woman coming up, so stay tuned.
But Kevin asks you talk a lot about how analysts
think it's worth talking to management, getting on calls, et cetera.
Even though management can't share MNPI because they think they
(13:40):
can glean something from body language that helps them evaluate
the company. Do any short sellers do the same too, Like,
what if you had a big short position and then
gain some info from management to body language that made
you rethink the short It would be good for the
company too if they were able to convince a short
seller to cover I just think it's funny to imagine
that conversation, Hey, we sold three million of your shares
in the market because we think you're bad at your jobs.
(14:02):
Could you meet with us to help us figure out
if that's still true? I love this question. I also
love to imagine, like how dramatic your body language would
have to be too?
Speaker 2 (14:12):
Sorry about that.
Speaker 1 (14:13):
I feel like we've talked about this before.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
The body language stuff in general.
Speaker 1 (14:16):
Yeah, and short sellers, well.
Speaker 2 (14:19):
The body language. I feel like body language is a euphemism. Yeah,
Because the idea is like, right, you're going to meet
with management of a company that you might invest in,
and like, you have a meeting and you walk out
of the meeting and you like learn something and you
go buy the stock or sell the stock or whatever,
and the law says that management is not allowed to
give you a material non public information that isn't already public?
Speaker 1 (14:38):
Can they wink?
Speaker 2 (14:39):
And it's like what happened in that meeting? And like,
oh if they read the body language, and it's like, no,
they like said something that like doesn't quite rise to
the level of disclosure, but like is useful to you,
and like what you know about the company and how
you like build your model and how you think about
the management. So you've you've been given like information and
like people say body language because then it's like, oh,
they didn't disclose anything. It's just the body language, right,
So I think it's a youth wasn't.
Speaker 1 (15:00):
But in any case, maybe they raised their eyebrows suggestively
when they.
Speaker 2 (15:04):
Were you know, you were like, how do I think
about this line item in the model? And they're like, oh, well,
this is everything about that's not material enough to disclose.
But it's like you've learned.
Speaker 1 (15:11):
Something, right, A smirk snuck onto nobody.
Speaker 2 (15:14):
Language is all fake, except I will say one of
my favorite stories ever is because I've been writing about
this for a long time, this idea that like management
is giving you something useful, and I couldn't possibly not
be giving you something useful. That's why they have these
meanings and there's this great paper. These like academics got
a lot of access to Aberdeen the like yeah UK
long only asset measure.
Speaker 1 (15:33):
Didn't they take the bellels out of their name.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
I think this was before they took the vowels up
and now it's Aberden. But so Aberdin or Aberdeen like
had a bunch of meanings with management, and like these
academics studied like how they learned, like what they learned,
and like how they traded, and like basically they got
useful information from these managintinings. But the academics also had
access to like their notes from the meetings. There's one
where they met with the chairman of this company and
(15:57):
the analyst came back and wrote a note that included
saying he was looking unfeasibly tanned for this time of year.
It was like in January or whatever. Yeah, and so
if you're like the chairman of this company is looking
unfeasibly tanned, yeah, that's a short, right, Like you sell
that stuck. And so they did, in fact on the
stock and it did actually turn out to be a
well time trade.
Speaker 1 (16:14):
That is so funny.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
It's the only case I know of like true body
language or body coloring being useful financial information, but anyway,
they're basically a long investor. Do short sellers meet with
management to like get talked out of their shorts? Like,
I think it probably happens. There are probably some companies,
Like I think most like activist short sellers are interested
in hearing the company's perspective before they put a lot
(16:36):
of money into betting against the company. And I think
it's a mixed bag. You know, how often they're going
to contact them, and in general, my impression is that
managements don't like short sellers and so I don't always
meet with them, But I bet it happens. You know,
It's funny, Like I feel like I'm aware of Tesla
short sellers who have like turned around and become like
huge dust the bulls, And I assume that is not
from like a friendly meeting with Elon Musk where he
(16:57):
like explains his thinking and they come away per suaded.
But like, you know, somehow they like you know, get
enough of a vibe from them that they change their minds.
But no, I think it happens. I think I think
there's like a range of things, and like you see
a lot of the noisiest short sellers and a lot
of the most anti short seller managers being very vocal
about hating each other. But I think, you know, there's
(17:18):
a wider range, and particularly like you know, a lot
of people who are short companies are like multi strategy
hedge funds who are just making relative value bets where
they don't hate the company. They're just like have to
be factor neutral or whatever. And I think a lot
of those people do in fact meet with the companies
and have kind of rational discussions and will sometimes be
long and sometimes be short, and do not put a
(17:39):
lot of like personal animals into it. On either side.
Speaker 1 (17:42):
Well, for my own amusement, I'm going to pretend that
body language is real.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
No, it's real. There's the one guy with ten Yeah,
that's true. But I think there's some amount of like
to the extent you're evaluating managements like quality. Yeah, getting
a sense of how they talk and how they look
you in the eye and shake your hand or whatever
is maybe like a little bit useful. But I think
the body lineage is super oerrated, and that's mostly they
have substance of discussions that they just all agree they
(18:08):
don't have to disclose.
Speaker 1 (18:23):
Douglas has some questions. He has some questions. We're only
going to answer one of them.
Speaker 2 (18:29):
Douglas asks, since there are more words than letters and
more sentences than words, is there any logical limit to
the number of ETFs.
Speaker 1 (18:37):
I love this question.
