Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News. Hello and welcome to
Speaker 1: The Money Stuff Podcast, your weekly podcast where we talked
Speaker 1: about stuff related to money. I'm Matt Levina, and I
Speaker 1: write the Money Stuff column for Bloomberg Opinion.
Speaker 2: And I'm Katie Greifeld, a reporter for Bloomberg News and
Speaker 2: an anchor for Bloomberg Television.
Speaker 1: And Today.
Speaker 2: Mail Back, I didn't even say that, all right, I
Speaker 2: said it. Don't worry about it.
Speaker 1: Actually, that's what everyone wants.
Speaker 2: A lot of great questions, a lot of great questions.
Speaker 1: Thanks for sending us to your questions. They really tied
Speaker 1: us over imperious where I'm on vacation.
Speaker 2: It's also nice. Yeah, that's true. It's nice because I
Speaker 2: don't think we really solicited people for questions this time around. Yeah,
Speaker 2: but like not like, hey, we're recording.
Speaker 1: Under this as standing solicitation. True. Thanks, time you have
Speaker 1: a question, send it to us, and periodically we'll put
Speaker 1: them in a batch and think about answering them.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So shall we start off with Mark.
Speaker 1: Sure, let's start off with Mark. Mail Bag.
Speaker 2: Mail Bag Mark asks, do you think we'll see a
Speaker 2: law firm do an IPO for itself in the next
Speaker 2: few years, I e. Will retail investors be able to
Speaker 2: trade shares in k and E or Paul Weiss in
Speaker 2: five years. From a business model perspective, would a public
Speaker 2: company structure even makes sense. I'm sure they'd at least
Speaker 2: get the disclosures right. That's funny, Mark.
Speaker 1: Are you sure I worked at a law firm. I
Speaker 1: would make sure. So there are law firms like in
Speaker 1: other countries, like I think, including in the UK, you
Speaker 1: can trade shares of law firms. In the US, it
Speaker 1: has historically been prohibited because US legal ethics suggests that
Speaker 1: it's unethical for law firms to be owned by non lawyers.
Speaker 1: This is in part for genuine ethical reasons, like you
Speaker 1: want lawyers to have fidiial duties only to their clients
Speaker 1: and not to the share alders, and in part for
Speaker 1: like killed protectionism reasons, where like you want lawyers to
Speaker 1: to control their own terms of employment. That's changing a
Speaker 1: little bit. Like you see like a few states allow
Speaker 1: outside ownership of law firms, and like, yeah, we might
Speaker 1: see law firm atpos in a few years. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I think of a law firm as being not like
Speaker 1: a super capital intensive business, where like most of what
Speaker 1: a law firm is is like lawyers, and so on
Speaker 1: the one hand, that means that you don't need to
Speaker 1: go to public markets to raise hundreds of millions of
Speaker 1: dollars right to fund AI research because you're just like
Speaker 1: you know, you're just doing deals and law stuff getting
Speaker 1: paid by the deal. So like there's not a lot
Speaker 1: of like long term investment that only pays off heres later.
Speaker 1: That's not entirely true, right, And like you you know,
Speaker 1: I've written a little bit about like the litigation finance market,
Speaker 1: and like one thing that litigation finances is law firms
Speaker 1: that take on incredibly complicated, very long term consumer class
Speaker 1: actions where they invest a lot of resources over years
Speaker 1: and don't get paid, and then five years later they
Speaker 1: win some massive vertige and get paid a billion dollars. Right,
Speaker 1: Like that sort of investment is a little bit hard
Speaker 1: to do when you're just like some lawyers who need
Speaker 1: to make a living, and so they get like outside
Speaker 1: investors for that. And it's not like share ownership, right,
Speaker 1: it's like a sort of special financing vehicle. But you
Speaker 1: could imagine doing that in IPO forum, where you like
Speaker 1: just have a publicly traded law firm that can make
Speaker 1: long term investments. And also just like you know, there's
Speaker 1: some level of long term investments that you would make
Speaker 1: if acquiring a new team that does some kind of work, right,
Speaker 1: and like you're hoping for to pay from the long term.
