Speaker 1: Wokeroom trillions. I'm Joel Webber and I'm Eric Belchernes Eric.
Speaker 1: Last year at this time we did a March Madness
Speaker 1: inspired episode maybe my favorite of the year of all
Speaker 1: the episodes of what we did, and this year we
Speaker 1: wanted to one of it. Yeah, this is the episode
Speaker 1: where we bring in as many people as possible, just
Speaker 1: a total pile on. And this time we thought of
Speaker 1: an idea. You know, we're fans of the show Shark Tank,
Speaker 1: and we thought of an idea of how about we
Speaker 1: get a bunch of people to pitch their idea for
Speaker 1: a new ETF. Right, I've got a great idea. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I know you actually, you're you actually pitched. Here's the
Speaker 1: bloomberg innecks is so yours is legit um. And the
Speaker 1: reason I thought this was good this year is because
Speaker 1: this year is the first year ever we're closures are
Speaker 1: outnumbering new launches and ETFs um. The industry is getting
Speaker 1: harder and harder. I think the fee war the downmarket
Speaker 1: last year has created even more hesitancy to launch new products.
Speaker 1: And I was speaking with Mike Venuto at tie To
Speaker 1: et F Services, which helps launch new ETF He said
Speaker 1: only about one per cent of e t f s pitched,
Speaker 1: you know, in the world, get greenlit and make it
Speaker 1: to market, So the bar is pretty high. And the
Speaker 1: other thing is when you look at how much it
Speaker 1: costs to launch an e t F, it's about fifty
Speaker 1: then it cost two to support it. So with all
Speaker 1: that and the difficulty of getting new assets and well
Speaker 1: we've talked about that a lot um, the pitch is important.
Speaker 1: So we thought this would be a fun way to
Speaker 1: explore maybe how pitch has happened and to help us
Speaker 1: judge these pitches. We brought back last year's judge, David Papadopoulos,
Speaker 1: who's a senior editor with Bloomberg News. And David isn't
Speaker 1: going to play the issuer per se. He's gonna play
Speaker 1: the seed capital investor. Because Mike Venuta was also saying
Speaker 1: that if you come with prepared seed capital, you have
Speaker 1: way more likely to get greenlit than how much he's
Speaker 1: gonna have a hundred million dollars to distribute. That's a
Speaker 1: pretty good race. Yeah, going from an editor at Bloomberg
Speaker 1: News to like seed investor, a senior Okay, all right,
Speaker 1: so he's going to basically hear a bunch of pitches
Speaker 1: from people in Bloomberg Intelligence who work with you and
Speaker 1: also within Bloomberg News, and we're gonna hear a bunch
Speaker 1: of ideas. Everybody's got one. You've got basically one minute
Speaker 1: minute to make your pitch, and Mr Papadopolis is going
Speaker 1: to judge us all on our ideas and then pick
Speaker 1: a winner and some runners up. I was thinking he'd
Speaker 1: do fifty million to the top prize, thirty million to
Speaker 1: number two, and then twenty million to number three. Okay,
Speaker 1: So Mr Papadopoulos, what are you gonna be looking for
Speaker 1: as we make our pitches? So I'm looking for a
Speaker 1: few things here. Um one is at some ovel course,
Speaker 1: there's gotta be a certain wow factor, right like you've
Speaker 1: got to You've got to you've got to get get
Speaker 1: my attention. This might seem slightly contradictory. At the same time,
Speaker 1: I don't want a whole lot of b s. I
Speaker 1: don't want a lot of I don't want gimmicks. They
Speaker 1: have to be you know, um, smart themes, you know,
Speaker 1: with good fundamentals and things I can believe in. And
Speaker 1: it's also important for me that they're not overly complex
Speaker 1: or complicated I'm ultimately not sophisticated enough here to get
Speaker 1: the hocus focus. So that's that's kind of where I'm
Speaker 1: coming from, right, Okay, I'll take it. So, joining us
Speaker 1: from Bloomberg News Carolina Wilson, Sarah Ponzac, Any Massa, Ben Stepman,
Speaker 1: Rachel Evans, and Suzanne Woolley. Eric. On the b I side,
Speaker 1: we have James Seffert, myself, Tom Sarah Fagus, and Morgan Barna,
Speaker 1: who is our newest member and she's coming into us
Speaker 1: from d C. And I'm joining also from episode did
Speaker 1: week on Trilliant et F Tank. Alright, first up, Carolina Wilson,
Speaker 1: you were the first one to walk in the door.
Speaker 1: Let's hear your pitch, Papa Abels, let me introduce you
Speaker 1: to my taker FRAT, which is my college focus Consumer
Speaker 1: e t F. The latest string of e t F
Speaker 1: s that have actually found success and growth in today's
Speaker 1: et F market are thematic funds that can subbend for
Speaker 1: some type of sector exposure. In this case, it would
Speaker 1: be something like consumer Discretionary. FRAT is a win win
Speaker 1: for issuers and money managers trying to carouse the next
Speaker 1: generation of money. Why not give them a theme that
Speaker 1: they're all too familiar with holding products that have governed
Speaker 1: their day to day lives. But in a measure diversified way,
Speaker 1: FRAT has four equally weighted sector bands and one shorting
Speaker 1: component that makes up fifteen percent of the portfolio. The
Speaker 1: four sector bands will market cap weight their constituents, which
Speaker 1: include one cannabis companies to food and drink think Chipotle, Anahizer, Bush,
Speaker 1: Monster Energy, three technology entertainment thinks Spotify, Facebook, Netflix, gaming
Speaker 1: stocks and for retail, which I have dominated by none
Speaker 1: other than Amazon. And that fifteen percent shorting component I
Speaker 1: mentioned FRAT will short navy At the student loan company.
Speaker 1: But oh, I like that. Not only are you getting
Speaker 1: a boost from marijuana focus names, but you're also neatly
Speaker 1: exposed to them. Market's favorite fang coort And my favorite
Speaker 1: part of it all, there's a ten percent that has
Speaker 1: not been accounted for, and that's because FRAT has a
Speaker 1: temper cent allocation to cash, which is saving up for
Speaker 1: when uber I p o s. So I'm long dope
Speaker 1: and this thing, and I'm sure student's interesting. Now there's
Speaker 1: some appeal to this. I I do see the value
Speaker 1: of this, But who do you anticipate. Who are your
Speaker 1: natural buyers of this at so not likely not college
Speaker 1: students because they're broke and they have money. But people
Speaker 1: that believe in the college consumer. And the amount of
Speaker 1: stuff that these people are consuming. Why should I believe
Speaker 1: in the college consumer? Do they take a growth prospect?
Speaker 1: Bro like these are twenty two year old consumers, but
Speaker 1: but for down the road. But they have no money
Speaker 1: now growth potential, and they do spend like money that
Speaker 1: they don't have, right, which is why I also we
Speaker 1: have this students. That is true, that's fact checked. Example,
Speaker 1: back test shows that Fred over the past five years
Speaker 1: has returned more than over what period of time five years.
