Speaker 1: We can trillions. I'm Joel Webber and I'm Eric belt Junas.
Speaker 1: Got to see Eric, to see you two in person,
Speaker 1: like the third time, I think since in pandemic days.
Speaker 1: It's great, though I think it's more than that, but
Speaker 1: who's counting. Uh So, there have been some headlines recently
Speaker 1: and some e t F s that just launched, and
Speaker 1: those headlines and these ETFs really fascinate me because we've
Speaker 1: never talked about this before and it seems like a
Speaker 1: great time to do. So, Yeah, a whole new category
Speaker 1: has been born. We weren't sure it was going to happen,
Speaker 1: but this is a category of ETFs that are linked
Speaker 1: to single stocks, which is almost I think silly to
Speaker 1: some people. For example, in e t F the tracks
Speaker 1: uh Tesla to some degree either leveraged or inverse or
Speaker 1: ETF tracks Nike or Google. Um. There are reasons for
Speaker 1: it we'll get into, but the SEC has approved these,
Speaker 1: not completely the way they are filed, but close enough
Speaker 1: that I do believe we're going to see hundreds, if
Speaker 1: not thousands of e t s because there's four thousand
Speaker 1: stocks and there's many things you can do. And so
Speaker 1: the first one was launched last week or a bunch
Speaker 1: of them, and the one that I had a feeling
Speaker 1: would be the biggest hit was the biggest hit Inverse
Speaker 1: Tesla TSLQ. The volume one. It went from six million
Speaker 1: day one twelve million day two. It's rare to get
Speaker 1: twelve million that new, and it's rare to have volume grow.
Speaker 1: Usually day one is a big splash and then it
Speaker 1: goes down. That tells me this is going to be
Speaker 1: a pretty big hit product. So once there's a hit,
Speaker 1: that's only going to encourage more people to file. So, uh,
Speaker 1: this is a really exciting and maybe an area that
Speaker 1: really requires some explanation for someone out there going, why
Speaker 1: do you need an e t F for a stock?
Speaker 1: So joining us on this episode, we've got Matt Tuttle,
Speaker 1: who's the managing director of Access Investments, one of the
Speaker 1: companies that's begun putting out these single stock etts, as
Speaker 1: well as Katie Greifield, reporter with Bloomberg News who's been
Speaker 1: covering these launches, this time on Trilliance Single stock et s. Matt, Katie,
Speaker 1: welcome to Trilliance. Thank you for having me. Matt. Let's
Speaker 1: start with you, why does the world needs single stock ets?
Speaker 1: The world definitely needs single stock ETF. So I've been
Speaker 1: trading since the eighties, and you know, back in the day,
Speaker 1: you'd always I wish this existed, I wish that existed,
Speaker 1: and you know, it was never in a position to
Speaker 1: actually make that happen. And and now I am. So
Speaker 1: you know, I talked to retail investors on Twitter and
Speaker 1: you know, in through email all the time, and you know,
Speaker 1: there's a couple of things they really like to do.
Speaker 1: They like to trade on margin, they like options, and
Speaker 1: they typically are agnostic between being longer short a single name.
Speaker 1: So what single stock ETFs do is it gives investors
Speaker 1: a way to easily kind of express those options in
Speaker 1: a nice package. So not everybody likes to trade options.
Speaker 1: I mean I personally don't. It's kind of a pain
Speaker 1: in the butt. Um. Not everyone likes to or can
Speaker 1: access margin um, and not everybody likes to or can
Speaker 1: go short. You can't short in an IRA retirement plan.
Speaker 1: So it just gives investors another way if they've got
Speaker 1: a bullish opinion or a bearish opinion on a stock,
Speaker 1: to express that view. What were the hurdles to bring
Speaker 1: to bring this to market? Because, as Eric mentioned, uh
Speaker 1: SEC didn't totally go for this at the start. So
Speaker 1: these are complex products obviously, and leverage and inverse ETFs.
