WEBVTT - Bespokeness: AI, Passthrough, UST

0:00:02.720 --> 0:00:07.200
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.

0:00:08.760 --> 0:00:10.800
<v Speaker 2>Maybe we should talk about the voice thing. I mean,

0:00:10.840 --> 0:00:12.520
<v Speaker 2>it'll become a parent once I start talking.

0:00:13.360 --> 0:00:15.560
<v Speaker 1>I feel like you're closer to normal Katie voice than

0:00:15.640 --> 0:00:17.720
<v Speaker 1>to elastic swallower Nash voice.

0:00:17.800 --> 0:00:18.600
<v Speaker 3>I'm doing better.

0:00:18.960 --> 0:00:21.400
<v Speaker 2>I'm pretty sure I had the flu last week. I

0:00:21.480 --> 0:00:24.919
<v Speaker 2>think a few people missed that I actually was sick

0:00:25.239 --> 0:00:27.800
<v Speaker 2>last week. And it wasn't that engineers turned my voice down.

0:00:27.880 --> 0:00:29.760
<v Speaker 1>I joke about engineers turning your voice down.

0:00:30.360 --> 0:00:34.280
<v Speaker 2>People literally, that was just mother nature at work. I'm

0:00:34.320 --> 0:00:35.480
<v Speaker 2>doing a bit better.

0:00:35.520 --> 0:00:38.000
<v Speaker 1>And people did not like your new voice.

0:00:38.120 --> 0:00:39.040
<v Speaker 3>No, they didn't like it.

0:00:39.120 --> 0:00:42.720
<v Speaker 1>I was thinking that it would improve the audibility of

0:00:42.760 --> 0:00:45.000
<v Speaker 1>this podcast, but no, no, you just have to turn

0:00:45.080 --> 0:00:47.920
<v Speaker 1>me up in hell helium.

0:00:47.920 --> 0:00:49.839
<v Speaker 2>Before I ever read podcast, I got a text from

0:00:49.840 --> 0:00:52.360
<v Speaker 2>one of my PR friends, who I think is maybe

0:00:52.400 --> 0:00:55.280
<v Speaker 2>listening right now, and he was like, Wow, you sound

0:00:55.800 --> 0:00:57.000
<v Speaker 2>really awful.

0:00:56.960 --> 0:00:59.440
<v Speaker 3>In the latest version of money Stuff. What do you

0:00:59.480 --> 0:00:59.920
<v Speaker 3>say to that?

0:01:00.680 --> 0:01:02.720
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, we didn't get any email saying that I sounded

0:01:02.800 --> 0:01:03.720
<v Speaker 1>comparatively better.

0:01:03.920 --> 0:01:06.480
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, next we have to try you know, you you

0:01:06.560 --> 0:01:09.320
<v Speaker 2>taking some helium and getting you up to my level.

0:01:09.760 --> 0:01:12.080
<v Speaker 1>Right, that's interest? Should I do the open.

0:01:12.120 --> 0:01:13.360
<v Speaker 3>Yes, in a full.

0:01:13.160 --> 0:01:15.800
<v Speaker 1>Set up, certainly not.

0:01:16.000 --> 0:01:17.080
<v Speaker 3>And I didn't like that at all.

0:01:17.200 --> 0:01:21.880
<v Speaker 1>No, that was terrible. Yeah out, Hello and welcome to

0:01:21.880 --> 0:01:24.679
<v Speaker 1>The Money Stuff Podcast, your weekly podcast where we talk

0:01:24.720 --> 0:01:28.319
<v Speaker 1>about stuff related to money. I'm Matt Levin and I

0:01:28.360 --> 0:01:30.400
<v Speaker 1>write The Money Stuff Colin for Bloomberg Opinion.

0:01:30.760 --> 0:01:33.120
<v Speaker 2>And I'm Katie Greifeld, a reporter for Bloomberg News and

0:01:33.160 --> 0:01:34.640
<v Speaker 2>an anchor for Bloomberg Television.

0:01:35.440 --> 0:01:36.959
<v Speaker 1>What are we talking about today, Katie?

0:01:37.120 --> 0:01:39.840
<v Speaker 2>We're going to talk about a hostile takeover. Sure, we're

0:01:39.880 --> 0:01:44.840
<v Speaker 2>going to talk about exorbitant pass through fees, and then

0:01:44.840 --> 0:01:48.120
<v Speaker 2>we're going to talk about an interesting humble thought experiment.

0:01:48.800 --> 0:01:50.200
<v Speaker 1>Do we ever talk about anything else?

0:01:53.800 --> 0:01:53.920
<v Speaker 2>All?

0:01:54.040 --> 0:01:54.240
<v Speaker 3>Right?

0:01:54.720 --> 0:01:58.520
<v Speaker 2>Open Ai the Girlies are Fighting is a tweet that

0:01:58.560 --> 0:02:00.840
<v Speaker 2>I saw on this situation, which I thought it was funny.

0:02:01.200 --> 0:02:04.360
<v Speaker 1>I saw a tweet that was like Sam Alton versus

0:02:04.360 --> 0:02:07.160
<v Speaker 1>Elon Musk is like Kendrick versus Drake if both of

0:02:07.200 --> 0:02:07.800
<v Speaker 1>them were Drake.

0:02:08.080 --> 0:02:09.880
<v Speaker 3>Yes, that's so funny.

0:02:10.560 --> 0:02:14.000
<v Speaker 2>No one's performing at the super Bowl here, No one's

0:02:14.000 --> 0:02:14.680
<v Speaker 2>wont a Grammy.

0:02:14.840 --> 0:02:17.240
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, so Elon muss wants to do a hostile takeover

0:02:17.440 --> 0:02:19.920
<v Speaker 1>of Open Ai, which I wrote something like, there's probably

0:02:19.919 --> 0:02:22.800
<v Speaker 1>never been a ninety seven billion dollar hostile takeover of

0:02:22.840 --> 0:02:25.960
<v Speaker 1>a nonprofit before, and people are like, well, at hospitals,

0:02:26.000 --> 0:02:30.400
<v Speaker 1>like there are some like unsolicited bids for nonprofit hospitals, right,

0:02:30.400 --> 0:02:33.240
<v Speaker 1>Like the model for this arguably is like a lot

0:02:33.280 --> 0:02:35.920
<v Speaker 1>of hospitals are nonprofits. They do a lot of for

0:02:36.040 --> 0:02:38.840
<v Speaker 1>profit conversions, and so there is some like kind of

0:02:38.919 --> 0:02:41.560
<v Speaker 1>law and practice around how you convert from a nonprofit

0:02:41.600 --> 0:02:45.359
<v Speaker 1>to a for profit. But this is still pretty weird, right, So, like, yeah,

0:02:45.639 --> 0:02:48.239
<v Speaker 1>open Ai is trying to convert from a nonprofit to

0:02:48.280 --> 0:02:51.640
<v Speaker 1>a for profit. To do that, they need to pay

0:02:51.680 --> 0:02:57.360
<v Speaker 1>out the nonprofit for its control of the business. Their

0:02:57.400 --> 0:02:58.880
<v Speaker 1>plan to do that is to give it, you know,

0:02:58.960 --> 0:03:01.400
<v Speaker 1>a chunk of the shares of the new business or

0:03:01.520 --> 0:03:05.519
<v Speaker 1>the newly for profit business. And Elon Musk came into

0:03:05.680 --> 0:03:07.880
<v Speaker 1>great problems by saying, I'll give you ninety seven billion

0:03:07.880 --> 0:03:09.760
<v Speaker 1>dollars in cash for it, which is more than you'd

0:03:09.800 --> 0:03:12.840
<v Speaker 1>get from the for profit business, and so you should

0:03:12.840 --> 0:03:15.520
<v Speaker 1>sell it to me to preserve fair value, which is

0:03:15.560 --> 0:03:18.040
<v Speaker 1>like everyone sort of assumes it's not a serious bid.

0:03:18.440 --> 0:03:20.760
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, that's a.

0:03:19.880 --> 0:03:22.000
<v Speaker 1>Way to make life more difficult for open Ai.

0:03:22.760 --> 0:03:26.840
<v Speaker 2>I also assume that, yeah, so two points there, one

0:03:26.919 --> 0:03:29.520
<v Speaker 2>being if you only read headlines, which is how a

0:03:29.560 --> 0:03:33.119
<v Speaker 2>lot of people consume news. This was probably pretty confusing

0:03:33.120 --> 0:03:36.240
<v Speaker 2>because the bid ninety seven point four billion dollars. You know,

0:03:36.320 --> 0:03:38.360
<v Speaker 2>I think a few weeks before that, we got some

0:03:38.440 --> 0:03:41.320
<v Speaker 2>headline from the Wall Street Journal that open aies and

0:03:41.360 --> 0:03:43.800
<v Speaker 2>talks to raise forty billion dollars at a three hundred

0:03:43.840 --> 0:03:47.040
<v Speaker 2>and forty billion dollar valuation. The nuance being that they're

0:03:47.040 --> 0:03:49.240
<v Speaker 2>bidding for the nonprofit which owns a steak.

0:03:49.560 --> 0:03:50.880
<v Speaker 3>In the form, they're not even.