Speaker 1: Of course, past performance is no guarantee of ure. Next up, Sarah. Now,
Speaker 1: Sarah has taken this really seriously. I think she may
Speaker 1: have slept in this room overnight to get ready for it,
Speaker 1: all right, and she's been like talking trash to me
Speaker 1: all week about okay, alright, well, let's let's end it
Speaker 1: all right, all right, It seems everyone is always talking
Speaker 1: about millennials nowadays, but what about Generation Z? This year?
Speaker 1: Gen Z is expected to surpass millennials as the most
Speaker 1: populous generation. As some agents of their mid twenties. So
Speaker 1: to gouge future spending patterns, you have to get into
Speaker 1: the psyche of this new largest demographic. Gen Z cares
Speaker 1: about who is who, who is doing what. They grew
Speaker 1: up on social media platforms like Instagram and Snapchat, and
Speaker 1: the influencer culture is real. Take Kylie Jenner for instance,
Speaker 1: she promoted her makeup line on Instagram and is now
Speaker 1: the youngest self made billionaire. Influencers are powerful. The influencer
Speaker 1: economy et F ticker who Who is a new exchange
Speaker 1: traded fund that holds companies that partner with the top
Speaker 1: twenty influencers from athletes to actors, public figures, and more.
Speaker 1: Stocks will be weighted based on their associated influencers rank.
Speaker 1: And this is the global diversified fund. Take Christian Christiano
Speaker 1: Ronalda right now, he's the number one top influencer Electronic arts, Nike,
Speaker 1: Abbott Labs, all companies he partners with, Selena Comes, she
Speaker 1: partners with Adidas and Coca Cola, Arianna Grande, the Rock
Speaker 1: under Armor. You get the idea. So who who not
Speaker 1: the band? No? Not the band? Um alright, so give
Speaker 1: me a sense of some more of the products here
Speaker 1: We're we're some more of the companies we're talking about here,
Speaker 1: so some other companies. Beyonce is the top six influencer
Speaker 1: right now. She partners with PepsiCo. You also have Kylie
Speaker 1: Jenner of course with makeup at Alta ut Taylor Swift Ups,
Speaker 1: Target A, T and T, Comcast, So you really get
Speaker 1: this mix of different sectors. So right now it's holding
Speaker 1: consumer discretionary companies, consumer staple companies, telecom, healthcare. So that way,
Speaker 1: when you have a downturn like we did at the
Speaker 1: end of last year, who actually fell less than the
Speaker 1: broader market? And there are there what do we know
Speaker 1: out there in terms of e t F already that
Speaker 1: that approach gen Z? There are not any This would
Speaker 1: be the first e t F at this who my
Speaker 1: e t F would be the first one that actually
Speaker 1: acknowledges gen Z. So who is Sarah? That's who first
Speaker 1: of its kinds um all right, I mean I'm hearing
Speaker 1: a lot of more gen Z talk, including in our
Speaker 1: own newsroom, which is probably a contrarian indicator. All right.
Speaker 1: Next up, we have Joel Weber. Okay, as you guys
Speaker 1: might know, Bloomberg Intelligence tracks more thies in industries from energy,
Speaker 1: to technology, to retail, to finance. Once a year, Bloomberg
Speaker 1: business Week, the magazine that I edit, partners with b
Speaker 1: I Bloomberg Intelligence to do something called fifty Companies to Watch.
Speaker 1: Not all of those are winners. We call it watch.
Speaker 1: Some might be up, some you might be down. Thirty
Speaker 1: of those are US listed. So the goal of this
Speaker 1: exercise is to identify companies that will face an unusual
Speaker 1: challenge in the coming year or opposed to release blockbuster
Speaker 1: products or services. The analysts considers stuff like revenue growth, margins,
Speaker 1: market share, debt, and even other factors like economic conditions.
Speaker 1: I got reader fanmail on this one. When we did
Speaker 1: this just a couple of weeks ago, portfolio manager emailed
Speaker 1: me to say, I don't know what your crystal ball is.
Speaker 1: Forty of those companies our way up. So here's here's
Speaker 1: my idea. We're gonna rebalance this thing quarterly. We're gonna
Speaker 1: be long, forty short ten. Here's the ticker fitty fitty Wait,
Speaker 1: how many letters f I D Y f I T
Speaker 1: Y which is currently held by a Fidelity fund. But
Speaker 1: we'll take it's it's up there, forty long ten short, um, Like,
Speaker 1: who who would be in this long list right now,
Speaker 1: and who would be sure? It's a great question, right
Speaker 1: because I think the part of this is US versus international,
Speaker 1: So you're gonna have this. It's gonna be very global.
Speaker 1: But the stuff that you'd be long on right now
Speaker 1: would be like Fast Retailing would be one based on
Speaker 1: the research that we did. That's a company that we
Speaker 1: think has great international growth. But you'd be short something
Speaker 1: probably like Ford or uh, General Motors. I'm afford right, Geer,
Speaker 1: you should all for it. But basically you'd be rebalancing
Speaker 1: this so that you'd constantly have tin that you're short
Speaker 1: forty that you're long. Got it? No hit me? What's
Speaker 1: the criteria again for this? Beyond you know, your big
Speaker 1: brain and the big brains of the b I folks.
Speaker 1: So I think this is a great amplifier because we're
Speaker 1: going to curate a list that we're confident just like
Speaker 1: this guy recognized we've been out performing. So we're gonna
Speaker 1: go along the ones that that we we have great
Speaker 1: confidence in out performing. And then we're going to amplify
Speaker 1: it even more by being short ones that we think
Speaker 1: are going to underperform the market. Okay, Mic drop next up?
Speaker 1: James sever, an analyst with Bloomberg Intelligence. James go Alright,
Speaker 1: so my e t F s, I have a pair
Speaker 1: of ETFs and they're revolving around two. Where is that
Speaker 1: We hear a lot when you watch any sort of
Speaker 1: financial news risk on and risk off. So when you
Speaker 1: see risk on, there are certain e t f s,
Speaker 1: are certain stocks that you're gonna own, and when you're
Speaker 1: thinking risk off, there's certain stocks you're gonna go to
Speaker 1: if you need to maintain equity exposure. So this combines
Speaker 1: multiple factors and sectors into two et F So the
Speaker 1: risk on factor E t F is gonna hold growth, momentum, size,
Speaker 1: and high beta e t f s, And on the
Speaker 1: sector side right now, it's gonna hold tech, consumer discretionary,
Speaker 1: and communications. On the risk off side, you're gonna hold
Speaker 1: low ball quality, dividend, growth and value. And from the
Speaker 1: sector side, on risk off, you're gonna hold consumer staples
Speaker 1: and utilities. Now, past past returns is an indicative of
Speaker 1: future returns, but if you look at the returns over
Speaker 1: the past five to seven years, you're gonna see the
Speaker 1: risk on is outperformed by on the risk off. With
Speaker 1: spy in the middle, there and then if you look
Speaker 1: over the biggest downturn in December, it worked just as
Speaker 1: expected with the risk off being down and the risk
Speaker 1: on being down again with Spy in the middle over
Speaker 1: that twenty four day period. Um, I am fascinated by this.
