Speaker 1: Welcome a Trillions. I'm Joel Webber and I'm Eric. I'll
Speaker 1: tunis Eric. We have a true innovator back on Trillions
Speaker 1: today we do This is an episode we did where
Speaker 1: at the very end this particular issue where teased us
Speaker 1: with this particular ETF and we knew it was no
Speaker 1: you know, it wasn't going to be easy, but he
Speaker 1: somehow managed to put it in registration, get it through
Speaker 1: the SEC, and it is launching today. So we're talking
Speaker 1: about Matt Tuttle of Tuttle Capital Management. Before he was
Speaker 1: on the program to talk about Inverse Tesla, he teased
Speaker 1: a Jim Kramer ETF and that's what we're talking about today.
Speaker 1: Jim Kramer, of course, the host of Mad Money on Scene,
Speaker 1: which is a very entertaining show to watch, filled with
Speaker 1: lots of stockpicking, lots of calls, kind of active management
Speaker 1: at its finest. Eric, what about the Jim Kramer idea?
Speaker 1: Do you love most? Yeah? I mean, look it. The
Speaker 1: guy just has a knack for not being wrong, but
Speaker 1: being spectacularly wrong on occasion. He's got somewhat of reverse
Speaker 1: Midas touches, how I put it, and I think that
Speaker 1: it's all over Twitter in the Internet. There's many, many
Speaker 1: examples will go through some of the episode, but I
Speaker 1: think he's just sort of late to the party a lot.
Speaker 1: He'll get his loudest and most boisterous after the price
Speaker 1: action is really good for like two or three years.
Speaker 1: I think the price gives him confidence to be loud.
Speaker 1: So he's almost like the last guy at the party
Speaker 1: or on the bandwagon. And that's why he's a decent
Speaker 1: reverse indicator of a big collapse or a run up.
Speaker 1: And it seems to work, and it's you know, look,
Speaker 1: we're all looking for a return, so why not try
Speaker 1: something that looks to have a proven track record. So
Speaker 1: this will be a fascinating experiment in the ETF world. Okay,
Speaker 1: Joining us Matt Tuttle of Tuttle Capital Management where he's
Speaker 1: the CEO, as well as Katie Greyfield of Bloomberg News,
Speaker 1: this time on Trillions saying money Matt, Katie, welcome back
Speaker 1: to Trillions. Thanks for having me. Thrilled to be here, Matt,
Speaker 1: what took you so long? So this was not easy?
Speaker 1: You know, when you launch an ETF, first off, you've
Speaker 1: got to get a board of a trust to say
Speaker 1: yes to it. Then you've got to get it through
Speaker 1: the SEC, and boards in SEC tend to be more
Speaker 1: conducive to like SMP four ninety nine than they are
Speaker 1: to you know, going short the recommendations of a media pundit. So,
Speaker 1: you know, convincing a board it was a lot of fun,
Speaker 1: not as hard as I thought it would be, but
Speaker 1: certainly not a slam dunkum. And then convincing the SEC.
Speaker 1: You know, whenever you're doing a first of its kind
Speaker 1: type of ETF, you know you're you're you're dealing with
Speaker 1: a larger pool of people at the SEC than you
Speaker 1: are when you're doing something simple. So took a took
Speaker 1: a lot longer than I had wanted it too, but
Speaker 1: we're finally here, So that's all that matters. Who all
Speaker 1: was on that on that board, I mean, it's just
Speaker 1: it's it's a board of directors at the trust that
Speaker 1: you know, I had got to approve an ETF, and
Speaker 1: it's like, you know, twenty people, a lot of who
Speaker 1: have been in the industry for like five hundred years,
Speaker 1: so you know, they're used to hearing pitches for normal stuff. Um,
Speaker 1: I would probably venture to guess they weren't used to
Speaker 1: hearing pitches like like I gave them, uh so you
Speaker 1: know they had to kind of noodle on that a
Speaker 1: little bit before saying, hey, let's let's do it. And
Speaker 1: what was the pushback? I'm really from the board level there,
Speaker 1: there wasn't. It was just wrapping their head around it,
Speaker 1: you know. From the sec level. The biggest pushback we
Speaker 1: had was just putting Kramer the name into the ETF,
Speaker 1: from the argument of if you've got someone's name in
Speaker 1: an ETF, but they're not actually involved in the running
Speaker 1: of it, which I would argue he kind of is,
Speaker 1: but you know, not by choice. Then you know that's
Speaker 1: kind of an issue. So we threw Tracker on the
Speaker 1: end of it and took him a couple of weeks
Speaker 1: to think about that, and they were cool and I
Speaker 1: like Tracker better anyway. So there we are. So what's
Speaker 1: the official name? So we've got the inverse Kramer Tracker
Speaker 1: and the long Kramer Tracker and let's dig in here.