0:03:50.680 --> 0:03:53.280
<v Speaker 1>Really bidding for the nonprofit. It's a fun thing to

0:03:53.320 --> 0:03:55.280
<v Speaker 1>say that he's trying to take over the nonprofit, but

0:03:55.320 --> 0:03:58.200
<v Speaker 1>actually he's bidding for the steak. Yeah, the nonprofit has

0:03:58.200 --> 0:04:01.240
<v Speaker 1>like a set of rights o the for profit business,

0:04:01.560 --> 0:04:03.520
<v Speaker 1>and he wants to buy that from them for ninety

0:04:03.520 --> 0:04:06.440
<v Speaker 1>seven billion dollars. The alternative is they would sell that

0:04:06.480 --> 0:04:09.560
<v Speaker 1>set of rights to the for profit business in exchange

0:04:09.560 --> 0:04:11.400
<v Speaker 1>for some stock in the for profit business, which, like

0:04:12.400 --> 0:04:15.119
<v Speaker 1>the numbers I've seen people say, like the nonprofit would

0:04:15.120 --> 0:04:17.720
<v Speaker 1>get like twenty five percent of the business, which you know,

0:04:17.800 --> 0:04:20.480
<v Speaker 1>at a three hundred million dollar valuation, is worth seventy

0:04:20.520 --> 0:04:23.800
<v Speaker 1>five billion dollars. Ninety seven billion is more than seventy

0:04:23.800 --> 0:04:28.000
<v Speaker 1>five billion. I think you could argue that at twenty

0:04:28.040 --> 0:04:30.320
<v Speaker 1>five percents they can open Aiye is in the long

0:04:30.400 --> 0:04:32.200
<v Speaker 1>run worth more than ninety seven billion. But you know,

0:04:32.560 --> 0:04:35.279
<v Speaker 1>Musk is saying you got to get at least as much. Yeah,

0:04:35.320 --> 0:04:37.560
<v Speaker 1>but right, he's not offering to take over the whole

0:04:37.680 --> 0:04:40.680
<v Speaker 1>thing for ninety seven billion, which is less than the

0:04:40.760 --> 0:04:44.640
<v Speaker 1>current market mark on it. Except he sort of is

0:04:45.279 --> 0:04:50.600
<v Speaker 1>right because like, right now, the nonprofit controls the thing,

0:04:50.760 --> 0:04:53.720
<v Speaker 1>the business, right, the nonprofit has final say over it.

0:04:54.120 --> 0:04:56.520
<v Speaker 1>And so the people putting in money at a three

0:04:56.560 --> 0:04:59.640
<v Speaker 1>hundred million dollar valuation, the nonprofit board doesn't technically owe

0:04:59.640 --> 0:05:03.000
<v Speaker 1>them an shary duties. They're fundraising documents used to say

0:05:03.320 --> 0:05:05.440
<v Speaker 1>it would be good to consider your investment in the

0:05:05.480 --> 0:05:08.200
<v Speaker 1>form of a donation. Right, So it's like people are

0:05:08.240 --> 0:05:12.719
<v Speaker 1>sort of making assumptions about the future path of the business,

0:05:13.360 --> 0:05:15.440
<v Speaker 1>and the assumptions they're making are like, you know, sam

0:05:15.480 --> 0:05:19.560
<v Speaker 1>Aldman is like a money making guy, and like they

0:05:19.640 --> 0:05:21.280
<v Speaker 1>know they need to raise a lot of money, and

0:05:21.360 --> 0:05:24.000
<v Speaker 1>so they will do the right thing for shareholders. And

0:05:24.040 --> 0:05:26.760
<v Speaker 1>so it's worth a three hundred billion dollar valuation. But

0:05:26.839 --> 0:05:30.800
<v Speaker 1>in theory of Elon Musk bought the control rights from the

0:05:30.880 --> 0:05:39.120
<v Speaker 1>nonprofit What does that do to the non controlling investors

0:05:39.160 --> 0:05:41.440
<v Speaker 1>who have weird cat profit interests in the company. I

0:05:41.480 --> 0:05:44.880
<v Speaker 1>don't know. I think he gets like more than twenty

0:05:44.920 --> 0:05:47.440
<v Speaker 1>five percent of the company for his ninety seven billion dollars. Like,

0:05:47.440 --> 0:05:49.680
<v Speaker 1>I think he gets control over the company for his

0:05:49.760 --> 0:05:53.760
<v Speaker 1>ninety seven billion dollars. And that control for him a

0:05:53.800 --> 0:05:57.400
<v Speaker 1>guy who runs a competing AI company and runs a

0:05:57.440 --> 0:06:00.120
<v Speaker 1>bunch of other companies and runs the US government, that

0:06:00.160 --> 0:06:01.919
<v Speaker 1>control is pretty valuable to him in a way that

0:06:01.960 --> 0:06:05.560
<v Speaker 1>it's not to the nonprofit board. So if they said

0:06:05.600 --> 0:06:07.839
<v Speaker 1>yes to him, if they're like, sure, Elon, here's our stake,

0:06:08.880 --> 0:06:10.560
<v Speaker 1>it would be a huge bargain for him.

0:06:10.800 --> 0:06:14.520
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, well that's what I was wondering. So your position,

0:06:14.560 --> 0:06:16.120
<v Speaker 2>it sounds like is that Muskus trolling?

0:06:16.480 --> 0:06:18.839
<v Speaker 1>Well, he doesn't think they're going to say yes. And like,

0:06:19.080 --> 0:06:20.640
<v Speaker 1>you know, the other thing I wrote is like, like

0:06:20.720 --> 0:06:22.679
<v Speaker 1>ninety seven billion does a lot of money, right, Like, yeah,

0:06:22.720 --> 0:06:24.440
<v Speaker 1>if they were like, sure, Elon, here you go, Like

0:06:24.440 --> 0:06:26.279
<v Speaker 1>he could raise ninety seven billion dollars to do it,

0:06:26.279 --> 0:06:29.200
<v Speaker 1>because it's a good deal. But it's not like he

0:06:29.279 --> 0:06:32.400
<v Speaker 1>has ninety seven billion dollars committed, Right, that's true, it's

0:06:32.440 --> 0:06:33.039
<v Speaker 1>a lot of money.

0:06:33.040 --> 0:06:33.960
<v Speaker 3>That is a lot of money.

0:06:34.400 --> 0:06:37.360
<v Speaker 2>But I mean if we go down into hypothetical lands

0:06:37.400 --> 0:06:41.080
<v Speaker 2>and the board did take this seriously and they did say, yes,

0:06:42.040 --> 0:06:42.920
<v Speaker 2>what does that look like?

0:06:43.160 --> 0:06:45.680
<v Speaker 1>I don't know. It's a great question because it's not

0:06:45.760 --> 0:06:49.360
<v Speaker 1>like they own forty percent of the company. It's not

0:06:49.400 --> 0:06:52.080
<v Speaker 1>like they own ten percent, but they have like a

0:06:52.120 --> 0:06:55.880
<v Speaker 1>super voting shares. Right. What they have is like there

0:06:55.920 --> 0:07:00.000
<v Speaker 1>is this weird quasi for profit subsidiary of the nonprofit

0:07:00.320 --> 0:07:03.760
<v Speaker 1>and it has sold stuff to investors, and that stuff

0:07:03.800 --> 0:07:06.680
<v Speaker 1>is like this like waterfall of profit interests. Every investor

0:07:06.720 --> 0:07:08.760
<v Speaker 1>has like a different deal. It's like not really shares,

0:07:08.800 --> 0:07:12.360
<v Speaker 1>it's profit interests and they're capped. So like even knowing

0:07:12.680 --> 0:07:17.360
<v Speaker 1>what percentage of the company the nonprofit owns and could

0:07:17.400 --> 0:07:19.679
<v Speaker 1>transfer to Elon Musk is like it's kind of uncertain,

0:07:19.760 --> 0:07:23.240
<v Speaker 1>right that you can like build a model that converts

0:07:23.680 --> 0:07:26.560
<v Speaker 1>these waterflows of cash flows into like some percentage of

0:07:26.560 --> 0:07:28.840
<v Speaker 1>the equity. But it's like a little debatable. And then

0:07:28.840 --> 0:07:31.120
<v Speaker 1>the other thing that it has is like it has

0:07:31.160 --> 0:07:35.200
<v Speaker 1>the board the nonprofit gets to make decisions for the company,

0:07:35.200 --> 0:07:38.560
<v Speaker 1>and like says explicitly to investors, like, we don't make

0:07:38.600 --> 0:07:41.800
<v Speaker 1>these decisions out of a fiduciary duty to investors. We

0:07:42.560 --> 0:07:47.200
<v Speaker 1>make these decisions for the benefit of mankind. The nonprofit

0:07:47.280 --> 0:07:50.640
<v Speaker 1>controls the company. But it's not just like share RedZone

0:07:50.720 --> 0:07:54.080
<v Speaker 1>controlling paramount right. It's not like a person with super

0:07:54.160 --> 0:07:57.160
<v Speaker 1>voting shares. It's like a nonprofit with a social mission

0:07:57.360 --> 0:08:00.120
<v Speaker 1>controls the company. So if Elon Musk buys that, does