Speaker 1: I think this is pretty cool. At the same time
Speaker 1: as I said it to be getting I'm not smart
Speaker 1: enough to understand all the ins and out. So again,
Speaker 1: so explain to me. So I simultaneously am owning two ets.
Speaker 1: Is that right where you've broken? Yeah, So you would
Speaker 1: own if you if you believe there's risk on in
Speaker 1: the market, or you think that there's gonna be a
Speaker 1: bull market going forward for the next couple of years,
Speaker 1: you're going to own the risk on factor e t F.
Speaker 1: And if you're not, you're going to own the risk off.
Speaker 1: So if if you're predicting a future downturn, you need
Speaker 1: to maintain equity exposure. Theoretically people will go to utilities
Speaker 1: or some lower volatility stocks, and this is just going
Speaker 1: to group all those low volatility factors or risk off
Speaker 1: factors together. Well, I think Sarah Pons wants to wants
Speaker 1: to chime in here. Do I have a question you
Speaker 1: said in risk on Right now, it's holding momentum. But
Speaker 1: haven't you yourself done a lot of research lately that
Speaker 1: momentum is actually risk off right now. Momentum momentum is
Speaker 1: more highly correlated. Right now. It is a good point,
Speaker 1: and I was thinking about it. But over the longer periods,
Speaker 1: this is just an instance that and what's going on
Speaker 1: with specific rebalance that happened to a certain et F.
Speaker 1: It's not all. It's not all momentum ETFs. But right
Speaker 1: now that's just a stint in. What's going over over
Speaker 1: the long term, momentum is gonna outperform Noble markets. What's
Speaker 1: the ticker r O n N for risk on and
Speaker 1: r o f F for risk of roth. But this
Speaker 1: is like the Yang last year a little bit. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but I need to decide which of these two I'm
Speaker 1: moving in and out of. Theoretically, yes, or you could
Speaker 1: listen to the or you could listen to the talking heads,
Speaker 1: but you could listen to the talking heads on on
Speaker 1: Bloomer TV to know which one to put in. But
Speaker 1: typically when you launch these dual type of partnerships, dual
Speaker 1: ETFs are more than one et F, they split them
Speaker 1: evenly and then let the allocators go and they benefit
Speaker 1: when something is going good in that area. So if
Speaker 1: much of people a phone, money there. So next up
Speaker 1: we have from our DC studio is Morgan Barnet, who
Speaker 1: is a new associate for Bloomberg Intelligence Fund and ETF Research.
Speaker 1: U Mo're gonna take it away, Okay, I am pitching
Speaker 1: a largely US based equity theme fund. So the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court reversed a sports betting ban that I think is
Speaker 1: going to really open the door for UM companies that
Speaker 1: do gaming and uh sort of gambling to really capture
Speaker 1: what was formerly sort of offline betting. So more states
Speaker 1: are going to fall the first seven and this is
Speaker 1: about a hundred and fifty billion in off market sports
Speaker 1: wagering annually. UM. Along with that, there's so much UM
Speaker 1: content on demand for entertainment, and so I kind of
Speaker 1: think the stirs a counter current for more live entertainment experiences.
Speaker 1: So is this a theme fund UM? Well? Equal weight
Speaker 1: company is UM here that have direct exposure companies like
Speaker 1: Live Nation, Trip Advisor, Event Bright Madison, Square Garden, And
Speaker 1: then there's some new listings of pure play E sports companies.
Speaker 1: I know we've talked about UM gaming, but sports you
Speaker 1: got to wrap it up. E Sports Companies, Allied Sports,
Speaker 1: super League Gaming, and Modern Times are all coming online.
Speaker 1: Got it well? As a lifelong gambler, Yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: she just like it. I can see his heart trains
Speaker 1: up when she said gambling. You know, I was just like, whoa,
Speaker 1: you got me so? All right? So you're both tapping
Speaker 1: into like the Live Nations and the trip Advisors, right,
Speaker 1: that could ride this way a bit. But tell me again,
Speaker 1: the names are the more the companies that are actually
Speaker 1: more directly involved in the game. Because I also maybe
Speaker 1: I need to set up some accounts that MGM, Eldorado,
Speaker 1: and BOYD have all made um decent partnerships and acquisitions
Speaker 1: in the space god and what's the ticker E L
Speaker 1: I V Entertainment Live L Live. I think he likes
Speaker 1: the gambling part more more than the entertainment party. You
Speaker 1: don't get out much, do you know. I'm too busy gambler.
Speaker 1: Thank you Morgan? All right, I think Eric, I think
Speaker 1: it's your turn. Okay, what's the one thing we all hate? Okay,
Speaker 1: don't answer that, but I know one thing we all hate, um,
Speaker 1: and that is Monday's And guess who else hates Monday's
Speaker 1: the market. If you look at the days of the week,
Speaker 1: Monday is the only day since where the market is
Speaker 1: down on average. Every other day it's positive. So this
Speaker 1: is a very simple idea. It's called x mon the
Speaker 1: calendar shares S and P five x Monday's e t F.
Speaker 1: All it does is hold I V V right, it's
Speaker 1: gonna buy it at Friday close because between the clothes
Speaker 1: and the open you can pick up a few basis
Speaker 1: points too. That's a good time to hold it, and
Speaker 1: then it will um. So it'll sell it on Friday
Speaker 1: and buy it on Tuesday. Monday the clothes and so
Speaker 1: essentially you're going to get the market return minus Monday. Now,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of theories on why Mondays are bad.
Speaker 1: Companies report bad news on Friday's a lot of times
Speaker 1: people get paranoid over the weekend. Right, the idle hands
Speaker 1: are the devil's playthings. So people come in and selling
Speaker 1: and guess what you would avoid catastrophe? What are the
Speaker 1: worst market crashes known as Black Monday and Black Monday too,
Speaker 1: which is August. You would have avoided those two. So
Speaker 1: I'm selling Friday and I'm buying it Monday. What about
Speaker 1: trading costs, comes a voice from the crowd. Yeah, sure,
Speaker 1: so i VV trades at a point oh one percent spread,
Speaker 1: so you would incur those but you're hoping to pick
Speaker 1: up more than those trading costs over the long term.
