Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio news.

Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio news.

This is the day at All Crashes and Barns. Yeah, hello, and welcome to the Money Stuff Podcast. You're a weekly podcast where we talk about stuff related to money. I'm Matt Levigne and I write the Money Stuff column for Bloomberg Opinion.

This is the day at All Crashes and Barns. Yeah, hello, and welcome to the Money Stuff Podcast. You're a weekly podcast where we talk about stuff related to money. I'm Matt Levigne and I write the Money Stuff column for Bloomberg Opinion.

I'm Katie Greifeld, a reporter for Bloomberg News and an anchor for Bloomberg Television. I also write a newsletter called BTFIQ.

I'm Katie Greifeld, a reporter for Bloomberg News and an anchor for Bloomberg Television. I also write a newsletter called BTFIQ.

Katie, you're like gracing us with a little bit of your presence between sessions at the big ETF conference.

Katie, you're like gracing us with a little bit of your presence between sessions at the big ETF conference.

Huh, Yeah, you know, we were well. I was joking as I walked in ten minutes late. Matt had been sitting here miked up. There's an ETF conference at Bloomberg. It's Thursday when we're recording this. Matt's a celebrity in a lot of context. I'm a celebrity in an ETF context, and you know, walking through an ETF event, it's hard to get anywhere on time.

Huh, Yeah, you know, we were well. I was joking as I walked in ten minutes late. Matt had been sitting here miked up. There's an ETF conference at Bloomberg. It's Thursday when we're recording this. Matt's a celebrity in a lot of context. I'm a celebrity in an ETF context, and you know, walking through an ETF event, it's hard to get anywhere on time.

I feel like this is a challenge and I'm gonna have to come back to the ETF.

I feel like this is a challenge and I'm gonna have to come back to the ETF.

Yeah. I mean, now you're gonna walk upstairs and everyone's gonna just stop in their tracks.

Yeah. I mean, now you're gonna walk upstairs and everyone's gonna just stop in their tracks.

Plimberg once side a crypto conference in which I interviewed Sam Bankman Freed on stage. A real a real highlight. But at a Boomberg crypto conference, I'm like a little bit of a celebrity, and like before this interview, people were coming up to me and being like, I'm a fan. And then after this interview I walked back to the green room with Sam Bankman Freed and like he yeah, is a celebrity. Yeah, people were pushing each other as loud to get to Sam Bankman Freed.

Plimberg once side a crypto conference in which I interviewed Sam Bankman Freed on stage. A real a real highlight. But at a Boomberg crypto conference, I'm like a little bit of a celebrity, and like before this interview, people were coming up to me and being like, I'm a fan. And then after this interview I walked back to the green room with Sam Bankman Freed and like he yeah, is a celebrity. Yeah, people were pushing each other as loud to get to Sam Bankman Freed.

There's this is better times for him certainly. Levels Yeah, that's a real uh like a time capse happened.

There's this is better times for him certainly. Levels Yeah, that's a real uh like a time capse happened.

Yeah, that was like it was like summer twenty twenty one. I introduced him on stage, said something like Sam Bankman Fried probably needs no introduction. He's probably bought most of your companies. Like this is back between like when everything else scratched and when.

Yeah, that was like it was like summer twenty twenty one. I introduced him on stage, said something like Sam Bankman Fried probably needs no introduction. He's probably bought most of your companies. Like this is back between like when everything else scratched and when.

Yeah, like the Terror Luna stuff.

Yeah, like the Terror Luna stuff.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Man. Anyway, well, anyway, what are.

Man. Anyway, well, anyway, what are.

You talking about today, Katie.

You talking about today, Katie.

We're gonna talk about the onions and info wars. We're willing to talk about some proof that everything is securities fraud. I've described that correctly, right, yeah, okay, and then we're going to talk about Ken Peterman who was fired and then right, but did he sit so the Onion, this was interesting. I haven't checked in on this story in a while, and then you published on it, and I thought that the Onion was for sure buying info Wars. That's the service level headline reading that I had done. But turns out not exactly right.

We're gonna talk about the onions and info wars. We're willing to talk about some proof that everything is securities fraud. I've described that correctly, right, yeah, okay, and then we're going to talk about Ken Peterman who was fired and then right, but did he sit so the Onion, this was interesting. I haven't checked in on this story in a while, and then you published on it, and I thought that the Onion was for sure buying info Wars. That's the service level headline reading that I had done. But turns out not exactly right.