Speaker 1: I mean, we all know that they provide the return
Speaker 1: in a single day. Once you start compounding the returns,
Speaker 1: you know, what you end up getting, you know, may
Speaker 1: not be exactly what you expect, and so there really
Speaker 1: there is education, but there needs to be a lot
Speaker 1: more education for investors on you know, if you hold
Speaker 1: onto this for a longer period of time, you know
Speaker 1: there could be issues. So you know, the SEC to
Speaker 1: address that came out with their new Derivatives rule, which
Speaker 1: you know expectedly is not designed with single asset ETFs
Speaker 1: in mind. So you know, I think the biggest hurdle
Speaker 1: that that we had there was just making sure that
Speaker 1: these fit within the rules as they were designed. Um
Speaker 1: let me jump in there, because when you filed, you
Speaker 1: originally filed for also a two x tesla, which to
Speaker 1: me is somewhat of the holy grail. I think that
Speaker 1: anything around tesla, I think is going to sell. You
Speaker 1: ended up coming out with a one point one x tesla,
Speaker 1: which is just a little tiny dose of leverage. Mean
Speaker 1: it's almost unnoticeable. And then but they allowed you to
Speaker 1: come out with two x fiser and you know, my
Speaker 1: colleague James Stafford looked at that and what he did
Speaker 1: is he looked the volatility of the stocks, and if
Speaker 1: you work in that leverage, you realize that it looked
Speaker 1: like the SEC was looking at standard deviation and saying, well,
Speaker 1: we're okay with two x visor because it's not that volatile,
Speaker 1: but Tesla will't willing go a tiny bit of leverage.
Speaker 1: Are they actually using volatility as a way way to
Speaker 1: sort of regulate these things? So to an extent, they're
Speaker 1: not looking specifically at standard deviation, but they've they've got
Speaker 1: a calculation that we've got to fit these into. So
Speaker 1: when we initially filed, we said, you know, we'll file
Speaker 1: for two acts, you know, because that's the maximum we
Speaker 1: know we can do, and then we'll go through the
Speaker 1: process and see, you know kind of where we end up. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, without giving away the secret sauce, because I
Speaker 1: don't know that other people have kind of figured this out.
Speaker 1: You know, you've you've basically got to fit it within
Speaker 1: those derivative rules and the more volatile stock. I mean,
Speaker 1: Tesla has a standard deviation over four where I don't
Speaker 1: remember what visor is off the top of my head,
Speaker 1: but it's nowhere near for you know, the more volatile
Speaker 1: the stock, the tougher it's going to be to kind
Speaker 1: of fitted into that box. And again going back to
Speaker 1: the rules aren't designed for a single asset. And so mean,
Speaker 1: I've tweeted about these launches. Eric has tweet about these launches.
Speaker 1: It's spurred a lot of pearl clutching on Twitter, like
Speaker 1: just a lot of people saying, oh, this is the top,
Speaker 1: even though it feels like maybe worth the bottom. But
Speaker 1: in any case, one of the tweets that did catch
Speaker 1: my eye, which was interesting, you know, you mentioned that
Speaker 1: these e t f s, the inverse et f s
Speaker 1: could be access for people who can't short otherwise too
Speaker 1: short of stock express that bearsh view. And someone made
Speaker 1: the point on Twitter that people might use this to
Speaker 1: get around having to set up a margin account, like
Speaker 1: maybe there's a reason why they're not able to short.
Speaker 1: Oh sure, I mean, you know, margin is is one
Speaker 1: big thing you know that went into this more on
Speaker 1: the longside, but certainly on the short side as well.
Speaker 1: I mean a lot of times people don't like margin.
Speaker 1: Sometimes you can't I mean, I invest in in all
Speaker 1: my own products, and those aren't margin able, So I mean,
Speaker 1: I can't buy on margin unless I invest in other things,
Speaker 1: So not everyone can do it. So yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: it's totally a way to get around that. Um, let
Speaker 1: me just ask you what it holds. So if you
Speaker 1: were to go into the access capital markets desk in
Speaker 1: the portfolio design team at your office, just explain to
Speaker 1: me what is in the holdings. Will use the inverse
Speaker 1: Tesla E t F as an example, since that's the
Speaker 1: biggest one Tesla Q and and also in addition to
Speaker 1: what it holds, like how does this work exactly? What
Speaker 1: are those people doing so and in the answer is
Speaker 1: the same thing that they hold swaps. So we've got
Speaker 1: counterparties that we go out to, and so in the
Speaker 1: case of Tesla, we say, hey, we need a swap
Speaker 1: that gives us, you know, basically looks and smells and
Speaker 1: feels like we're short x amount of shares of Tesla,
Speaker 1: and being a levertor and inverse CTF, we need to
Speaker 1: rebalance that every single day because the moment Tesla or
Speaker 1: anything opens for trading, we're out of balance. So we
Speaker 1: got to get back into balance by the end of
Speaker 1: the day. So every day we're calling up our counter
Speaker 1: parties and we got spreadsheets that we said, you know,
Speaker 1: all right, I need to short a hundred shares of Tesla.