0:08:00.160 --> 0:08:03.320
<v Speaker 1>he get to just control the company however he wants,

0:08:03.680 --> 0:08:05.680
<v Speaker 1>or does he like take over the social mission. And

0:08:05.720 --> 0:08:08.360
<v Speaker 1>I think in his offer letter he's like, we will

0:08:08.360 --> 0:08:11.920
<v Speaker 1>continue the social mission. I don't know. Yeah, So I

0:08:11.920 --> 0:08:15.720
<v Speaker 1>think it's really unclear what he would buy, right, But

0:08:15.760 --> 0:08:18.880
<v Speaker 1>like there is some package of rights that the nonprofit

0:08:18.920 --> 0:08:20.920
<v Speaker 1>open ai is hoping to give up to the for

0:08:21.040 --> 0:08:24.240
<v Speaker 1>profit open Ai in exchange for stock, and he's just saying,

0:08:24.240 --> 0:08:27.600
<v Speaker 1>whatever that package of right says, I'll buy it for cash. Yeah, Like,

0:08:27.680 --> 0:08:29.760
<v Speaker 1>if you take that seriously, that package of rights is

0:08:29.800 --> 0:08:32.920
<v Speaker 1>really valuable and like arguably more valuable in the hands

0:08:32.960 --> 0:08:35.280
<v Speaker 1>of the world's rich is person that it is in

0:08:35.280 --> 0:08:37.840
<v Speaker 1>the hands of fate nonprofit looking out for the benefit

0:08:37.880 --> 0:08:38.440
<v Speaker 1>of humanity.

0:08:38.920 --> 0:08:41.800
<v Speaker 2>Well, if you ask Sam Altman, which Bloomberg TV did.

0:08:41.880 --> 0:08:43.720
<v Speaker 2>They got an interview with him on the sidelines of

0:08:43.760 --> 0:08:47.920
<v Speaker 2>this AI summit in Paris. Sam Altman says that, I mean,

0:08:47.920 --> 0:08:51.760
<v Speaker 2>he's not taking this seriously. Obviously, he had some hostile

0:08:51.760 --> 0:08:55.000
<v Speaker 2>words about Elon Musk. Did you see this, Yeah, it

0:08:55.120 --> 0:08:58.079
<v Speaker 2>was really personal. I mean, he said, of course he

0:08:58.120 --> 0:09:00.199
<v Speaker 2>thinks Elon Musk is just trying to slow us down own.

0:09:00.240 --> 0:09:02.840
<v Speaker 2>He's obviously a competitor. I wish you would just compete

0:09:02.840 --> 0:09:04.360
<v Speaker 2>by building a better product, et cetera.

0:09:04.440 --> 0:09:06.920
<v Speaker 1>But he also said, probably his whole life is from

0:09:06.920 --> 0:09:08.920
<v Speaker 1>a position of insecurity. I feel for the guy. I

0:09:08.920 --> 0:09:10.320
<v Speaker 1>don't think he's like a happy person that I do

0:09:10.320 --> 0:09:10.839
<v Speaker 1>feel for him.

0:09:11.360 --> 0:09:13.840
<v Speaker 2>I mean, this gets back to the girlies we're fighting,

0:09:14.080 --> 0:09:16.080
<v Speaker 2>and I don't know, it's pretty personal. It's also playing

0:09:16.080 --> 0:09:18.840
<v Speaker 2>out in court and filings obviously, right.

0:09:18.640 --> 0:09:21.120
<v Speaker 1>Because mess is also suing Yes to make them be

0:09:21.240 --> 0:09:23.520
<v Speaker 1>more nonprofit and like this is all in the context

0:09:23.520 --> 0:09:26.800
<v Speaker 1>of like he owns a for profit AI from right,

0:09:27.200 --> 0:09:30.120
<v Speaker 1>so one assumes he's not going to buy open AI, right,

0:09:30.640 --> 0:09:32.720
<v Speaker 1>not that he doesn't want to, just that they're not

0:09:32.760 --> 0:09:33.080
<v Speaker 1>going to.

0:09:33.160 --> 0:09:34.920
<v Speaker 2>I feel like it even goes deeper than that though,

0:09:34.960 --> 0:09:37.079
<v Speaker 2>Like this comes back to the blood feud of him

0:09:37.080 --> 0:09:39.600
<v Speaker 2>and Altman founded open ai together.

0:09:39.920 --> 0:09:40.720
<v Speaker 3>Blah blah blah.

0:09:40.800 --> 0:09:42.760
<v Speaker 1>Right, I know I agree with you and with Sam

0:09:42.760 --> 0:09:46.319
<v Speaker 1>Altman that this is all largely about petty personal vindictiveness

0:09:46.360 --> 0:09:49.400
<v Speaker 1>on a ground scale. But it's also like open ai

0:09:49.640 --> 0:09:54.360
<v Speaker 1>is probably the leading you know l M company.

0:09:54.679 --> 0:09:56.599
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I don't think that's controversial.

0:09:57.280 --> 0:10:00.480
<v Speaker 1>Xai is has gros somewhere in the pack.

0:10:00.720 --> 0:10:00.920
<v Speaker 3>Yeah.

0:10:01.360 --> 0:10:03.320
<v Speaker 1>Open Ai has made it very clear that it's doing

0:10:03.320 --> 0:10:06.640
<v Speaker 1>this conversion because it needs to raise like forty billion dollars, right, Yeah,

0:10:06.679 --> 0:10:10.800
<v Speaker 1>it's so expensive to run company and to scale it

0:10:10.960 --> 0:10:15.000
<v Speaker 1>and to raise that much money. They think they need

0:10:15.040 --> 0:10:19.160
<v Speaker 1>to offer investors normal stock and not I think they

0:10:19.200 --> 0:10:23.679
<v Speaker 1>use the word structural bespokeness, which is a great word, bespokeness.

0:10:23.960 --> 0:10:25.840
<v Speaker 1>And so they need to be a for profit to

0:10:26.080 --> 0:10:28.040
<v Speaker 1>raise the amount of money that they need to raise

0:10:28.160 --> 0:10:33.320
<v Speaker 1>to continue to be competitive. And this might stop them,

0:10:33.520 --> 0:10:35.680
<v Speaker 1>yeah right, And if it stops them, then like yeah,

0:10:35.679 --> 0:10:37.800
<v Speaker 1>it's an opening for XII, right, And so how would

0:10:37.800 --> 0:10:41.000
<v Speaker 1>this stop them? Like Elon Musk offered to drop his

0:10:41.040 --> 0:10:44.000
<v Speaker 1>bid if they agreed to stay a nonprofit. So that's

0:10:44.040 --> 0:10:45.240
<v Speaker 1>like one way to stop them, right if they just

0:10:45.280 --> 0:10:47.520
<v Speaker 1>agree to stay a nonprofit. But even if they say

0:10:47.559 --> 0:10:49.960
<v Speaker 1>no to him, you can't quite ignore him. They have

0:10:50.000 --> 0:10:52.520
<v Speaker 1>to at least sort of wave in the direction of no. Actually,

0:10:52.520 --> 0:10:56.720
<v Speaker 1>we're getting more value for the nonprofit from open Ai,

0:10:56.880 --> 0:11:00.600
<v Speaker 1>like internally than we would from Elon Musk. And I

0:11:00.600 --> 0:11:04.440
<v Speaker 1>think most people think that means essentially, the nonprofit needs

0:11:04.440 --> 0:11:07.040
<v Speaker 1>to get a bigger steak in the for profit company

0:11:07.280 --> 0:11:08.960
<v Speaker 1>than it was planning, right it was planning like let's

0:11:08.960 --> 0:11:11.840
<v Speaker 1>say twenty five percent. It needs to get a stake

0:11:11.880 --> 0:11:13.520
<v Speaker 1>that I can credibly say is worth more than one

0:11:13.559 --> 0:11:16.960
<v Speaker 1>hundred million dollars, right, Yeah, And that just makes it

0:11:17.000 --> 0:11:18.800
<v Speaker 1>a little bit harder to raise money, right because you're

0:11:19.040 --> 0:11:21.320
<v Speaker 1>giving more of the steak to the more of the

0:11:21.320 --> 0:11:24.440
<v Speaker 1>company to the nonprofit. You're cutting back the shares of

0:11:24.480 --> 0:11:26.600
<v Speaker 1>like Microsoft and soft Bank and everyone else, And so

0:11:26.640 --> 0:11:28.280
<v Speaker 1>it just makes it harder for them to raise money

0:11:28.720 --> 0:11:32.000
<v Speaker 1>and creates uncertainty and you know, puts them in a

0:11:32.040 --> 0:11:33.959
<v Speaker 1>little bit worse competitive position to raise a lot of

0:11:34.000 --> 0:11:35.720
<v Speaker 1>money and kind of stay out of XII.

0:11:36.040 --> 0:11:40.600
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, which is interesting in the context of Stargate or whatever,

0:11:40.720 --> 0:11:44.680
<v Speaker 2>that this very ugly public fuse paying out and makes

0:11:44.720 --> 0:11:46.520
<v Speaker 2>things a little bit more challenging for open AI.