Speaker 1: So it's actively managed. We'll go with s Jim, which
Speaker 1: is the inverse Kreamer Tracker, which I think is the
Speaker 1: one most people are interested in. Posi plaine. How it's
Speaker 1: gonna work. It's long, short, right, it's not just going
Speaker 1: long the stuff he doesn't like or short the stuff
Speaker 1: he does like. It does both can just go through
Speaker 1: how it's gonna actually function. Yeah, and you are correct,
Speaker 1: it's gonna be long short, and you know, and probably
Speaker 1: the way it's gonna look and smell is as the
Speaker 1: market is going down, it's gonna be getting more and
Speaker 1: more long, and as the market's going up, he's it's
Speaker 1: going to get more and more short. So basically what
Speaker 1: we're looking at is three things we're looking at when
Speaker 1: he comes on in the morning, which is typically like
Speaker 1: eight forty five to ten, where looking at tweets he
Speaker 1: puts out during the day, and then we're looking at
Speaker 1: mad money. And if he specifically says either bye bye
Speaker 1: bye a stock, then we're gonna go short that stock
Speaker 1: at the next practical moment. So if it's mad money,
Speaker 1: we'll do it, you know, sometime around the open. If
Speaker 1: he says that at forty five, then you know, probably
Speaker 1: we'll do it at nine forty five. And if he
Speaker 1: tells you he hates a stock or sell cell cell
Speaker 1: or something like that, then we're gonna go along that
Speaker 1: name again at the next kind of practical entry point.
Speaker 1: So that sounds like a massive amount of work. That
Speaker 1: sounds like a full time job. Sounds like you're just
Speaker 1: that's like so many hours spent watching this man on television. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and so I've got there's three of us who do it.
Speaker 1: You know, at the end of the day, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm the final arbiter. So sometimes you know he's not
Speaker 1: one hundred percent clear. So you know, David Faber might say, hey, Jim,
Speaker 1: what do you think about alphabet earnings? And I'll sell
Speaker 1: they had a great quarter. So I want to be
Speaker 1: the guy who's like, all right, is that? Is that
Speaker 1: going to be enough? Or is that not? So I've
Speaker 1: got to watch it. I've got a team who's watching it.
