Speaker 1: Welcome a Trillions.
Speaker 2: I'm Joel Webber and I'm Eric Belchunis.
Speaker 1: Eric, we have a true innovator back on Trillions today
Speaker 1: we do.
Speaker 2: This is an episode we did where at the very end,
Speaker 2: this particular issuer teased us with this particular ETF and
Speaker 2: we knew it was no you know, it wasn't going
Speaker 2: to be easy, but he somehow managed to put it
Speaker 2: in registration, get it through the SEC, and it is
Speaker 2: launching today.
Speaker 1: So we're talking about Matt Tuttle of Tuttle Capital Management.
Speaker 1: Before he was on the program to talk about Inverse Tesla,
Speaker 1: he teased a Jim Kramer ETF and that's what we're
Speaker 1: talking about today. Jim Kramer, of course, the host of
Speaker 1: Mad Money on Seeing, which is a very entertaining show
Speaker 1: to watch, filled with lots of stockpicking, lots of calls,
Speaker 1: kind of active management at its finest. Eric, what about
Speaker 1: the Jim Kramer idea? Do you love most?
Speaker 2: Yeah? I mean, look.
Speaker 3: It.
Speaker 2: The guy just has a knack for not being wrong,
Speaker 2: but being spectacularly wrong on occasion. He's got somewhat of
Speaker 2: reverse Midas touch, is how I put it. And I
Speaker 2: think that it's all over Twitter in the Internet. There's many,
Speaker 2: many examples. We'll go through some in the episode, but
Speaker 2: I think he's just sort of late to the party
Speaker 2: a lot. He'll get his loudest and most boisterous after
Speaker 2: the price action is really good for like two or
Speaker 2: three years. I think the price gives him confidence to
Speaker 2: be loud. So he's almost like the last guy at
Speaker 2: the party or on the bandwagon. And that's why he's
Speaker 2: a decent reverse indicator of a big collapse or a
Speaker 2: run up. And it seems to work, and it's you know, look,
Speaker 2: we're all looking for a return, so why not try
Speaker 2: something that looks to have a proven track record. So
Speaker 2: this will be a fascinating experiment in the ETF world.
Speaker 1: Okay, Joining us Matt Tuttle of Tuttle Capital Management, where
Speaker 1: he's the CEO, as well as Katie Greifeld of Bloomberg News,
Speaker 1: this time on Trillions saying money Matt, Katie, welcome back
Speaker 1: to Trillions.
Speaker 4: Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: Thrilled to be here, Matt, what took you so long?
Speaker 4: So this was not easy? You know, when you launch
Speaker 4: an ETF, first off, you've got to get a board
Speaker 4: of a trust to say yes to it. Then you've
Speaker 4: got to get it through the SEC, and boards in
Speaker 4: SEC tend to be more conducive to like SMP four
Speaker 4: ninety nine than they are to you know, going short
Speaker 4: the recommendations of a media pundit. So, you know, convincing
Speaker 4: a board it was a lot of fun, not as
Speaker 4: hard as I thought it would be, but certainly not
Speaker 4: a slam dunk. And then convincing the SEC. You know,
Speaker 4: whenever you're doing a first of its kind type of ETF,
Speaker 4: you know you're you're you're dealing with a larger pool
Speaker 4: of people at the SEC than you are when you're
Speaker 4: doing something simple. So took a lot longer than I
Speaker 4: had wanted it to, but we're finally here, So that's.
Speaker 1: All that matters. Who all was on that on that board.
Speaker 4: I mean, it's just it's a board of directors of
Speaker 4: the trust that you know has got to approve an ETF.
Speaker 4: And it's like, you know, twenty people, a lot of
Speaker 4: who have been in the industry for like five hundred years,
Speaker 4: so you know, they're used to hearing pitches for normal stuff.
Speaker 4: I would probably venture to guess they weren't used to
Speaker 4: hearing pitches like like I gave them uh, so you know,
Speaker 4: they had to kind of noodle on that a little
Speaker 4: bit before saying, hey, let's let's do it.
Speaker 1: And what was the pushback?