0:11:46.720 --> 0:11:49.120
<v Speaker 1>But we'll see, right, I mean, one thing I've written

0:11:49.200 --> 0:11:52.360
<v Speaker 1>is like, just from the outside, it seems to be

0:11:52.400 --> 0:11:54.640
<v Speaker 1>pretty easy for Open Ahead orra is money. They've got,

0:11:54.720 --> 0:11:57.520
<v Speaker 1>you know, yeah, like the sexiest product in the sexiest

0:11:57.520 --> 0:11:59.800
<v Speaker 1>industry in the world. They've got Sam Alban, who is

0:11:59.800 --> 0:12:04.520
<v Speaker 1>an incredible salesman. They've got a lot of advantages. And

0:12:04.880 --> 0:12:06.760
<v Speaker 1>you know, there's a lot of this money from soft Bank,

0:12:06.920 --> 0:12:10.800
<v Speaker 1>who is not like notorious for driving a hard bargain. Right,

0:12:12.160 --> 0:12:15.840
<v Speaker 1>it's weird to be like this bid from Elon Musk

0:12:15.920 --> 0:12:17.760
<v Speaker 1>is going to prevent them from raising the money they

0:12:17.800 --> 0:12:19.600
<v Speaker 1>need to scale. Like I don't know, man, Like it's

0:12:19.679 --> 0:12:21.280
<v Speaker 1>open an eye. They'll be fine, but I.

0:12:21.280 --> 0:12:24.920
<v Speaker 2>Don't Yeah, all right, they'll be fine. Let's just put

0:12:24.920 --> 0:12:26.800
<v Speaker 2>a pin in it for now.

0:12:41.160 --> 0:12:42.119
<v Speaker 3>Let's talk about.

0:12:41.880 --> 0:12:45.520
<v Speaker 2>Pass through fees at multi strategy hedge funds do that.

0:12:45.760 --> 0:12:48.520
<v Speaker 2>This is a great Bloomberg big take that went out

0:12:48.559 --> 0:12:51.240
<v Speaker 2>this week. Reading it, it really feels like rage bait.

0:12:51.559 --> 0:12:53.960
<v Speaker 1>Well it is, right, I mean, like it quits a

0:12:54.000 --> 0:12:57.640
<v Speaker 1>guy saying pastors are wild. You're paying for everything, including

0:12:57.679 --> 0:12:58.319
<v Speaker 1>the copy.

0:12:58.120 --> 0:12:59.240
<v Speaker 3>Of paper beautiful.

0:12:59.679 --> 0:13:01.440
<v Speaker 1>And it's true that traditionally the way you think of

0:13:01.480 --> 0:13:05.640
<v Speaker 1>hedge funds is like investors put in money, the hedgehun

0:13:05.720 --> 0:13:08.480
<v Speaker 1>invests the money for them. The hedge fund charges them

0:13:08.640 --> 0:13:11.800
<v Speaker 1>two percent of the money and twenty percent of the profits. Right, Like,

0:13:11.840 --> 0:13:15.840
<v Speaker 1>those are the stereotypical numbers and the stuff that the

0:13:15.840 --> 0:13:20.079
<v Speaker 1>hedge fund keeps. The two and twenty pays for its managers' salaries,

0:13:20.520 --> 0:13:24.280
<v Speaker 1>their bonuses, right, their photocopier paper, their lunches, you know,

0:13:24.280 --> 0:13:27.200
<v Speaker 1>and whatever. Like, the expenses are covered by the fees, right,

0:13:27.960 --> 0:13:31.199
<v Speaker 1>And the multi strategy model, the modern big multi strategy

0:13:31.200 --> 0:13:33.320
<v Speaker 1>model is just not that at all. Right, The modern

0:13:33.360 --> 0:13:37.880
<v Speaker 1>multi strategy model is, you give us money, we use

0:13:37.880 --> 0:13:39.880
<v Speaker 1>the money to do investing. We also use the money

0:13:39.920 --> 0:13:42.960
<v Speaker 1>to pay all of the expenses, and what's left over

0:13:43.080 --> 0:13:44.640
<v Speaker 1>you get some of what we get some of it, right,

0:13:44.840 --> 0:13:47.040
<v Speaker 1>Which is like, as I wrote this week, it's exactly

0:13:47.040 --> 0:13:50.720
<v Speaker 1>the same model as a company generally, or like an

0:13:50.720 --> 0:13:53.400
<v Speaker 1>investment bank in particular. Right, like an investment bank, the

0:13:53.440 --> 0:13:56.800
<v Speaker 1>shareholders pay for the photocopier paper. Right, All of the

0:13:56.840 --> 0:14:01.080
<v Speaker 1>expenses of the investment bank are taken out before net income,

0:14:01.080 --> 0:14:02.600
<v Speaker 1>and then the sharelders get some of the net income

0:14:02.640 --> 0:14:04.040
<v Speaker 1>and like the rest of it goes to the bonuses, or

0:14:04.080 --> 0:14:07.160
<v Speaker 1>rather the sharelders get the net income after the expenses

0:14:07.200 --> 0:14:10.120
<v Speaker 1>and the bonuses to the employees. And that's how like

0:14:10.160 --> 0:14:13.120
<v Speaker 1>companies work. It's how investment banks work. I'm modern like

0:14:13.160 --> 0:14:16.880
<v Speaker 1>corporate investment banks work. And the multi strategy model is that, right,

0:14:16.920 --> 0:14:20.040
<v Speaker 1>It's like the investors are capital providers. We pay for

0:14:20.200 --> 0:14:22.600
<v Speaker 1>all of our expenses out of the investors' money. Yeah,

0:14:22.600 --> 0:14:26.000
<v Speaker 1>and the investor you get someone what's left over, right, Yeah,

0:14:26.040 --> 0:14:30.040
<v Speaker 1>And that is a model that these firms can sell

0:14:30.080 --> 0:14:32.760
<v Speaker 1>to investors. But if you're just like outside of it,

0:14:32.880 --> 0:14:36.360
<v Speaker 1>you're like what they're paying for photocopiers, Like it's very annoying.

0:14:36.680 --> 0:14:39.400
<v Speaker 2>Like I am not in LP to a multi strategy

0:14:39.480 --> 0:14:42.280
<v Speaker 2>hedge fund, but I mean, reading this story, I hear

0:14:42.360 --> 0:14:44.800
<v Speaker 2>the parallels that you're making with an investment bank. But

0:14:44.920 --> 0:14:47.800
<v Speaker 2>I have to imagine that maybe I'm wrong. I probably

0:14:47.800 --> 0:14:50.680
<v Speaker 2>am that if I'm in LP a potential LP to

0:14:50.720 --> 0:14:52.720
<v Speaker 2>a multi strategy hedge fund, I'm thinking about I am

0:14:52.760 --> 0:14:55.000
<v Speaker 2>giving my money to a hedge fund for returns. I'm

0:14:55.000 --> 0:14:58.600
<v Speaker 2>not investing in an investment bank model. I'm just coming

0:14:58.600 --> 0:15:00.800
<v Speaker 2>at this. It's you know, what is my money going

0:15:00.840 --> 0:15:01.360
<v Speaker 2>to return?

0:15:01.600 --> 0:15:05.840
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, and like their pitch to you is we return

0:15:06.080 --> 0:15:08.080
<v Speaker 1>more than our cost of capital through the cycle. Their

0:15:08.080 --> 0:15:10.840
<v Speaker 1>pitch to you is like we can give you a

0:15:10.920 --> 0:15:15.480
<v Speaker 1>pretty stable high teens return on your money. And that's

0:15:15.480 --> 0:15:18.880
<v Speaker 1>what you're getting. And you're not getting like eighty percent

0:15:18.960 --> 0:15:21.280
<v Speaker 1>of the money we make. That's an irrelevant metric. What

0:15:21.320 --> 0:15:23.400
<v Speaker 1>you're getting is like a sort of expected high teens

0:15:23.440 --> 0:15:25.760
<v Speaker 1>return and like we'll pay for the photocopiers out of

0:15:25.800 --> 0:15:26.160
<v Speaker 1>your money.

0:15:26.200 --> 0:15:28.000
<v Speaker 3>It's actually low teens.

0:15:28.760 --> 0:15:31.880
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, there's this, there's a lot of like a lot

0:15:31.920 --> 0:15:34.520
<v Speaker 1>of you know, I'm used to the investment banking world

0:15:34.520 --> 0:15:36.240
<v Speaker 1>where there's like a thing called the target return on

0:15:36.320 --> 0:15:38.680
<v Speaker 1>equity and you're not supposed to get to the target

0:15:38.680 --> 0:15:40.320
<v Speaker 1>return on it's just like a number that's in the

0:15:40.320 --> 0:15:40.760
<v Speaker 1>present pitch.

0:15:40.880 --> 0:15:41.520
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, I don't know.

0:15:41.560 --> 0:15:44.640
<v Speaker 2>This goes back to a broader question that we talk

0:15:44.680 --> 0:15:48.000
<v Speaker 2>about this all the time on the television show that

0:15:48.040 --> 0:15:50.520
<v Speaker 2>I have open interest, but why would you ever give

0:15:50.560 --> 0:15:51.560
<v Speaker 2>money to a hedge fund?

