Speaker 1: Welcome to Trillions. I'm Joel Webber and I'm Eric bell Tunis. Eric,
Speaker 1: can you cut your own hair yet? No, it's just
Speaker 1: it's growing out. I haven't even I haven't shaved. I uh,
Speaker 1: I'm just going forward. I'm going for that look. Remember
Speaker 1: in the movie The Doors, Jim Morrison towards the end
Speaker 1: when he's got the pot belly and the long hair
Speaker 1: and the beard. That's that's sort of where I'm headed.
Speaker 1: So you're quitting yourself to Jim Morrison pretty much. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I feel I feel pretty clean though, and I feel
Speaker 1: pretty good, but I'm in the days. Jim Morrison is
Speaker 1: maybe not the one you want to go with. But otherwise,
Speaker 1: how are you holding up? I gotta be honest. Like
Speaker 1: we've gotten into bike riding. That seems to be like
Speaker 1: a nice way to social distance. If with my oldest son,
Speaker 1: you ride bikes and there's no cars, so you go
Speaker 1: in the middle of the road pretty much. Uh, these
Speaker 1: are small streets where the cars would be going fast anyway.
Speaker 1: If a car comes, you dive into the sidewalk, and
Speaker 1: then you see a person, you dive into the street.
Speaker 1: And we've had fun doing that all weekend, and so
Speaker 1: we're being creative in how to get out, but I'm
Speaker 1: getting a little cabin fever. I can't wait for things
Speaker 1: to open back up. How about you. I can't wait
Speaker 1: for you to buy me a sushi lunch at some point,
Speaker 1: and you know, maybe the summer. That sounds good. But hey, Eric,
Speaker 1: I'm really excited about today's guest. It's Jon Vanek of
Speaker 1: van Eck. What's been going on in his world? Well,
Speaker 1: Vanek has come up quite a bit, but also we've
Speaker 1: had an analyst and a reporter on the last two
Speaker 1: episodes since the crisis started and all the selling and everything,
Speaker 1: and you know, it's nice to have an issue where
Speaker 1: somebody who's on the front lines dealing with client inquiries
Speaker 1: trying to make sure the funds right run properly. Really
Speaker 1: just to get his perspective on that. Now, the bonuses
Speaker 1: Vaneck is UH has some ETFs that are just acutely
Speaker 1: connected to what we've been seeing with the FED and
Speaker 1: the discounts and UH in video games, UH those stocks
Speaker 1: have been doing great. They have a video game et
Speaker 1: We'll get to all of it. But so there's a
Speaker 1: couple levels of why I think he's the perfect guest
Speaker 1: for today, this time on trillions. Jan vneck Yahn, Welcome
Speaker 1: to trillions. Thanks so good to be here. So, like
Speaker 1: Eric said, here, we've talked to a reporter, uh, an analyst,
Speaker 1: but we haven't talked to somebody in your shoes on
Speaker 1: the issuer side. And especially with the FED becoming such
Speaker 1: a player in e t F s of late, really
Speaker 1: fascinated about your perspective on on that, Like, here's this
Speaker 1: whale coming into the market, um, and what's your perspective
Speaker 1: on that as an issue? Well, it's it's it was
Speaker 1: really shocking what happened Thursday before Easter, right, the huge
Speaker 1: announcement by the FED really rocked the credit markets, and
Speaker 1: you even saw some high LDTs trading at premiums to
Speaker 1: their prior day and n A v s. So the way,
Speaker 1: if you and I haven't read all the language, but
Speaker 1: if you look at what they're trying to accomplish, it's
Speaker 1: tilted towards investment grade and everything. But I was saying
Speaker 1: today earlier today, it's sort of like a really fat
Speaker 1: elephant trying to be super delicate and tiptoeing through the
Speaker 1: credit markets. It's would be surprising if it was done well.
Speaker 1: Let me ask you about this because the FED in
Speaker 1: their announcement we called the one in Marche the kitchen sink.