Speaker 1: I am very concerned about the long term impact on
Speaker 1: my brain cells. You know that that has not been
Speaker 1: adequately stuck buddied um. But luckily my team is younger
Speaker 1: than me. So if you know, I go off the screen,
Speaker 1: well but yeah, but if I go off the deep end,
Speaker 1: you know, I've got two people to kind of take
Speaker 1: up the mantle and you know, put me in a
Speaker 1: home or something like that. So have you dabbled with
Speaker 1: this just on an ad hoc basis, Like just to
Speaker 1: see how it how it works. Yeah. So, I mean
Speaker 1: I've been running this on paper since January first, in
Speaker 1: expectation of the launch, because we need to get the
Speaker 1: you know, I have an actual portfolio on launch day.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I've I've watched every episode of Mad Money
Speaker 1: for the past two months. I can't say it's getting
Speaker 1: any better. Um. Yeah, And like you know, walking over
Speaker 1: to the studio, I'm watching Cramer. Um, you know other
Speaker 1: things I would have rather been doing on the walk
Speaker 1: over here, but it's I mean, I chose to do it,
Speaker 1: so it is what it is. So when you go
Speaker 1: and you decide this is a convicted Cramer call, this
Speaker 1: is where we're going to do the opposite. You know,
Speaker 1: I'm thinking of like Meta, remember when he kind of
Speaker 1: almost he cried a little bit on TV because he
Speaker 1: had recommended Facebook for so many years. He loves zucker Burgundy,
Speaker 1: and he had a Mia Kolpa. I was wrong. I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: this stock is awful. That's when you would have bought right,
Speaker 1: because yeah, we would have gone long then, I know,
Speaker 1: And I wished I wished we were up and running
Speaker 1: because that would have been a great long So it's
Speaker 1: up sixty percent since then, which this is why, in
Speaker 1: my opinion, this ETF could could really do some damage,
Speaker 1: because all you need is a couple grand slams for
Speaker 1: an ETF to overcome some wishy washy ones. We've seen
Speaker 1: this in a couple of ETFs, and again there's definitely
Speaker 1: grand slam potential here. Sixty percent in a couple of
Speaker 1: months is really good. I mean that that could power
Speaker 1: over three or four dogs. I mean, you know, no offense,
Speaker 1: we may put you out of business on all this
Speaker 1: vogel stuff. Yeah, that tunnel just making shots all over
Speaker 1: the place. Thing. So you've been watching a lot of
Speaker 1: television for several months now, How how big are these portfolios?
Speaker 1: How many names are actually in them? So my goal
Speaker 1: is to have you know, s gim between thirty and
Speaker 1: fifteen names. I don't want to get any above fifty
Speaker 1: because then you start deluting it um and lgem will
Speaker 1: be you know less typically, you know, we've been running
Speaker 1: it around thirty ish names or so, and again I
Speaker 1: don't want to get any more than that because you
Speaker 1: start really deluding the portfolio as of today, what are
Speaker 1: so what we want to do is we want to
Speaker 1: equally wait the whole things, and yeah, so we're gonna
Speaker 1: equally wait it unless there's like meme stocks in there,
Speaker 1: you know, so then they'd probably be a lower weight,
Speaker 1: just because I don't want, you know, amc ripping fifty
Speaker 1: percent in five minutes to to mess anything up. But
Speaker 1: you know, it's it's the names. You'd you'd reckon eyes,
Speaker 1: you're Navidias that he I've guess named his dog. He's
Speaker 1: all over that one. You know, we'd be long crypto
Speaker 1: because he still hates crypto, you know, eli Lily is
Speaker 1: one that he keeps saying he loves, you know, so
Speaker 1: stuff like that. So if he doubles down and keeps
Speaker 1: coming back to things, what do you do then, So
Speaker 1: we're not going to add to it. But the way
Speaker 1: it's working is every night he's there's new stocks and
Speaker 1: we're lopping off the old stocks. But if he keeps
Speaker 1: doubling down on something like Lily is a name that
Speaker 1: he mentioned, you know, on Mad Money, you know what
Speaker 1: was a Tuesday night, But he also mentioned it, you know,
Speaker 1: a week or so ago, So that's a name we
Speaker 1: just wouldn't lop off. And if he keeps mentioning it,
Speaker 1: we'll just keep it on there until he stops, and
Speaker 1: we need that room for for something fresh, because I
Speaker 1: want to keep it fresh. So this is a little meta.
Speaker 1: What happens if he mentions either of your tickers, then
Speaker 1: the universe probably explodes and we're all dead. So it
Speaker 1: really doesn't matter, you know, none none of us are here,
Speaker 1: and so I'm really hoping he doesn't do that. What
Speaker 1: happens though, for real? I mean, we would ignore that.