Speaker 1: So i VV I picked on purpose because it has
Speaker 1: a real low expense ratio, but it's more liquid than VOO,
Speaker 1: So to me, it's the perfect et F to use
Speaker 1: for the strategy. All Right, I'm a little I'm just
Speaker 1: a little surprised if I can chime in. Like all
Speaker 1: the e t f s that Eric could come up
Speaker 1: with with, this one feels a little lazy, lazy. Well,
Speaker 1: my other idea was a little I don't know uma
Speaker 1: of the time, we don't have more ideas well know
Speaker 1: the reason ever, though it's hey, hold on a second,
Speaker 1: I um, I think it's kind of cool. I got
Speaker 1: two questions. So are we sure that it's not gimmicky? Though? Right? Like,
Speaker 1: this isn't just some odd statistic laboration. This is like legit.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's really something there. There are fundamental factors
Speaker 1: for Monday always sucking. Yeah, Like I said, there's the
Speaker 1: human behavioral people come in Monday they're cranky A lot
Speaker 1: of times. If something bad happens on a Friday, it
Speaker 1: gets worse on Monday because people have all weekend and
Speaker 1: they don't think, oh, I'll be okay. Their brains go
Speaker 1: to the negative there, like I better sell out? Are
Speaker 1: you a shrink? Uh No, but I'm to psychology class.
Speaker 1: You know you're psychoanalyzing the market. Well, behavior is a
Speaker 1: big deal. That's why factors work. To me, this is
Speaker 1: somewhat of a factor kind of play. My last question
Speaker 1: for you is, like wise, guys like you who come
Speaker 1: in and say, oh, I'm gonna short Monday, I mean,
Speaker 1: is it possible that as you bring attention to this,
Speaker 1: your e t F takes off that you're gonna wind
Speaker 1: up are being out? You know the down mondays. If
Speaker 1: this et F gets that big, you and I will
Speaker 1: both be filthy rich by the time. So but yeah, ultimately,
Speaker 1: if if everybody starts buying this, then yeah, there could
Speaker 1: be an our super duper last question for you. So, like,
Speaker 1: give me a rough sense of like what a typical
Speaker 1: Monday return looks like these over the over a certain
Speaker 1: period of time versus Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday on average,
Speaker 1: Mondays are down eight basis points on average since on Tuesday.
Speaker 1: It's up five BIPs, Wednesday eight pips. Wednesday's actually the
Speaker 1: best performing day for whatever reason, and Thursday four BIPs
Speaker 1: for day five. So it's really like a seven almost
Speaker 1: a ten basis point swing between Monday and any other day. Okay,
Speaker 1: and you had ten basis points up, you know, over
Speaker 1: weeks after weeks, after weeks, that's going to add up
Speaker 1: to some alpha. Next up, Ben Steve Berman, who's on
Speaker 1: the Wealth team at Bloomberg News, been the reigning champion
Speaker 1: from last year. What was your idea with with last
Speaker 1: year's March Madness winner. I was going for empty, which
Speaker 1: is the retail et fright, and how was that done?
Speaker 1: After I I have not checked. Give me four seconds here.
Speaker 1: I did warn you that it wasn't gonna do well,
Speaker 1: uh negative two. But we're waiting. We're still waiting for
Speaker 1: the big home run, right, the big grand for me.
Speaker 1: On the personal finance guy, I think long term, not
Speaker 1: like the no this is I think in decades, not days,
Speaker 1: and I won't be but alright, so as I said,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm a personal finance guy. I think long term.
Speaker 1: I was thinking about long term trends. How do how
Speaker 1: do we invest in some of the big global long
Speaker 1: term trends climate change? Okay, you can do that. There's
Speaker 1: ways to do that. UM urbanization. You look at rural
Speaker 1: areas all around the world, including the United States. They're shrinking,
Speaker 1: populations going down. The economy of rural areas is shrinking.
Speaker 1: Cities are booming, especially in Africa and especially in Asia,
Speaker 1: but also the United States. UM, big cities are doing
Speaker 1: really well, and outside metro prolitan areas, it's hard to
Speaker 1: get a job. So it's thinking about UM. A urban
Speaker 1: basically an urban ETF. So it's a it's it invests
Speaker 1: in a whole range of sectors. So it could be finance, reets, uh, industrial, cranes, elevators, retail.
Speaker 1: It goes after retail stores and retail companies that really
Speaker 1: go after that urban consumer. The ticker is well, okay,
Speaker 1: this the ticker could be city that's available, could be well,
Speaker 1: I have a better one. You tell me why you
Speaker 1: p p yuppy, Why we are gentrifying et F investing.
Speaker 1: We're gentrifying EFF investing. As if et F investing needed gentrifying. UM,
Speaker 1: give me some name, all right, so you said finance,
Speaker 1: you said reach, you said cranes, Like, so what am I?
Speaker 1: The man to walk would be the crane idea lift
Speaker 1: I p O s. You would want that. So you
Speaker 1: want some transportation in there. But the key is you
Speaker 1: want something that's really focused on urban consumers all around
Speaker 1: the world, not um not rural consumers. So like Amazon,
Speaker 1: I think you would want to leave that out because
Speaker 1: it's more of a broader play. It's got to be
Speaker 1: really locked in on city super long, city super short essentially,
Speaker 1: or just everything else is out, not shut, but everything
Speaker 1: else is out, and you are changing this the makeup
Speaker 1: of this fun Oh that's the other thing. We're like, Hi,
Speaker 1: we gotta get a good team of like millennials sort
Speaker 1: of taking artisanal approach to the index constructuring of this.
Speaker 1: This really is pretty yuppy artisanal shares. Took me a
Speaker 1: long time to come up with this guy approach. Just
Speaker 1: stock selection, Okay, alright, yuppy yuppy with our tiginal rebalancing
Speaker 1: is exactly okay, thank you bad, very good. Alright. Next
Speaker 1: up Rachel Evans of Bloombrick News, a frequent guest on
Speaker 1: Trillions No Pressure. Three do one make way for the
Speaker 1: future trading under the ticket s h t K. The
Speaker 1: stick of this fund is to invest in the megacaps
Speaker 1: of the future. The fund or track and index of
Speaker 1: the five most recently listed US companies, which it will equate,
Speaker 1: rebalancing quarterly to limit trading costs. This thematic fund will
Speaker 1: charge forty basis points, undercutting the average thematic a t
Speaker 1: F by more than ten basis points. Uh. And we'll
Speaker 1: look to beat the i PO focused funds that are
Speaker 1: out there, which are currently charging about sixty basis points
Speaker 1: twenty basis points more than this fund. M H. I
Speaker 1: think I don't even need the time. Yeah, I was
Speaker 1: going to say it. I was like making the first
Speaker 1: one that's coming under. Yeah again, points for that, I feel. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I see that. So you are every newly issued stack
Speaker 1: you guys buy that's issued in the US, it is
Speaker 1: issued in the United States of America. Now I see
Speaker 1: the appeal to it. But I guess I just wonder,
Speaker 1: so we're really nearly scooping it all up, and how
Speaker 1: often do we then do we rotate these out so
Speaker 1: once a quarter so, because you want to limit the
Speaker 1: trading cost of kind of trading too frequently and quarterly
Speaker 1: rebalancings relatively common. So that's when you kind of like
Speaker 1: turn over the portfolio. I reckon, you've probably replaced the
Speaker 1: stocks maybe every two years, would kind of like the
Speaker 1: time you'd get a whole new portfolio. You can't see this.