Speaker 1: The other problem with law rooms is like because they
Speaker 1: are just people, they can leave it. It'd be funny
Speaker 1: to like be a law firm and go public and
Speaker 1: then sell your shares and collect money and then like
Speaker 1: go leave and start another law firm and do it again. Right,
Speaker 1: Like there's not a ton of stuff there other than
Speaker 1: the lawyers. Right, Like there's some fise value in the name,
Speaker 1: but like probably less so than there is like a
Speaker 1: big investment bank, and like you don't have as much
Speaker 1: capital intensive business. So like if you just leave, you
Speaker 1: can capture most of the value that you previously sold
Speaker 1: to investors. And you see that like where law firms like,
Speaker 1: like law firms are pretty fragile businesses, and like if
Speaker 1: a law firm runs into trouble, like it's very easy
Speaker 1: for it to break up because you know, like some
Speaker 1: law firm, it's like main business stops working and it's
Speaker 1: not making money. Like the people who like, you know,
Speaker 1: the m and a team who are really good can
Speaker 1: just go somewhere else, and like it's not that jarring
Speaker 1: for them to leave, Like they don't lose a lot
Speaker 1: of franchise value. So yeah, it's like a little bit
Speaker 1: of a fragile business to take public, but people do
Speaker 1: it elsewhere.
Speaker 2: So it kind of reminds me of publicly listed hedge funds.
Speaker 2: Like there's a lot of key Man risk there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, right, there's a lot of key Man risk, And
Speaker 1: it's the same thing where like the assets walk out
Speaker 1: the door or whatever. But like you know, hedge funds
Speaker 1: are still better because like the hedge fund has long
Speaker 1: term contractual relationships with its investors. Now they might be
Speaker 1: like key Man provisions and that, Like law firms don't
Speaker 1: really have that right, Like law firms like two things
Speaker 1: by engagements most of the time, like often don't have
Speaker 1: like long term contracts with their customers, and so you know,
Speaker 1: anyone can leave and take the clients with them.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, I wish that there were publicly listed law
Speaker 2: firms just because I think it would be interesting to
Speaker 2: see how they trade and how they move as a group.
Speaker 1: Like a lot of like information and law firms stock
Speaker 1: prices like now yea like law firms are under attack
Speaker 1: and so forth. But yeah, I don't know that it's
Speaker 1: a great idea for the law firms.
Speaker 2: Well, it was a great question mark.
Speaker 1: Yeah, also from Mark, I assume the same mark for Katie.
Speaker 1: Would you buy a cyber horse? Kawasaki just announced one
Speaker 1: Google Kawasaki Corleo and it looks absolutely wild?
Speaker 2: Well, is that all your questions are real? All my
Speaker 2: questions or I do appreciate the question mark. I can
Speaker 2: tell that you're not an equestrian, not so sad, not
Speaker 2: just sound too much like a horse girl. It does
Speaker 2: look awesome. I did see the video. It looks like
Speaker 2: a lot of fun. But having a horse is about
Speaker 2: much more than just riding it. It's about your relationship
Speaker 2: with your horse, and I actually really value that. My
Speaker 2: childhood pony is named Batman. He's still with us, but
Speaker 2: he is very much retired. He's only a couple of
Speaker 2: years younger than I am. I haven't been able to
Speaker 2: ride him since like twenty twenty. He's been out of
Speaker 2: commission and I bought the course that I currently ride,
Speaker 2: whose name is Gus. I bought him, you know, as
Speaker 2: a three year old in twenty one the summer of
Speaker 2: twenty twenty one, but there was a solid year there
Speaker 2: where I was just driving out to the barn to
Speaker 2: hang out with Batman, literally just hang out with him,
Speaker 2: which is a lot of driving and a lot of time.
Speaker 2: But it's a relationship. So I would not buy a
Speaker 2: cyber horse.
Speaker 1: I like my you the bond to hang out here.
Speaker 2: I just put that in the garage.
Speaker 1: Would you buy the cyber horse for like riding when
Speaker 1: you can't get to the barn? No, like like an
Speaker 1: exercise bike when you can't get outside.