Speaker 2 (18:39):
Wait, I don't get it. I feel like ETFs are
limited by the number of letters, right, I mean you've
written about that.
Speaker 1 (18:44):
Tickers are, Yeah, so I don't think there's any limit
to the number of utfs. But there are limits to
tickers because a ticker, right, you need a ticker. US
exchanges have a four character limit.
Speaker 2 (18:59):
I didn't realize that.
Speaker 1 (19:01):
No, it's four. I mean there are some like weird exceptions.
The only one I can think of actually is Google,
which is g O O g L. I don't quite
know the lore behind that, so maybe, yeah, I know,
But like, why is it five and no other stock
is think about it?
Speaker 2 (19:17):
The other four character that have share classes that are five?
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (19:22):
I don't think so anyway. Anyway, Generally speaking, generally speaking,
four character limit and no numbers. And that's different than
Europe and Asia, which can have more than four characters,
and can also, at least in Asia allow numbers I
think actually Europe too also allows numbers, and I've written
(19:42):
about maybe there could be a ticker shortage when it comes,
especially to the world of leverage single stock ETFs, because
your ticker is already a derivative of an existing ticker,
and then you only have, however, many letters to work
with month three like MST. Yeah, MST something which is
(20:03):
which is difficult.
Speaker 2 (20:04):
I have asked said the micro strategy mstrs.
Speaker 1 (20:09):
Monster MicroStrategy, Nazak and II. I've asked them about it.
They've both told me they're not concerned. Currently in the
US there's like thirty nine hundred listed ETFs, which is
a lot. I am excited for the day when there's
more US listed ETFs and there are US publicly listed stocks.
We're not quite at that point, but we'll see. I
just love this question, and I love Douglas's phrasing. It
(20:31):
sounds like a riddle. Matt's textings, No, I'm.
Speaker 2 (20:35):
There are proxtimately four hundred and fifty thousand logically possible.
Speaker 1 (20:39):
Tickers something like that. Actually, when I wrote this story,
we talked through the math. Yeah, but if you knock
out two of those characters, three of those characters in
some cases, then obviously your universe shrinks dramatically because you're.
Speaker 2 (20:55):
Talking rightly, like, yeah, yeah, I feel like I've said
this on the show before. Like you could imagine a
world where like the ets become like a like universal
format for products. Right, Anyone who's like, oh, I want
to do like, you know, call options on micro strategy,
be like, oh, do an need app for it? Right?
In that world, you would need to kind of revise
the ticker system, right, Like you need to have some
(21:17):
sort of like mstr slash and then I have like
a descriptive for new characters. You need to have a
more organized system than just like pick four letters. Yeah,
but we're probably not there yet.
Speaker 1 (21:28):
But I don't know.
Speaker 2 (21:29):
Maybe in five years will there be some sort of
like more complex ticker system to accommodate those just absolute
tour endo.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
Et aps Like maybe I can't wait, I don't know,
you say four to five years, perhaps in the year
of twenty twenty five. Anything could happen this year?
Speaker 2 (21:44):
Yeah, right, it's been it's been a wild year so far.
Speaker 1 (21:48):
Mail Bag mail Bag, Kristen has a question. I'm going
to read it to you. Kristin says that my sister
in law was recently talking about the Martha Stewart documentary
out a few months ago. She was convinced that have
you seen that round? No, and now I'm gonna watch it.
Have you seen it?
Speaker 2 (22:04):
I've seen like ten minutes of it. I've not seen it.
And then Kristen has not seen it as far as
I can. So we're talking about we're like fourth hand
as the documentary. This is Kristen's sister in law.
Speaker 1 (22:15):
Yeah, Kristen's sister in law watched the documentary about Martha Stewart,
and Kristen's sister in law was convinced that everybody just
ganged up on Martha and that Martha didn't do anything
wrong because she didn't know it wasn't allowed the insider trading.
I personally, this is Kristen talking. Kristen personally has not
kept up with any of that news and has not
watched the documentary. But Kristen's instinct was that punishment for
(22:39):
insider trading doesn't require the defendant to be aware of
the insider trading rules. Was kristin correct or incorrect? I
know that's an interesting question. I mean does intent matter?
Speaker 2 (22:49):
No? I mean, like intent often matters in like market
monipulation and stuff. But yeah, in insider trading, the rules are,
first of all, you don't have to know that it's
illegal to insider trade, right.
Speaker 1 (22:59):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
In general, ignorance of the law is no excuse, right,
So if you didn't know it was illegal to insider trade,
you can't be like, oh, I thought it was fine, right.
People do that, by the way, Yeah, like you know,
now you've found on the insider trading case that I
write about, it's like they're like googling how not to
get caught insider trading, and then ten persons they're like, what,
I had no idea. But there's also like another mind
side question, which is, let's say you were going to
(23:20):
sell the stock anyway, okay, and then you got some
bad news. Can you still sell the stock? No? I
think the SEC's rule is that if you're in possession
of material on public information, that counts as selling. On
the basis of material in public information, it seemed pretty
well established, so yeah, like even if you would have
sold it anywhere, that doesn't help you. I will say
that the Martha Stewart case is more complicated than that.