Speaker 1: But I've had people tell me, Hey, I'm calling into
Speaker 1: Mad Money and saying, hey, Jim, what do you think
Speaker 1: of asked Jim, like, all right, do it. I think
Speaker 1: he's too proud to actually say go along as Jim,
Speaker 1: but it might be a fun joke. I know he
Speaker 1: tweeted it when the filing hit. He had a little
Speaker 1: tweet storm on this. At first, I think he tried
Speaker 1: to ignore it, but then I could tell it. A
Speaker 1: couple of days he was just lashing out a little
Speaker 1: bit about it, and I think it One of his
Speaker 1: tweets was what if I just recommends Jim, that'll show
Speaker 1: him or something like that. So he's had a few
Speaker 1: things to say. Have you had a conversation with CNBC
Speaker 1: or with Jim? So I have not. I've heard through
Speaker 1: the grape vine that CNBC is angry and maybe a
Speaker 1: little bit scared, which makes sense. I mean, if s
Speaker 1: Jim from a performance standpoints up like one hundred percent
Speaker 1: every year, that's probably some explaining to do there. And
Speaker 1: you know when David Faber might you know, hey Jim,
Speaker 1: you know what's going on? And yeah, I would love
Speaker 1: to have a conversation with Kramer. I mean, I know
Speaker 1: some of the other guys over there. I know some
Speaker 1: people who know him. I've tried to tried to arrange that,
Speaker 1: and they've been a little bit frightened to arrange it.
Speaker 1: But I mean, hopefully one day. Here's the thing, though,
Speaker 1: he should embrace this. Um this is his livelihood. He
Speaker 1: believes he's making great calls, and I think one of
Speaker 1: his tweets early was bring it on, you know, and
Speaker 1: I would have the same attitude. He should want to
Speaker 1: see this fail and he has a chance to be
Speaker 1: the hero. The thing, though, is this idea of just
Speaker 1: just shouting out about stocks like every other day. It
Speaker 1: really isn't a great way to invest in general. It's
Speaker 1: very hard to beat the market with this kind of
Speaker 1: run and gun shifting gears all the time, especially if
Speaker 1: you're so bullish or bearish at the end of the cycle.
Speaker 1: You know, if you get bearish on Meta after it's
Speaker 1: had a really really bad run, well of course that's
Speaker 1: not a great time. It's already passed. Like with Crypto,
Speaker 1: he's so bearish and hating on Crypto after it lost
Speaker 1: seventy percent, whereas you kind of want to be bearish
Speaker 1: before that. And I think that's why this has a
Speaker 1: shot to work legitimately. But I would I would think
Speaker 1: he'd want to sort of prove it wrong. And I
Speaker 1: think it'll be an interesting thing. And I think it'll
Speaker 1: be tempting for him to to tweet about it and
Speaker 1: you know, challenge it, and that would probably be good
Speaker 1: marketing for you. I would not mind him talking about
Speaker 1: it all day every day, yelling at me, calling me
Speaker 1: names whatever. You know that I think that is called
Speaker 1: free publicity. That uh, you know, money can't buy, So
Speaker 1: what's your goal? So and and Eric hit on on
Speaker 1: the main point. A lot of people will think, oh,
Speaker 1: you know, this is just gimmicky. It's not. I mean,
Speaker 1: this to me is an awesome portfolio diversifier, because you know,
Speaker 1: I've noticed over the years there's a factor out in
Speaker 1: the marketplace that there's probably a technical term for it um.
Speaker 1: If not, I'll make it up, but it you know,
Speaker 1: for lack of a better term, it's you know, most
Speaker 1: investors are pretty much clueless. And you know we see
Speaker 1: it with sentiment numbers and analysts calls and trying to
Speaker 1: call the market. And Kramer a as Eric said, has
Speaker 1: that mightas touched, but b he swings at every pitch,
Speaker 1: and that's not a criticism he has to. I mean,
Speaker 1: you can't call mad money and be like, hey, Jim,
Speaker 1: what do you think of Navidia? Oh? You know that
Speaker 1: could go up a lot, but it also could go
Speaker 1: down a lot. Oh well yeah, thanks Jim. So by
Speaker 1: swinging at every pitch, what you've got it? And again
Speaker 1: Eric hit on it. You've got this portfolio that is
Speaker 1: shorting stuff, you know, right at the top, buying stuff
Speaker 1: at the bottom. And I mean people are looking for
Speaker 1: ways to diversify their portfolio now that sixty forty had
Speaker 1: a let's say, a bad year last year. To me,
Speaker 1: this should be in every portfolio and got to be
Speaker 1: in mine. Well, realistically, I have to imagine it would
Speaker 1: be mostly grassroots retail, though right, Like, I can't see
Speaker 1: like a financial advisor, Yeah, a financial advisor maybe not.