Speaker 1: Now I need two hundred. Now it's one fifty. And
Speaker 1: we tell the counter parties at the end of the day, hey, look,
Speaker 1: we need to short another hundred shares of Tesla. Now.
Speaker 1: Sometimes the stock gets so bad it is expensive to
Speaker 1: borrow too short. Is that borrow cost embedded in the
Speaker 1: swap price or where? How's that work? Yeah, the borrow
Speaker 1: costs gets embedded in the swap price. And and and
Speaker 1: that's an important point. I mean, sometime some people on
Speaker 1: Twitter have said, well, you know, if if we buy
Speaker 1: the inverse, we don't pay the cost of shorting. You do.
Speaker 1: But you know there's a chance that, in a very
Speaker 1: good chance, we're getting better pricing on that than you
Speaker 1: know you are in your schwab account. You know, Eric
Speaker 1: tesla Q has an amazing backstory. It's been a cover
Speaker 1: of Bloomberg Business Week. Actually, the the Twitter group that
Speaker 1: basically assembled around that that cash tag and was very
Speaker 1: vocal anti e Lawn, anti Tesla. And I'm curious, you know,
Speaker 1: we're early on this launch. But how does this launch
Speaker 1: rank in terms of all time great ETF introductions. It's
Speaker 1: probably the best intro launched since bidd Oh I think.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's a couple other dicel ones, but to
Speaker 1: go from six million to twelve again, that that's unusually.
Speaker 1: The other one I'm thinking of as you vix when
Speaker 1: they relaunched the t VIX and x I v under
Speaker 1: new names. But I look back, even those were like
Speaker 1: three million the first day and then maybe four the second,
Speaker 1: but those have also built. It's what you want is
Speaker 1: something that builds slowly. Reminds me of the movie office.
Speaker 1: Space kind of didn't do that much of the box office,
Speaker 1: but the rentals just kept creeping up over time because
Speaker 1: people word of mouth. They were like, you've got to
Speaker 1: watch this movie. That happens sometimes that's what you want.
Speaker 1: That That is how you get a classic, That's how
Speaker 1: you get volume. So to me, this is probably one
Speaker 1: of the better launches of the last couple of years. Well, Matt,
Speaker 1: to that end, you had this audience built in which
Speaker 1: was already familiar with this idea, and then you had
Speaker 1: this idea for the product, which came first the recognition
Speaker 1: of the audience or the idea for the product, the
Speaker 1: idea for the product. So I mean, you know, we
Speaker 1: kind of we We did Stark back last year, then
Speaker 1: we followed that up with Tark, and the idea was
Speaker 1: to follow that up with with Tesla. We just felt
Speaker 1: like all of those fit into a real nice bucket
Speaker 1: and and appealed to a lot of the same type
Speaker 1: of people. And so, like Eric said, I mean, this
Speaker 1: is an entirely new category. As Eric would say, it's
Speaker 1: a vanguard free zone. So if you look at the
Speaker 1: the access uh single stock ETFs that are out there
Speaker 1: so far, I think they charged a hundred fifteen basis
Speaker 1: points each. Obviously there is a very long line for
Speaker 1: other single stock ETFs to launch. I think there's over
Speaker 1: eighty filings, which is just insane, with a bunch of
Speaker 1: different issues too. Yes, exactly. So I mean does that
Speaker 1: fee have to come down? Do you anticipate that you're
Speaker 1: going to have to cut these fees? I mean anything
Speaker 1: is possible. And I mean, number one, let's see if
Speaker 1: these guys get their stuff to market. It's it's not easy, um,
Speaker 1: And you know, and us going through it for the
Speaker 1: first time, obviously it took longer than the seventy five
Speaker 1: days to get it done. Um So we'll see whether
Speaker 1: those come out, We'll see what they come out in pricing,
Speaker 1: We'll see what they what names they come out with,
Speaker 1: and you know, we'll we'll play that by year. But
Speaker 1: I would assume if this turns into a real massive market,
Speaker 1: then yeah, I mean you're gonna have v compression. You know,
Speaker 1: you can't have a you know, one point one five spy.