(23:41):
Like Martha Stewart didn't like get an insider stock tip,
like her broker got apparently insider stock tip, and then
the broker's like, hey, I think we should sell that stock,
and she's like, sure, go ahead, And so arguably, you know,
it's a little more complicated than that. But I think,
like my impression and a lot of people's impression of
the Stewart probably wasn't really guilty of insider trading because
(24:03):
she didn't know that she was getting a material, not
public tip. She had no reason to think she was
getting an illegal tip. And iif you're broker's in charger
of account, you're not making decisions. That's a little hard
to accuse you of insider trading. What is relevant is
that she wasn't connected of insider trading. I don't think
she was charged with inside of trading.
Speaker 1 (24:18):
I haven't watched the documentary, so this is all.
Speaker 2 (24:20):
I have been either, but I'm familiar with this.
Speaker 1 (24:22):
You took a browse of no.
Speaker 2 (24:24):
I mean I used to, like honestly, like when I
started at a law firm, it was the law froom
that like represented Martha Stewart, Like I had nothing to
do with the case, and she wasn't think they weren't
her lawyers on the trail. But like we all had
a various what.
Speaker 1 (24:35):
What year did this happen? Because I was pretty young
and I wasn't really paying attention. It happened before I
got there two thousand and four.
Speaker 2 (24:44):
Oh well, so right before I got there. So she
was in charge of inside of trading. What happened is
that the insider and her broker got investigated by the SEC,
and the SEC saw that she like got a call
from the broker and then he sold her stock, and
so they went to her and they said, did you
get a hot insider tip to sell that stock? And
she said, actually, what happened is that I put in
a stop loss order saying that, like, if the stock
(25:04):
goes below sixty dollars, you should sell it. And my
broker called to say that it was below sixty dollars,
so I sold it, and that wasn't true. Apparently she
didn't have a stop loss order, and so she was
convicted of lying to the investigators, which is its own
separate crime. But like I think a lot of people
think she was kind of ill treated because she was
lying to know about something that wasn't actually a crime,
(25:26):
and so they shouldn't have been investigating here.
Speaker 1 (25:27):
So I don't know, it is wild that she served time,
like she went to prison.
Speaker 2 (25:32):
Yeah, I have not watched the documentary, but my wife
was watched a documentary and we've talked about it. It's interesting,
Like I think you think now of like Martha Stewart,
the character she is now has awesome It was awesome
and very famous. Yeah, like very beloved and like friends
with Snoop Dogg. You think about that character and like
going to prison for five months or whatever is like
(25:52):
the big part of that character, right, Like you sort
of think like her time in prison has like been
good for her brand, but if you look back at
like what actually happened, like it was a huge catastrophe
for her, Like she had a big company that like
basically like went away because she was convicted of not
insider trading and sent to prisident. So it was actually
like really a sort of quite harsh result for something that,
(26:13):
first of all, in the scheme of things, was not
that much money, Like she didn't make a huge profit
and like she probably didn't insider trade. She probably didn't
know that she was trading on inside information. Yeah, it's
her workers, like saw this time. She like, fine, but
she lied to the investigators.
Speaker 1 (26:25):
And you do a crime, question mark, you do the time.
Speaker 2 (26:31):
No. The actually cliche is the cover up is always
worse than the crime.
Speaker 1 (26:35):
Oh my god, true true here I should have said
that Martha Stewart, though, I mean an inspiring story of
rebuilding oneself. Great energy to take into twenty twenty five.
Speaker 2 (26:47):
And that was The Money Stuff Podcast.
Speaker 1 (26:49):
I'm Matt Levian and I'm Katie Greifeld.
Speaker 2 (26:51):
You can find my work by subscribing to The Money
Stuff newsletter on Bloomberg dot com, and.
Speaker 1 (26:56):
You can find me on Bloomberg TV every day on
Open Interest between nine to eleven am Eastern.
Speaker 2 (27:01):
We'd love to hear from you. You can send an
email to you Moneypod at Bloomberg dot net, ask us
a question and we might answer it on air.
Speaker 1 (27:08):
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.
Speaker 2 (27:14):
The Money Stuff Podcast is produced by Anamasarakus and Moses
on On.
Speaker 1 (27:18):
Our theme music was composed by Blake Maples.
Speaker 2 (27:20):
Brandon Francis Nudimas our executive.
Speaker 1 (27:22):
Producer and Stage Bauman is Bloomberg's head of Podcasts.
Speaker 2 (27:25):
Thanks for listening to the Money Stuff Podcast. We'll be
back next week with more stuff.
Speaker 1 (27:42):
Thanks for listening to the Money Stuff Podcast. If you
never want to miss a story, become a bloomberg dot
com subscriber today. Check out our special intro offer right
now at bloomberg dot com Slash podcast offer or click
the link in our show notes. You also unlock deep
reporting data and analysis from reporters around the world.
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Hello and welcome to the Money Stuff Podcast. You're a
weekly podcast where we talk about stuff related to money.
I'm Matt Levine and I write the Money Stuff column
for Bloomberg Opinion.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
And I'm Katie Greifeld, a reporter for Bloomberg News and
an anchor for Bloomberg Television.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Happy New Year, Katie, Happy.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
New Year, Matt Levine, twenty twenty five. It's going to
be great when we're recording.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
Great already. Yeah, and can you believe the news and
financial markets?
Speaker 1 (00:37):
Jeez, Louise, it's amazing to see what's already happens in
these first few seconds. Honestly, of twenty twenty five.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
It's been it's been a while. I wouldn't miss it.
We're recording this on my December ninetheen.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
It is December nineteenth. It is three oh two pm.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
So we have powerful skills of pronuncication. What are you
talking about today or in the future, Katie.