Speaker 4: I'm really from the board level there, there wasn't. It
Speaker 4: was just wrapping their head around it, you know. From
Speaker 4: the SEC level. The biggest pushback we had was just
Speaker 4: putting Kramer the name into the ETF, from the argument
Speaker 4: of if you've got someone's name in an ETF, but
Speaker 4: they're not actually involved in the running of it, which
Speaker 4: I would argue he kind of is, but you know,
Speaker 4: not not by choice. Then you know that's kind of
Speaker 4: an issue. So we threw Tracker on the end of
Speaker 4: it and took them a couple of weeks to think
Speaker 4: about that, and they were cool, and I like Tracker
Speaker 4: better anyway. So there we are.
Speaker 1: So what's the official name.
Speaker 4: So we've got the inverse Kramer Tracker and the long Cramer.
Speaker 2: Tracker, and let's dig in here, so it's actively managed.
Speaker 2: We'll go with s Jim, which is the inverse Kramer Tracker,
Speaker 2: which I think is the one most people are interested in.
Speaker 2: Explain how, oh it's gonna work. It's long short, right,
Speaker 2: It's not just going long to stuff he doesn't like,
Speaker 2: or short the stuff he does like it does. Both
Speaker 2: can just go through how it's gonna actually function.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and you are correct, it's gonna be long short,
Speaker 4: And you know, probably the way it's gonna look and
Speaker 4: smell is as the market is going down, it's gonna
Speaker 4: be getting more and more long, and as the market's
Speaker 4: going up, it's gonna get more and more short. So
Speaker 4: basically what we're looking at is three things. We're looking
Speaker 4: at when he comes on in the morning, which is
Speaker 4: typically like eight forty five ish to ten. We're looking
Speaker 4: at tweets he puts out during the day, and then
Speaker 4: we're looking at mad money, and if he specifically says
Speaker 4: either bye bye bye a stock, then we're gonna go
Speaker 4: short that stock at the next practical moment. So if
Speaker 4: it's mad money, we'll do it, you know, sometime around
Speaker 4: the open. If he says it not forty five, then
Speaker 4: you know, probably we'll do it at nine forty five.
Speaker 4: And if he tells you he hates a stock or
Speaker 4: sell sell sell or something like that, then we're going
Speaker 4: to go along that name again at the next kind
Speaker 4: of practical entry point.
Speaker 5: So that sounds like a massive amount of work.
Speaker 1: I was like that it sounds like a full time job.
Speaker 3: Sounds like you're just that's like so many hours spent
Speaker 3: watching this man on television.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and so I've got there's three of us who
Speaker 4: do it. You know, at the end of the day,
Speaker 4: you know, I'm the final arbiter. So sometimes you know
Speaker 4: he's not one hundred percent clear. So you know, David
Speaker 4: Faber might say, hey, Jim, what do you think about
Speaker 4: alphabet earnings? And they'll sell they had a great quarter.
Speaker 4: So I want to be the guy who's like, all right,
Speaker 4: is that is that going to be enough? Or or
Speaker 4: is that not? So I've got to watch it. I've
Speaker 4: got a team who's watching it. I am very concerned
Speaker 4: about the long term impact on my brain cells. You
Speaker 4: know that that has not been adequately stuck ui. But
Speaker 4: luckily my team is younger than me. So if you know,
Speaker 4: I go off the sea screens, well but yeah, but
Speaker 4: if I go off the deep end, you know, I've
Speaker 4: got two people to kind of take up the mantle
Speaker 4: and you know, put me in a home or something
Speaker 4: like that.
Speaker 1: So have you dabbled with this just on an ad
Speaker 1: hoc basis, like just to see how it how it works.
Speaker 4: Yeah. So I mean I've been running this on paper
Speaker 4: since January first, in expectation of the launch, because we
Speaker 4: need to get the you know, have an actual portfolio
Speaker 4: on launch day. So yeah, I've I've watched every episode
Speaker 4: of Mad Money for the past two months. I can't
Speaker 4: say it's getting any better. Yeah, And like you know,
Speaker 4: walking over to the studio, I'm watching Kramer. You know
Speaker 4: other things I would have rather been doing on the
Speaker 4: walk over here, But it's I mean, I chose to
Speaker 4: do it, So it is what it is.