Speaker 1: That would have to come from their clients. What is interesting,
Speaker 1: it will be interesting to see is on the institutional side,
Speaker 1: you know, are their institutions fading what he's doing. And
Speaker 1: just anecdotally, as I've been running this, I've seen some
Speaker 1: weird stuff. Like he tweeted out about oil stocks a
Speaker 1: couple of weeks ago, and right after that tweet, oil
Speaker 1: stocks had been going up. Right after that tweet, they
Speaker 1: started selling off, and they sold off for like an
Speaker 1: hour and then they stabilized. And I'm looking at that,
Speaker 1: I'm like, was that a coincidence? I mean, maybe it's
Speaker 1: as mightas touch. I mean, he tweets it, they go down,
Speaker 1: or are there institutions that have algoed that? And you know,
Speaker 1: is this a product that maybe you know, you've got
Speaker 1: some of them sitting there watching Mad Money saying, Hey,
Speaker 1: Tuttle's going to do it. Let him freaking burn his
Speaker 1: brain cells and we'll just buy s Jim. I mean,
Speaker 1: we'll say. One time, I think I saw him. There's
Speaker 1: a couple people on Twitter who track his calls, and
Speaker 1: they pointed out that he said buying Navidia at like
Speaker 1: nine thirty am, and then he was hating on it
Speaker 1: like four hours later. And I guess, how are you
Speaker 1: going to deal with the flip flop? Or do you
Speaker 1: wait till he is completely bullish or bearish, say two
Speaker 1: or three times in a row. No, I mean, what'll
Speaker 1: flip flop with him? I mean, you know, we're sitting there.
Speaker 1: I got a trader who's in front one of his
Speaker 1: computer all day. So if he says buying a video
Speaker 1: in the morning, we'll buy it. And if at the
Speaker 1: end of the day he flip flops and it's a
Speaker 1: clear flip flop, then you know, then then we're then
Speaker 1: we're out of that position. So I have no problem
Speaker 1: with that. We're ready for that. I think one of
Speaker 1: the things that I'm curious to see how this work
Speaker 1: because long short is the one variable of this fund
Speaker 1: that isn't unknown, because the market tends to push a
Speaker 1: lot of stocks up or down depending on what the
Speaker 1: FED does. So if you have long short, you're probably
Speaker 1: going to have a lot of offsetting. And I agree
Speaker 1: that will give you a nice lower volatility and a
Speaker 1: lack of correlation, so you're almost you could be like
Speaker 1: an alternative that said it might limit the shiny object potential.
Speaker 1: Did you think about that? Yeah, and maybe maybe not.
Speaker 1: So I'll give you an example why we've been tracking it.
Speaker 1: So a lot of people were coming up to me
Speaker 1: because Kramer was bullish on the market in the first
Speaker 1: part of the year in the market went up, and
Speaker 1: they're like, hey, Kramer got that right. I was like, well, no,
Speaker 1: look at the details. What he was saying is don't
Speaker 1: buy tech, don't buy NASDAC, don't buy Fang, and buy
Speaker 1: all these value stocks. So if the portfolio had been live,
Speaker 1: we would have been you know, long Fang, long Tech, long,
Speaker 1: a bunch of the NASDAC names, and short some of
Speaker 1: the value stuff, and that still would have done pretty well.