Speaker 1: So yeah, yeah, I mean this is a very good
Speaker 1: area if you're an asset manager because Vanguard will never
Speaker 1: play here. And the thing is, if you get out
Speaker 1: early and you get a liquid et f like if
Speaker 1: if tests, if t s LQ gets, say, start starting
Speaker 1: a DWO million like Sark does, even a copycat, is
Speaker 1: you're gonna have pricing power for a long time. Um.
Speaker 1: So that's why I do think you're gonna see so
Speaker 1: many people launchers. Ben Johnson put it, the spaghetti cannon
Speaker 1: is going to be probably like they're gonna we're gonna
Speaker 1: break this spaghetti cannon. That's how much it's gonna get used.
Speaker 1: And I will ask you, you know, we saw a
Speaker 1: spaghetti cannon. Is that a thing I haven't I haven't
Speaker 1: actually seen a spaghetti con cannon is like, is that similar? No,
Speaker 1: it's it's a it's a it's an imaginative thing that
Speaker 1: Ben Johnson The Morning Star came up with, um and
Speaker 1: Everybody's stolen. It's a great phrase which he just just
Speaker 1: describes like when there's something hot and ETFs, you just
Speaker 1: see so much spaghetti flying at the wall that it's
Speaker 1: almost like a cannon. It's not just throwing, it's like
Speaker 1: just just a giant water of spaghetti. And then you'll
Speaker 1: have a lot of things that don't make it um.
Speaker 1: One of the things I wanted to ask Matt though,
Speaker 1: was about this new category. Obviously you'll have like leverage
Speaker 1: and you'll have inverse on many stocks now. I also
Speaker 1: saw filing just last week for yield chairs, which are
Speaker 1: I believe, gonna do a follow a stock and then
Speaker 1: do a cover call strategy on top of it. I mean,
Speaker 1: it seems like the sky's the limit. We're just basically
Speaker 1: in like almost like a new country where people are
Speaker 1: gonna set up shop and do all kinds of stuff.
Speaker 1: How far can this go? I mean, you you hit
Speaker 1: the nail on the head. I think there's all sorts
Speaker 1: of different ways to slice and dice it. Um you know,
Speaker 1: covered calls, puts, you know, all sorts of things with
Speaker 1: different options, strategies. You know, I think at some point
Speaker 1: you you kind of do run your course, and you
Speaker 1: know there's only you know, there's only so much money
Speaker 1: floating around and only so much interest, So you know,
Speaker 1: I think it can get a little bit crazy. But
Speaker 1: you know what we'll say. Yeah, you know you mentioned
Speaker 1: Sark and target second ago, and I just want to
Speaker 1: rewind and go back to that, because what did you
Speaker 1: learn from introducing those that maybe informed tesla Q and
Speaker 1: and wherever else you could go? So I mean, and
Speaker 1: it really actually it goes back to so Go I mean,
Speaker 1: so Goa was our first inverse ETF, and inverse ETFs,
Speaker 1: like single stock ETFs, are not easy, and there's nobody
Speaker 1: around to tell you, hey, this is how you construct
Speaker 1: an inverse ETF. And obviously the players in the market
Speaker 1: we're not willing to to share unfortunately. So with so Good,
Speaker 1: we learned how to do an inverse ETF, which then
Speaker 1: made Sark very easy. And then you know, Tark the
Speaker 1: same thing. You know. The other the other part of
Speaker 1: that too was being able to get swap counterparties, which,
Speaker 1: since ARCA goes, is not easy like and not easy
Speaker 1: as an understatement. So you know, we learned how to
Speaker 1: do that. Um, I learned how to use Twitter. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm fifty three years old. A couple of years ago,
Speaker 1: or maybe even a year ago, I didn't even know
Speaker 1: what Twitter was. Uh so I learned how to do that,
Speaker 1: which is good because the Twitter guys like this stuff.