Speaker 2: I don't drink, so no, I don't. I don't really think.
Speaker 2: So it's not like I like if I go for
Speaker 2: a long time without horseback riding, obviously I miss it
Speaker 2: because it's fun. But it's like like.
Speaker 1: When like horse treadmill in your apartment.
Speaker 2: Like if I'm on vacation with my parents, for example,
Speaker 2: my parents, But like people go on rides like trail
Speaker 2: rides and stuff. I like having, you know, one dance partner.
Speaker 2: I don't really like crave to ride any horse with
Speaker 2: a robot horse. It's weird. It's like a it's a
Speaker 2: long term relationship. Batman has been in my life since
Speaker 2: I was eleven and I like to just have one horse,
Speaker 2: one relationship at a time, so I probably wouldn't buy
Speaker 2: a cyber horse. But thank you for the question mark anyway,
Speaker 2: moving swiftly long. I feel like I shared part of
Speaker 2: my soul there mailbag. This one comes from will he
Speaker 2: says love the podcast. I have a question about private
Speaker 2: credit moving to marketplaces. It strikes me that the underlying
Speaker 2: companies with this type of debt, like private equity portfolio companies,
Speaker 2: have little interest in their debt trading. I worked at
Speaker 2: a PE fund and now work at a portfolio company,
Speaker 2: and a lot of the value from lenders is that
Speaker 2: you are a repeat client with a relationship in case
Speaker 2: you want to change the agreement e g. Or example
Speaker 2: to acquisitions, or are under duress. We have debt in
Speaker 2: our debt documents that debt holders are not allowed to
Speaker 2: transfer their debt without our permission, which I imagine is
Speaker 2: a pretty standard term. Given the negotiating leverage hot demand
Speaker 2: for lenders to issue more private credit, why would a
Speaker 2: firm be okay with their debt trading. With these dynamics,
Speaker 2: it seems pretty unlikely that private credit would materially move
Speaker 2: to a marketplace.
Speaker 1: I think that's absolutely right that, like a lot of
Speaker 1: the value proposition of private credit to borrowers is you
Speaker 1: will have a long term relationship with your lenders who
Speaker 1: will be nice and won't sell your debt to like
Speaker 1: distress that vultures. I'm not sure that that would prevent
Speaker 1: a marketplace from developing. So first of all, one thing
Speaker 1: we've seen is like quasi marketplaces for LP stakes in
Speaker 1: private credit funds, which is a different thing, right, Like
Speaker 1: instead of actually your debt trading, like you're still facing
Speaker 1: as a barrow, You're still facing the same private credit fund,
Speaker 1: but like the ultimate owners of that fund can shift
Speaker 1: a little bit. So that's not quite the same thing
Speaker 1: as a private credit marketplace, but it does like give
Speaker 1: the LPs like some ability to get liquidity and some
Speaker 1: ability to get like marks like I don't know, even
Speaker 1: within like the private credit like loans themselves actually treading.
Speaker 1: You know, a polo is setting of a trading desk, right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think that one thing that is possible is to
Speaker 1: have some sort of marketplace where you have like the
Speaker 1: bars have some ability to limit who can buy their bonds, right,
Speaker 1: And you see a little bit of this like the
Speaker 1: probably syndicated loan market where like there's approved lists of
Speaker 1: who can buy the loans, but you could have a
Speaker 1: thing where you know, the marketplace says, you know, each
Speaker 1: bar can specify who's allowed to buy their loans, or
Speaker 1: like can specify who's not allowed to buy their loans,
Speaker 1: so like they don't get bad distress the vultures. But
Speaker 1: one thing is that, like private credit is kind of
Speaker 1: new and hasn't seen like distress cycles, and like some
Speaker 1: of the talk about like private credit is nicer to
Speaker 1: companies that run into distress. Like you can imagine a
Speaker 1: world where there's like a broad downturn and that stops
Speaker 1: being true because it's sort of stopped being true for
Speaker 1: everyone at once. And similarly, you can imagine a world
Speaker 1: where like you know, credit funds need to sell and
Speaker 1: they all need to sell, and so there's like some
Speaker 1: amount of leverage for them to be like, look, we
Speaker 1: got to have ability to trade and where some more
Speaker 1: trading springs up. But I agree that like in a
Speaker 1: dynamic where there's a real huge demand for paper and
Speaker 1: the bars have a lot of leverage, it does seem
Speaker 1: hard to be like we're gonna have total free tradeability
Speaker 1: where anyone can buy your loans because like that is
Speaker 1: the thing that the barers don't want.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's interesting, and I mean Apollo is, you know,
Speaker 2: on one end of the spectrum, and then you have
Speaker 2: like Blue Oul on maybe the opposite end, because they
Speaker 2: think private credit should stay private. They're not setting up
Speaker 2: a marketplace. I believe they're on the record saying that.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think everyone will talk about relationships are really important,
Speaker 1: and like being a buy and hold investor is really important.