Speaker 1: That's when they went after investment grade corporates. You saw
Speaker 1: l q D take off. This next one we're just
Speaker 1: loosely referring to is the bathroom sinc. They're gonna try
Speaker 1: to make sure they catch the fallen angels. These are
Speaker 1: bonds that get downgraded from investment grade to high yield
Speaker 1: double bees. Now you have fun ang L. We Morgan
Speaker 1: Barnett and James on My team wrote this morning talking
Speaker 1: about how ang L is like a glass slipper. It's
Speaker 1: the perfect fit for what they're after. But it seems
Speaker 1: like they're gonna probably use h y G, which only
Speaker 1: has half double bees um and maybe that's not a
Speaker 1: perfect fit, but it's a bigger, more liquid one. What's
Speaker 1: your take on what they should do here in terms
Speaker 1: of any e t F they buy, the less the
Speaker 1: better as far as I'm concerned, I mean, I understand
Speaker 1: that half of the credit and our economy goes through
Speaker 1: bonds and not through the formal banking system, and that
Speaker 1: they that credit was falling apart, that system was falling apart,
Speaker 1: but really you know, we know that people are taking
Speaker 1: risk and making markets around our ets to make them
Speaker 1: function as well as they can for long term shareholders.
Speaker 1: You know, it doesn't take a lot of money. Even
Speaker 1: the fear of the FED coming in and knocking your
Speaker 1: positions out drove prices I think on last Thursday. So
Speaker 1: by far, the less the better. And if Angel is
Speaker 1: not part of their buying program, that's a positive as
Speaker 1: far as I'm concerned. And this isn't the first time,
Speaker 1: you know, a central bank has gotten involved with E
Speaker 1: t F And you know, look at Japan and and
Speaker 1: sort of the role the central bank has played there.
Speaker 1: What do you think the FED has learned from the
Speaker 1: Japanese experiment there well? And then this is the time
Speaker 1: of radical central bank intervention and where we haven't gone yet.
Speaker 1: I'm interested in what Eric's analogy is going to be
Speaker 1: is when they start buying equities or equity E t
Speaker 1: F s UM. I don't know if you've got a
Speaker 1: room left in the house for that, but uh, you know,
Speaker 1: I think I think we're pivoting more off of the
Speaker 1: O eight O nine experience where we realized that UM
Speaker 1: the government needed to come in to make sure that
Speaker 1: the pipes weren't clogged in terms of the flow of credit,
Speaker 1: that that was just going to kill the economy even further.
Speaker 1: And I think they were. They were right at a
Speaker 1: high level. And I think I'm not sure how much
Speaker 1: they're really buying into MMT and the experience of Japan
Speaker 1: UM in Europe. I hope not too much, because that
Speaker 1: really distorted asset prices. And one scenario that I'm not
Speaker 1: sure people are thinking about too much is what happened
Speaker 1: after O eight oh nine was a big asset melt up. Right.
Speaker 1: Can you imagine the economy running it's of capacity but
Speaker 1: asset prices exploding. I think that would have some some
Speaker 1: interesting political consequences. The e t F buying, it looks
Speaker 1: like it might be a couple of billion. You know,
Speaker 1: they could buy, say up to twenty six billion of
Speaker 1: bond ETFs if they do max out, but they probably won't.
Speaker 1: I think the real interesting thing here is I think
Speaker 1: the flows into l q D and h y G
Speaker 1: is probably front running just of the underlying bond buying.
Speaker 1: The other part I would I would also talk about
Speaker 1: is that when you talk about QUI. Back in the day,
Speaker 1: we used to think about how yes, they were buying bonds,
Speaker 1: but a lot of that pushed people to buy equities.
Speaker 1: It chased them into risk. So in a way they
Speaker 1: were involved with that indirectly. Japan just went right, just
Speaker 1: went right to the equities. And you know, we do
Speaker 1: look at Bank of Japan and we wrote a piece
Speaker 1: last time. They actually became smart beta designers. They actually
Speaker 1: asked a couple issuers there to design indexes and e
Speaker 1: t f s that waited the stocks to capex and
Speaker 1: who paid workers. Well, that way, they just weren't buying
Speaker 1: companies doing buybacks. So they got that into it. And
Speaker 1: that's not a horrible idea if you're looking to get
Speaker 1: the money to the right place. That isn't the worst
Speaker 1: thing is to make e t f s that hold
Speaker 1: stocks that reward doing capex and uh, you know, paying
Speaker 1: employees higher wage. That's sort of what they're they've gotten into.