Speaker 1: Because you know, he was completely wrong. Yeah, he was
Speaker 1: right to be bullish, but he was wrong about what
Speaker 1: to be bullish about. You know, but could that limit
Speaker 1: you know, like, are we going to be up three
Speaker 1: hundred percent in a year like we could be if
Speaker 1: it was all long or long short? Probably not. But
Speaker 1: if I'm going back to this whole theme of this
Speaker 1: as a portfolio diversifier, then that's not really what I'm
Speaker 1: looking for anyway. I mean, I you know, I don't
Speaker 1: want to put a ten percent allocation in something that
Speaker 1: could be up three hundred percent or could be down
Speaker 1: like eighty percent. So I'm curious about the back testing
Speaker 1: here because you said he had been experimenting with this
Speaker 1: since January. Hey, I was performed in that in that time,
Speaker 1: which has been an interesting time in the market. And
Speaker 1: then like, I mean, sort of impossible to go back
Speaker 1: test for you know, three five years. But you know,
Speaker 1: how did you attempt to do that? So I probably
Speaker 1: can't comment on performance stuff that'd probably not be a
Speaker 1: good thing, but you know, certainly there was would have
Speaker 1: been some names like coin base was kind of a
Speaker 1: double U, you know, so there would have been some
Speaker 1: interesting things in there. I know other people have done
Speaker 1: back tests. I think the problem is, you know, I mean,
Speaker 1: you don't always know when to enter because again, if
Speaker 1: he says, you know, hey, Alphabet's quarter was good, one
Speaker 1: guy might say, right that to buy, I may not.
Speaker 1: And then when do you get out of something, you know,
Speaker 1: because he may say, you know, hey, I love Meta,
Speaker 1: and then he may never say I hate metah. So
Speaker 1: I think it's very difficult. All the anecdotal stuff I've seen.
Speaker 1: I mean there's some guys on Twitter who posts some stuff.
Speaker 1: I mean that all looks extremely interesting. Um, and you know,
Speaker 1: and and obviously you don't get this type of reputation
Speaker 1: if you're like the best stock picker ever. So I'm
Speaker 1: not worried about it. So, Um, when we had the
Speaker 1: Twitter spaces back then, there was a section of that
Speaker 1: call where some of the listeners called in and asked you.
Speaker 1: And this is a a theory here a lot when I
Speaker 1: tweet on this topic. Is the reason he's so he's
Speaker 1: good at being spectacularly bad is that he's actually in
Speaker 1: cahoots with his hedge fund pals and this investing club
Speaker 1: you have to pay for. And so what he does
Speaker 1: is he does the real investing there, and then he
Speaker 1: purposely gives bad advice on air so that the other
Speaker 1: people can go the opposite way. I know that work.
Speaker 1: I know I don't buy it, but that's a that's
Speaker 1: a I guess a conspiracy theory out there. But I
Speaker 1: guess your question is the difference between his picks on
Speaker 1: air and the club. So and I've heard that theory.
Speaker 1: I mean, I had a guy calling me up a
Speaker 1: couple of weeks ago telling me that that's fact, and again,
Speaker 1: who knows. It does sound like a lot of work.
Speaker 1: To me, it seems like a guy like that's got
Speaker 1: a lot to lose. I don't buy it. I purposely
Speaker 1: am not a subscriber to the club. I don't want
Speaker 1: to know what's in that portfolio. I don't care. My
Speaker 1: sense is that that's probably stuff that's fairly well thought out,
Speaker 1: long term in nature. And what I care much more
Speaker 1: about is the stuff he wakes up in the morning
Speaker 1: and wants to talk about, or the stuff that you know,
Speaker 1: the retail guys are calling in and want to ask
Speaker 1: him about. That's the real interesting stuff, you know. I
Speaker 1: don't care about the club. You know, if you want
Speaker 1: the club, you know, buy the club. You know. To me,
Speaker 1: L Jim is better because we're going to be, you know,
Speaker 1: we're gonna be a lot more active, you know. So
Speaker 1: if you're a Cramer fan, I buy L Jim over
Speaker 1: the club. What's the turnover going to be? Like? Turnover
Speaker 1: is going to be a lot, you know, on a
Speaker 1: typical mad money there's at least five things he's doing,
Speaker 1: and so I'm adding, you know, five names and subtracting
Speaker 1: five names. How long do you think things will long
Speaker 1: as something could stick around in a portfolio then, I mean, again,
Speaker 1: it depends if he keeps talking about it, it's going
Speaker 1: to stay. So like you know, bitcoin would be something
Speaker 1: that would have stayed around for a while, because every
Speaker 1: time you ask him about it he's negative. But typically
Speaker 1: stuff is going to cycle out and you know within
Speaker 1: two weeks. I still can't get over the fact that
Speaker 1: you watch so much TV. I mean, you have other
Speaker 1: funds to manage as well. Is that a process that
Speaker 1: you could see automating somehow? I mean, AI is so
Speaker 1: much in the news right now, this actually seems like
Speaker 1: place where natural language processing could come in handy. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean, if AI gets to a point where they
Speaker 1: can discern, I'll totally do it. It's not as bad.