Speaker 1 (00:57):
Mail bag, let's dive right in. This is a question
from Mitch. Mitch wants to know how we were each
introduced to the world of finance. And I appreciate Mitch
because we both wanted questions about ourselves and we'll get
to some like more substantive questions. But what a nice
(01:17):
first question of twenty twenty five, Matt, how are you
introduced to the world of finance?
Speaker 2 (01:22):
I don't know. I have like two answers. So I
was a classics manager in college. I was like the
most unworldly person, Like I did not do job interviewing
my senior year of college and I graduated. I was like,
oh my god, I need a job. I did. I
interviewed her like one kind of job, which is McKenzie
like sent me a letter being like you should interview
at McKenzie And so I did you know, the like
on campus first try and interview at mckensey. But of course,
(01:43):
like I wasn't prepared and I was terrible. So I
had like an incredibly unworldly college experience. And then I
actually taught high school a lotin for a year after.
Speaker 1 (01:50):
I love that.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
It was great. It was really fun. But it turns
out that a classics manager really suits you for one thing,
which is going to law school. And so I went
to law school. Law school. I was like, I'll be
like a constitutional law professor, right, But then I went
and like con social law is kind of dumb, and
like contracts are really interesting, and so I was like
I like contracts, and so then what do you do
(02:11):
with that? Well, you go, like, you know, you have
like a summer associate job as an M and A lawyer,
because like they write contracts, why not you know, I
was getting like very unworldly. I applied to all the
law firms and I was like, I want to get
a job at these law firms. I don't know anything
about M and A. And then they all hired me
because like they don't care. And then I went and
worked in an M and A law firm. I was
like I love this, it's great. And then I, like,
you know, I went from there and I was an
(02:33):
MNI layer for a brief period and an investment banker
for a longer period.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
And so was that one answer too, because you said
there was one answer.
Speaker 2 (02:40):
Okay, that's like the sort of real, sort of direct
path answer. I will say, though, like the other answer
is that when I was like in middle school high school,
I did read Liar's Poker. I don't know why, but
I liked it. And I read The Barbarians at the Gate,
which is even more fun and wait, edit that out.
Speaker 1 (02:59):
Michael Lewis listens, Fine, you're saying nice things. Keep that in.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
I thought, this is really cool, and like there was
probably like a period in like I don't know, high school,
junior high school where I was like I want to
do high finance M and A and that totally faded
and it was not on my radar in college or whatever.
But at some point I like rediscovered it and like
I was an M and A layer. I was like,
oh yeah, I remember like liking this stuff as a kid,
(03:24):
and so there was something latent in me like that
was like I want to do finance stuff, and like
it came out of me eventually, even though I tried
to tamp it down by majoring in Greek poetry in college.
Speaker 1 (03:35):
You can't deny who you are seriously anyway.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
So what's your story?
Speaker 1 (03:40):
So I feel like it's not what people typically expect.
My dad, who's listening right now, was the CEO of
Nastac for a long time. He took over when I
was in fourth grade, and he stopped being CEO of
NASAK after I started Bloomberg, so it was a long time.
We never talked about business or finance or the market
(04:05):
or like stock exchanges. So I ended up at Bloomberg,
and I think people, especially outside sources, expected me to
know a lot more than I did, and I did not.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
I talked.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
No. I actually I went to the market side a lot.
There's pictures of me, like in my goth phase, like
at like a closing like at a closing bell ceremony
and stuff, which is really sweet. Yeah, I'll show no
one else can see it, because like it was a
pain painful, awkward phase. I talked my dad about how
I was going to answer this question, and he was like,
(04:38):
make sure they know we talked, like we did talk,
just not about anything else. My dad is one of
my closest friends. I got into this world from a
journalist first perspective, Like I was the editor of my
college newspaper, and then I went to Columbia for journalism
grad school, and then I applied for an internship at
(04:59):
Bloomberg because I was thinking where might I make the
most money as a journalist, and I was like, probably
reporting on money. And then I ended up at Bloomberg
and here I am, here you are, Yeah, but it
definitely was through writing. I consider myself a writer first,
and then a markets person, and here.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
I am a podcaster first, right.
Speaker 1 (05:20):
For sure, podcaster above all else, and then somewhere in there. Anyway,
that was a fun first question mail bag mail Bag.
Seth wants to know why doesn't the government insider trade?
And then Seth goes through his logic. The government gathers
(05:40):
and releases a lot of market moving information. This information
is worth a lot of money in theory belongs to
the American taxpayer, does it The government should establish a
department of insider Trading which gets early access to all
this information and is able to trade on it in
order to raise revenue for the government. But why would
anyone ever take the other side of the government.
Speaker 2 (06:01):
Then, Right, that's one good objection to this.
Speaker 1 (06:04):
Yeah, Like.
Speaker 2 (06:07):
One good objection to it is it wouldn't really work
that well, yeah, no, it kind of would, right, Like
if you had economic data you could buy or sell
SMP in tax funds or whatever, right, and like there's
enough of a market for that that like you could
probably sneak in some trading. Yeah, I do think the
main answer is that this is a tax, right, anything
the government does to raise revenue from people who are
(06:29):
not the government is a tax classically, like inflation is
a tax, right, Like, one way for the government to
raise revenue is to like never impose any taxes and
just print currency to pay for all of its stuff.