Speaker 1: So when you.
Speaker 2: Go and you decide this is a convicted Kramer call,
Speaker 2: this is where we're going to do the opposite, you know,
Speaker 2: I'm thinking of like Meta, remember when he kind of
Speaker 2: almoll he cried a little bit on TV because he
Speaker 2: had recommended Facebook for so many years. He loved Zuckerberg Andy,
Speaker 2: and he had a Mia Kolpa. I was wrong. I'm sorry,
Speaker 2: this stock is awful. That's when you would have bought right.
Speaker 4: Because yeah, we would have gone along then, I know,
Speaker 4: And I wished I wished we were up and running
Speaker 4: because that would have been a great long.
Speaker 2: So it's up sixty percent since then, which this is
Speaker 2: why In my opinion, this ETF could could really do
Speaker 2: some damage because all you need is a couple grand
Speaker 2: slams for an ETF to overcome some wishy washy ones.
Speaker 2: We've seen this in a couple of ETFs, and again
Speaker 2: there's definitely grand slam potential here. Sixty percent in a
Speaker 2: couple months is really good. I mean that could power
Speaker 2: over three or four dogs.
Speaker 4: I mean, you know, no offense, we may put you
Speaker 4: out of business on all this bogel stuff.
Speaker 3: Man, that tunnel just making shots all over the fat thing.
Speaker 3: So you've been watching a lot of television for several
Speaker 3: months now, how how big are these portfolios? How many
Speaker 3: names are actually in them?
Speaker 4: So my goal is to have you know, s GYM
Speaker 4: between thirty and fifty names. I don't want to get
Speaker 4: any above fifty because then you start diluting it and
Speaker 4: l GM will be you know last typically you know,
Speaker 4: we've been running it around thirty ish names or so,
Speaker 4: and again I don't want to get any more than
Speaker 4: that because you start really diluting the portfolio.
Speaker 5: As of today, what are so?
Speaker 4: So, what we want to do is we want to
Speaker 4: equally wait the whole things you going to ask Yah yeah,
Speaker 4: so we're going to equally weight it unless there's like
Speaker 4: meme stocks in there, you know, I so then they'd
Speaker 4: probably be a lower weight, just because I don't want,
Speaker 4: you know, amc ripping fifty percent five minutes to to
Speaker 4: mess anything up. But you know, it's it's the names
Speaker 4: you'd you'd reckon. You're in the videos that he I've
Speaker 4: guess named his dog. He's all over that one. You know,
Speaker 4: we'd be long crypto because he still hates crypto, you know,
Speaker 4: eli Lily is one that he keeps saying he loves,
Speaker 4: you know, so stuff like that.
Speaker 1: So if he doubles down and keeps coming back to things,
Speaker 1: what do you do then.
Speaker 4: So we're not going to add to it. But the
Speaker 4: way it's working is every night he's there's new stocks,
Speaker 4: and we're lopping off the old stocks. But if he
Speaker 4: keeps doubling down on something like Lily is a name
Speaker 4: that he mentioned, you know, on Mad Money, you know
Speaker 4: what was it Tuesday night? But he also mentioned it,
Speaker 4: you know, a week or so ago, So that's a
Speaker 4: name we just wouldn't lop off. And if he keeps
Speaker 4: mentioning it, we'll just keep it on there until he stops,
Speaker 4: and we need that room for for something fresh, because
Speaker 4: I want to keep it fresh.
Speaker 1: So this is a little meta. What happens if he
Speaker 1: mentions either of your tickers?
Speaker 4: Then the universe probably explodes and we're all dead. So
Speaker 4: it really doesn't matter. You know, none of us are here,
Speaker 4: and so I'm really hoping he doesn't do that.
Speaker 1: What happens though, for real?
Speaker 4: I mean, we would ignore that. But I've had people
Speaker 4: tell me, Hey, I'm calling in to mad Money and saying, Hey, Jim,
Speaker 4: what do you think of s Jim? Like, all right,
Speaker 4: do it.