Speaker 1: But you know, at the same time, Apolo is like,
Speaker 1: you know, getting this to retail investors is really important.
Speaker 2: Because it'll we want this in your four one ke.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and like ultimately the pitch of that has to
Speaker 1: be we can get better rates if there's more liquidity
Speaker 1: and more Yeah, like a broader audience for it. Right,
Speaker 1: Like at some level, if you go to a borrower
Speaker 1: and you say, in exchange for not having a warm
Speaker 1: personal relationship with you for the rest of the time,
Speaker 1: we'll charge you fifty bases points less, some borrowers will
Speaker 1: say into that, Yeah, I like that.
Speaker 2: Will brought his own personal experience to the question as well.
Speaker 2: Great question. Will should we move along to Max Max
Speaker 2: mail Bag mailbag regarding Matt's story on equity funding costs
Speaker 2: increasing costs of SMP futures. This seems like a great
Speaker 2: place for dot dot dot in ETF question mark two
Speaker 2: exclamation points. I think the ETFs that sell zero day
Speaker 2: options are very fun and selling S and P futures
Speaker 2: then collecting the spreads does seem to rhyme with this
Speaker 2: in some way. Could an ETF do this while still
Speaker 2: being liquid and tradable? Does this already exist in the
Speaker 2: form of covered call ETFs or is selling future is
Speaker 2: different in some way ps. I'm a molecular biologist, not
Speaker 2: a finance person, so sorry, this question is totally obvious
Speaker 2: to exclamation points. That was charming, Max, So I love this.
Speaker 1: So we talked on the podcast last week about the
Speaker 1: basis trade. Yeah, this is the basis trade for S
Speaker 1: and P five hundred futures, right, Like, this is the
Speaker 1: trade here is that people want to buy S and
Speaker 1: P five hundred futures to basically like LeVert exposure to
Speaker 1: the S and P, and it is hard for them
Speaker 1: to do that because nobody or banks don't want to
Speaker 1: use their balance sheet to buy the S and P
Speaker 1: and sell futures against it right, Like, so someone needs
Speaker 1: to provide the funding to buy the S and P,
Speaker 1: buy the actual stocks and then sell the futures to
Speaker 1: people who want to buy the futures. Who should provide
Speaker 1: that Well, one answer is money market funds basically like
Speaker 1: that trade. It's not a stock trade. It's just like
Speaker 1: a cash trade. It's like lending balance sheet to provide
Speaker 1: people with access to the stocks. So you buy stocks,
Speaker 1: you sell stock futures. You have no risk. You're just
Speaker 1: like providing funding. And if, as has been the case,
Speaker 1: that funding is expensive because like no one wants banks
Speaker 1: don't want to do it, and there's a lot to
Speaker 1: demand for these futures, then you can get paid a
Speaker 1: lot for providing that funding. And the reason it's like
Speaker 1: no one wants to do it and it's expensive. This
Speaker 1: is kind of a weird trade, right. If you are
Speaker 1: a money market fund, someone can come to you and
Speaker 1: be like, look, what you should do is you should
Speaker 1: buy the S and P and sell S and P
Speaker 1: futures and you'll get paid a very high cash return
Speaker 1: for that, and you can get at any time you want.