Speaker 1: Brolina is nodding her head and approval behind you. Yes,
Speaker 1: yes she is. She seems to like flavor over there.
Speaker 1: She likes your pitch better than her own, it seems like.
Speaker 1: But I would say as well that like looking at
Speaker 1: kind of like funds that focus on I PO some
Speaker 1: of which are less sophisticated, I would say they've done
Speaker 1: very well, they're up this year, okay, But you're just
Speaker 1: I guess the only thing they considerably, you're just right
Speaker 1: blindly blanket buying them all. They tend to do well initially,
Speaker 1: of course, but like, how much risk do I have?
Speaker 1: Am I going to be? Are we gonna be stumbling
Speaker 1: into some total blow ups? So that is the why
Speaker 1: you have an a t F in the first place.
Speaker 1: Rather than buying these stocks out right, you know, you
Speaker 1: could buy left and then hey, maybe a lift gets
Speaker 1: brought out by another company or goes to hell in
Speaker 1: a handcar. Who knows. But the point of an et
Speaker 1: f A is you have diversified exposure. Yes, it is
Speaker 1: buying everything that lists, but that's how you get diversified exposure.
Speaker 1: You get all of those companies are going to be
Speaker 1: this future five hundred the future. Last question for you
Speaker 1: before I let you go is that, UM, I understand
Speaker 1: that you're buying companies of the future. But as Bloomberg
Speaker 1: News as reporter recently maybe it was parts of yourself,
Speaker 1: has said that companies that are ip owing are typically
Speaker 1: I p owing at a much later age than they
Speaker 1: used to. So am I really getting companies of the
Speaker 1: future or this is still your first chance to buy
Speaker 1: into them as an investor in the public market, So
Speaker 1: better to get in sort of five years into their lifespan.
Speaker 1: Will wait another ten or fifteen, You're still in kind
Speaker 1: of that early arc of growth for these companies. That
Speaker 1: was a good question. I had to come up with one.
Speaker 1: I have a question, which is you're British. Um sadly
Speaker 1: hell in a handcart we say Helena handbag. I've never
Speaker 1: heard Helena. Oh my god, it's an Oregon thing. Okay, sorry,
Speaker 1: Tom Sera, Vegas analysts with Bloomberg Intelligence Tommy, you got
Speaker 1: about one minute, go for it. Okay. So this one
Speaker 1: is the anti factory TF So let me sort of
Speaker 1: set the stage for you. So there has just been
Speaker 1: this big focus on everyone chasing factory t s. When
Speaker 1: I say factor, I mean things like low volatility, momentum, value.
Speaker 1: There is a lot of money sort of chasing these factors.
Speaker 1: This one is basically looking for the island of misfit toys.
Speaker 1: So what this does is actually it looks through the
Speaker 1: really popular factory ts like the value one, the momentum
Speaker 1: one that actually looks at the stocks that are not
Speaker 1: owned by any of them. Right, So it's really a
Speaker 1: contring indicator. And the reason I want to pick this
Speaker 1: one because I think that investors have this sort of
Speaker 1: love affair with contring indicators, are really looking or anything
Speaker 1: to give them any insight into anything cracking in the
Speaker 1: market or sort or any type of insight. So um
Speaker 1: uh f wise, it's only basis points. I think it's
Speaker 1: super competitive for a product like this, and you're probably
Speaker 1: asking yourself like, who are the anti factor names, because
Speaker 1: you're probably thinking these are like garbage stocks and no
Speaker 1: one wants to touch. All Right, I'm wrapping up Greek.
Speaker 1: Let me throw out some names, Facebook, Horizon, Intel, Right,
Speaker 1: so there's nothing wrong with these companies just because they
Speaker 1: don't meet the definition of a factor. Um, they've sort
Speaker 1: of been shunned. So there's obviously very stable companies that
Speaker 1: have disregarding the wrap up and uh um, so I'm
Speaker 1: really looking for a need you have to pick up
Speaker 1: on miss pricings that just because these stocks don't meet
Speaker 1: the traditional factor difference as the ticker is great, I
Speaker 1: think it's reject. I r j KT, reject, reject. Spell
Speaker 1: it again for me. Are j KT alright? And how
Speaker 1: often am I moving in and out of these anti
Speaker 1: factor stocks? How often? Yeah? Good question, You're moving quarterly
Speaker 1: because that coincides with how the other factory tests are
Speaker 1: rebound typically the rebounce recorder. Um. So this one will
Speaker 1: also rebounce a recorder as those ones. A rebound it
Speaker 1: looks for all the names that are not in it,
Speaker 1: and it will pick up the same name. The will
Speaker 1: rebound in the same frequence Greek. Before I let you go,
Speaker 1: I am a contrarian guy by nature, so this does
Speaker 1: appeal to me at some level. But I guess, like,
Speaker 1: how will right? I mean? These things are are our
Speaker 1: anti factor for a reason right there? Out of favor.
Speaker 1: How long do we need to sit on these things
Speaker 1: for before they start you know, paying paying off for us? Yeah,
Speaker 1: good question. And why I think this product has the
Speaker 1: potential be a disruptor. So because let's look at value
Speaker 1: for example, value has been underperforming for ten years. So
Speaker 1: if you actually look at a value index, if you
Speaker 1: take the worst value names, you would have outperformed the
Speaker 1: best value names over the last five years. So why
Speaker 1: I think this is disruptors because if anti factor starts
Speaker 1: to do well, it's sort of underpins everything else. So
Speaker 1: sort of saying, hey, factors aren't working and there's so
Speaker 1: much money chasing these factors. The potential for this to
Speaker 1: be a disruptor I think is huge. So you're essentially
Speaker 1: trying to use their hype against them and exactly, and
Speaker 1: I think as factory investing gets more popular, there's gonna
Speaker 1: be more and more money chasing the same stocks based
Speaker 1: on the same factor. Definitely. For what it's worth about
Speaker 1: Tunis is sort of nodding his head about. Tunis is
Speaker 1: into this one. He wants he doesn't he doesn't have
Speaker 1: the cash I have right now, but he might he mighty.
