00:00:06
Itay Goldstein: Hello, everyone. We are
doing a miniseries of podcasts here at the Wharton School on
the Future of Finance. And today
00:00:15
we are going to explore a new
phenomenon, behavioral and social investing. Of course,
behavioral investing is not a
00:00:24
new phenomenon. We have known
about it and talked about it for a long time. The new element
that has come into it more
00:00:31
recently, is social investing,
how behavioral investing is assisted by social media and the
desire of people to participate
00:00:42
in a social phenomenon, kind of
like a cultural phenomenon. And we saw different episodes of
this with meme stocks, starting
00:00:51
from GameStop and AMC and
others. And we have the best guest to dive into all this.
This is Matt Levine, who is a
00:01:03
columnist at Bloomberg and the
author of the very famous "Money Stuff" newsletter. Hi, Matt.
00:01:11
Hi, thanks for having me. - It's great to have you. And I'm here,
Itay Goldstein. I'm a
00:01:16
Professor of Finance at the
Wharton School, and currently the Chair of the Finance
Department, and I will conduct
00:01:22
this conversation with you,
Matt. Looking forward to hearing from you. So in your May 13
issue of "Money Stuff", in which,
00:01:30
by the way, you generously link
to the Wharton MBA curriculum, you ask the audience, is this
just how life is now? So I will
00:01:39
turn it over to you. Is this the
case? Are we going to expect more of these Gamestop sagas, or
is this just a unique
00:01:48
phenomenon? My gut is that it is more the
former, that this is kind of the way life is now. I think that
Gamestop was sort of a proof of
00:02:01
concept. But really ultimately,
Bitcoin and crypto were a bigger proof of it. That something like
social investing can work.
00:02:11
I mean, sometimes the way I think
of it is that for most of the history of financial markets,
people thought of, like, the stock
00:02:18
market as this sort of social
gambling game, where you were trying to out-guess the other
person. And then there was a—
00:02:27
almost a brief blip of, like,
scientific finance, where people thought, "Oh, stocks are worth
the present value of their
00:02:32
future cash flows." And we've now
kind of gone back to the old system where stocks are worth
what you can get someone else to
00:02:39
pay for them. And people realized
that you could harness social media technologies to
collectively influence the
00:02:47
prices of stocks. And I think
that that just kind of remains true. I don't think you'll see
Gamestop again. Like, the real
00:02:57
insanity of that was kind of
because it was the first time and because it was such a
novelty. But the basic idea of,
00:03:05
like, memes can drive the prices
of financial instruments seems pretty, like, well established in
crypto by this point, to the
00:03:11
point that it's like, not even
newsworthy. And it's, you know— it continues to reverberate
through the stock market.
00:03:18
So this is very interesting. So
basically, what you're saying is that our models of finance where
the value of a stock is going to
00:03:24
be determined by the present
value of future cash flows—you say this is a blip on the
timeline of financial markets?
00:03:32
And people used to think
about it in less scientific terms, and this is what we're
going to see going forward?
00:03:40
You know, I'm probably
exaggerating when I say that. I mean, I think that one thing
that the Gamestop episode taught
00:03:47
you is that, you know, there's
good reason to think that the present value of future cash
flows of an asset sets some sort
00:03:54
of like floor under the price of
the asset, because if it goes to zero, then someone can go buy it
and extract the cash flows
00:04:01
themselves. But I think people
sort of developed this, like, rational system, where they
assumed that the present value
00:04:11
of the cash flows was also a cap
on the value of the asset. And, like, that's just— there's no
real reason for that. And if, you
00:04:17
know, a lot of retail investors
want to bid up a thing for years at a time, then I think
what you learned in Gamestop was
00:04:25
that there's not really a clear
corrective mechanism, right? It's not like short sellers can
come in and force the price down
00:04:31
to a rational level. And, I don't
know. That's like the— that, to me, is the lesson. Like, there's—
that there's not a corrective
00:04:37
mechanism in the short or medium
term for just a meme-driven price. Right. And it's very interesting
that you draw the parallel to
00:04:47
Bitcoin and crypto assets.