Speaker 1: It's like a money market investment. You'd say, no, it's
Speaker 1: not a money market investment. I'm not allowed to buy stocks,
Speaker 1: I'm not allowed to sell futures, Like none of this
Speaker 1: is allowed, and so money market funds don't do it.
Speaker 1: And you know, I wrote about this because like there
Speaker 1: was a story about like some like long only fund
Speaker 1: managers who have like some ability to be pretty tactical.
Speaker 1: They're like, yeah, we're doing that instead of buying treasury
Speaker 1: bills or doing repo or whatever, we are buying the
Speaker 1: S and P and selling futures and getting paid you know,
Speaker 1: ten percent instead of four percent. But not a lot
Speaker 1: doing that. And so the question here is white not
Speaker 1: an ETF. And it reminds me of do you remember
Speaker 1: the ETF called the box boxs CAET So this is
Speaker 1: the same thing, right, box is like a crazy trade
Speaker 1: where it's like they like buy and sell options to
Speaker 1: get cash returns and have no equity risk and also
Speaker 1: they think get a really good tax treatmental though that
Speaker 1: is highly debated. But this is the same thing, right.
Speaker 1: It's like boxes, Like basically there is demand for lending
Speaker 1: in the options market, and we are going to be
Speaker 1: the lender into the options market. We're not buying options
Speaker 1: selling options. We're not doing any options trades. I mean
Speaker 1: we are, but like not to do options trades. We're
Speaker 1: doing them just to be a lender into the options market,
Speaker 1: because the options market will pay more for cash than
Speaker 1: like treasure reboil markets. Well, and this is the same thing.
Speaker 1: It's like the S and P five hundred futures market
Speaker 1: right now will pay for cash. So someone should set
Speaker 1: up a ETF that will provide that cash. I think
Speaker 1: the reason there's not an need dev for this probably
Speaker 1: when lunching next week. But like I think the reason
Speaker 1: there's not an ETF is like it is not at
Speaker 1: all clear that this is a permanent trade right right,
Speaker 1: Like this can go away at any time, and so
Speaker 1: it's a little weird to set up an ETF that
Speaker 1: will do this trade for years.
Speaker 2: If like you know flash in the pan.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Like it's a little tending to be like there
Speaker 1: should be a weird cash trade ETF. Like you have
Speaker 1: an ETF that's like we're a money market ETF, but
Speaker 1: like we're not constrained to regular money market instrments, so
Speaker 1: we can do anything that's like a short term cash investment. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And like when S and P five hundred future is
Speaker 1: basis is wide will do that trade and like when
Speaker 1: something else works, we'll do something else.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, I hear what you're saying that you know,
Speaker 2: it's hard to know if this is permanent. To that point,
Speaker 2: I'm really surprised that there isn't a treasury basis trade ETF.
Speaker 2: Not that because I think it should exist, because there's
Speaker 2: so many opportunistic filers.
Speaker 1: That trade is we borrow a hundred times, are an
Speaker 1: asset value to buy treasure? You can't do that in ATF.
Speaker 2: There's some issuers that I talked too often. I wouldn't
Speaker 2: put it past them.
Speaker 1: Now I would put it past them, but you're not
Speaker 1: allowed to do that.
Speaker 2: I'll see.
Speaker 1: I feel like you're foreshadowing actual basis.
Speaker 2: Max, great question, Good luck with the biology.
Speaker 1: Mail bag.
Speaker 2: Mail bag, all right, Sal Sal has a question. Sel
Speaker 2: asks what is the value of the option to declare
Speaker 2: personal bankruptcy and how would you monetize it? Couldn't investor
Speaker 2: recruit a bunch of eighteen year olds to take levered risks.