And the reason governments don't do that is because inflation
is also a tax, and it is a worse constructed
tax than like a progressive tax system. I think that's
(06:50):
something similar here, where it's like if you raise money
for the government by trading against counterparties, one, it's like
an unfair tax, right, like you're taking them from people,
you know, retirement savers rather than like the broad tax base.
But then too, your like undermining the capital markets to
raise these taxes, and so like you're making the overall
financial system worse to raise revenue for the government. Like
(07:12):
you can raise revenue for the government in a more
neutral way by like, you know, imposing taxes. So I
think that's true of like a lot of stuff like this.
Like there's like a well known trade in like fixed
and come arbitrage, which is like you buy off the
run treasuries which tend to trade at a slight discount
to on the run treasures, and you sell the on
the run and they eventually converge because they eventually both
become off the run. And I've often wondered, like, why
(07:33):
doesn't the government just buy all the off the runs
and like issue new on the runs to fund it,
because like they could clip that spread too. I think
it's the same kind of answer, which is, like, why
would they make that money at the expense of the
financial markets instead of just imposing broad taxes.
Speaker 1 (07:45):
Well, great questions stuff comes from Max. Why is it
so difficult for small retail investors to get diversified exposure
(08:05):
for real estate despite the fact that real estate is
such a large part of many people's assets. For example,
even as a broke college student, I can very easily
invest in a diversified collection of stocks in almost any industry.
I like, why aren't there ETFs, thank you, Max, that are,
for example, a bunch of residential properties in a particular city.
I would expect these kinds of products to be very
(08:26):
popular for homeowners to hedge their own homes and whatnot.
There's definitely some intrepid etf issuers out there that agree
with you and are working on it. Are there probably? Yeah,
not on the record about author I mean just ah, yes,
the sanctity of this small room with the micros, not
(08:49):
like particular city ETFs. But people are trying to figure
out how to fit private assets in general largely into ETFs.
Speaker 2 (08:59):
Like private assets, right, assets are one thing. Houses are differently.
Speaker 1 (09:02):
I know, there's like two.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
Answers to question. One is like, why can't I buy
a diverst fied real estate portfolio? And the other is
why can't I sell a share of my house?
Speaker 1 (09:08):
Right?
Speaker 2 (09:09):
The diverse wide real estate portfolio is a thing that
people have been working on for decades, and there didn't
used to be reats. A READ is a real estate
investment trust.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
Right.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
It's like a pool of real estate assets that you
can buy a share in. Right, And that's like a
relatively new that's like like the seventies or eighties is
relatively new technology that people developed in order to allow
retail investors on the stock exchange to buy exposure to
real estate. Now most roads are not single family homes, right.
One thing that is happening is that like single family
(09:39):
homes have become like a real investor asset class, right,
Like you know, like big asset managers now own a
lot of single family homes and rent them out to
people to live in them. And I think that doesn't
really exist in like read or ETF form yet, but
then yeah, you could spin that out like sell stakes
in your like single family home portfolio, and like, I
don't know, I'd imagine in like five years if investor
(10:01):
owned single family homes are a big deal, like someone
will have a reate of them, so that you can
buy diversified exposure to single family homes. What you can't
buy is diversified exposure to owner occupied single family homes
because the owners occupy them and so they're not selling
a stake. And like that's a thing that people have
thought about for a long time too. And like financial
(10:21):
engineers love the idea of like, okay, you own house,
you sell ten percent of your home equity to me,
and I put it in a pot and I sell
it to investors, right because like for you, you get
some form of like hedging your house pass exposure and
you get cash that is arguably not debt, has like
somewhat more attractive properties than debt perhaps, And for me,
(10:44):
I get exposure to your house and then if I
pool that with a bunch of other houses, then I've
created something like an investable fund of owner occupied homes
and like, that's a cool product. A lot of people
would like to swap where it's like, if you have
one hundred thousand dollars of equity in your house, you
would perhaps rather have fifty one thousand dollars of equity
in your house and fifty thousand dollars of like diversified
(11:04):
home equity like across the country or whatever, so that
you're not as invested in your single house. People try
that all the time. And I wrote about a company
called Point in twenty sixteen. I was doing something like this.
I think it's hard in part because, like startup founders
and money stuff podcast listeners love this idea, many normal
people may not be that interested in it, and so like,
(11:24):
you can't necessarily get a huge diversified pool of people
who are like, oh yeah, I want to like go
through the headwreich of like signing a contract to sell
ten percent of my home equity. You also have like
weird dynamics where you know, a mortgage you pay back
every month until it's paid off, home equity whatever, you know,
selling a portion of your home equity, how does the
buyer monetize it? I think the answer is like they
(11:46):
wait until you sell the house, like that could be
a long time, or it's like not an obviously cash
flowing outset if it's owner archiped real estate. And so
it's like a weirder dynamic of like how the market
would work, but people do keep trying it. And also
the other thing I should say is people try to
make derivative products. There's like a case sholl or derivative
products at some point where it's like based on some
(12:07):
like observed index and like you have futures contracts side
to the index. Because people really like the idea of
being able to buy diversify a single family home exposure.
And I feel like no one has really corracked it yet,
but people.
Speaker 1 (12:18):
Are gonna keep working on They're going to keep working on.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
The thing I always I also compare it to is
the other like form of equity that people want to
buy is like human equity, Like people want go on.