Speaker 1: But there that's a whole another level. I don't think
Speaker 1: the Fed's gonna do that anytime soon, John, I also
Speaker 1: wanted to ask you another elephant in the room is
Speaker 1: the whole black Rock scenario here where black Rock is
Speaker 1: basically the Fed's preferred partner and all of this um,
Speaker 1: you're you're an issuer as well. What what's your read
Speaker 1: of that? Well, I guess, uh, you know, look, they're
Speaker 1: supremely qualified with their risk systems and their presence in
Speaker 1: the markets to execute this buying program. But I certainly
Speaker 1: hope it's it's well supervised. And as I said before,
Speaker 1: going back to the elephant, the less they do the better,
Speaker 1: especially in the E T F markets where you know,
Speaker 1: our ecosystem with market makers and and everyone has risk
Speaker 1: on so whatever the FED does, they're hurting someone, if
Speaker 1: you want to look at it that way. So I
Speaker 1: think probably I'd rather have more of black rocks activity
Speaker 1: towards the underlying markets where they feel there's breakage, rather
Speaker 1: than messing with the e t s, which you know
Speaker 1: they're they're big, they're perceived to be liquid, but we're
Speaker 1: still a fraction of the size of the mutual funds.
Speaker 1: And you know, we haven't gotten to the whole outflow
Speaker 1: story of munis and other asset classes, but a lot
Speaker 1: of that was driven by mutual funds as well. You
Speaker 1: just mentioned the word MUNI. Now, during the worst of
Speaker 1: the sell off a couple of weeks ago, it drove
Speaker 1: dislocations in bond e t F s. That means their
Speaker 1: price was trading below their n A V. To me,
Speaker 1: that's a measure of the liquidity of the underlying Otherwise
Speaker 1: that would be armed away. Now h y D which
Speaker 1: is the high old MUNI that's your fund. It wasn't
Speaker 1: the biggest discount, but it was close to it. I
Speaker 1: think at one point it was like day after day
Speaker 1: went is high or low as now it's three post
Speaker 1: fed Kitchen Sinc. Bathroom Sinc. Walk us through what it's
Speaker 1: like to be the issuer of a product going through
Speaker 1: something like that. Well, the primary mechanism for closing that
Speaker 1: gap is the market makers, right because theoretically they have
Speaker 1: the opportunity to buy the e t F at a
Speaker 1: price that's below what they can redeem those shares for
Speaker 1: from the fund at the underlying nav. So job one,
Speaker 1: two and three was pretty much to work with the
Speaker 1: market makers as much as possible. One way we did
Speaker 1: that was to speed up our adoption of the e
Speaker 1: t F rule, which allows for custom baskets, which is
Speaker 1: not sort of a full capability that we had. We
Speaker 1: did that, um, you know, kind of very early on
Speaker 1: into the crisis, and then there was a lot of
Speaker 1: as you can imagine, communications with clients because a lot
Speaker 1: of people didn't understand what's going on. But I really
Speaker 1: think a lot of this had to do with the
Speaker 1: whole selling of munis in general. All Right, prices widened
Speaker 1: and the market makers were just not comfortable whether they
Speaker 1: could sell the bonds if they got delivered from the
Speaker 1: E t F and at what price? Okay? So yeah,
Speaker 1: and I also want to talk about gaming. Are you?
Speaker 1: Are you a pretty hardcore gamer, because I mean you
Speaker 1: have a an E Sports ETF ticker e s P.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah no, but I can tell you the PlayStation
Speaker 1: in my basement's getting overheating these days. I've got I've
Speaker 1: got three boys at home and even my oldest too,
Speaker 1: as a job is now reverted back to eleventh grade.
Speaker 1: I think, so have I. We have an Attendo switch
Speaker 1: and I've gotten addicted to this Turbo football game. Um,
Speaker 1: and I've started playing a season. Yeah it's getting um
Speaker 1: but anyway, UM, I have a on I fell asleep.
Speaker 1: I took a nap the other day and I woke
Speaker 1: up with a note on my chest. Asked my son
Speaker 1: asking me to log in to my computer so he
Speaker 1: could play Roadblocks because mommy took the iPad. And this
Speaker 1: is why I tend to cover the video game ETFs
Speaker 1: a lot, because I can see the demand firsthand. If
Speaker 1: you look at your to date, esp O is up
Speaker 1: five the markets down and during March when the sell
Speaker 1: off was the worst Spy was down, ESPO was down
Speaker 1: ten percent. Only talk about what's going on there? Is
Speaker 1: this just people seeing the demand for these UH stocks
Speaker 1: when you have a quarantine or is this much more
Speaker 1: of a maybe more future demand kind of buying. Well,
Speaker 1: I think we try to offer et f that are
Speaker 1: more longer term trends than just a fad UM. So
Speaker 1: you know, actually last year Eric also had really strong outperformance.