Speaker 1: I feel the option really is very low because you
Speaker 1: can't get that much money when you're eighteen. The question is,
Speaker 1: in general, if you borrow money, you have to pay
Speaker 1: it back and so if you borrow money to buy
Speaker 1: lottery tickets and you lose all the money, then you're
Speaker 1: in trouble because you have to pay back all the
Speaker 1: money and you're allowed you types didn't pan out, But
Speaker 1: if you declare bankruptcy, then you don't have to pay
Speaker 1: the money back. This is the theory, right, you effectively
Speaker 1: like can structure your financial life like a call option,
Speaker 1: where like if everything works out, you get all the upside,
Speaker 1: and if it doesn't work out, you don't get any
Speaker 1: of the downside because you declare bankruptcy and move on. Now,
Speaker 1: there are several problems that it's one of those, like
Speaker 1: declaring markruptcy is in some ways a downside, Right, I
Speaker 1: don't necessarily want to declare bankruptcy. And the reason that
Speaker 1: sal asks about eighteen year olds is that, like, if
Speaker 1: you're forty six and have a house, you probably don't
Speaker 1: want to declare bankruptcy if it only get to keep
Speaker 1: your house. But that's not legal advice. But like, you know,
Speaker 1: your life will get worse if you declare personal bankrupcy,
Speaker 1: whereas if you're eighteen, your life may not get significantly
Speaker 1: worse if you declared personal vanqucy. But that's why they
Speaker 1: won't lend you money, like you can only borrow so
Speaker 1: much money when you're eighteen, because they know that this
Speaker 1: option exists. And the one huge exception to that is
Speaker 1: student loans. They're not dischargeable in bankruptcy. Yeah, it's like
Speaker 1: you can borrow hundreds of thousand dollars an eighteen year
Speaker 1: old to go to college, not because that's a particularly
Speaker 1: get credit risk, but because like you're not allowed to
Speaker 1: get rid of that debt yikes. Yeah. And then the
Speaker 1: other part of the question is could an investor recruit
Speaker 1: a bunch of eighteen year olds to take levered risks?
Speaker 1: Like even if you could do that, and like you'd
Speaker 1: structure to deal with them, like someone would define you
Speaker 1: and be like, this wasn't really an eighteen year old
Speaker 1: borrowing this money. This was you, the investor, borrowing the money,
Speaker 1: and then they kind of look through it and get
Speaker 1: you to pay it back. So I think that it
Speaker 1: is pretty hard to monetize the option to declare personal bankruptcy.
Speaker 1: But one reason I wanted to ask this question on
Speaker 1: the show is I'm sure we will get emails people
Speaker 1: who are like, this is how I monetize the option
Speaker 1: to declare personal vankruptcy.
Speaker 2: It's beautiful and we can talk about that in our
Speaker 2: next meal Bag episode possibly.
Speaker 1: Or even in the regular episode.
Speaker 2: That's true, that's true. The possibilities are limitless. Mail mail Bag.
Speaker 1: Here's a question from John on the podcast. Some time ago.
Speaker 1: Katie quipped that she might name a kid Xanadu someday.
Speaker 1: I feel like Katie would be more likely to name
Speaker 1: kids hers or other people's after ETF tickers. What ETF
Speaker 1: tickers would be the best children's names? What about horses names?
Speaker 1: I don't know that we have an answer to this question,
Speaker 1: but it was a funny question.
Speaker 2: John. I'm not sure if I like the way your
Speaker 2: brain works.
Speaker 1: But what do we doing about Katie ets?
Speaker 2: Yeah? So, no, I don't think I would. No one's
Speaker 2: asking me to name their children, and I actually have
Speaker 2: a lot of children's names that I love.
Speaker 1: Okay, they don't have to be ets.
Speaker 2: John Corrado is a name that I would love to unleash.
Speaker 2: At some point, I loved it. I love the name
Speaker 2: Corrado so much. It's like an old Italian name made
Speaker 2: famous by the Sopranos. I feel like you can't name
Speaker 2: just a kid your first name Coroto anymore. You don't
Speaker 2: really hear it, but if you put John in front
Speaker 2: of it, then he becomes J. C. John Carrato.
Speaker 1: I love that it's answer.
Speaker 2: I think about this a lot, and then I have
Speaker 2: a lot of ladies' names that I like. I guess girls' names.
Speaker 2: In terms of ETF tickers, there are some fun ETF
Speaker 2: tickers out there, none that I would name a child
Speaker 2: or a horse after. I'm sure there's a GUS ticker
Speaker 2: out there, and if not, maybe there should be. I
Speaker 2: love the name Gus for a horse, for a horse
Speaker 2: for a kid too, but it'd be weird to name
Speaker 2: your child after your horse. Probably certain husbands would might
Speaker 2: take issue.