So this is like you know, college students, MBA students,
minor league baseball players, Like there are people who will
come to them and say, sell me ten percent of
your future earnings or like you know, your future earnings
(12:42):
over the next ten years or whatever, and I'll give
you a pile of cash today, and I will sell
your future earnings to some investor class And like people
do this like NBA students or like the NBA students
pool and with minor league baseball players too. You get
like ten players and you pool yourselves and then like
one of you makes it big, then he writes a
check to the other nine, and so you have like
a sort of like diverseifaication benefit.
Speaker 1 (13:02):
That's crazy. I've never heard of this.
Speaker 2 (13:04):
Oh, people love it. It's not a huge business. It's
like a thing that people are constantly per forming startups
to do because like it's a great abstract idea and
then like in practice it's like, oh it's a mass,
but like there is more progress being made on those
than on the house stuff. The house stuff seems really hard.
Speaker 1 (13:18):
Thank you for the thought provoking question, Max mail Bag
mail Bag, let's move on to Kevin. All men so far,
but we do have a woman coming up, so stay tuned.
But Kevin asks you talk a lot about how analysts
think it's worth talking to management, getting on calls, et cetera.
Even though management can't share MNPI because they think they
(13:40):
can glean something from body language that helps them evaluate
the company. Do any short sellers do the same too, Like,
what if you had a big short position and then
gain some info from management to body language that made
you rethink the short It would be good for the
company too if they were able to convince a short
seller to cover I just think it's funny to imagine
that conversation, Hey, we sold three million of your shares
in the market because we think you're bad at your jobs.
(14:02):
Could you meet with us to help us figure out
if that's still true? I love this question. I also
love to imagine, like how dramatic your body language would
have to be too?
Speaker 2 (14:12):
Sorry about that.
Speaker 1 (14:13):
I feel like we've talked about this before.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
The body language stuff in general.
Speaker 1 (14:16):
Yeah, and short sellers, well.
Speaker 2 (14:19):
The body language. I feel like body language is a euphemism. Yeah,
Because the idea is like, right, you're going to meet
with management of a company that you might invest in,
and like, you have a meeting and you walk out
of the meeting and you like learn something and you
go buy the stock or sell the stock or whatever,
and the law says that management is not allowed to
give you a material non public information that isn't already public?
Speaker 1 (14:38):
Can they wink?
Speaker 2 (14:39):
And it's like what happened in that meeting? And like,
oh if they read the body language, and it's like, no,
they like said something that like doesn't quite rise to
the level of disclosure, but like is useful to you,
and like what you know about the company and how
you like build your model and how you think about
the management. So you've you've been given like information and
like people say body language because then it's like, oh,
they didn't disclose anything. It's just the body language, right,
So I think it's a youth wasn't.
Speaker 1 (15:00):
But in any case, maybe they raised their eyebrows suggestively
when they.
Speaker 2 (15:04):
Were you know, you were like, how do I think
about this line item in the model? And they're like, oh, well,
this is everything about that's not material enough to disclose.
But it's like you've learned.
Speaker 1 (15:11):
Something, right, A smirk snuck onto nobody.
Speaker 2 (15:14):
Language is all fake, except I will say one of
my favorite stories ever is because I've been writing about
this for a long time, this idea that like management
is giving you something useful, and I couldn't possibly not
be giving you something useful. That's why they have these
meanings and there's this great paper. These like academics got
a lot of access to Aberdeen the like yeah UK
long only asset measure.
Speaker 1 (15:33):
Didn't they take the bellels out of their name.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
I think this was before they took the vowels up
and now it's Aberden. But so Aberdin or Aberdeen like
had a bunch of meanings with management, and like these
academics studied like how they learned, like what they learned,
and like how they traded, and like basically they got
useful information from these managintinings. But the academics also had
access to like their notes from the meetings. There's one
where they met with the chairman of this company and
(15:57):
the analyst came back and wrote a note that included
saying he was looking unfeasibly tanned for this time of year.
It was like in January or whatever. Yeah, and so
if you're like the chairman of this company is looking
unfeasibly tanned, yeah, that's a short, right, Like you sell
that stuck. And so they did, in fact on the
stock and it did actually turn out to be a
well time trade.
Speaker 1 (16:14):
That is so funny.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
It's the only case I know of like true body
language or body coloring being useful financial information, but anyway,
they're basically a long investor. Do short sellers meet with
management to like get talked out of their shorts? Like,
I think it probably happens. There are probably some companies,
Like I think most like activist short sellers are interested
in hearing the company's perspective before they put a lot
(16:36):
of money into betting against the company. And I think
it's a mixed bag. You know, how often they're going
to contact them, and in general, my impression is that
managements don't like short sellers and so I don't always
meet with them, But I bet it happens. You know,
It's funny, Like I feel like I'm aware of Tesla
short sellers who have like turned around and become like
huge dust the bulls, And I assume that is not
from like a friendly meeting with Elon Musk where he
(16:57):
like explains his thinking and they come away per suaded.
But like, you know, somehow they like you know, get
enough of a vibe from them that they change their minds.
But no, I think it happens. I think I think
there's like a range of things, and like you see
a lot of the noisiest short sellers and a lot
of the most anti short seller managers being very vocal
about hating each other. But I think, you know, there's
(17:18):
a wider range, and particularly like you know, a lot
of people who are short companies are like multi strategy
hedge funds who are just making relative value bets where
they don't hate the company. They're just like have to
be factor neutral or whatever. And I think a lot
of those people do in fact meet with the companies
and have kind of rational discussions and will sometimes be
long and sometimes be short, and do not put a
(17:39):
lot of like personal animals into it. On either side.