Speaker 1: It appeals. I'm a contrarian too, so it appeals to
Speaker 1: me on that level, and I'm actually shocked this one
Speaker 1: isn't a product. Well done, Thank you, great, thanks good
Speaker 1: all right. Next up Annie massa reporter with bloom Brick News. Annie,
Speaker 1: three to one. Okay, allow me to propose to you
Speaker 1: the wedding e t F turning under the ticker I
Speaker 1: d O this E t F track to be spoken
Speaker 1: decks of companies uniquely positioned to profit off of the
Speaker 1: seventy two billion dollar US wedding industry now that includes
Speaker 1: jewelers Tiffany and co Ca Jewelers, Registry, go to like
Speaker 1: bed Bath and Beyond, formal wear retailers like Nordstrom, beverage
Speaker 1: companies Anhezzard Bush, and tech companies like Amazon, stunt i,
Speaker 1: po Pinterest a popular one with brides and even um
Speaker 1: drone part makers because drones are the future of wedding
Speaker 1: photography got to capture those aerial shots. Couples spent an
Speaker 1: average of forty four thousand dollars a year that's up
Speaker 1: more than sixty um a year over year on their
Speaker 1: weddings in the US, and this a t F gives
Speaker 1: you an exposure to a wide array of industries, um,
Speaker 1: giving it a real, I think, special flavor. As anyone
Speaker 1: who knows sound okay, just last last note, as anybody
Speaker 1: who's ever been in a long term relationship knows past
Speaker 1: results are non indicative. Future excellent. All Right, it's a
Speaker 1: pretty good it's a pretty good ticker, and I like
Speaker 1: it's I like how approachable it is. But let me
Speaker 1: ask you a couple of questions. Here. Seventy billion dollar industry. Uh,
Speaker 1: and these folks spend forty four thousand on average in
Speaker 1: their weddings up six But is this really a growth
Speaker 1: industry though? Like am I I mean absolutely? I mean
Speaker 1: I thought I thought I thought marriage was kind of
Speaker 1: I mean, you could short this whole thing. You can, Yeah,
Speaker 1: you can also go short if you're better. But but
Speaker 1: the other piece of it is millennials are increasingly getting
Speaker 1: their parents to pay for their weddings, meaning that the
Speaker 1: cost of weddings, wedding spending is actually going on. In
Speaker 1: a minute, yeah, I'm gonna be paying for my sorry
Speaker 1: to tell you, okay, So I all right, so this
Speaker 1: is growth. This is I'm gonna be buy growth, And
Speaker 1: it's I'm not sure I buy that. I mean Tiffany, Yeah,
Speaker 1: Tiffany for a wedding registrates there for the right. So
Speaker 1: this is my other question, So is it you're kind
Speaker 1: of all You're slightly all over the place in terms
Speaker 1: of what you're wedging in here. I mean like Amazon
Speaker 1: for weddings, but in that sense like Amazon could be
Speaker 1: for I get it, but he could be at that
Speaker 1: point Amazon, you then could almost apply to anything. Um,
Speaker 1: I do like there are elements here already using the ticker,
Speaker 1: I feel like catching on. The next is up six
Speaker 1: from when from the year before from Okay, this is
Speaker 1: according to Bride's magazine. One of the odds right now,
Speaker 1: one are the odds that spending on weddings went up
Speaker 1: six one year. I think the odds of that are
Speaker 1: something like zero. Right, But Brides, it isn't a second,
Speaker 1: There isn't the father's footing. The bill is a good
Speaker 1: market because that you could look at it as a
Speaker 1: hedge on your wedding, that you're paying for it kind of,
Speaker 1: it's a way to hedge out the costs. That's that's
Speaker 1: a clever, that's smart. Next up, Susanne Woolle. Susanne had
Speaker 1: a premature exit from the tournament last year with she
Speaker 1: picked a great one move but kind of got bounced.
Speaker 1: My colleague Ben Steverman just knocked me out of the park.
Speaker 1: It was sad. Yeah, he was pretty brutal. I gotta
Speaker 1: admit but it marked. But now is your chance at redemption? Yeah? Alright,
Speaker 1: so so you're ready for shark tank. I am. Okay,
Speaker 1: here we go. Make your pitch. This ETF is nothing
Speaker 1: about redemption. My chip pitch is for Evil ticker symbol
Speaker 1: e v I L. Unsurprisingly, the ticker symbol is available.
Speaker 1: Evil will invest in anything that plays to people's baser
Speaker 1: instincts or as harmful to society in some way. That
Speaker 1: means a good invest Companies that profit from selling unhealthy
Speaker 1: snack foods, that are big polluters, that promote vaping, anything
Speaker 1: that definitely is not good. Lots of people you know
Speaker 1: indirectly benefit from, you know, vir publicly traded companies from
Speaker 1: things that aren't very good and don't realize it. And
Speaker 1: this just allows them to invest in more honest, targeted way.
Speaker 1: It will also be a sort of like a litmus test.
Speaker 1: If it fails, it doesn't attract assets, it doesn't do
Speaker 1: well then like great, that says good things society. What
Speaker 1: about my money? If it does well, it says like
Speaker 1: we're all going to hell in a handbasket. But again
Speaker 1: catching up on the bright side, it will be a
Speaker 1: really a mark of dishonor to be part of this
Speaker 1: et f so that may sort of incurage good behavior. Um,
Speaker 1: that is the sound of us exiting. Can I just
Speaker 1: mention that it's Um, it's expense ratio is going to
Speaker 1: be point six six six. I'm not going to help
Speaker 1: it with. I don't think it will make more money,
Speaker 1: but it's very meta, you know. Um. Anyway, you can
Speaker 1: also use two to three times leverage to make it
Speaker 1: really wicked. Um, you could short a companion ticker called
Speaker 1: like good. If we think evil is just too bad
Speaker 1: a ticker, we could call it well hell is available.
Speaker 1: But we could also call it UNPC And then we
Speaker 1: appeal to sort of jerk x E s g um, well,
Speaker 1: it's obviously very clever, but he says, but you yourself
Speaker 1: sort of seemed to be hoping it fails. No, Um, well, yeah,
Speaker 1: I appreciate the like I appreciate like sort of the
Speaker 1: undiluted evil of it. Just an abstract repeal to people's face.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is not going away bad behavior. You know,
Speaker 1: it's it's a very solid base to build a product on,
Speaker 1: especially you know this, say shy, I get it, all right,
Speaker 1: thank you evil, no problem. All right, that was all
Speaker 1: the pitches. Those were good. So yeah, you want to remember.
Speaker 1: I go walk the hall. Okay, all right, let me
Speaker 1: go step out for a minute. Okay, take a take
Speaker 1: a little breathe. Alright, take a little breathe and take
Speaker 1: a little breather. I'll be back in the meantime. No
Speaker 1: fighting amongst you, Sarah, I think a ship. Okay, so
Speaker 1: we're back. You took a little walk around the block,
Speaker 1: collected your thoughts. You did some scoring like in figure skating. Okay,
Speaker 1: let's hear it. So here we go, one by one,
Speaker 1: first come, first served. Carlina Wilson came up first with
Speaker 1: frat clever name. Uh, there's some positives to it, but
Speaker 1: here's my issue. I gave it a six out of ten.