0:15:51.680 --> 0:15:54.120
<v Speaker 3>I understand the pitch diversification.

0:15:54.320 --> 0:15:57.680
<v Speaker 2>You're supposed to get starty returns of about twelve percent

0:15:57.800 --> 0:16:00.480
<v Speaker 2>with few downswings, but I mean at the S and

0:16:00.480 --> 0:16:04.160
<v Speaker 2>P five hundred, you can pay three basis points for

0:16:04.240 --> 0:16:06.520
<v Speaker 2>the S and P five hundred. Over the last decade,

0:16:06.560 --> 0:16:10.520
<v Speaker 2>you've got an annualized return of thirteen percent with three

0:16:10.560 --> 0:16:13.880
<v Speaker 2>down years. And I mean thinking about these multi strategy

0:16:13.920 --> 0:16:17.000
<v Speaker 2>hedgehoe fees that make two and twenty look cheap, it

0:16:17.160 --> 0:16:19.080
<v Speaker 2>just reinforces that notion.

0:16:20.200 --> 0:16:23.040
<v Speaker 1>You get pretty high returns with lower volatility and with

0:16:23.560 --> 0:16:24.920
<v Speaker 1>no correlation to the broad market.

0:16:25.080 --> 0:16:26.440
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, the return You're a.

0:16:26.440 --> 0:16:28.160
<v Speaker 1>Giant endowment, right, and like you have a lot of

0:16:28.160 --> 0:16:29.520
<v Speaker 1>money in the S and P and you want some

0:16:30.080 --> 0:16:34.200
<v Speaker 1>uncorrelatedponse that you know it doesn't pay like treasure rights

0:16:34.240 --> 0:16:36.800
<v Speaker 1>pays like two or three times treasures. It's a pitch

0:16:36.840 --> 0:16:40.720
<v Speaker 1>that works to a lot of like sophisticated endowments, and

0:16:40.800 --> 0:16:43.160
<v Speaker 1>like this is the like the multi strategy pitch is

0:16:43.160 --> 0:16:44.520
<v Speaker 1>the one that works, which is like, we give you

0:16:44.880 --> 0:16:48.160
<v Speaker 1>very low volatility, pretty high returns, no correlation to the

0:16:48.200 --> 0:16:51.880
<v Speaker 1>S and P. It's diversifying your investments. It's allowing you

0:16:51.920 --> 0:16:53.800
<v Speaker 1>to put more money into the SMP essentially because you

0:16:53.800 --> 0:16:55.320
<v Speaker 1>have like this, yeah, this diversified.

0:16:55.680 --> 0:16:58.240
<v Speaker 2>It's a pitch that I know it works, but I

0:16:58.280 --> 0:17:00.680
<v Speaker 2>don't really understand why it works. And I go back

0:17:01.360 --> 0:17:03.800
<v Speaker 2>to ETF so I'm sorry, where you have this race

0:17:03.840 --> 0:17:05.760
<v Speaker 2>to the bottom and fees, this race to the bottom

0:17:05.800 --> 0:17:07.879
<v Speaker 2>doesn't seem to exist in the hedge fund world. And

0:17:08.240 --> 0:17:10.840
<v Speaker 2>there is a recent example, I think it's the University

0:17:10.840 --> 0:17:14.040
<v Speaker 2>of Connecticut Endowment that just said, actually, we're doing away

0:17:14.080 --> 0:17:16.000
<v Speaker 2>with hedge funds. We're gonna put all of our money

0:17:16.000 --> 0:17:19.840
<v Speaker 2>in buffer ETFs, which guarantee safety.

0:17:20.080 --> 0:17:23.320
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, exactly how much capacity is there in buffer IDFs?

0:17:23.400 --> 0:17:25.560
<v Speaker 1>I get? How much capacity is there in hedgehunds. No.

0:17:25.680 --> 0:17:27.680
<v Speaker 1>I mean, like if you put all of your money

0:17:27.680 --> 0:17:31.680
<v Speaker 1>into equities and there's like a big draw down in equities,

0:17:31.720 --> 0:17:34.320
<v Speaker 1>you have like a really bad year and you can't

0:17:34.520 --> 0:17:36.800
<v Speaker 1>spend on your programs. You know, if you're an endowment

0:17:37.119 --> 0:17:38.679
<v Speaker 1>and if you put some of your money into like

0:17:39.119 --> 0:17:42.119
<v Speaker 1>it's like a diversification, it's like steady returns. It's like

0:17:42.600 --> 0:17:44.880
<v Speaker 1>you don't start from it thinking about the fees, right,

0:17:45.080 --> 0:17:47.560
<v Speaker 1>You start from it thinking about like do they provide

0:17:47.600 --> 0:17:51.080
<v Speaker 1>steady returns after fees? And if the answer is yes,

0:17:51.160 --> 0:17:53.520
<v Speaker 1>then like the fees are none of your business. It's

0:17:53.560 --> 0:17:55.800
<v Speaker 1>like investing in Goldman. Right, it's like, you know, if

0:17:55.800 --> 0:17:58.760
<v Speaker 1>the equity returns a lot, then like it doesn't matter

0:17:58.760 --> 0:18:01.720
<v Speaker 1>that people are getting bonuses, right, Yeah, And like much

0:18:01.760 --> 0:18:05.320
<v Speaker 1>as with a public company, the job is to earn

0:18:05.359 --> 0:18:08.960
<v Speaker 1>the cost of capital over some medium period of time.

0:18:09.560 --> 0:18:12.320
<v Speaker 1>And so like the Big Take article starts with bally

0:18:12.359 --> 0:18:14.920
<v Speaker 1>Asthny charging a lot of money in like a relatively

0:18:14.960 --> 0:18:17.000
<v Speaker 1>down year, right, And bally Asni's like, well, you know,

0:18:17.080 --> 0:18:19.600
<v Speaker 1>it's an anomalist down year, and usually we return our

0:18:19.640 --> 0:18:21.920
<v Speaker 1>cost of capital, but like we have this one down year,

0:18:21.920 --> 0:18:23.560
<v Speaker 1>and you like point to it and it's like, yes,

0:18:23.680 --> 0:18:26.680
<v Speaker 1>in a down year, it is embarrassing to pay tens

0:18:26.680 --> 0:18:29.480
<v Speaker 1>of millions of dollars to your traders because like they

0:18:29.480 --> 0:18:31.200
<v Speaker 1>didn't make money for the investors. But it's like that's

0:18:31.200 --> 0:18:32.320
<v Speaker 1>not the right way to look at it. The right

0:18:32.320 --> 0:18:33.639
<v Speaker 1>way to look at it. It's like you're investing in a

0:18:33.680 --> 0:18:35.720
<v Speaker 1>business over the long term, and the business they to

0:18:35.800 --> 0:18:36.679
<v Speaker 1>pay money for traders.

0:18:36.760 --> 0:18:37.000
<v Speaker 3>Yeah.

0:18:37.359 --> 0:18:39.720
<v Speaker 2>I guess I just don't find it compelling. But you

0:18:39.760 --> 0:18:41.840
<v Speaker 2>know what, I'm not in charge of an endowment. I'm

0:18:41.840 --> 0:18:44.600
<v Speaker 2>sure if I was, perhaps I would have a different perspective.

0:18:44.840 --> 0:18:46.800
<v Speaker 1>The great like sort of you know, hedge fund pitch

0:18:46.840 --> 0:18:49.320
<v Speaker 1>of like twenty years ago is like I will take

0:18:49.320 --> 0:18:53.199
<v Speaker 1>your money. M hmm, I will make one hundred percent trains,

0:18:53.560 --> 0:18:55.760
<v Speaker 1>I'll take thirty percent of the right, Like there's like

0:18:55.800 --> 0:18:57.960
<v Speaker 1>this the sort of swing for the fence's hedgehund model,

0:18:57.960 --> 0:19:00.080
<v Speaker 1>where like yeah, you could like make big back.

0:19:00.280 --> 0:19:02.320
<v Speaker 3>And which I do find compelling.