Speaker 1: It's sort of an aggressive growth type of UH E
Speaker 1: t F I would call it. And it's really work
Speaker 1: at work at home e t F. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: it's sort of like zoom stock right, is sort of
Speaker 1: a direct play on people entertaining themselves at home when
Speaker 1: they're stuck and they can't move UM. And the numbers
Speaker 1: are astonishing. I mean one of the Asian listed or
Speaker 1: Singapore based companies has seventy million UH players a day
Speaker 1: logging in from different places in in in Asia and
Speaker 1: that's just Asia. So it's it's really it's really an
Speaker 1: amazing phenomenon. We think it will continue. I think it
Speaker 1: could morph. My my kind of point is this kind
Speaker 1: of entertainment can morph into more customer interaction. You know,
Speaker 1: you're playing kind of static game. But what happens when
Speaker 1: the audience can affect the players in a game? In
Speaker 1: real sports and real sports, people get involved virtual reality.
Speaker 1: There's lots of ways that can evolve in a very
Speaker 1: interesting way. I think my nine year old would much
Speaker 1: rather watch somebody play a video game on YouTube then
Speaker 1: watch sports real sports with me. So this, in a way,
Speaker 1: this event just cceleerates an existing trend, right, it doesn't
Speaker 1: it doesn't necessarily shift the demand function, but definitely it
Speaker 1: will be here in a bigger way after this. The
Speaker 1: thing about s p O is and all the video
Speaker 1: game et s, I think there's four or five of
Speaker 1: them at this point. Um, the you know, the returns
Speaker 1: have been great. If if es p O was an
Speaker 1: active manager, it would be a feature story in Forbes
Speaker 1: because they're doing so much better than the market. Right,
Speaker 1: But it's got a hundred and thirty three million. To me,
Speaker 1: this is a little light considering the outperformance in both
Speaker 1: up and down market, what do you equate this to.
Speaker 1: My theory is advisors are hesitant to put something called
Speaker 1: e sports or video games on a client's statement, and
Speaker 1: there's just a perception barrier because robotics and cybersecurity would
Speaker 1: clean up if they were posted in this kind of performance.
Speaker 1: I kind of agree with you, um that the asset
Speaker 1: growth is a little bit less than what I would
Speaker 1: have hoped for given the performance. But I think it's
Speaker 1: just a conversation people love to have with their clients.
Speaker 1: So I don't think it's the this. You know, they're
Speaker 1: not scared to see it on their statements. Uh, it's
Speaker 1: a very visible trend there. There people playing this in basements,
Speaker 1: they're playing it in malls. Um, you know, family members
Speaker 1: are involved. So I it's kind of cutting edge in
Speaker 1: a way. I just don't You're right, it hasn't quite
Speaker 1: broken through, but I think it could very well this year.
Speaker 1: So yeah, how do you distinguish your product from the
Speaker 1: other products that are there? Um? You know, the main
Speaker 1: thing that we like to say that we have in
Speaker 1: our thematic ets is pure play, so that they're really
Speaker 1: trying to get a majority of their revenue from the
Speaker 1: essence of what we're trying to capture. So we we
Speaker 1: do have some bigger companies in there, but we cap them.