Speaker 2: I think he's too proud to actually say, go along,
Speaker 2: es Jim, but it might be a fun joke. I
Speaker 2: know he tweeted it when the filing hit. He had
Speaker 2: a little tweet storm on this. At first, I think
Speaker 2: he tried to ignore it, but then I could tell it.
Speaker 2: A couple of days he was just lashing out a
Speaker 2: little bit about it. And I think one of his
Speaker 2: tweets was what if I just recommend es Jim, that'll
Speaker 2: show him or something like that.
Speaker 4: So he's had a few things to say.
Speaker 5: Have you had a conversation with CNBC or with Jim?
Speaker 4: So I have not. I've heard through the grapevine that
Speaker 4: CNBC is angry and maybe a little bit scared, which
Speaker 4: makes sense. I mean, if that's Jim from a performance
Speaker 4: standpoints up like one hundred percent every year, that's probably
Speaker 4: some explaining to do there. And you know, and David
Speaker 4: Faber might you know, hey, Jim, you know what's going on?
Speaker 4: And yeah, I would love to have a conversation with Kramer.
Speaker 4: I mean, I know some of the other guys over there.
Speaker 4: I know some people who know him. I've tried to
Speaker 4: tried to arrange that, and they've been a little bit
Speaker 4: frightened to arrange it. But I mean, hopefully one day.
Speaker 2: Here's the thing, though, he should embrace this. This is
Speaker 2: his livelihood. He believes he's making great calls, and I
Speaker 2: think one of his tweets early was bring it on,
Speaker 2: you know, And I would have the same attitude. He
Speaker 2: should want to see this fail and he has a
Speaker 2: chance to be the hero. The thing, though, is this
Speaker 2: idea of just just shouting out about stocks like every
Speaker 2: other day. It really isn't a great way to invest
Speaker 2: in general. It's very hard to beat the market with
Speaker 2: this kind of run and gun shifting gears all the time,
Speaker 2: especially if you're so bullish or bearish at the end
Speaker 2: of the cycle. You know, if you get bearish on
Speaker 2: Meta after it's had a really, really bad run, well,
Speaker 2: of course that's not a great time. It's already passed.
Speaker 2: Like with Crypto, he's so bearish and hating on Crypto
Speaker 2: after it lost seventy percent, whereas you kind of want
Speaker 2: to be bearished before that. And I think that's why
Speaker 2: this has a shot to work legitimately. But I would
Speaker 2: think he'd want to sort of prove it wrong. And
Speaker 2: I think it'll be an interesting thing, and I think
Speaker 2: it'll be tempting for him to tweet about it and
Speaker 2: you know, challenge it, and that would probably be good
Speaker 2: marketing for you.
Speaker 4: I would not mind him talking about it all day
Speaker 4: every day, yelling at me, calling me names whatever. You
Speaker 4: know that Uh, I think that's that is called free
Speaker 4: publicity that you know, money can't buy.
Speaker 1: So what's your goal?
Speaker 4: So, and Eric hit on on the main point. A
Speaker 4: lot of people will think, oh, you know, this is
Speaker 4: just gimmicky. It's not. I mean, this to me is
Speaker 4: an awesome portfolio diversifier, because you know, I've noticed over
Speaker 4: the years there's a factor out in the marketplace that
Speaker 4: there's probably a technical term for it. If not, I'll
Speaker 4: make it up. But it you know, for lack of
Speaker 4: a better term, it's, you know, most investors are pretty
Speaker 4: much clueless, and you know we see it with sentiment
Speaker 4: numbers and analysts calls and trying to call the market.
Speaker 4: And Kramer a as Eric said, has that might as touched,
Speaker 4: but b he swings at every pitch and that's not
Speaker 4: a criticism he has to. I mean, you can't call
Speaker 4: mad money and be like, hey, Jim, what do you
Speaker 4: think of Navidia? Oh you know that could go up
Speaker 4: a lot, but it also could go down a lot.
Speaker 4: Oh well yeah, thanks Jim. So by swinging at every pitch,
Speaker 4: what you've got it? And again Eric hit on it.