Because, you know, when we talk about Bitcoin in the classroom,
we say that there is really no
00:04:55
clear way to price them. So
there is really no way to tell what is the right price for
Bitcoin. So you think basically
00:05:03
that Bitcoin and other
cryptocurrencies are maybe the central phenomenon,
and Gamestop was
00:05:11
maybe one other example of that? I kind of think that, yeah. I
kind of think that, like,
00:05:18
GameStop being a stock that
moved, like a coordinated social movement for a few months was
really interesting. And, like,
00:05:28
sort of brought it to— closer to
the financial mainstream. But that's also true in a less silly
but more important way of
00:05:39
Bitcoin, right? I mean, like,
you know, when you talk about, like, how you value Bitcoin, it
is, like— any, any— any sort of
00:05:45
legitimate— any real effort to
value it is going to be based on its social adoption, right? If
people buy it, then it's worth a
00:05:51
lot of money, and if no one
believes in it, then it's not worth a lot of money. And that
is the sort of core of what
00:05:58
happened in GameStop, right?
Where, like, GameStop was also a company. But like, the sort of
real meme-driven stuff was— was
00:06:04
about just, like, the— its
popularity in the— in the— in a social investing universe.
00:06:11
I think that Bitcoin
is the clearer illustration of how
strange this is, and how, like, enduring it is,
00:06:21
right? I mean, Bitcoin has— has
had a five-figure valuation for years now. Its— its social
adoption is enough to drive the
00:06:29
value in a way that it wasn't
really for the— for the long term, for GameStop.
00:06:34
Yeah. So, you know, when we talk
about it as economists, we would think about it as kind of a
coordination problem, where if
00:06:42
everyone thinks it's valuable,
it will be valuable. If no one thinks it's valuable, it will
not be valuable, and then it can
00:06:48
kind of end up anywhere in terms
of price. And you're right, we— And Bitcoin is sort of like, self
consciously that, right? It's
00:06:56
like, it's meant to be a
currency, right? So it's like, sort of everyone understands
that it's a coordination
00:06:59
problem, whereas there's no
reason for Gamestop to work that way. It just did for a while.
00:07:04
Right. Yeah, exactly. And this
is, I think, where the deviation is. That with GameStop, there is
a way to price it that is not
00:07:12
based on coordination. With
Bitcoin, there isn't. But the fact that this migrated into
Gamestop and AMC was really the
00:07:18
new thing, and maybe the very
interesting element here. So, you know, diving a bit deeper into that,
what do you think are the sort
00:07:28
of psychological and social
triggers that were behind the AMC and Gamestop saga? How would
you characterize them?
00:07:38
I do think that there is— there
is a cultural moment that is somewhat pandemic-driven, right?
I mean, people were— a lot of
00:07:48
people were stuck at home. They
had a lot fewer entertainment options. They were sort of
turning to the internet for
00:07:55
entertainment because, you know,
sporting events and television shows were canceled, and, like,
live events were canceled. And
00:08:01
so it was easier. You know,
there's like, a lower bar for entertainment. So like, going to
a message board and talking
00:08:08
about trading Gamestop options
was relatively more entertaining than— than it would have been at
any other time.
00:08:16
And it was just, like, a real— you
know, it fed on itself in the sense that, like,
00:08:25
people were having fun trading
GameStop. Gamestop went up. This got attention. Gamestop went up
more, and then it became like a
00:08:32
truly insane event where people
were making, you know, 10,000% returns in a couple of days. And
so that attracted a lot of
00:08:39
people, right? It was a
combination of, like, people were making a lot of money very
quickly, and also they were just
00:08:44
very evidently having a lot of
fun doing it. That attracted a lot of people. So, like, one
thing that happened in Gamestop
00:08:49
is that the stock went up a lot.