0:19:02.400 --> 0:19:03.879
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, right, I think I think is like much more

0:19:03.880 --> 0:19:06.439
<v Speaker 1>intuitively compelling, right, yeah. And the multi strat model is

0:19:06.520 --> 0:19:08.520
<v Speaker 1>like you're not like, oh, I put all my money

0:19:08.520 --> 0:19:11.880
<v Speaker 1>onto like Fanny May, Right. They put all my money

0:19:11.880 --> 0:19:13.720
<v Speaker 1>into like a series of like short term bets on

0:19:13.960 --> 0:19:16.640
<v Speaker 1>that are like essentially like liquidity provision and arbitrage trades,

0:19:16.800 --> 0:19:18.040
<v Speaker 1>and I can't really tell you about any of them,

0:19:18.040 --> 0:19:19.640
<v Speaker 1>and they're not that exciting, and they're on for one

0:19:19.720 --> 0:19:22.280
<v Speaker 1>day and they're all uncorrelated and hedged to you know,

0:19:22.600 --> 0:19:25.119
<v Speaker 1>a variety of factors, and so it's just like, I mean,

0:19:25.119 --> 0:19:26.840
<v Speaker 1>the thing I think about is like they like high

0:19:26.840 --> 0:19:29.280
<v Speaker 1>frequency trading model, where like your job is to make

0:19:29.320 --> 0:19:32.919
<v Speaker 1>money every day, and it's a little bit like the

0:19:33.000 --> 0:19:35.239
<v Speaker 1>job of these firms. It is not literally to make

0:19:35.280 --> 0:19:38.760
<v Speaker 1>money every day, but it's to like be very neutral

0:19:38.840 --> 0:19:41.560
<v Speaker 1>to market factors and to just sort of make steady

0:19:41.560 --> 0:19:46.080
<v Speaker 1>returns doing fairly safe but highly levered trades, and like

0:19:46.520 --> 0:19:48.480
<v Speaker 1>that's the thing they're pitching. And I think that resonates

0:19:48.480 --> 0:19:52.080
<v Speaker 1>with a lot of like yeah people in that it

0:19:52.280 --> 0:19:58.400
<v Speaker 1>seems real and sustainable in a way that like I'm

0:19:58.400 --> 0:19:59.760
<v Speaker 1>going to put all the money on Fanny May is

0:19:59.800 --> 0:20:02.240
<v Speaker 1>not if you're just like taking big swings, like you're

0:20:02.240 --> 0:20:04.280
<v Speaker 1>gonna miss and then like you know, you'll lose money,

0:20:04.320 --> 0:20:08.399
<v Speaker 1>Whereas like these guys are like, we're incredibly conscious of

0:20:08.520 --> 0:20:10.560
<v Speaker 1>risk and we try to be very neutral to a

0:20:10.600 --> 0:20:14.080
<v Speaker 1>lot of factors, so that we're just giving you pure alpha,

0:20:14.640 --> 0:20:17.960
<v Speaker 1>which is in some sense like alpha here beans something

0:20:18.040 --> 0:20:20.520
<v Speaker 1>like getting paid for providing a service, right, And it's

0:20:20.520 --> 0:20:22.879
<v Speaker 1>like we're doing something for the market and we're getting

0:20:22.880 --> 0:20:27.200
<v Speaker 1>paid for it. Yeah, And that's more reliable than like

0:20:28.240 --> 0:20:30.040
<v Speaker 1>a model of like we're going to make bets on

0:20:30.119 --> 0:20:33.080
<v Speaker 1>stocks and hope those bets work out whether or not

0:20:33.160 --> 0:20:35.360
<v Speaker 1>an individual pot is quants. Like it's a very quantity

0:20:35.480 --> 0:20:38.040
<v Speaker 1>like sort of model of thinking about the world, which

0:20:38.080 --> 0:20:43.199
<v Speaker 1>is like making individual bets on stocks has like a

0:20:43.240 --> 0:20:45.400
<v Speaker 1>pretty high probability of going wrong, and so you're making

0:20:45.440 --> 0:20:47.239
<v Speaker 1>a lot of diversified bets with like a little bit

0:20:47.240 --> 0:20:50.480
<v Speaker 1>of edge on each one, right, and like you tell

0:20:50.520 --> 0:20:52.720
<v Speaker 1>that model to an institutional allocator of like, yes, this

0:20:52.840 --> 0:20:56.520
<v Speaker 1>makes sense. This like feels plausible and sustainable. Whereas when

0:20:56.560 --> 0:20:58.080
<v Speaker 1>you come in and you're like, I'm just really good

0:20:58.080 --> 0:20:59.440
<v Speaker 1>at picking stocks, it seems bad.

0:20:59.640 --> 0:21:02.919
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, I don't know. I mean I hear what you're saying.

0:21:04.080 --> 0:21:08.000
<v Speaker 2>I still am surprised that there isn't feed pressure here.

0:21:08.440 --> 0:21:11.040
<v Speaker 2>It just feels like in every part of the asset

0:21:11.040 --> 0:21:14.080
<v Speaker 2>management industry there is fee pressure, and that feed pressure

0:21:14.520 --> 0:21:17.840
<v Speaker 2>doesn't apply to these multi strate hedge funds.

0:21:17.920 --> 0:21:19.680
<v Speaker 1>Well, I think there's a reason that's not as pastors,

0:21:19.760 --> 0:21:22.160
<v Speaker 1>right because if you're like, we're gonna charge seven and seventy,

0:21:22.560 --> 0:21:25.800
<v Speaker 1>be like, yeah, it would be bad, right. But if

0:21:25.840 --> 0:21:28.320
<v Speaker 1>you're like, look, the going rate for a portfolio manager

0:21:28.400 --> 0:21:30.239
<v Speaker 1>is fifty million dollars, what do you want us to

0:21:30.280 --> 0:21:32.960
<v Speaker 1>not hire a portfolio manager? Like, you know, like the

0:21:33.080 --> 0:21:35.120
<v Speaker 1>pass of the fifty million dollars.

0:21:35.400 --> 0:21:40.040
<v Speaker 3>Got him in the wrong business. Seriously, letter writer Jesus Christ.

0:21:41.520 --> 0:21:45.720
<v Speaker 2>So, in clicking around in preparation for this conversation, did

0:21:45.760 --> 0:21:48.560
<v Speaker 2>you see Ken Griffin? I know you did like a

0:21:48.600 --> 0:21:50.840
<v Speaker 2>month or two ago, saying that he thinks the boom

0:21:50.920 --> 0:21:52.800
<v Speaker 2>in multi strategy hedge funds is over.

0:21:53.280 --> 0:21:55.040
<v Speaker 1>I do think that if you run a multi strategy

0:21:55.080 --> 0:21:58.560
<v Speaker 1>hedge fund, the pricing pressure that you feel is probably

0:21:58.680 --> 0:22:02.240
<v Speaker 1>bore about hiring portfolio managers, that it is about your healties. Yeah,

0:22:02.280 --> 0:22:04.280
<v Speaker 1>And so for him to be like, oh r, it's over, yeah,

0:22:04.440 --> 0:22:06.440
<v Speaker 1>is a way to drive down the prices of portolio

0:22:06.520 --> 0:22:09.119
<v Speaker 1>managers more than it is to like signal to healthy

0:22:09.600 --> 0:22:11.560
<v Speaker 1>so he doesn't need their money, or like he's like, yeah,

0:22:11.600 --> 0:22:14.760
<v Speaker 1>the boom is not really over for him. The other

0:22:14.800 --> 0:22:18.159
<v Speaker 1>signal you're sending is the boom is over for potential competitors,

0:22:18.240 --> 0:22:21.120
<v Speaker 1>right yeah, which might be true, right, But I don't

0:22:21.119 --> 0:22:23.600
<v Speaker 1>think that, like Ken Griffin is worried about being poor

0:22:23.600 --> 0:22:24.000
<v Speaker 1>in a year.

0:22:24.200 --> 0:22:28.120
<v Speaker 3>No, I don't think so. Though. Apparently, according to Goldman.

0:22:27.920 --> 0:22:32.440
<v Speaker 2>Assets managed by multi strats did drop slightly in twenty

0:22:32.480 --> 0:22:34.760
<v Speaker 2>twenty four, which was the first to client since twenty sixteen.

0:22:35.000 --> 0:22:52.159
<v Speaker 2>So I don't know, we'll see. Let's talk about this

0:22:52.200 --> 0:22:54.960
<v Speaker 2>humble thought experiment that was put on by Double Line.

0:22:55.000 --> 0:22:57.280
<v Speaker 2>I wrote about it. It's pretty interesting. It's a paper

0:22:57.280 --> 0:23:01.440
<v Speaker 2>that was released this month. They basically sized up Microsoft

0:23:02.080 --> 0:23:04.960
<v Speaker 2>as an issuer versus the US government as an issuer

0:23:05.119 --> 0:23:08.240
<v Speaker 2>of debt. They didn't reach a conclusion. They wanted to

0:23:08.280 --> 0:23:10.200
<v Speaker 2>leave it up to the reader, but it seemed like

0:23:10.240 --> 0:23:11.719
<v Speaker 2>they were leaning towards Microsoft.

0:23:12.080 --> 0:23:15.520
<v Speaker 1>It's a strange thought experiment, yeah, because they basically like,

0:23:15.800 --> 0:23:18.960
<v Speaker 1>look at Microsoft's capacity to service that's debt based on

0:23:19.040 --> 0:23:21.360
<v Speaker 1>its cash flows, and they compare it to the US

0:23:21.440 --> 0:23:24.439
<v Speaker 1>government's capacity to service it's that based on its stock

0:23:24.440 --> 0:23:26.440
<v Speaker 1>of debt and cash flows. Yeah, and it's like, Wow,

0:23:26.480 --> 0:23:28.280
<v Speaker 1>the US government takes in less than it spends and

0:23:28.400 --> 0:23:30.960
<v Speaker 1>Microsoft takes in more than it spends, and yeah, Microsoft

0:23:31.000 --> 0:23:36.280
<v Speaker 1>is a better credit. Okay. Like I have a lot

0:23:36.280 --> 0:23:40.720
<v Speaker 1>of sympathy for their conclusion. Right, they are doing this analysis,

0:23:40.800 --> 0:23:45.520
<v Speaker 1>I would think things like Microsoft is run by professionals

0:23:45.920 --> 0:23:50.320
<v Speaker 1>who one believe that they should repay their debt and

0:23:50.440 --> 0:23:54.760
<v Speaker 1>to want continued access to capital markets, and also has

0:23:54.760 --> 0:23:57.600
<v Speaker 1>a lot of cash flow, right, and so when their

0:23:57.640 --> 0:23:59.360
<v Speaker 1>debt comes due, they will pay it.