Speaker 1: I was gonna say, of all the times to introduce
Speaker 1: a Tesla cue products with Twitter and Muskin, you know,
Speaker 1: total fallout, it seems like a pretty good moment for that.
Speaker 1: Timing was not bad. How much time do you spend
Speaker 1: on Twitter now? It it depends. You know. It's good
Speaker 1: that I've got a dog who likes to go on
Speaker 1: really long walks, so I mean we could be out
Speaker 1: for like an hour and a half and you know
Speaker 1: I'm on Twitter then. Um. You know, during the day
Speaker 1: when I have time, I do wake up way earlier
Speaker 1: than I want to, so I tend to spend some
Speaker 1: time on Twitter then and I dream in tweets. It's
Speaker 1: not awful, You're all you do tweet a lot. Yeah, unfortunately,
Speaker 1: but in any case, we should talk about the SEC
Speaker 1: because there's been some worried noises coming out of some
Speaker 1: of the commissioners there. You had a commissioner Caroline Crenshaw.
Speaker 1: She called for the agency to a top new rules
Speaker 1: on single stock ETFs. Even Chair Ginsler said that the
Speaker 1: products present a particular risk, and yet they launched. But
Speaker 1: I'm curious if you're worried at all, even though you're
Speaker 1: out the door. I mean, what could the backlash be here?
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm not necessary severially from from the standpoint
Speaker 1: that you know, there are tons of LeVert and inverse
Speaker 1: things that are out there. And again it comes down
Speaker 1: to education. You know, like I said before, it's that
Speaker 1: glide path, the compounding of returns that's going to be different.
Speaker 1: You know, I don't think these present any danger in
Speaker 1: any way, shape or form. There's no market risk and
Speaker 1: you know, and and a lot of it seems kind
Speaker 1: of disingenuous where you know, hey, these single stock and
Speaker 1: inverse ETFs, you know that's risky. But like buying r
Speaker 1: K in February of you know, two thousand twenty one
Speaker 1: at the top that that's fine. You know, there there's
Speaker 1: you know, there's a lot of stuff out there in
Speaker 1: the marketplace. That's that's extremely risky, and you know, I
Speaker 1: just think it's an educational issue more than anything. Um.
Speaker 1: So you have t SLQ and you've got SARK. Have
Speaker 1: you had any feedback from either Elon or Cathy based
Speaker 1: on the fact that you have these products going the
Speaker 1: other direction? I know Ellen is in particular sensitive to
Speaker 1: the shorts. Um Kathy. Also, you've got TARK, so you're
Speaker 1: kind of almost building a little You're adding to the
Speaker 1: ecosystem around that fund, which I argue is good because
Speaker 1: it draws more volume in. But maybe she was there
Speaker 1: any I guess between those two people, if you heard
Speaker 1: anything from them on either of these So Ellen, no, Um, Kathy.
Speaker 1: I can't talk about um. But one interesting thing, Tark
Speaker 1: actually helps her from the standpoint of every dollar we
Speaker 1: get into Tark eventually goes back to her because we've
Speaker 1: got to go buy a swap and then the counterparty
Speaker 1: has to hedge themselves by buying ARC, so you know
Speaker 1: that that's actually a net positive for them. Somebody had
Speaker 1: this idea with Tark that Kathy should just buy Tark,
Speaker 1: which would with then you'd have to go out and
Speaker 1: buy shares of ARC, which would then buy more Tark
Speaker 1: and create this upward spiral in the shares of arc
Speaker 1: is that am My is my head just not smart
Speaker 1: enough to understand why that would or wouldn't work. I
Speaker 1: mean I saw that in my brain hurt trying to
Speaker 1: kind of figure that out. You know, so I I,
Speaker 1: I don't think it's gonna happen. Then. Now the best
Speaker 1: thing I saw someone on Twitter took her Holdings thing
Speaker 1: that she sends out every day and mocked it up
Speaker 1: and had a sark and it looked totally real. And
Speaker 1: I saw that on Twitter and I was like, oh
Speaker 1: my god, no, that's fake. But it threw me for
Speaker 1: a second. Okay, so we're ultimately talking about some stuff
Speaker 1: here that that it does get a little wonky. And
Speaker 1: you know, Eric has a traffic light system that he's
Speaker 1: developed at Bloomberg Intelligence to sort of help investors make
Speaker 1: sense of where E T F s of fall. And
Speaker 1: you know, there's an amazing episode of Trillions that we
Speaker 1: we recorded with our dads once upon a time, and um,
Speaker 1: if you listen to that, you'll learn that you know,
Speaker 1: Eric's dad all in on on lever and and levered oil,
Speaker 1: and you know ended up juggling some chainsaws that probably
Speaker 1: hurt himself. And so Eric, I'm wondering how how red
Speaker 1: does b I rank these products? So these would actually
Speaker 1: be yellow. Um we haven't ranked TSLQ do every quarter,
Speaker 1: but um, I know SARK would be a yellow. If
Speaker 1: you go one time inverse, we don't find that too
Speaker 1: too awful, too dangerous. It's when you go to three
Speaker 1: x anything that's when the daily resetting of the leverage
Speaker 1: can really hurt your daily inverse. Like if you look
Speaker 1: at s H which is the one time in verse SMP,
Speaker 1: you largely get the opposite the SMP medium term as well.