But another thing that happened is that the number of users of
the Wall Street Bets message
00:08:54
board went— went from like,
you know, under a million to like, 8 million people in a
couple of days. And that just,
00:09:02
you know— it was a— in a time
where people were starved for entertainment and starved for,
like, social interaction. That
00:09:09
was a very fun place to be
socializing. And like, the coin of socializing there was you
buying and holding GameStop.
00:09:16
Right. So this is all sort of
pandemic era driven, as you say. But then when you saw this
coming back in May of this year,
00:09:23
what were you thinking? One thing I was thinking is, this
can't work as well again, just
00:09:29
for, like, entertainment
reasons, right? It's just not as fun the second time. And it
wasn't, right? I mean, like,
00:09:36
people were interested in it.
And, you know, what happened is that— that Keith Gil, the sort of
like "influencer" who was the main
00:09:44
driving force behind the first
Gamestop rally— I'm not sure that's true. He was the mascot
of the first Gamestop rally. He
00:09:52
came back to Twitter to sort of
tweet inscrutable things, and to sort of try to get the band back
together. And people were
00:10:02
interested, and the stock shot up,
and Gamestop was able to do an at-the-market stock offering.
But it was never— it
00:10:10
didn't have anything like either
the financial or the cultural impact that it had the previous
time, right? I mean, it just— the
00:10:16
stock did not go up that much.
And it got attention in, like, the financial press. But it was,
you know— the sort of original
00:10:23
Gamestop rally was, you know—
it was on <i>Good Morning</i> <i>America</i>. It was, like, the biggest
news story in the world. Keith
00:10:29
Gill coming back was like a
financial niche news story. Right. So, you know, when we analyze
financial markets, we tend to
00:10:39
think about retail investors and
institutional investors. And the usual thinking is that
institutional investors are
00:10:47
going to be more sophisticated.
They are the experts. They have time, they have money to do the
research, and at the end of the
00:10:54
day, they will know how to pick
the stocks. And then the retail investors, those who are maybe
more naive, they don't have the
00:11:03
financial resources to make the
right investment. At the end of the day, they might be taken
advantage of. This was not
00:11:10
exactly how things played out in
these episodes. So, did these episodes lead you to reconsider
the way you're thinking about
00:11:19
institutional versus retail
investors? I think that it suggests that
retail investors have more power
00:11:31
than you would have expected,
right? It— like, I have read for years, people saying— you know,
on Reddit or whatever— people
00:11:40
talking about gamma squeezes,
right? Like saying, if we all buy call options, then that will
force the price of the stock up,
00:11:47
and dealers will have to hedge
their call options by buying more stock, and then the stock
will keep going up, and the
00:11:52
dealers will have to buy more to
keep hedging, and the stock will sort of spiral up infinitely.
And I would read that and say,
00:11:59
okay, like, there's no, you
know, perpetual motion machine. But also, like, how big of an
impact on a big liquid stock,
00:12:07
can retail call option buying
have? And the answer is, like, much more than I expected,
right? It's just that you think
00:12:16
of, like, retail investors as
being, like, dispersed and kind of random, right? Because they're—
they're— you know,
00:12:22
traditionally, don't have access
to a lot of information. But they're also just, like,
individuals with small accounts.
00:12:27
And one thing that you learned
in the Gamestop saga is that retail investors can kind of
coordinate around one thing,
00:12:34
where they're all buying the
same call options at the same company at the same time. And
then the stock really does go
00:12:39
up. And the stuff about gamma
screws is— that sort of like looks like an urban legend—
turns out to be kind of true
00:12:44
some of the time. So I think
that has been an interesting shift where retail investors,
like, just have the power to
00:12:54
move markets in a way that
nobody really expected. And you see that in, like, institutional
investors being much more
00:13:00
cautious about short selling.