Speaker 4: You've got this portfolio that is shorting stuff, you know,
Speaker 4: right at the top, buying stuff at the bottom. And
Speaker 4: I mean people are looking for ways to diversify their
Speaker 4: portfolio now that sixty forty had a let's say a
Speaker 4: bad year last year. To me, this should be in
Speaker 4: every portfolio and gonna be in mind.
Speaker 3: Well, realistically, I have to imagine it would be mostly
Speaker 3: grassroots retail though right like I can't see like a
Speaker 3: financial advisor.
Speaker 4: You know, ending yeah, a financial advisor. Maybe not, that
Speaker 4: would have to come from their clients. What is interesting,
Speaker 4: and it'll be interesting to see is on the institutional side.
Speaker 4: You know, are there institutions fading what he's doing? And
Speaker 4: just anecdotally, as I've been running this, I've seen some
Speaker 4: weird stuff. Like he tweeted out about oil stocks a
Speaker 4: couple of weeks ago, and right after that tweet, oil
Speaker 4: stocks had been going up. Right after that tweet, they
Speaker 4: started selling off, and they sold off for like an
Speaker 4: hour and then they stabilized. And I'm looking at that,
Speaker 4: I'm like, was that a coincidence? I mean, maybe it's
Speaker 4: as midas touch. I mean, he tweets it, they go down,
Speaker 4: or are there institutions that have outgoed that? And you know,
Speaker 4: is this a product that maybe you know, you've got
Speaker 4: some of them sitting there watching Mad Money, saying, Hey,
Speaker 4: Tuttle's gonna do it. Let him freaking burn his brain
Speaker 4: cells and we'll just buy es Jim. I mean, we'll say.
Speaker 2: One time, I think I saw him. There's a couple
Speaker 2: of people on Twitter who track his calls, and they
Speaker 2: pointed out that he said buying Navidia at like nine
Speaker 2: to thirty am, and then he was hating on it
Speaker 2: like four hours later. And I guess, how are you
Speaker 2: going to deal with the flip flop? Or do you
Speaker 2: wait till he like is completely bullish or bearish, say
Speaker 2: two or three times in a row.
Speaker 4: No, I mean, we'll flip flop with him. I mean,
Speaker 4: you know, we're sitting there. I got a trader who's
Speaker 4: in front one of his computer all day. So if
Speaker 4: he says buying a video in the morning, we'll buy it.
Speaker 4: And if at the end of the day he flip
Speaker 4: flops and and it's a clear flip flop, then you know,
Speaker 4: then then we're then we're out of that position. So
Speaker 4: I have no problem with that. We're ready for that.
Speaker 2: I think one of the things that and I'm curious
Speaker 2: to see how this worked because long short is the
Speaker 2: one variable of this fund that is an unknown because
Speaker 2: the market tends to push a lot of stocks up
Speaker 2: or down depending on what the FED does. So if
Speaker 2: you have long short, you're probably going to have a
Speaker 2: lot of offsetting. And I agree that will give you
Speaker 2: a nice lower volatility and a lack of correlation, so
Speaker 2: you're almost you could be like an alternative that said
Speaker 2: it might limit the shiny object potential. Did you think
Speaker 2: about that?
Speaker 4: Yeah, and maybe maybe not. So I'll give you an
Speaker 4: example why we've been tracking it. So a lot of
Speaker 4: people were coming up to me because Kramer was bullish
Speaker 4: on the market in the first part of the year
Speaker 4: and the market went up, and they're like, hey, Kramer
Speaker 4: got that right. I was like, well, well no, look
Speaker 4: at the details. What he was saying is don't buy Tech,
Speaker 4: don't buy NASDAK, don't buy Fang, and buy all these
Speaker 4: value stocks. So if the portfolio had been live, we
Speaker 4: would have been you know, long Fang, long Tech, long,
Speaker 4: a bunch of the Nasdaq names, and short some of
Speaker 4: the value stuff, and that still would have done pretty well.