Speaker 1 (17:42):
Well, for my own amusement, I'm going to pretend that
body language is real.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
No, it's real. There's the one guy with ten Yeah,
that's true. But I think there's some amount of like
to the extent you're evaluating managements like quality. Yeah, getting
a sense of how they talk and how they look
you in the eye and shake your hand or whatever
is maybe like a little bit useful. But I think
the body lineage is super oerrated, and that's mostly they
have substance of discussions that they just all agree they
(18:08):
don't have to disclose.
Speaker 1 (18:23):
Douglas has some questions. He has some questions. We're only
going to answer one of them.
Speaker 2 (18:29):
Douglas asks, since there are more words than letters and
more sentences than words, is there any logical limit to
the number of ETFs.
Speaker 1 (18:37):
I love this question.
Speaker 2 (18:39):
Wait, I don't get it. I feel like ETFs are
limited by the number of letters, right, I mean you've
written about that.
Speaker 1 (18:44):
Tickers are, Yeah, so I don't think there's any limit
to the number of utfs. But there are limits to
tickers because a ticker, right, you need a ticker. US
exchanges have a four character limit.
Speaker 2 (18:59):
I didn't realize that.
Speaker 1 (19:01):
No, it's four. I mean there are some like weird exceptions.
The only one I can think of actually is Google,
which is g O O g L. I don't quite
know the lore behind that, so maybe, yeah, I know,
But like, why is it five and no other stock
is think about it?
Speaker 2 (19:17):
The other four character that have share classes that are five?
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (19:22):
I don't think so anyway. Anyway, Generally speaking, generally speaking,
four character limit and no numbers. And that's different than
Europe and Asia, which can have more than four characters,
and can also, at least in Asia allow numbers I
think actually Europe too also allows numbers, and I've written
(19:42):
about maybe there could be a ticker shortage when it comes,
especially to the world of leverage single stock ETFs, because
your ticker is already a derivative of an existing ticker,
and then you only have, however, many letters to work
with month three like MST. Yeah, MST something which is
(20:03):
which is difficult.
Speaker 2 (20:04):
I have asked said the micro strategy mstrs.
Speaker 1 (20:09):
Monster MicroStrategy, Nazak and II. I've asked them about it.
They've both told me they're not concerned. Currently in the
US there's like thirty nine hundred listed ETFs, which is
a lot. I am excited for the day when there's
more US listed ETFs and there are US publicly listed stocks.
We're not quite at that point, but we'll see. I
just love this question, and I love Douglas's phrasing. It
(20:31):
sounds like a riddle. Matt's textings, No, I'm.
Speaker 2 (20:35):
There are proxtimately four hundred and fifty thousand logically possible.
Speaker 1 (20:39):
Tickers something like that. Actually, when I wrote this story,
we talked through the math. Yeah, but if you knock
out two of those characters, three of those characters in
some cases, then obviously your universe shrinks dramatically because you're.
Speaker 2 (20:55):
Talking rightly, like, yeah, yeah, I feel like I've said
this on the show before. Like you could imagine a
world where like the ets become like a like universal
format for products. Right, Anyone who's like, oh, I want
to do like, you know, call options on micro strategy,
be like, oh, do an need app for it? Right?
In that world, you would need to kind of revise
the ticker system, right, Like you need to have some
(21:17):
sort of like mstr slash and then I have like
a descriptive for new characters. You need to have a
more organized system than just like pick four letters. Yeah,
but we're probably not there yet.
Speaker 1 (21:28):
But I don't know.
Speaker 2 (21:29):
Maybe in five years will there be some sort of
like more complex ticker system to accommodate those just absolute
tour endo.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
Et aps Like maybe I can't wait, I don't know,
you say four to five years, perhaps in the year
of twenty twenty five. Anything could happen this year?
Speaker 2 (21:44):
Yeah, right, it's been it's been a wild year so far.
Speaker 1 (21:48):
Mail Bag mail Bag, Kristen has a question. I'm going
to read it to you. Kristin says that my sister
in law was recently talking about the Martha Stewart documentary
out a few months ago. She was convinced that have
you seen that round? No, and now I'm gonna watch it.
Have you seen it?
Speaker 2 (22:04):
I've seen like ten minutes of it. I've not seen it.
And then Kristen has not seen it as far as
I can. So we're talking about we're like fourth hand
as the documentary. This is Kristen's sister in law.
Speaker 1 (22:15):
Yeah, Kristen's sister in law watched the documentary about Martha Stewart,
and Kristen's sister in law was convinced that everybody just
ganged up on Martha and that Martha didn't do anything
wrong because she didn't know it wasn't allowed the insider trading.
I personally, this is Kristen talking. Kristen personally has not
kept up with any of that news and has not
watched the documentary. But Kristen's instinct was that punishment for
(22:39):
insider trading doesn't require the defendant to be aware of
the insider trading rules. Was kristin correct or incorrect? I
know that's an interesting question. I mean does intent matter?
Speaker 2 (22:49):
No? I mean, like intent often matters in like market
monipulation and stuff. But yeah, in insider trading, the rules are,
first of all, you don't have to know that it's
illegal to insider trade, right.
Speaker 1 (22:59):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
In general, ignorance of the law is no excuse, right,
So if you didn't know it was illegal to insider trade,
you can't be like, oh, I thought it was fine, right.