Speaker 1: And then if you look at the portfolio as a whole,
Speaker 1: and it reflects a lot of Asian names, and that's
Speaker 1: really where there is a very big phenomenon. So uh,
Speaker 1: you know, when I think we were the second or
Speaker 1: so ish to come out that the first one was
Speaker 1: just video games, this was more, uh some of the
Speaker 1: gaming and online sports aspect of it. So that's uh,
Speaker 1: that's really how we would focus our you know, that's
Speaker 1: what we did. We follow our regular rules for pure play. Um,
Speaker 1: oh kay, let's change it. We'll stick with equities. But
Speaker 1: I want to change the topic to something that was
Speaker 1: put to put on the back burner for the last month,
Speaker 1: but was on the front burner for like six months prior,
Speaker 1: which is E s G. Um. It's probably gonna come
Speaker 1: up again as soon as the market I've already seen
Speaker 1: bubbling of like E s G debate coming back. You're
Speaker 1: interesting to me because you have this e t F
Speaker 1: that's low carbon energy smog is the ticker. You also
Speaker 1: have a green bond ETF, but you also are the
Speaker 1: issuer of k o L, which is the coal E
Speaker 1: t F, And personally, I kind of dig uh the
Speaker 1: sort of look, I'm just trying to serve the people,
Speaker 1: whatever your take is. But is that by design or
Speaker 1: by accident? Can you explain, sir, having up those two
Speaker 1: different sides of the coin. Um, well, they're a little irreconcilable,
Speaker 1: I guess if you want to look at it that way,
Speaker 1: So I'll grant that up front. Um, you know, ko
Speaker 1: L was from our first era of ETS, a long
Speaker 1: time ago, when we were just trying to capture pure
Speaker 1: play and people hadn't broken up the resources world in
Speaker 1: ways that made sense, so um, lots of mining things
Speaker 1: where everything was just thrown together. So we stripped aside
Speaker 1: agriculture shares like MoU and KOL was one of them.
Speaker 1: It's it's barely an E t F anymore. I think
Speaker 1: it's thirty million last I looked, And you know, we've considered,
Speaker 1: uh um, you know, thought about what to do with
Speaker 1: it in light of changing customer demands. But you know,
Speaker 1: you may know we're also an active money manager. We
Speaker 1: have actively managed funds, and I think there's been a
Speaker 1: lot of good thinking about E s G. But we
Speaker 1: certainly spent a lot of time on it, and I
Speaker 1: would just point out I think I think we're on
Speaker 1: the same page year that E s G one Dotto
Speaker 1: and the for Active Managers was making sure that they
Speaker 1: took more of a three degree look at the different
Speaker 1: kind of risks that their companies could have. Environmental and
Speaker 1: social governance was always a part of what they did,
Speaker 1: and um, I think now putting them into index funds
Speaker 1: is a strain and there's a lot of trade offs
Speaker 1: that need to be made. So we think the pure
Speaker 1: play on environmental is something that we can execute on now. John,
Speaker 1: I also want to just ask you, as we sort
Speaker 1: of come to an end here, what do you feel
Speaker 1: like the E t F world isn't talking enough about that?
Speaker 1: You know, when we get through this moment, we should
Speaker 1: spend more time talking about Well, I don't know, it's
Speaker 1: certainly mentioned, but it's an incredibly concentrated industry and the
Speaker 1: big shareholders really own a lot of corporate America, and
Speaker 1: you know that's sort of been talked about without a
Speaker 1: lot of suggestions. You know, Jack Bogo wrote about it
Speaker 1: in the last PC did for the Wall Street Journal
Speaker 1: before he passed away. So I think that's that's a
Speaker 1: big reality, and black Rock doing the buying for the
Speaker 1: Treasury and the Fed is just going to be, you know,
Speaker 1: another another thing to talk about in that vein, but
Speaker 1: not much we can do about it, I guess as
Speaker 1: an independent issue or just kind of make it work
Speaker 1: it through Yahn. We got to ask about Bitcoin. I know,
Speaker 1: that's another one of these issues that kind of went
Speaker 1: to the backburner a little bit when when the vix
Speaker 1: is up, a lot of this stuff just goes away
Speaker 1: for a while. But it's gonna come back. Bitcoin and
Speaker 1: whether it will be an e t F Tyler Winklevoss
Speaker 1: tweeted out on the tenth April the launch of the
Speaker 1: Bitcoin fund on the Toronto Stock Exchange was one of
Speaker 1: the best clothes and fund launches in Canada's history. So
Speaker 1: it's a closed the funness on an e t F,
Speaker 1: but it's similar. I mean those aren't too far apart there,
Speaker 1: you know, close in the genre, right. What's your take on,
Speaker 1: you know, whether we could see a Bitcoin ETF here,
Speaker 1: whether you know the sec is you know softening at all.