0:23:59.440 --> 0:24:00.600
<v Speaker 3>They certainly well.

0:24:00.480 --> 0:24:05.879
<v Speaker 1>Barring some sort of tele risk catastrophe. The US government

0:24:06.000 --> 0:24:09.199
<v Speaker 1>is not, for instances, run by a president who is

0:24:10.119 --> 0:24:14.320
<v Speaker 1>who has boasted about his use of bankruptcy I heard

0:24:14.320 --> 0:24:16.640
<v Speaker 1>about this the other day. This is wild, Like people

0:24:16.640 --> 0:24:18.080
<v Speaker 1>can get him to say anything. And he was talking

0:24:18.080 --> 0:24:22.320
<v Speaker 1>about like Elon Musk going through the payment system and irregularities, right,

0:24:22.320 --> 0:24:24.719
<v Speaker 1>like the treasury. No one says what the irregularities are,

0:24:24.720 --> 0:24:27.720
<v Speaker 1>but oh, this fraud. Right, And so Donald Trump said,

0:24:27.880 --> 0:24:28.880
<v Speaker 1>there could be a problem.

0:24:28.880 --> 0:24:32.400
<v Speaker 2>You've been reading about that with treasuries, and that could

0:24:32.400 --> 0:24:35.800
<v Speaker 2>be an interesting problem because it could be that a lot.

0:24:35.760 --> 0:24:37.119
<v Speaker 1>Of those things don't count.

0:24:37.160 --> 0:24:40.000
<v Speaker 2>In other words, that some of that stuff that we're.

0:24:39.880 --> 0:24:44.440
<v Speaker 1>Finding is very fraudulent. Therefore, maybe we have less debt

0:24:44.480 --> 0:24:47.960
<v Speaker 1>than we thought of. Think of that, therefore, maybe we

0:24:48.000 --> 0:24:49.280
<v Speaker 1>have less debt than we thought of.

0:24:49.520 --> 0:24:51.880
<v Speaker 3>That was amazing that landed like during the super Bowl.

0:24:52.280 --> 0:24:54.560
<v Speaker 1>So like some treasuries may not count. Who knows which

0:24:54.560 --> 0:24:57.040
<v Speaker 1>treasuries don't count? Who knows why? Like there might be

0:24:57.040 --> 0:24:59.679
<v Speaker 1>from fraud. Right, maybe your treasuries were fraud. Yeah. I

0:24:59.680 --> 0:25:03.359
<v Speaker 1>don't place a high probability on that happening. But like

0:25:03.400 --> 0:25:05.960
<v Speaker 1>you know, the guys go around, some treasures don't count.

0:25:06.200 --> 0:25:07.560
<v Speaker 1>Microsoft doesn't say that.

0:25:07.840 --> 0:25:10.239
<v Speaker 2>No, no, Microsoft would not say that. And what was

0:25:10.359 --> 0:25:13.560
<v Speaker 2>interesting about Trump saying that over the weekends was, first

0:25:13.560 --> 0:25:15.000
<v Speaker 2>of all, it took a little bit. There was a

0:25:15.080 --> 0:25:17.480
<v Speaker 2>lag between when he said that and when someone from

0:25:17.480 --> 0:25:20.800
<v Speaker 2>the administration clarified that he wasn't talking about treasury bonds

0:25:21.160 --> 0:25:24.679
<v Speaker 2>or whatever it was. But there wasn't there wasn't a

0:25:24.760 --> 0:25:28.000
<v Speaker 2>reaction in the treasury market, which I don't know, maybe

0:25:28.040 --> 0:25:30.600
<v Speaker 2>points to maybe Trump losing some of his juice here

0:25:30.640 --> 0:25:33.439
<v Speaker 2>that he could suggest that maybe we wouldn't count some

0:25:33.520 --> 0:25:36.360
<v Speaker 2>of the treasuries in the market just totally looked past it.

0:25:36.800 --> 0:25:39.960
<v Speaker 1>I'm not saying that the US government is no longer

0:25:40.000 --> 0:25:41.639
<v Speaker 1>interested in paints. I just say, like you look at

0:25:41.680 --> 0:25:43.560
<v Speaker 1>the measurement of Microsoft, you think the management.

0:25:45.440 --> 0:25:47.600
<v Speaker 2>So it sounds like you would end up even though

0:25:47.600 --> 0:25:50.760
<v Speaker 2>maybe you're looking at different factors in your own analysis.

0:25:50.359 --> 0:25:52.480
<v Speaker 3>Very different factors, but you end up in kind of

0:25:52.520 --> 0:25:52.720
<v Speaker 3>the same.

0:25:52.760 --> 0:25:57.840
<v Speaker 1>Oh yeah, yeah, I mean not investment it was. I mean,

0:25:58.160 --> 0:25:59.480
<v Speaker 1>I appreciate the thought expert.

0:25:59.600 --> 0:26:01.000
<v Speaker 3>I should note that double line.

0:26:01.040 --> 0:26:03.200
<v Speaker 2>This truly is a thought experiment because they don't own

0:26:03.240 --> 0:26:06.560
<v Speaker 2>Microsoft debt. The reason being that there's just better value

0:26:06.600 --> 0:26:10.160
<v Speaker 2>to be found elsewhere. Obviously because Microsoft trades.

0:26:10.720 --> 0:26:11.480
<v Speaker 1>Treasure that they have.

0:26:11.560 --> 0:26:12.520
<v Speaker 3>It's a good question too.

0:26:13.359 --> 0:26:16.959
<v Speaker 2>I don't know, but Microsoft, I mean, you look at

0:26:16.960 --> 0:26:19.800
<v Speaker 2>their thirty year debt, and it trades very similarly to

0:26:19.920 --> 0:26:21.440
<v Speaker 2>treasures like forty.

0:26:21.240 --> 0:26:23.159
<v Speaker 1>One basic points of a treasures, which is like a

0:26:23.200 --> 0:26:26.240
<v Speaker 1>meaningful premium if you think it's safer, No, it's I mean,

0:26:26.320 --> 0:26:29.440
<v Speaker 1>it's them compared to highal bonds, but it's a lot

0:26:29.520 --> 0:26:32.040
<v Speaker 1>compared to Yeah, you think it should be negative, right,

0:26:32.040 --> 0:26:33.440
<v Speaker 1>if you think it should, it's a good trid.

0:26:33.560 --> 0:26:35.159
<v Speaker 2>I mean, they do point out that if you do,

0:26:35.640 --> 0:26:38.479
<v Speaker 2>you know, end up on the side of Microsoft debt

0:26:38.560 --> 0:26:41.800
<v Speaker 2>is safer, then there's some income opportunity there, but they're

0:26:41.880 --> 0:26:44.960
<v Speaker 2>personally not exploiting that their analysis though. Just to put

0:26:45.000 --> 0:26:48.560
<v Speaker 2>some numbers behind what we've been talking about. So Microsoft

0:26:49.320 --> 0:26:52.280
<v Speaker 2>can pay its annual interest expenses more than fifty times over,

0:26:53.080 --> 0:26:56.240
<v Speaker 2>it is expected to generate nearly forty eight billion dollars

0:26:56.240 --> 0:26:58.959
<v Speaker 2>of free cash flow in fiscal twenty twenty five. It

0:26:59.000 --> 0:27:02.360
<v Speaker 2>also has a higher rate from the credit agencies than

0:27:02.880 --> 0:27:06.080
<v Speaker 2>the US government, which is pretty funny. Whereas you compare

0:27:06.119 --> 0:27:10.000
<v Speaker 2>that to the US government, our country's receipts to interest

0:27:10.040 --> 0:27:13.159
<v Speaker 2>expense has declined to five point two times as is

0:27:13.200 --> 0:27:15.960
<v Speaker 2>twenty twenty three. Also, we've run a deficit since two

0:27:16.000 --> 0:27:18.680
<v Speaker 2>thousand and two. So those are some of the factors

0:27:18.680 --> 0:27:20.920
<v Speaker 2>that went into what double Line is looking at.

0:27:21.080 --> 0:27:22.800
<v Speaker 1>I mean, first of all, the traditional analysis is the

0:27:22.920 --> 0:27:24.200
<v Speaker 1>US government can always pay back.

0:27:24.200 --> 0:27:26.440
<v Speaker 2>It's that because the full faith and credit, because it.