Speaker 1: It's not perfect, but it's not like a three X
Speaker 1: where you could actually get the call right. Because of
Speaker 1: some volatility, you actually lose money. That's where they're red.
Speaker 1: So we would do yellow. If they come out with
Speaker 1: two X TESLA, that would be read. Anytime you go
Speaker 1: to X anything, we read, so right now you're yellow
Speaker 1: unless I can find something else. Um Like if you
Speaker 1: roll futures or the taxes weird, it might bump them
Speaker 1: up to a red. But that's how we look at it.
Speaker 1: So that makes sense. So what would your what are
Speaker 1: you gonna tell your dad. When your dad calls you
Speaker 1: about this product, all in, tell him, I'm gonna I'm
Speaker 1: going to tell him stick to your big oil stocks.
Speaker 1: He likes big oil companies and a couple like he
Speaker 1: likes a T and T for some reason. Like just
Speaker 1: stick to those. It's fine. Your your dad actually called
Speaker 1: me and I told him to go all in. My
Speaker 1: dad bet on the British Open like, I mean, he's like, so,
Speaker 1: I was like, you have enough going on? Okay, just
Speaker 1: you know he lost though he had Royal Michael Royan.
Speaker 1: He almost wanted. I mean it was brutal. Yeah. I
Speaker 1: do have a question sort of. You know, we're talking
Speaker 1: about how crazy and wild the space could become. But
Speaker 1: could you ever just see a single stock E t
Speaker 1: F that isn't leveraged or inverse that literally just holds
Speaker 1: the stock or is that actually just pointless? To me?
Speaker 1: That would be pointless. I can't imagine that that anyone
Speaker 1: want to do it or or even try it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think, um, that's what they call a bad idea. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I will say to the launch it, give it a shot,
Speaker 1: or just an E t F to try spy just
Speaker 1: yeah we're spy. Yeah, Well, look the inverse ones make
Speaker 1: a ton of sense. I remember I've received multiple people
Speaker 1: over the past couple of years that have said, can
Speaker 1: you tell the issuers to launch an SMP fix Tesla
Speaker 1: just because they just they want to hedge out Elon's
Speaker 1: the Elon risk, you know, of whatever he does. And
Speaker 1: I I think that's part of a of a really
Speaker 1: understandable use case is either a head of earnings or
Speaker 1: if there's a company where you're just worried about the
Speaker 1: CEO or a change, you could just quickly buy this
Speaker 1: and you are hedged for a month or a week
Speaker 1: or a year. Um. I think that's probably the most
Speaker 1: accurate use case. I think as it gets volume, you
Speaker 1: might see some institutional usage, especially if there's options around this.
Speaker 1: I'm assuming you're gonna there's gonna be options. There are
Speaker 1: options already. Wow, Okay, yeah, I mean that was amazing
Speaker 1: actually that we got that that quickly. You know, this
Speaker 1: all makes me wonder, you know, if you could rewind
Speaker 1: the clock. Tesla obviously over time is performed and exceedingly well.