Speaker 1: And because as nice as solid as the name is,
Speaker 1: I think these kids are broke. I don't think I
Speaker 1: think you could also be call this broke. This Uh,
Speaker 1: this is I just don't ultimately know that it's enough
Speaker 1: of a growth business for me to tap into Sara Pons,
Speaker 1: who I gave a seven too. Uh. It just it
Speaker 1: just feels right, the whole gen Z trade. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm just sort of feeling it's a touch ethereal
Speaker 1: to me, but I I'm going with a seven. Joe
Speaker 1: Weber fitty five. Here's about thing again, this one was
Speaker 1: definitely shorting costs. Well, you're essentially telling me this one
Speaker 1: to trust you. That's I kind of felt there's a
Speaker 1: little bit too much of what I'm telling you to
Speaker 1: trust Bloomberg Intelligence, but you know, don't shift it on me.
Speaker 1: And it was it was also a touch too ethereal.
Speaker 1: But but all right, but fifty gets a five, so
Speaker 1: we're thematically linked up there. Ron and Rof James I
Speaker 1: gave a six to. I very much find appeal in
Speaker 1: Ron and Roff, But again I found it a touch
Speaker 1: too convoluted. Uh, And I thought there were too many
Speaker 1: moving parts, especially in a Yeah, you've got something to say.
Speaker 1: What's convoluted about risk on and risk off? What's what's
Speaker 1: convoluted about um is that there are you know, within
Speaker 1: each sector of the risk on risk off, Right, there
Speaker 1: were there were different, you know, elements to it that
Speaker 1: you were telling me that I had to write U
Speaker 1: figure out how to break down the investment and and
Speaker 1: and invested, depending you know, in different times. I just
Speaker 1: sort of felt like in a sixty second pitch there
Speaker 1: was a fair amount to get my head around. But
Speaker 1: that's the opposite of yoursue with Jewels, which was there
Speaker 1: they're telling you what to own, and this is like
Speaker 1: allowing you to own your own research. That's against you.
Speaker 1: I think if anything actually is going to revise ron
Speaker 1: Off from a six to a three, we now know
Speaker 1: what's gonna last. Alright, very good, But if you want
Speaker 1: to keep and go for it, alright, Morgan Live gets
Speaker 1: a seven. I believe this is the second seven we
Speaker 1: now have. Um is a gambler. I believe in this industry.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I think there's a little bit too
Speaker 1: much hype in terms of how much this is gonna
Speaker 1: grow UM, but I believe in it is enough to
Speaker 1: to sort of feel like we we might want to
Speaker 1: think about putting some money there. I'm not totally feeling
Speaker 1: the ticker Elive is a little it's a little it's
Speaker 1: a little flat to me. Next up, is Mr Belcrinus
Speaker 1: with x mon And as much as this pains me,
Speaker 1: I gave him a big number. I gave him a nine.
Speaker 1: Whoa Joel called it lazy, but again in what is Joel? What?
Speaker 1: What was Joel's rating? So? I mean, I think what
Speaker 1: it's apt. Remember it is the sixty second elevator pitch.
Speaker 1: You gotta get my attention quickly. There's a storyline with
Speaker 1: this that I could very easily get my head around. Uh.
Speaker 1: And there's a believability factor to it. I think you know,
Speaker 1: you went back like eighty years of data that shows
Speaker 1: this is not just some gimmicky, you know sort of thing. Um,
Speaker 1: and I found these things attractive. It's right now nine
Speaker 1: you are, you are in first in the clubhouse. Um
Speaker 1: Ben Steveerman City right, reigning champion. Well City was one option,
Speaker 1: but yup, yu alright. I gave this an eight. I
Speaker 1: just think actually that the whole urbanization thing is huge.
Speaker 1: I think it's it's here to stay, it's global, it's
Speaker 1: it's real, it's part frankly why the world. In some
Speaker 1: ways it's so screwed up right to divide, political divide
Speaker 1: and all that. And you know between rural and urban,
Speaker 1: but you know, unwealthy and and poor rurals got growth.
Speaker 1: You've got a ton of growth. I mean it may
Speaker 1: not necessarily make the world of great places and ways,
Speaker 1: but I think it's it's just destined to keep growing.
Speaker 1: And whether it's city or whether it's yuppy, those are
Speaker 1: good takers. I gave it an eight. He consistently brings
Speaker 1: the power. So you're saying it was three better than okay,
Speaker 1: and and five better than it was five better than
Speaker 1: Ron Row. Yeah, um, Rachel Evans stick, I give a six. Two.
Speaker 1: Where's Rachel? She's angry. So because she's so angry, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna have Bluetoon's explain why I got a six? No,
Speaker 1: uh no, I I liked it. I in the end,
Speaker 1: And I know you're telling me that, right, the genius
Speaker 1: of buying all five of the most recent is that's
Speaker 1: gonna get me all this wustions. I don't know. I
Speaker 1: don't know. There's something about blanket buying all the craft
Speaker 1: that's that's that's and the great stuff that's put out there.
Speaker 1: I just didn't want it. Especially I'm a little bit
Speaker 1: thrown by the by this trend of older and older
Speaker 1: companies I p oing, but a six is a good
Speaker 1: number to beat beat old by one, and it beat
Speaker 1: run Rock. I guess he's saying he didn't like your hand.
Speaker 1: The Greek with reject um I give it is he
Speaker 1: is the Greek on Hey, how you doing? I gave
Speaker 1: you a seven, which as of right now puts you
Speaker 1: in a tie for third. I believe that, you know,
Speaker 1: if I'm gonna be doling out a hundred million, there's
Speaker 1: got to be some contrarian play in here. This is,
Speaker 1: this is I thought this was the best contrarian play.
Speaker 1: Although evils also were evils also a good contrarian play.
Speaker 1: I also think that there's indeed, you just get so
Speaker 1: much hype around the fact or stuff and all that that. Um,
Speaker 1: if you write, we're gonna be holding onto this stuff
Speaker 1: for a decent period of time, right to cash in, um,
Speaker 1: I think it makes sense. Uh so seven for reject Annie,
Speaker 1: I do, where are you? I'll give you a six? Wow,
Speaker 1: I'm shocked by that. That's okay, Why are you shocked?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I thought it came off. It just
Speaker 1: came off. You can't explain it, is it? Because it
Speaker 1: was such a polished pitch of so many good ideas.
Speaker 1: It was very good. There's there was no issue with
Speaker 1: the pitch. The pitch was killer. The name is killer,
Speaker 1: who the idea killer who truly believes in the institution
Speaker 1: of marriage is a crazy growth industry. Raise your hands, people,
Speaker 1: you can and I'm not stopping you from pitching this elsewhere.