Speaker 4: Because you know, he was completely wrong. Yeah, he was
Speaker 4: right to be bullish, but he was wrong about what
Speaker 4: to be bullish about. You know, but could that limit
Speaker 4: you know, like, are we going to be up three
Speaker 4: hundred percent in a year like we could be if
Speaker 4: it was all long or long short? Probably not. But
Speaker 4: if I'm going back to this whole theme of this
Speaker 4: is a portfolio diversifier, then that's not really what I'm
Speaker 4: looking for anyway, I mean, I you know, I don't
Speaker 4: want to put a ten percent allocation in something that
Speaker 4: could be up three hundred percent or could be down
Speaker 4: like eighty percent.
Speaker 1: So I'm curious about the back testing here, because you
Speaker 1: said he had been experimenting with this since January A.
Speaker 1: How is it performed in that in that time, which
Speaker 1: has been an interesting time in the market. And then like,
Speaker 1: I mean, sort of impossible to go back test for
Speaker 1: you know, three five years, but you know, how did
Speaker 1: you attempt to do that?
Speaker 4: So I probably can't comment on performance stuff that'd probably
Speaker 4: not be a good thing, but you know, certainly there
Speaker 4: would have been some names like coinbase was kind of
Speaker 4: a double, you know, so there would have been some
Speaker 4: interesting things in there. I know other people have done
Speaker 4: back tests. I think the problem is, you know, I mean,
Speaker 4: you don't always know when to enter because again, if
Speaker 4: he says, you know, hey, Alphabet's quarter was good, one
Speaker 4: guy might say, right, that's a bye. I may not,
Speaker 4: And then when do you get out of something, you know,
Speaker 4: because he may say, you know, hey, I love Meta,
Speaker 4: and then he may never say I hate metah. So
Speaker 4: I think it's very difficult. All the anecdotal stuff I've seen.
Speaker 4: I mean, there's some guys on Twitter who post some stuff.
Speaker 4: I mean that all looks extremely interesting, and you know,
Speaker 4: and obviously you don't get this type of reputation if
Speaker 4: you're like the best stockpicker ever. So I'm not worried
Speaker 4: about it.
Speaker 2: So when we had the Twitter spaces back then, there
Speaker 2: was a section of that call where some of the
Speaker 2: listeners called in and asked you, and this is theory
Speaker 2: here a lot when I tweet on this topic. Is
Speaker 2: the reason he's so he's good at being spectacularly bad
Speaker 2: is that he's actually in cahoots with his hedge fund
Speaker 2: pals and this investing club you have to pay for.
Speaker 2: And so what he does is he does the real
Speaker 2: investing there, and then he purposely gives bad advice on
Speaker 2: air so that the other people can go the opposite way.
Speaker 2: I know that that's not to work. I know I
Speaker 2: don't buy it, but that's I guess a conspiracy theory
Speaker 2: out there. But I guess the question is the difference
Speaker 2: between his picks on air and the club.
Speaker 4: So and I've heard that theory. I mean, I had
Speaker 4: a guy call me up a couple of weeks ago
Speaker 4: telling me that that's fact, and again who knows. It
Speaker 4: does sound like a lot of work. To me, it
Speaker 4: seems like a guy like that's got a lot to lose.
Speaker 4: I don't buy it. I purposely am not a subscriber
Speaker 4: to the club. I don't want to know what's in
Speaker 4: that portfolio. I don't care. My sense is that that's
Speaker 4: probably stuff that's fairly well thought out, long term in nature.
Speaker 4: And what I care much more about is the stuff
Speaker 4: he wakes up in the morning and wants to talk about,
Speaker 4: or the stuff that you know, the retail guys are
Speaker 4: calling in and want to ask him about. That's the
Speaker 4: real interesting stuff, you know. I don't care about the club.
Speaker 4: You know, if you want the club, you know, buy
Speaker 4: the club. You know, to me, L Jim is better
Speaker 4: because we're going to be, you know, we're going to
Speaker 4: be a lot more active, you know. So if you're
Speaker 4: a Cramer fan, I buy L Jim over the club.
Speaker 1: What's the turnover going to be?
Speaker 3: Like?
Speaker 4: Turnover's going to be a lot, you know, on a
Speaker 4: typical mad money there's at least five things he's doing.
Speaker 4: And so I'm adding, you know, five names and subtracting
Speaker 4: five names.