Speaker 1: If or wherever a bitcoin E t F you could
Speaker 1: kind of imagine this, is there any way that you
Speaker 1: could leverage the upside here too, and like compound it
Speaker 1: so that you're not shorting it with this, but like
Speaker 1: you know, get the upside effect of of a stock
Speaker 1: that you're really bullish on for the long term. What
Speaker 1: would that look like? So not within the derivative rules
Speaker 1: where we're working on some more advanced ideas for you know,
Speaker 1: being able to maybe do it two x tesla um.
Speaker 1: It's it's unlikely the idea will be well received, but
Speaker 1: it's something we might we might try. But you know,
Speaker 1: the way the current derivative rules are, it's going to
Speaker 1: be very hard. You're gonna lock it down to that
Speaker 1: single day well, but it's also going to be very
Speaker 1: hard to get leverage on something that in and of
Speaker 1: itself is very volatile. Speaking of advanced ideas, so I
Speaker 1: was on med Favors podcast, great podcast, by the way,
Speaker 1: listen to it. We had a great discussion. At the end,
Speaker 1: he's like, Hey, what are some et F ideas that
Speaker 1: aren't in the market that you think should be. So
Speaker 1: I gave him to um. One is the Congressional stock Tracker,
Speaker 1: or if you want to be specific, just Nancy portfolio Man,
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi's portfolio. That nance is what I would think
Speaker 1: that would fly off the shelves. I think, but it
Speaker 1: I have looked at that and I'm not I'm not sure.
Speaker 1: I mean, it may fly off the shelves, but from
Speaker 1: an investment standpoint, I'm not sure it would work. Because
Speaker 1: so the problem is it's not Nancy. Because the problem
Speaker 1: with launching a product around Nancy is what happens when
Speaker 1: she retires. Well, that's why I thought, well, maybe you
Speaker 1: do Congressional stock tracker, because there's actually a couple better
Speaker 1: than her. Somehow. There's this one guy from like Illinois.
Speaker 1: There's like service, there's a service that tracks it, and
Speaker 1: I've talked to the guy who does it, and he
Speaker 1: keeps telling me the performances really isn't that good. That
Speaker 1: that's the problem. I mean, it's something that I have
Speaker 1: looked at a lot and will continue to look at.
Speaker 1: But if the performance isn't that good, it's it's unfortunate.
Speaker 1: I had another one I went over with MEB, which
Speaker 1: was the inverse Jim Kramer E t F, which I
Speaker 1: think would be called the Same Money E t F.
Speaker 1: That way, you don't deal with any like copyright issues
Speaker 1: with his show, and the ticker would be say any
Speaker 1: and I he is wrong a lot, obviously, but he's
Speaker 1: wrong big a couple of times a year. And like
Speaker 1: like coin based to four hundred, if you would shorted
Speaker 1: that man that that's like a a monster performance and
Speaker 1: all you need is a couple of those bad boys
Speaker 1: to power the e. T F and MEB said that
Speaker 1: seems like something Tuttle would launch. I feel like Matt
Speaker 1: might want this sounds perfect for you. Yeah, it would
Speaker 1: be perfect for me. Watch this space potentially, watch this
Speaker 1: space potentially. Okay, excellent, That's that's good. I like that. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, as we kind of wind up here matter,
Speaker 1: I'm curious, you know, to be a short it takes
Speaker 1: a special stomach, I think, right, and I'm wondering, like,
Speaker 1: you know, how are you wired? And like, what what's
Speaker 1: your outlook in the world, because effectively it requires rooting
Speaker 1: against capitalism sometimes and or or that I've been accused of.
Speaker 1: That would be how a lot of investors put it, right,
Speaker 1: So so I'm curious, how do you how do you
Speaker 1: wake up in the morning and and feel about that criticism? Well,
Speaker 1: so remember we have both sides, and so you know,
Speaker 1: I'm not well, I am a bear right now, just
Speaker 1: because the market stinks, and yeah, I think we get
Speaker 1: another leg down um and I think they're going to
Speaker 1: be some great shorting opportunities to come. But really, what
Speaker 1: I am, what I believe in, is you've got to
Speaker 1: be agnostic between long and short. I'm not a fan
Speaker 1: of Hey, be a long term investor, just buy a
Speaker 1: bunch of this stuff. I mean, you know, again, one
Speaker 1: of the things being out on Twitter is I see
Speaker 1: how people are just getting killed, and a lot of
Speaker 1: the Twitter guys have started to get it, and they're
Speaker 1: not buying the dips anymore. They're shorting the rip us
Speaker 1: and and you know, maybe they're recovering. But you know,
Speaker 1: I just think you've got to be agnostic between the
Speaker 1: long and the short side. And I wake up every
Speaker 1: morning with absolutely no bias. I look at what the
Speaker 1: market's telling me, and that's what I think that day.