Speaker 1: I know Matt Hogan over a bit wise has been
Speaker 1: working over time to try to get them to um,
Speaker 1: you know, change their view on it and look at
Speaker 1: it as a good thing. There's a couple o t
Speaker 1: C products in the US that are private trusts and
Speaker 1: they trade it, you know, anything from fift premiums, and
Speaker 1: a lot of people can say, well, you know this,
Speaker 1: a bitcoin e t F would trade it maybe a
Speaker 1: one percent premium at that, maybe even lower. Why wouldn't
Speaker 1: they allow it if these other products are out there
Speaker 1: and you act actually get hurt buying at a high
Speaker 1: premium and lose money even if bitcoin went up. Yeah. Look,
Speaker 1: I mean you know that we've been trying to get
Speaker 1: our own bitcoin et F approved for several years now.
Speaker 1: There's no real legal or uh you know, investment reason
Speaker 1: to not allow a product like that. And as this
Speaker 1: episode has reminded us in the markets, you don't need
Speaker 1: to have bitcoin to have volatility. And I think the
Speaker 1: e t F would just add to UM the ecosystem
Speaker 1: for for uh you know, bitcoin e t F would
Speaker 1: add to the ecosystem of that investment class. I will
Speaker 1: point out that, you know, gold, this has been a
Speaker 1: time when central banks are going so nuts that appetite
Speaker 1: for gold and and bitcoin goes up. And actually the
Speaker 1: correlation between bitcoin and gold bullion has gone from about
Speaker 1: zero before this year to something like a point five
Speaker 1: correlation this year, which is actually super interesting. I would
Speaker 1: say so far both have been uh you know, working
Speaker 1: independently of the overall markets, but they haven't broken through.
Speaker 1: And what's amazing is just investor appetite in the traditional
Speaker 1: world is I think not as big for bitcoin as
Speaker 1: people might imagine. I could be wrong, but I don't
Speaker 1: think it's necessarily an instant billion dollar e t F eric. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and I don't think it's gonna take over Middle America
Speaker 1: with Grandma was losing all that. I think people will
Speaker 1: see a bitcoin and on the name, and it will
Speaker 1: track the people who seek it out. Yeah, I see it.
Speaker 1: Maybe the whole category a couple of billion. This is
Speaker 1: me using the ones in Sweden and Switzerland. They haven't
Speaker 1: exactly let the world on fire and all of Europe
Speaker 1: gets there and wealthy people here could buy them. So um, yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm with you. I think it would find the right audience,
Speaker 1: people who I don't know. I I'm very I think
Speaker 1: it's e t F S gives something the best possible
Speaker 1: shot at a good deal because of that arbitrage mechanism,
Speaker 1: which you don't get in the OTC product or closed
Speaker 1: and fund agree, Yahn, do you have a would you
Speaker 1: like to leave our listeners with the closing thought today? Um,
Speaker 1: it's kind of a macro thought if you don't mind. Um,
Speaker 1: you know what I said about a month ago, because
Speaker 1: we do quarterly investment outlooks sort of in the spirit
Speaker 1: of this podcast, which is what do I kind of
Speaker 1: see as a CEO that you might not as a
Speaker 1: portfolio manager or strategists and stuff like that. And I said, listen,
Speaker 1: we're entering a period of heightened uncertainty, and markets hate uncertainty,
Speaker 1: so kind of watch out. And I think that period
Speaker 1: of heightened uncertainty, because there's always uncertainty, is going away. Um,
Speaker 1: it's not disappeared, but things are starting to become more visible.
Speaker 1: It may not be great news, like to go back
Speaker 1: to work stats and shina I saw las start. You're
Speaker 1: kind of depressing. But as visibility appears, and despite what
Speaker 1: the FED did, you know, I think it's time for
Speaker 1: investors to kind of start buying. Don't don't buy everything,
Speaker 1: but you you like someone's uncertainty when you're buying so um.
Speaker 1: I think we're finishing phase one of this era. I
Speaker 1: would say, John Vanek, thanks for joining us on Trilliance.
Speaker 1: Thank you guys. Thanks for listening to Trilliance until next time.
Speaker 1: You can find us on the Bloomberg terminal, Bloomberg dot com,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcast, Spotify, and Webber. Else you'd like to listen.
Speaker 1: We'd love to hear from you. We're on Twitter, I'm
Speaker 1: at Joel Webber Show, He's at Eric Faltunus, and you
Speaker 1: can find Yawn at Yon Vanneck with the number three
Speaker 1: at the end. You can also follow an x podcast
Speaker 1: Trends with Benefits. This episode of Trillions was produced by
Speaker 1: Magnus Hendrickson. Francesca Levy is the head of Bloomberg podcast
Speaker 1: by