And particularly, like, you know, vocal activist short selling,
because they worry that if they
00:13:07
go after a company, they short a
company, some— you know, some retail investors on a message
board will say, you know, "Let's
00:13:13
go after that hedge fund." And
like, it turns out that if they all do that, then, like, it can
have a material effect on the
00:13:19
hedge fund. You know, your question—
you talk about, like, you know, retail investors being
less sophisticated and having
00:13:27
less access to information. I
don't know that, like, the retail investors, like, in the long run,
look particularly smart from the
00:13:36
Gamestop episode, right? It's
not like Gamestop is killing it in their business.
00:13:43
I think
there's like, interesting effects where, like, GameStop
and AMC were able to raise so
00:13:46
much money and sort of, like,
get some runway from their retail involvement. And like,
that has interestingly shifted
00:13:52
the dynamics of the underlying
businesses. But, like, ultimately, I don't know. Like—
like, you know, the hedge funds
00:13:57
who were shorting GameStop— I
don't know. The hedge funds shorting Gamestop at, like, $14 maybe
they were wrong. But the hedge funds
00:14:02
short in Gamestop at, you know,
$80 seem right, but they also got blown up. And I don't think
that, like, this is a story of
00:14:12
retail investors being better
analysts of companies than professional investors. But I do
think it's a story of, like,
00:14:20
retail investors coordinating in
a way that is much more impactful on the market than
anyone really thought.
00:14:27
Yeah, I completely agree. I
mean, it's not that they did the underlying analysis, but it is
that when they come together,
00:14:34
they managed to move markets in a
way that puts institutional investors in a bind, in a way
that they didn't really expect.
00:14:41
So I think in that sense, it's a
little more subtle than the traditional story we had about
retail versus institutions.
00:14:49
Yeah. You know, I read a lot about,
like, market structure and about, you know, like— like
like, high frequency trading
00:14:58
firms, market making to retail
traders. And like, everyone's model there is that retail
traders are— I'm sorry, I shouldn't
00:15:03
say everyone's model. The
popular perception is that retail traders are sort of
random noise traders, where,
00:15:09
like, they'll buy a stock or
sell a stock, but there's no, overarching coordination
among retail traders. And so you
00:15:15
can, like, make a lot of money
market making to retail traders, because, like, they are, like,
you know, buying at the— at the—
00:15:23
at the offer and selling at the
bid, and not— not like, predictive of prices. And you
see in— like, I don't really know
00:15:32
how market makers did in this. I
think they did very well for the most part. But like, you see in
this that retail trades are,
00:15:37
like, much more predictive than
people would have thought, right? Like that they are— that
there is a— like, a
00:15:43
directionality to retail trades,
where, like, if one retail trader— like, sometimes, if one
retail trader buys a stock, that
00:15:49
is a sign the stock is going to
keep going up, because a lot of other retail traders are going
to buy it. And that's just like
00:15:54
an interesting shift where, you
know, like, a retail trader is not an atomized individual
buying stock, sort of like
00:16:02
independent of all other retail
traders. There is, like, this ability for retail traders to
coordinate.
00:16:08
Right. So you mentioned the fact that AMC and Gamestop
were able to raise capital out of this
increase in stock price. And at
00:16:17
the end of the day, you know,
for example, in the case of AMC, this led them to avoid
bankruptcy, which I think was a
00:16:27
real concern at that point. And
I think this raises a very interesting question. Because at
the end of the day, if this just
00:16:34
stays in the financial market,
some people make money, some people lose money, you know, you can say
it's okay. People go to the
00:16:40
financial market at their own
risk, and they should be prepared to lose money. But when
this kind of spills over to the
00:16:46
real economy in the way that it
did here, because you have a firm that is able to raise more
capital and stay in business,
00:16:52
even though maybe shouldn't
have, then I think this raises deeper questions. Are you
worried about that? That firms
00:16:59
are using this phenomenon? I sort of put myself in the shoes
of the CFOs, and think, well,
00:17:05
how could you not, right? I mean,
how could you not try to raise money here? I also think that,
you know, it's an interesting— I
00:17:13
mentioned earlier the idea that
there's no mechanism to cap the price of a company at its, like,
cash flows, right? Like, there's
00:17:23
no mechanism for, if retail
investors all want to buy a stock, there's no mechanism to
prevent the price from going to,
00:17:29
you know, as high as they want.