Speaker 1: With that uncertainty when you referred to guess.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's true. At first, I thought this question was
Speaker 2: you know, what is an ETF ticker that you think
Speaker 2: should exist, which is not this question. But I have
Speaker 2: an answer to the question that wasn't asked. There's all these,
Speaker 2: not all these, but there's been a lot of interest
Speaker 2: in Texas lately from the ETF community. Blackrock filed for
Speaker 2: a Texas equity ETF a few weeks back, and it
Speaker 2: wasn't listed with a ticker. The ticker, y'all is already taken.
Speaker 2: I think why H A W would be cute? Like ehaw, Yeah,
Speaker 2: So Larry Fink front of the show. If you're listening,
Speaker 2: there we have it, mail nail bag Neil rounding us out.
Speaker 2: Listening to Friday's money stuff got me to wondering, why
Speaker 2: not just split the difference and put a bunch of
Speaker 2: different BDCs into an ETF. All the exposure to private
Speaker 2: credit and the BDC assets, all the shiny exchange traded
Speaker 2: rapper that the kids today enjoy something for met, something
Speaker 2: for Katie met Neil rather, Neil, I like how your
Speaker 2: brain works.
Speaker 1: This definitely exists. There's one minute of googling family bus
Speaker 1: D which is the van k b DC income ETF,
Speaker 1: which is in fact BDCs for I know there's millions
Speaker 1: of them. Yeah. I have said that BDCs are the
Speaker 1: publicly traded form of private credit, and so you don't
Speaker 1: need the convolutions of putting private credits intof because you
Speaker 1: can just have a BDC. There's like some limits on that,
Speaker 1: Like BDCs are not like the full spectrum of private credit, right,
Speaker 1: They're like sort of designed for small and medium enterprises. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so it's like not exactly the same as saying every
Speaker 1: private credit fund could be wrapped in public form as
Speaker 1: a BDC, but many can and are, And there are
Speaker 1: BDCs for a lot of the big private credit funds,
Speaker 1: and you can eat them if you want. Yeah, should
Speaker 1: I say that? I was going to say if I
Speaker 1: said what a BDC is doesn't matter, that's true.
Speaker 2: Thirty seven of the Mailbag episode for the Money So podcast.
Speaker 1: We're on like you're oh, yeah, it's like the anniversary, Happy.
Speaker 2: Universary, Happy universary. It was actually last week's episode, which
Speaker 2: we recorded today.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we're recording them simultaneously.
Speaker 2: So we just passed that back again on April twelfth.
Speaker 1: Wow. Yeah, between last week's episode and this week's episode
Speaker 1: Money Stuff, the podcast turned one.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it is crazy that it's been that long. Yeah,
Speaker 2: you've listened to the last episode. Have a good life.
Speaker 1: We won the bet. Now it's over. And that was
Speaker 1: the Money Stuff Podcast.
Speaker 2: I'm Matt Levian and I'm Katie Greifeld.
Speaker 1: You can find my work by subscribing to the Money
Speaker 1: Stuff newsletter on Bloomberg.
Speaker 2: Dot com, and you can find me on Bloomberg TV
Speaker 2: every day on Open Interest between nine to eleven am Eastern.
Speaker 1: We'd love to hear from you. You can send an
Speaker 1: email to Moneypot at bloomberg dot net, ask us a
Speaker 1: question and you might answer it on air.
Speaker 2: You can also subscribe to our show wherever you're listening
Speaker 2: right now and leave us a review. It helps more
Speaker 2: people find the show.
Speaker 1: The Money Stuff Podcast is produced by Anamazarakis and Moses
Speaker 1: on On.
Speaker 2: Our theme music was composed by Blake Maples.
Speaker 1: Brandon Francis Newdim is our executive producer, and.
Speaker 2: Stage Bauman is Bloomberg's head of Podcasts.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to The Money Stuff Podcast. We'll be
Speaker 1: back next week with more stuff