0:27:26.359 --> 0:27:29.399
<v Speaker 1>Can print money. Yeah, so in the worst case, the

0:27:29.480 --> 0:27:33.080
<v Speaker 1>US government prints money and inflates away the debt, and

0:27:33.160 --> 0:27:36.359
<v Speaker 1>that's just as bad for Microsoft's that as it is

0:27:36.359 --> 0:27:39.760
<v Speaker 1>for US government as reading. Like you know, there's like

0:27:39.800 --> 0:27:42.880
<v Speaker 1>a traditional theory of the sovereign ceiling where like people

0:27:43.000 --> 0:27:44.920
<v Speaker 1>use that more for like emerging market spuds, where it's

0:27:44.960 --> 0:27:46.919
<v Speaker 1>like the idea is that you can't have a better

0:27:47.480 --> 0:27:51.800
<v Speaker 1>credit rating or a lower yield for a corporate in

0:27:51.840 --> 0:27:56.320
<v Speaker 1>an emerging market then for the sovereign because like it's

0:27:56.320 --> 0:27:58.280
<v Speaker 1>not clear why, but it's like, you know, there's some

0:27:58.320 --> 0:27:59.760
<v Speaker 1>theory that like you know, first of all, like the

0:28:00.000 --> 0:28:02.680
<v Speaker 1>economic conditions that affect the sovereign would affect the corporate

0:28:02.720 --> 0:28:06.640
<v Speaker 1>as well. And secondly, like a catastrophe for the sovereign,

0:28:06.840 --> 0:28:09.840
<v Speaker 1>is the sovereign going to like seize the assets of

0:28:09.880 --> 0:28:12.359
<v Speaker 1>the corporate? You know, Like, so it have the sovereign ceiling,

0:28:12.359 --> 0:28:13.920
<v Speaker 1>but it's like a sort of soft ceiling, and there's

0:28:14.000 --> 0:28:18.360
<v Speaker 1>like history of ratings agencies occasionally rating corporates in Argentina

0:28:18.440 --> 0:28:21.920
<v Speaker 1>higher than this. Yeah, Microsoft can't print dollers, but I'm

0:28:21.920 --> 0:28:25.080
<v Speaker 1>pretty close. And I think that like, if I were

0:28:25.080 --> 0:28:27.879
<v Speaker 1>trying to like think about like my credit risk as

0:28:27.920 --> 0:28:29.639
<v Speaker 1>a credit of the US government, I would worry a

0:28:29.680 --> 0:28:33.640
<v Speaker 1>lot more about like government shutdowns, that ceiling bridges, elon musk,

0:28:33.720 --> 0:28:36.400
<v Speaker 1>deleting the database, you know, like all that stuff. Then

0:28:36.440 --> 0:28:39.840
<v Speaker 1>I would about like cash flow, yeah, because like cash

0:28:39.840 --> 0:28:42.240
<v Speaker 1>flow can be solved by printing currency, right, but like

0:28:42.440 --> 0:28:44.440
<v Speaker 1>all that other stuff, like you you might get like

0:28:44.600 --> 0:28:47.400
<v Speaker 1>you know, delay on your payments, right. Yeah, So I

0:28:47.400 --> 0:28:51.040
<v Speaker 1>think that stuff is like idiosying credit to the current

0:28:51.160 --> 0:28:53.600
<v Speaker 1>US government and wouldn't apply to like the highest rated

0:28:53.720 --> 0:28:54.720
<v Speaker 1>corporates in the US.

0:28:54.920 --> 0:28:55.560
<v Speaker 3>Yeah.

0:28:55.600 --> 0:28:58.120
<v Speaker 2>And I mean we're talking about forty nine basis points

0:28:58.200 --> 0:28:59.760
<v Speaker 2>in terms of the spread in.

0:29:00.160 --> 0:29:03.240
<v Speaker 1>Keep saying that small, That seems big. That seems like so.

0:29:03.240 --> 0:29:05.520
<v Speaker 2>You're saying, I don't, I don't know, maybe you should

0:29:05.520 --> 0:29:11.120
<v Speaker 2>go buy some This isn't investment advice, as Matt said,

0:29:11.360 --> 0:29:14.880
<v Speaker 2>but I mean, in em it's not unheard of to

0:29:14.880 --> 0:29:17.920
<v Speaker 2>see corporates trade through the sovereign, which is cool. Also,

0:29:18.240 --> 0:29:21.680
<v Speaker 2>I got some interesting feedback on this one. A terminal

0:29:21.680 --> 0:29:24.320
<v Speaker 2>client wrote in, and I liked this email a lot.

0:29:24.440 --> 0:29:28.760
<v Speaker 2>Not talking about em but this person said I'd certainly

0:29:28.840 --> 0:29:32.280
<v Speaker 2>rather own Loreal bonds than French bonds, which I found amusing.

0:29:32.480 --> 0:29:35.080
<v Speaker 2>So there's other examples you could use.

0:29:35.120 --> 0:29:37.560
<v Speaker 1>But yeah, there's like, you know, like the big companies

0:29:37.560 --> 0:29:40.760
<v Speaker 1>are sort of multinational and like arguably have less exposure

0:29:40.840 --> 0:29:44.640
<v Speaker 1>to some of the conditions in their countries than the

0:29:44.680 --> 0:29:45.280
<v Speaker 1>sovereign does.

0:29:45.440 --> 0:29:48.600
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, so I asked Bloomberg Intelligence about this, and I

0:29:48.600 --> 0:29:51.480
<v Speaker 2>thought this was a fun stat as well. Microsoft has

0:29:52.120 --> 0:29:56.760
<v Speaker 2>a zero point zero six percent five year cumulative default risk,

0:29:56.800 --> 0:30:01.080
<v Speaker 2>which is pretty stinking close to the US government's risks

0:30:01.120 --> 0:30:05.080
<v Speaker 2>free alternative. So microsofts, I don't know, I don't know

0:30:05.080 --> 0:30:07.440
<v Speaker 2>what that number. I think that they just have a

0:30:07.520 --> 0:30:09.520
<v Speaker 2>really low chance of defaulting.

0:30:10.560 --> 0:30:12.200
<v Speaker 1>Sorry, zero point zero six.

0:30:12.040 --> 0:30:17.160
<v Speaker 3>Percent, Yeah, cumulative. What do you think is the chance

0:30:17.760 --> 0:30:19.480
<v Speaker 3>of Microsoft the US.

0:30:19.360 --> 0:30:22.000
<v Speaker 1>Government missing a payment on it's debt in the next

0:30:22.040 --> 0:30:22.680
<v Speaker 1>four years?

0:30:22.920 --> 0:30:23.880
<v Speaker 3>Maybe zero?

0:30:24.080 --> 0:30:26.800
<v Speaker 1>Is it bigger than zero point zero six percent?

0:30:27.000 --> 0:30:33.120
<v Speaker 2>I was going to answer zero point zero six percent, Okay, yeah, what's.

0:30:32.960 --> 0:30:33.800
<v Speaker 3>Your what I mean?

0:30:34.240 --> 0:30:35.520
<v Speaker 1>Zero point zero eight percent?

0:30:35.600 --> 0:30:39.800
<v Speaker 3>Okay, there you go. Then you could have written this paper.

0:30:39.920 --> 0:30:43.960
<v Speaker 1>Exactly programming note. We're taking next week off.

0:30:44.280 --> 0:30:45.520
<v Speaker 3>I'll see you in two weeks.

0:30:50.440 --> 0:30:51.920
<v Speaker 1>And that was the Money Stuff Podcast.

0:30:52.080 --> 0:30:54.120
<v Speaker 3>I'm Matt Livia and I'm Katie Greifeld.

0:30:54.520 --> 0:30:56.600
<v Speaker 1>You can find my work by subscribing to the Money

0:30:56.640 --> 0:30:58.440
<v Speaker 1>Stuff newsletter on Bloomberg dot.

0:30:58.280 --> 0:31:00.760
<v Speaker 2>Com, and you can find me on Bloomberg TV every

0:31:00.840 --> 0:31:04.240
<v Speaker 2>day on Open Interest between nine to eleven am Eastern.

0:31:04.640 --> 0:31:06.360
<v Speaker 1>We'd love to hear from you. You can send an

0:31:06.360 --> 0:31:09.560
<v Speaker 1>email to Moneypot at Bloomberg dot net, ask us a

0:31:09.640 --> 0:31:11.040
<v Speaker 1>question and we might answer it on air.

0:31:11.520 --> 0:31:13.720
<v Speaker 2>You can also subscribe to our show wherever you're listening

0:31:13.760 --> 0:31:15.760
<v Speaker 2>right now and leave us a review. It helps more

0:31:15.800 --> 0:31:17.240
<v Speaker 2>people find the show.

0:31:17.400 --> 0:31:20.080
<v Speaker 1>The Money Stuff Podcast is produced by Ana ma Aserakus

0:31:20.120 --> 0:31:21.360
<v Speaker 1>and Moses onam Ar.

0:31:21.400 --> 0:31:23.800
<v Speaker 2>Thea music was composed by Blake Maples.

0:31:23.640 --> 0:31:26.320
<v Speaker 1>Friend and Frances Newnham is our executive producer.

0:31:26.080 --> 0:31:28.280
<v Speaker 2>And Stage Bauman is Bloomberg's head of Podcasts.

0:31:28.560 --> 0:31:30.880
<v Speaker 1>Thanks for listening to The Money Stuff Podcast. We'll be

0:31:30.960 --> 0:31:32.480
<v Speaker 1>back next week with more stuff