But of course, there is, which is, the company can sell the
stock, right? And you see a
00:17:34
little bit of that in some of
the meme stock episodes, where, like, if the price gets too
high, the company is going to
00:17:40
hit the bid, and then the price
will come down to a more reasonable level. In part
because, like, there'll be more
00:17:47
supply. But also, in part
because, like, it sort of deflates the social phenomenon.
If, like, if everyone's like,
00:17:54
"Oh, we're buying and holding," and
then the company's like, "We're a
00:17:56
seller at this price." It's like,
sort of bad for the meme. But, you know, I think it's probably
bad if financial markets are
00:18:08
allocating capital on retail
wins. So it's not that bad, right? Like, there— there are
other like, forms of gambling
00:18:15
and— and— that are probably, you
know, equally expensive. And you— like, there's something
interesting about AMC, right?
00:18:23
Because, like, on the one hand,
their business was struggling, and they got a lifeline from
meme stock investors. On the
00:18:31
other hand, like, those meme stock
investors were not driven by, like, pure irrationality. They
were driven by, like, nostalgia
00:18:37
for movie theaters, right? And
their business was struggling, in part, like— there were other
problems, but in part because
00:18:42
they were in a pandemic where
they couldn't show movies, right? So the idea that, like,
these retail investors, driven by
00:18:47
nostalgia, were sort of bridging
them through a difficult business period— like— like, it
doesn't seem that bad, right? It
00:18:53
seems like, in some ways, like—
the retail investors, like, made a sort of, like, rational
allocation of capital there.
00:19:02
I do think that you can look at
some of these— there is, like, a real cynicism to some of the
capital raising off of meme
00:19:14
stocks. But at the same time,
like, you know, the most cynical looking of— well, I shouldn't
say that. One very cynical
00:19:23
looking trade was when Hertz
raised money from meme stock investors while it was in
bankruptcy, which is just a
00:19:29
crazy thing to do. But also,
like, it emerged from bankruptcy with equity value, and those
meme stock investors made money.
00:19:35
Which is, again, like— it's a
pandemic-driven thing where, like, the business crashed and
then recovered, and the meme
00:19:40
stock investors sort of bridged
them through the pandemic. There are other cases. I mean, Bed
Bath and Beyond is a case where
00:19:47
they raised money from meme
stock investors all the way to zero in a way that looks really
cynical and looked really like a
00:19:53
transfer of money from retail
investors to, essentially, bond holders. But I don't know how
big of a misallocation of
00:20:04
capital it was, because they did go
back to pretty short order. No, you're making good points
here. I mean, I think it is
00:20:11
clear that this meme stock
phenomenon can help firms go through a bad time. Whether this
is good or bad, it's not— it's
00:20:21
not clear. It depends on whether
the underlying stress was efficient or not. And yeah,
certainly there was some
00:20:27
business proposition behind AMC
staying alive. So in that sense, maybe— maybe the investors did
them a favor.
00:20:35
If your model is that, like, the
retail investors doing this are are just always, like,
systematically less rational
00:20:42
than institutional investors
who'd normally fund companies, then, yeah, this is bad. I think
that model is like, you know,
00:20:50
largely correct, but it's not
like— it's not like, so obviously correct, right? I
mean, institutional investors
00:20:54
make mistakes too. Yes, absolutely. I would be
the first one to agree with that. So if you are a regulator
sitting and watching all this,
00:21:03
what are your main takeaways?
What do you think should be done to make financial markets more
orderly?
00:21:10
I'm sympathetic to the actual
response of regulators, which was kind of that this is all
fine. Embarrassing, but fine.