Speaker 1: You want to keep pitching. Know the pitch was killer.
Speaker 1: Everybody's a little upset here in this phase. It was good.
Speaker 1: But the last thing, the last little issue I had
Speaker 1: was just a little it's too dispersed, like I don't
Speaker 1: really like I don't. I'm strongly get my head around
Speaker 1: having Amazon as a as a bet on the wedding industry.
Speaker 1: Moving on, knife through my heart and it was robbed, robbed. Alright,
Speaker 1: well you got you guys, give her some money to
Speaker 1: your own then now accepting other people's money. Evil was
Speaker 1: super close. In the end, I gave it a six.
Speaker 1: It was super closer. Here's the thing. It is a
Speaker 1: lot of fun. It's awesome. Five. You know what, I'll
Speaker 1: take half six points. I'll take zero point six from Joel.
Speaker 1: We've got a six six. Joel will get to go
Speaker 1: down to a four. Four, right, okay? Four four right,
Speaker 1: it sounds better five four point four six or so.
Speaker 1: I think it's super fun. It's in the end um
Speaker 1: it's uh. I don't think people are going to put
Speaker 1: money into it, but it's it's because it's evil. So
Speaker 1: that's it. That's a wrap. Eric, there's a certain wind
Speaker 1: t can you can you even say it? Joel? Say
Speaker 1: it again? You know I called it lazy. I called
Speaker 1: it lazy? Ye man, yeah, nowns who gets the last laugh?
Speaker 1: I guess you do? Uh dollars. So, so fifty millions
Speaker 1: is a good hold. I was bounced early from the
Speaker 1: other one, so I nice, Yeah, how does it feel?
Speaker 1: What are you going to do with fifty million dollars
Speaker 1: in your ETF? Honestly I picked this because I was
Speaker 1: kind of surprised there wasn't a product like this, because,
Speaker 1: like you said, you can get it in a minute,
Speaker 1: and if it starts to get some of that out
Speaker 1: performance performance plus easy to understand equals flows, I would
Speaker 1: suspect that's right. I actually think, well, let's launch this thing.
Speaker 1: You serious, you get the hundred millions, that's all hundred million, okay?
Speaker 1: And so reigning out rounding out number two last year's winner,
Speaker 1: Benn steps again. This guy's like, yeah, becomes ready to play,
Speaker 1: but he also it almost like seems like he knows,
Speaker 1: you know, investing wise, some of the things that appealed
Speaker 1: to me. I believe in Empty. I believe in empty,
Speaker 1: and even though empty hasn't paid off yet, it will
Speaker 1: And no yuppy yuppi yuppy slash shitty whatever. Fine, we
Speaker 1: need to finalize the name before I give you the money. Obviously, Um,
Speaker 1: that's that's a winner. I had three people tied at seven, right,
Speaker 1: but in that tiebreaker I went to I went to Ponzi,
Speaker 1: so she gets story much. I will ultimately just and
Speaker 1: I'm gonna probably rue the day that I believe in Already,
Speaker 1: all year headlines you're going to see that are no
Speaker 1: longer millennial gen z. Everyone's gonna hate in the best way,
Speaker 1: Mr Papa was what did you learn in this whole
Speaker 1: process that, um, absorbing pitches in sixty seconds is tricky?
Speaker 1: And I don't know, I mean, Eric, you tell me
Speaker 1: how realistically how quickly do people make decisions on what
Speaker 1: E T F s to buy? But I do feel
Speaker 1: like a storyline and a clear product that are easy
Speaker 1: to get your head around. There. There feels to me
Speaker 1: like there's a lot of value to that. I mean,
Speaker 1: certainly in this kind of compressed format that was the case. Well,
Speaker 1: I don't go to those pitch meetings, but generally I
Speaker 1: would think so because that's what works flow wise for
Speaker 1: these products that aren't just sort of cheap data. So
Speaker 1: you give me some examples. Okay, example robotics. Um, everybody
Speaker 1: understands robotics. They see the video of the robot jumping
Speaker 1: over the car and they're like, oh yeah, big industry,
Speaker 1: and then robot starts going up. Boom, there goes the flows.
Speaker 1: There are other e t s that outperformed that don't
Speaker 1: get the flows because I do think they're tougher for
Speaker 1: people to understand. Um. So I do think the easy
Speaker 1: to understand the thirty second pitch is a good idea
Speaker 1: because if you can get the seed investor and to
Speaker 1: understand and it or somebody in thirty seconds when it
Speaker 1: has a good breakout performance, if people don't understand it,
Speaker 1: I don't know if the performance is enough. So I
Speaker 1: do think that's likely what people are looking for. I
Speaker 1: asked Mike Venuto. He said, obviously seed capital is a
Speaker 1: big one. If you have C capital will probably green
Speaker 1: light you. And then the other one was he did
Speaker 1: look for like if you could develop a family around it,
Speaker 1: if it was easy to understand and simple, and if
Speaker 1: there was obviously nothing really like it on the market.
Speaker 1: How many, because like Any's pitch was great, But again, personally,
Speaker 1: I just don't see how that's a growth industry. How
Speaker 1: many e t F s are launched, like sort of
Speaker 1: thematics are lace that are not that in a do
Speaker 1: well that are not People are not selling growth like
Speaker 1: you know, they're like I'm saying, here's an et F
Speaker 1: with a great stable industry. Does that appeal to people
Speaker 1: in the theme front? Not much? I think with the
Speaker 1: theme ETF that's why they equal weight them. You gotta
Speaker 1: juice those suckers up with them, like like all legal
Speaker 1: p e d s, which is like equal waiting some
Speaker 1: fang stocks. You juice them up and then they outperform.
Speaker 1: A lot of people don't understand it's because they have
Speaker 1: more risk, but they're outperforming nonetheless, and they go, oh,
Speaker 1: and then the theme kind of kicks in. They're like, oh,
Speaker 1: of course robotics or cybersecurity juice Like if I do
Speaker 1: start out performing, I think people go, Yeah, of course
Speaker 1: everybody spends a bundle on weddings. I did too, I
Speaker 1: get it. I'll buy it all right. Thanks to David
Speaker 1: Popadapo's for judging well. Thanks to our contestants for all
Speaker 1: those great ideas. Maybe mine wasn't so great after all,
Speaker 1: but you know that was a fun one, except for
Speaker 1: coming in basically like a second to last. Thanks for
Speaker 1: listening to New Trillions until next time. You can find
Speaker 1: us on Bloomberg Terminal, Bloomberg dot com, Apple Podcast, Spotify,
Speaker 1: and where else you like to listen. We'd love to
Speaker 1: hear from you. We're on Twitter, I'm at Joel Webber Show,
Speaker 1: He's at Eric Falcina's. Trillions is produced by Magnus Hendrickson.
Speaker 1: Princessca Levy is the head of Bloomberg podcast The Totter