Speaker 1: I mean it's bad from the standpoint of I'd rather
Speaker 1: watch other stuff, but I can't sleep past like four
Speaker 1: or five in the morning, so I'll wake up, I'll watch,
Speaker 1: you know, the Mad Money tape. The cool thing is
Speaker 1: you can fast forward through the CEO interviews because that's
Speaker 1: that's a total waste of time, So you get rid
Speaker 1: of a lot of that stuff and then you're really
Speaker 1: just watching from eight forty five to ten. You know, yeah,
Speaker 1: there's other stuff going on, but I got three people
Speaker 1: watching and but yeah, I mean, if someone's got an
Speaker 1: AI tool that can discern between they had a good
Speaker 1: quarter and bye bye bye, I'm all for it. So
Speaker 1: so best case scenario, we have you back out in
Speaker 1: a year, Let's say, what do you think and flows
Speaker 1: we're gonna look like. So, I really have no idea.
Speaker 1: I think this is the type of thing where you're
Speaker 1: getting get a lot of people people saying, hey, they're
Speaker 1: going to look at it as a gimmick and say
Speaker 1: I'm going to buy a hundred chairs. See what happens.
Speaker 1: I think my idea of this being a portfolio diversifier
Speaker 1: is going to take a while for people to be like, wait,
Speaker 1: you're right. I mean, this is totally uncorrelated from everything
Speaker 1: else I have in my portfolio. Again, what I don't
Speaker 1: know is you know, institutions, you know, are they going
Speaker 1: to be interested in this or not? So I mean
Speaker 1: I could see this at twenty five million, I could
Speaker 1: see it at five hundred million, and either one wouldn't
Speaker 1: surprise me. I am very curious to see what this
Speaker 1: is in a year, because I really have no idea, Eric,
Speaker 1: what do you think put your analysts head on. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean a lot of times these kind of ETFs,
Speaker 1: especially ones that are going right after direct retail performance
Speaker 1: will rule. I mean this one is special because of
Speaker 1: the type of media attention it will probably get, specially
Speaker 1: if it starts out perform. I think the media pounces
Speaker 1: on this. There's not I think there's a it's like
Speaker 1: low hanging fruit for a story. Right. If this thing
Speaker 1: starts to do well, that's where you get to the
Speaker 1: five hundred million mark. I think if it's you know,
Speaker 1: sideways or struggles, yeah, I could see more like twenty
Speaker 1: five million. So if you really break this down, it's
Speaker 1: not that different than other trackers. Right, there's Hedge Fund,
Speaker 1: thirteen F trackers. People like to track stuff. And what
Speaker 1: ETFs really do which people forget is there making things convenient. So,
Speaker 1: as Matt just said, he's doing a lot of legwork
Speaker 1: for you to be able to sort of just have
Speaker 1: a little trade on that goes opposite of this guy
Speaker 1: who is wrong a lot. So that convenience will appeal
Speaker 1: to people if they're into this idea. And so yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't know I would if I had to bet.