00:21:17
Like— like, when the Gamestop
thing originally happened, there was a lot of interest in whether
there was some sort of, like,
00:21:26
secret coordination pump and
dump, where the people on Reddit touting Gamestop were like,
secretly, you know, doing
00:21:36
something nefarious. And it
doesn't ever look like that was true, right? It just looked like
they liked the stock. There was
00:21:45
maybe an awkward amount of
coordination, an awkward amount of cheerleading. But, like no one
was lying, really. And that's
00:21:51
like, the main thing that the SEC
is concerned about, is, like, people misrepresent—
misrepresent things, or lying.
00:21:59
This strikes me as like, kind of
an emergent phenomenon of retail traders, and one that, like,
kind of can't be regulated away,
00:22:07
because it's like— you know, if
people want to put their money on this thing, then— then
they're allowed to. Now, you
00:22:14
see, like— you know, there's
tinkering at the edges, right? I mean, the— like, one thing that
came out of this was— was the
00:22:19
move to T+1 settlement,
which is a really arcane response to the Gamestop saga.
But like, you know, basically
00:22:28
the Gamestop, like, phenomenon led
to increased credit risk of clearing, because everyone was
buying the stock at, like, you
00:22:38
know— this incredibly volatile
stock at, like, increasing prices. And so that led to, like,
hiccups in the system of, like,
00:22:47
stock settlement, where, like,
Robin Hood was getting giant margin calls from the clearing
house. And so the— the SEC
00:22:52
subsequently moved to T+1
settlement to kind of like tamp that down. Another response you
saw is that the SEC sort of
00:23:00
expressed very clear skepticism
about companies raising capital off meme stock things, and they
sort of demanded that companies
00:23:07
put a lot of, like, dire warnings
in their prospectuses when they did these offerings. But of
course, when you do a retail at-
00:23:16
the-market offering, zero of
your investors read the prospectus. So it doesn't really
matter. I don't know that
00:23:23
there's much that they can do.
And I do think that, like, again, this was, like a thing
that happened during the
00:23:28
pandemic as a sort of, like,
entertainment substitute. And you look at what entertainment
options are available to people
00:23:36
these days, like, it's a lot of
gambling. And so, like, I'm not sure that, like, investing in
Gamestop options is— is that
00:23:45
much different or that much
worse than, you know, betting on sports. And so, like, the
regulators are in a bit of a
00:23:52
bind. I think it's very
embarrassing for the SEC to have this occur, because they would
love for financial markets to
00:24:01
just look more orderly and
rational and less like an insane entertainment product. But
people are coming to the stock
00:24:10
market for a lot of reasons, and
one of them is clearly entertainment. Right. Yeah, and
I think they will have a problem
00:24:15
thinking about the stock market
as a casino. They would like it to be a place where allocation
of capital is being done, and I
00:24:23
think this is why they look at
it, and are a little worried by that. I think that's right. But I also think,
like— the SEC has such a bias and
00:24:33
mission in favor of retail
investors. And that includes letting retail investors do what
they want, right? I mean, like,
00:24:38
if your goal is efficient
allocation of capital, you might be sort of skeptical of a lot of retail
investor decision making, right?
00:24:48
You might be like, "Everyone's
got to put everything into index fund, and only professionals can
trade stocks." But that's, like,
00:24:54
not the American way. And— and I
think that there is a bias towards letting retail investors
do what they want, even if the
00:25:01
SEC is sure it's bad for them.
I also think that, like— I talked about Hertz. The SEC stopped the
Hertz equity offering, and that
00:25:10
offering, like, turned out to be
a good idea for the people who were buying it, right? I mean,
like, the stock— in the sense that
00:25:15
the stock went up, right? So the
SEC, like, doesn't always know what is irrational for retail
investors.