People do that, by the way, Yeah, like you know,
now you've found on the insider trading case that I
write about, it's like they're like googling how not to
get caught insider trading, and then ten persons they're like, what,
I had no idea. But there's also like another mind
side question, which is, let's say you were going to
(23:20):
sell the stock anyway, okay, and then you got some
bad news. Can you still sell the stock? No? I
think the SEC's rule is that if you're in possession
of material on public information, that counts as selling. On
the basis of material in public information, it seemed pretty
well established, so yeah, like even if you would have
sold it anywhere, that doesn't help you. I will say
that the Martha Stewart case is more complicated than that.
(23:41):
Like Martha Stewart didn't like get an insider stock tip,
like her broker got apparently insider stock tip, and then
the broker's like, hey, I think we should sell that stock,
and she's like, sure, go ahead, And so arguably, you know,
it's a little more complicated than that. But I think,
like my impression and a lot of people's impression of
the Stewart probably wasn't really guilty of insider trading because
(24:03):
she didn't know that she was getting a material, not
public tip. She had no reason to think she was
getting an illegal tip. And iif you're broker's in charger
of account, you're not making decisions. That's a little hard
to accuse you of insider trading. What is relevant is
that she wasn't connected of insider trading. I don't think
she was charged with inside of trading.
Speaker 1 (24:18):
I haven't watched the documentary, so this is all.
Speaker 2 (24:20):
I have been either, but I'm familiar with this.
Speaker 1 (24:22):
You took a browse of no.
Speaker 2 (24:24):
I mean I used to, like honestly, like when I
started at a law firm, it was the law froom
that like represented Martha Stewart, Like I had nothing to
do with the case, and she wasn't think they weren't
her lawyers on the trail. But like we all had
a various what.
Speaker 1 (24:35):
What year did this happen? Because I was pretty young
and I wasn't really paying attention. It happened before I
got there two thousand and four.
Speaker 2 (24:44):
Oh well, so right before I got there. So she
was in charge of inside of trading. What happened is
that the insider and her broker got investigated by the SEC,
and the SEC saw that she like got a call
from the broker and then he sold her stock, and
so they went to her and they said, did you
get a hot insider tip to sell that stock? And
she said, actually, what happened is that I put in
a stop loss order saying that, like, if the stock
(25:04):
goes below sixty dollars, you should sell it. And my
broker called to say that it was below sixty dollars,
so I sold it, and that wasn't true. Apparently she
didn't have a stop loss order, and so she was
convicted of lying to the investigators, which is its own
separate crime. But like I think a lot of people
think she was kind of ill treated because she was
lying to know about something that wasn't actually a crime,
(25:26):
and so they shouldn't have been investigating here.
Speaker 1 (25:27):
So I don't know, it is wild that she served time,
like she went to prison.
Speaker 2 (25:32):
Yeah, I have not watched the documentary, but my wife
was watched a documentary and we've talked about it. It's interesting,
Like I think you think now of like Martha Stewart,
the character she is now has awesome It was awesome
and very famous. Yeah, like very beloved and like friends
with Snoop Dogg. You think about that character and like
going to prison for five months or whatever is like
(25:52):
the big part of that character, right, Like you sort
of think like her time in prison has like been
good for her brand, but if you look back at
like what actually happened, like it was a huge catastrophe
for her, Like she had a big company that like
basically like went away because she was convicted of not
insider trading and sent to prisident. So it was actually
like really a sort of quite harsh result for something that,
(26:13):
first of all, in the scheme of things, was not
that much money, Like she didn't make a huge profit
and like she probably didn't insider trade. She probably didn't
know that she was trading on inside information. Yeah, it's
her workers, like saw this time. She like, fine, but
she lied to the investigators.
Speaker 1 (26:25):
And you do a crime, question mark, you do the time.
Speaker 2 (26:31):
No. The actually cliche is the cover up is always
worse than the crime.
Speaker 1 (26:35):
Oh my god, true true here I should have said
that Martha Stewart, though, I mean an inspiring story of
rebuilding oneself. Great energy to take into twenty twenty five.
Speaker 2 (26:47):
And that was The Money Stuff Podcast.
Speaker 1 (26:49):
I'm Matt Levian and I'm Katie Greifeld.
Speaker 2 (26:51):
You can find my work by subscribing to The Money
Stuff newsletter on Bloomberg dot com, and.
Speaker 1 (26:56):
You can find me on Bloomberg TV every day on
Open Interest between nine to eleven am Eastern.
Speaker 2 (27:01):
We'd love to hear from you. You can send an
email to you Moneypod at Bloomberg dot net, ask us
a question and we might answer it on air.
Speaker 1 (27:08):
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.
Speaker 2 (27:14):
The Money Stuff Podcast is produced by Anamasarakus and Moses
on On.
Speaker 1 (27:18):
Our theme music was composed by Blake Maples.
Speaker 2 (27:20):
Brandon Francis Nudimas our executive.
Speaker 1 (27:22):
Producer and Stage Bauman is Bloomberg's head of Podcasts.
Speaker 2 (27:25):
Thanks for listening to the Money Stuff Podcast. We'll be
back next week with more stuff.
Speaker 1 (27:42):
Thanks for listening to the Money Stuff Podcast. If you
never want to miss a story, become a bloomberg dot
com subscriber today. Check out our special intro offer right
now at bloomberg dot com Slash podcast offer or click
the link in our show notes. You also unlock deep
reporting data and analysis from reporters around the world.
Popular Podcasts
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.