Speaker 1: You know, in a year, I could see this at
Speaker 1: about one hundred million. That'd be my guest. But you know,
Speaker 1: we will see be interesting. The long Cramer tracker that's
Speaker 1: also long short. If that happens to work, will that
Speaker 1: get assets? I don't know, because obviously the sentiment is
Speaker 1: much more on the other side. But performance is a
Speaker 1: big deal. So that be the one sort of weird
Speaker 1: variable is if elgim starts working, and maybe the fact
Speaker 1: that you launch this it completely turned around his philosophy
Speaker 1: and he starts being right all the time. I don't
Speaker 1: know that would be interesting. I don't think so. I
Speaker 1: don't think you teach an old dog new tricks. But
Speaker 1: I'm open to everything. Now. I want to go back
Speaker 1: to one thing you said. You know, your belief is
Speaker 1: that this is something that would work in a lot
Speaker 1: of portfolios as a diversifier, that it's not a gimmick.
Speaker 1: But I am curious now that you're launching the Creamer suite,
Speaker 1: you also have, you know, the cathy Wood suite that
Speaker 1: you were behind. Do you worry at all about getting
Speaker 1: a reputation for gimmicky products? I mean a little bit,
Speaker 1: but you know, at the end of the day. You know,
Speaker 1: I'm a traitor at heart, So I want to design
Speaker 1: products that I'm sitting there saying, wow, I want this,
Speaker 1: and so like you know, Sark for example, to me,
Speaker 1: that's just a better hedge if you are negative about
Speaker 1: the market. I'd rather be short Teldoc and Rowe coup
Speaker 1: than Apple and Microsoft. Um. And you know here, I've
Speaker 1: been wanting to figure out a way. I mean, how
Speaker 1: do you know, monetize the idea that the investors are
Speaker 1: clueless and take the other side of it. And to me,
Speaker 1: this is just a better way to do that. Okay,
Speaker 1: I had to say, I think this is a really
Speaker 1: fun idea. Do you think is there any more fun
Speaker 1: products in the market than this? Oh? No, this is
Speaker 1: the most fun product in the market by far, until
Speaker 1: I come up with the next one, which we'll say.
Speaker 1: I'm always thinking. It's like when you, you know, write books,
Speaker 1: it's like, what do you do next? What do you
Speaker 1: do next? And it's like, here's how string here, Joel,
Speaker 1: I have the next big fun idea animal shares, where
Speaker 1: each ETF is based on an animal that picks the stock.
Speaker 1: So if you're into porpoises, the porpoise picks the stocks.
Speaker 1: This is based on that sort of monkey throwing a
Speaker 1: dart theory, and it's just all about animals picking stocks,
Speaker 1: and um, you get to pick which animal does the
Speaker 1: picking for you. I want to crow a crow each.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'll test it with my dog, see, I
Speaker 1: mean he likes to sit in front of my Bloomberg terminal.
Speaker 1: There have been people kicking around the sort of monkey
Speaker 1: dart and random idea for years, but I thought it
Speaker 1: might be cool to expand that to some different animals.
Speaker 1: I gotta I gotta say, Uh, Matt's Kramer products seem
Speaker 1: a little bit more successful than the animal one are. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm thinking probably. Yeah, people love animals, show kids, and
Speaker 1: animals will always upstage everybody, so all right, but yeah,
Speaker 1: that's probably more of a half joke than a real product.
Speaker 1: But all this is probably going to be the one
Speaker 1: for a while. Matt. We look forward to seeing how
Speaker 1: these perform, and congratulations on putting in a lot of
Speaker 1: hard work to bring this idea to market. Thank you,
Speaker 1: Matt Katie, thanks so much for joining us on trillions.
Speaker 1: Thanks for having us, thanks for having me, Thanks for
Speaker 1: listening to Trillions. Until next time, you can find us
Speaker 1: on the Bloomberg Terminal, Bloomberg dot com, Apple podcasts, 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 Wepper Show.
Speaker 1: He's at Eric Balcina's. This episode of Trillions was produced
Speaker 1: by Magnus Hendrickson, but