00:25:21
Yeah. So, you know, to close our
conversation, I want to ask you more broadly where else do you
think we are going to see
00:25:30
episodes like this? And I want
to bring up something that is related, but also different in
many ways. And this is the
00:25:36
Silicon Valley Bank that, you
know, had the biggest bank run in history, and it was also
driven by social media. Of
00:25:45
course, you know, this is not
the stock market. It's a bank, people pulling out deposits. But
at the end of the day, there
00:25:51
were some similarities because
of the contagion that happens through social media. So do you
see some connection? Where do
00:25:59
you think we are going to see
more action along these lines? Yeah. I mean, SVB— I think SVB
is interesting because, like,
00:26:11
SVB collapsed because of a bank
run. And the people doing that bank run were largely, like,
very sophisticated, well
00:26:18
connected, you know, sort of VCs
and tech startups who are like, you know, largely the depositors
there. And people talk about it
00:26:26
being a social-media-driven bank
run. But I think a lot of, like, my gut sense is that a lot of
what happened there was not
00:26:33
happening on, like Twitter, but
on, you know, private text messages or just like, phone
calls between VCs, right? So
00:26:40
it's not exactly social-media-
driven. It's like, a fast, tech- intermediated sort of
traditional rumor mill. The
00:26:47
interesting bank run, from a
social media perspective, was like— Credit Suisse, before it
collapsed— like, not the day
00:26:56
before it collapsed, but in the
months leading up to its collapse, there were a lot of
like, you know, Redditors trying
00:27:03
to take down Credit Suisse. And
I do think that, like, the possibility of coordinating a
bank run on social media is
00:27:12
interesting. It is, as you say,
like, the inverse of the— of the of the, you know, meme stock
phenomenon. Where, you know, if—
00:27:19
if people on social media can
get together to drive a stock up, they can get together
to drive it down. And
00:27:27
in general, you know, as I said
at the beginning, like, the— you know, cash flows are a floor on a
stock price, right? And like,
00:27:33
you can't really come together
to drive the stock price of, like, Tesla to zero. But you kind
of can with a bank, because
00:27:40
banks are so like, perception-
dependent. And if you have a bank run, then, like, the bank
really can go to zero. So I do
00:27:46
think that, like, the
possibility of using social media to coordinate a run on a
bank is like, you know,
00:27:51
something that occurred to
people after GameStop. And something that, like, kind of
sort of tentatively played out a
00:27:57
little bit in Credit Suisse,
although I think ultimately it was not, like, the causal problem with
Credit Suisse.
00:28:04
In terms of more generally, like, where does this
go in the long term? I mean, I
00:28:08
think that— the two things I'd
point to are, again, crypto is just like— people have developed
a better understanding of the
00:28:18
social dynamics of investing. And
like, that's going to get— just keep being reused in crypto. And
then the other thing I'd point
00:28:24
to is Donald Trump's SPAC,
right? Which is— you know, GameStop is a real company.
Like, you know, like, you could
00:28:33
have a range of opinions on how
much money Gamestop will make selling video games in ten years,
right? Donald Trump's, you know,
00:28:42
Trump Media Technology Group is
like a real, like, teeny nub of a company, right? It's got a
social media site that doesn't
00:28:49
seem to bring in very much
revenue. It talks a big game about, like, getting into
streaming video and other
00:28:54
things, but it's like, not clear
what they're doing. And on its very, very small revenue and
sort of, like, minor, like
00:29:02
small, negative net income, it
has, like, a multibillion dollar valuation. And it's just
very clear that the people
00:29:07
buying it are not buying it
because they're, like, doing financial analysis, but because
they are trying to get behind
00:29:12
Donald Trump in some way. And I
think that, like— I don't think he'll be the last person to make
use of this phenomenon, right?
00:29:23
And I do think that, like
Gamestop kind of proved out the possibility here. And then Trump
Media Group capitalized on it.
00:29:31
Okay, lots to think about. Thank
you very much, Matt, it was a pleasure talking to you about
all these issues, and I think we
00:29:38
should all stay tuned to see
what's next. All right. Thank
you very much. Thank you.