Speaker 1: As it feel to launch some of these products in
Speaker 1: this cycle, I mean, you couldn't have drawn this up
Speaker 1: any better. It feels like well, and you know, and
Speaker 1: a lot of that was was by design. I mean,
Speaker 1: we were one of the big reasons we launched SARK
Speaker 1: is just looking at the macro environment saying, you know,
Speaker 1: we're due and the FEDS talking about raising interest you know,
Speaker 1: at that point, I don't think it was a definite,
Speaker 1: but they were talking about it and just knowing what
Speaker 1: happens to those stocks, you know, and not launching Tark
Speaker 1: at the same time we launched Sark because having a
Speaker 1: feeling if we did that, Tark wouldn't have done so well.
Speaker 1: So a lot of that's by design. But yeah, the
Speaker 1: market is his. His has played out pretty well for me. Okay,
Speaker 1: question We asked at the end of every trillions, matt
Speaker 1: favorite e t F ticker other than your own, So
Speaker 1: that would have to be me because when I saw
Speaker 1: them file for that, it pissed me off that I
Speaker 1: didn't come up with that idea. Yeah, yeah, yeah, there's
Speaker 1: if you look at all these hundred and fifty issuers, right,
Speaker 1: but there's little like little corners where there's a couple
Speaker 1: that are kind of the similar, spiritually similar, Roundhill, Tuttele
Speaker 1: and maybe a little global X. But yeah, I could
Speaker 1: see that. What about meta Q would you get there?
Speaker 1: You're talking about launching or short? Facebook? Oh short, Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's so yeah. I mean I think what it's definitely
Speaker 1: going to be the future of kind of the single
Speaker 1: stock is what we saw in Tesla, where it's gonna
Speaker 1: be you know, kind of these you know, stocks that
Speaker 1: have larger than life personalities. So you know, one of
Speaker 1: the big things I think about short Tesla is is
Speaker 1: Elon Muss and so yeah, Meta's got the exactly. So
Speaker 1: I think, you know, these companies that have CEOs that
Speaker 1: are out there, I think those are gonna be interesting products.
Speaker 1: The the thing that gives me pause about you know,
Speaker 1: and I can't call him that, I've got to call
Speaker 1: him Facebook a short Facebook, is that there are other
Speaker 1: products and you know, there's short fang Um, you know,
Speaker 1: and in there's some correlation to the nasdak. What I
Speaker 1: loved about Tesla is it's not correlated to anything. By
Speaker 1: the way, do all your tickers like ending Q that
Speaker 1: are inverse I don't remember off the top of my head.
Speaker 1: The way we did it, though, is because of Bloomberg,
Speaker 1: Because if you type in TSL into Bloomberg, you might
Speaker 1: and you're looking for Tesla, you might actually get t SLQ.
Speaker 1: I also think you well, just while we're on this,
Speaker 1: if you put Q, I would put Q at the
Speaker 1: end of every inverse one and then people will just
Speaker 1: know met Q night q I just coming right out
Speaker 1: of me. Yeah right, send me a bill. I think
Speaker 1: some of the problems you have tour if those stickers
Speaker 1: are reserved, right, so you don't know imagine how it
Speaker 1: wasn't reserved. So we went and we grabbed it. Wow.
Speaker 1: Even Mike Nudo didn't have it. He has a lot.
Speaker 1: Matt Katie, thanks for joining us on Trillions. Thanks, thank you.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to Trillions until next time. You can
Speaker 1: find us on the Bloomberg Terminal, Bloomberg dot com, Apple Podcast, Spotify,
Speaker 1: and wherever 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 Fultuness. This episode of Trillions was produced
Speaker 1: by Stacy Wong Spike the Fact