Speaker 1: How long do you think things will longest. Something could
Speaker 1: stick around in a portfolio then.
Speaker 4: I mean, again, it depends if he keeps talking about it,
Speaker 4: it's going to stay. So like you know, bitcoin would
Speaker 4: be something that would have stayed around for a while,
Speaker 4: because every time you ask him about it, he's negative.
Speaker 4: But typically stuff is going to cycle out and you know,
Speaker 4: within two weeks.
Speaker 3: I still can't get over the fact that you watch
Speaker 3: so much TV. I mean, you have other funds to
Speaker 3: manage as well. Is that a process that you could
Speaker 3: see automating somehow? I mean, AI is so much in
Speaker 3: the news right now. This actually seems like so place
Speaker 3: where natural language processing could come in handy.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, if AI gets to a point where
Speaker 4: they can discern, I'll totally do it. It's not as bad.
Speaker 4: I mean it's bad from the standpoint. I'd rather watch
Speaker 4: other stuff, but I can't sleep past like four or
Speaker 4: five in the morning, so I'll wake up, I'll watch,
Speaker 4: you know, the Mad Money tape. The cool thing is
Speaker 4: you can fast forward through the CEO interviews because that's
Speaker 4: that's a total waste of time, So you get rid
Speaker 4: of a lot of that stuff and then you're really
Speaker 4: just watching from eight forty five to ten. You know, yeah,
Speaker 4: there's other stuff going on, But I got three people
Speaker 4: watching and but yeah, I mean if someone's got an
Speaker 4: AI tool that can discern between they had a good
Speaker 4: quarter and bye bye bye, I'm all for it.
Speaker 1: So best case scenario, we have you back down in
Speaker 1: a year, let's say, what do you think inflows are
Speaker 1: gonna look like?
Speaker 4: So I really have no idea. I think this is
Speaker 4: the type of thing where you're gonna get a lot
Speaker 4: of people people saying, hey, they're going to look at
Speaker 4: it as a gimmick and say I'm going to buy
Speaker 4: one hundred chairs. See what happens. I think my idea
Speaker 4: of this being a portfolio diversifier is going to take
Speaker 4: a while for people to be like, wait, you're right.
Speaker 4: I mean, this is totally uncorrelated from everything else I
Speaker 4: have in my portfolio. Again, what I don't know is
Speaker 4: you know, institutions, you know, are they going to be
Speaker 4: interested in this or not? So I mean I could
Speaker 4: see this at twenty five million, I could see it
Speaker 4: at five hundred million, and either one wouldn't surprise me.
Speaker 4: I am very curious to see what this is in
Speaker 4: a year because I really have no idea.
Speaker 1: Eric, what do you think put your analyst out on.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean a lot of times these kind of ETFs,
Speaker 2: especially ones that are going right after direct retail performance,
Speaker 2: will rule. I mean this one is special because of
Speaker 2: the type of media attention it will probably get, specially
Speaker 2: if it starts to outperform. I think the media pounces
Speaker 2: on this. There's not I think there's a it's like
Speaker 2: low hanging fruit for a story. Right. If this thing
Speaker 2: starts to do well, well, that's where you get to
Speaker 2: the five hundred million mark. I think if it's you know,
Speaker 2: sideways or struggles, yeah, I could seem more like twenty
Speaker 2: five million. So if you really break this down, it's
Speaker 2: not that different than other trackers. Right, there's Hedge Fund,
Speaker 2: thirteen F trackers. People like to track stuff. And what
Speaker 2: ETFs really do which people forget is there make it
Speaker 2: things convenient. So, as Matt just said, he's doing a
Speaker 2: lot of legwork for you to be able to sort
Speaker 2: of just have a little trade on that goes opposite
Speaker 2: of this guy who is wrong a lot. So that
Speaker 2: convenience will appeal to people if they're into this idea.
Speaker 2: And so yeah, I don't know, I would if I
Speaker 2: had to bet, you know, in a year, I could
Speaker 2: see this at about one hundred million. That'd be my guess.
Speaker 2: But you know, we will see be interesting the long
Speaker 2: Cramer tracker that's also long short. If that happens to
Speaker 2: work well that get assets. I don't know, because obviously
Speaker 2: the sentiment is much more on the other side. But
Speaker 2: performance is a big deal, So that'll be The one
Speaker 2: sort of weird variable is if Elgem starts working and
Speaker 2: maybe the fact that you launched this it completely turned
Speaker 2: around his philosophy and he starts being right all the time.
Speaker 4: I don't know, that would be interesting. I don't think so.
Speaker 4: I don't think you're teach an old dog new tricks.
Speaker 4: But I'm open to everything.
Speaker 1: Matt.
Speaker 5: I want to go back to one thing you said.
Speaker 3: You know, your belief is that this is something that
Speaker 3: would work in a lot of portfolios as a diversifier,
Speaker 3: that it's not a gimmick. But I am curious now
Speaker 3: that you're launching the Creamer Suite, you also have you know,
Speaker 3: the Kathy woodsweet that you were behind. Do you worry
Speaker 3: at all about getting a reputation for gimmicky products?
Speaker 4: I mean a little bit, but you know, at the
Speaker 4: end of the day. You know, I'm a trader at heart,
Speaker 4: so I want to design products that I'm sitting there saying, wow,
Speaker 4: I want this, and so like you know, Sark for example,
Speaker 4: to me, that's just a better hedge if you are
Speaker 4: negative about the market. I'd rather be short Teledoc and
Speaker 4: rope Coup than Apple and Microsoft. And you know, here,
Speaker 4: I've been wanting to figure out a way. I mean,
Speaker 4: how do you, you know, monetize the idea that that
Speaker 4: investors are clueless and take the other side of it.
Speaker 4: And to me, this is just a better way to
Speaker 4: do that.
Speaker 1: Okay, I had to say, I think this is a
Speaker 1: really fun idea. Do you think is there any more
Speaker 1: fun products in the market than this?
Speaker 4: Oh? No, this is the most fun product in the
Speaker 4: market by far, until I come up with the next one,
Speaker 4: which we'll say. I'm always thinking.
Speaker 1: It's like when you, you know, write books, it's like,
Speaker 1: what do you do next? What do you do next?
Speaker 1: And it's like I'm here, Joel.
Speaker 2: I have the next big fun idea, animal shares, where
Speaker 2: each ETF is based on an animal that picks the stock.
Speaker 2: So if you're into porpoises, the porpoise picks the stocks.
Speaker 2: This is based on that sort of monkey throwing a
Speaker 2: dart theory, and it's just all about animals picking stocks
Speaker 2: and you get to pick which animal does the picking
Speaker 2: for you.
Speaker 5: I want to crow a crow.
Speaker 4: I mean, I'll test it with my dog, see, I
Speaker 4: mean he likes to sit in front of my Bloomberg terminal.
Speaker 2: There have been people kicking around the sort of monkey
Speaker 2: dart and random idea for years, but I thought it
Speaker 2: might be cool to expand that to some different animals.
Speaker 2: I got it.
Speaker 1: I gotta say Matt's Kramer products seem a little bit
Speaker 1: more successful than the animal one area.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I'm thinking probably.
Speaker 2: People love animals show kids, and animals will always upstage everybody,
Speaker 2: so all right, but yeah, that's probably more of a
Speaker 2: half joke than a real product. But all right, this
Speaker 2: is probably going to be the one for a while.
Speaker 1: Matt. We look forward to seeing how these perform, and
Speaker 1: congratulations on putting in a lot of hard work to
Speaker 1: bring this idea to market. Thank you, Matt Katie, thanks
Speaker 1: so much for joining us on trillions.
Speaker 5: Thanks for having us, thanks for having.
Speaker 1: Me, Thanks for listening to Trillions. Until next time, you
Speaker 1: can find us on the Bloomberg Terminal, Bloomberg dot com,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever else you'd like to listen.
Speaker 1: We'd love to hear from you. We're on Twitter, I'm
Speaker 1: at Joel Webber Show. He's at Eric Balcuna's. This episode
Speaker 1: of Trillions was produced by Magnus Hendrickson.
Speaker 4: Bye