So info Wars Alex Chrenz's company that he used to spread various writing conspiracy theories, one of which is that the Sandy Hook massacre was a hoax. The parents of the Sandy Hook children who are killed suit him and won like a billion dollars of damages, which is considerably more money than Alex Chans and info Wars have, and so they filed for bankruptcy, and you know, like kind of that means that the Sandihug parents kind of own his assets kind of, but like what it literally means is that the bankruptcy trustee has an auction of the assets, which is basically like the info Wars like company and brand and website and stuff, and the highest bidder at the auction wins the assets, and like the money from the bid goes to Alex Jones's creditors, which means mainly the Sandiak families, but there are also some other people who he owes money to, either because he borrowed money from them or because they also sued him. And so they had an auction and there were two bidders, and one of them was this thing called First United American Companies FUAK, which is like kind of Alex Jones. It's like someone's putting up money for Alex Jones to buy back Info Wars so you can continue running it his Info Wars. And then the other bidder was the Onion or it's corporate parrot, which has the great name Global Tetrahedron llcfully great name, like really like the Onion. You know, although at the corporate structure they're.

So info Wars Alex Chrenz's company that he used to spread various writing conspiracy theories, one of which is that the Sandy Hook massacre was a hoax. The parents of the Sandy Hook children who are killed suit him and won like a billion dollars of damages, which is considerably more money than Alex Chans and info Wars have, and so they filed for bankruptcy, and you know, like kind of that means that the Sandihug parents kind of own his assets kind of, but like what it literally means is that the bankruptcy trustee has an auction of the assets, which is basically like the info Wars like company and brand and website and stuff, and the highest bidder at the auction wins the assets, and like the money from the bid goes to Alex Jones's creditors, which means mainly the Sandiak families, but there are also some other people who he owes money to, either because he borrowed money from them or because they also sued him. And so they had an auction and there were two bidders, and one of them was this thing called First United American Companies FUAK, which is like kind of Alex Jones. It's like someone's putting up money for Alex Jones to buy back Info Wars so you can continue running it his Info Wars. And then the other bidder was the Onion or it's corporate parrot, which has the great name Global Tetrahedron llcfully great name, like really like the Onion. You know, although at the corporate structure they're.

Committed to comedy, they committed to the bid.

Committed to comedy, they committed to the bid.

Yeah, and so they were they bid for the assets, and they had less cash than FUAK, but what they had was the support of the Sandy Hook parents because if you think about the parents, like one thing they want is money. Another thing they want is for Alex Jones to stop running Info Wars and stop broadcasting conspiracy theories. And then the third thing they want is that I think they liked what the onions plans for info Wars were, which is sort of like running as a satire of the conspiracy side. And also I think you know, there was like a teaming up with every Town for Gun Safety, the Eco Bloomberg fact initiative. They would use info Wars in part to sort of work against gun violence. And so the parents liked that plan and they supported it. And so you had this auction in which on the one side was a higher cash bid from FUAC and on the other side was like the bid that was supported by the Lion's share of the creditors. And so the bankruptcy t you said that the Onion won, and then FUEK went to court to stop it, and the judge said, actually, this was not a fair auction. You have to run the auction again and kind of give it the highest bidter.

Yeah, and so they were they bid for the assets, and they had less cash than FUAK, but what they had was the support of the Sandy Hook parents because if you think about the parents, like one thing they want is money. Another thing they want is for Alex Jones to stop running Info Wars and stop broadcasting conspiracy theories. And then the third thing they want is that I think they liked what the onions plans for info Wars were, which is sort of like running as a satire of the conspiracy side. And also I think you know, there was like a teaming up with every Town for Gun Safety, the Eco Bloomberg fact initiative. They would use info Wars in part to sort of work against gun violence. And so the parents liked that plan and they supported it. And so you had this auction in which on the one side was a higher cash bid from FUAC and on the other side was like the bid that was supported by the Lion's share of the creditors. And so the bankruptcy t you said that the Onion won, and then FUEK went to court to stop it, and the judge said, actually, this was not a fair auction. You have to run the auction again and kind of give it the highest bidter.

So is that what happens now that we have another auction.

So is that what happens now that we have another auction.

I think what happens now is we have another auction. And it seems like the decision was that the bankruptcy trustees procedures weren't good enough, and like you can have another auction where the Onion could win. The way it worked is that FUEX bid was cash. It's three point five million dollars. The Onion's bid was one point seventy five million dollars in cash. And also the parents, the Sandy Hook parents, signed a waiver basically saying whatever money other creditors, other people who ALEX, JANDZ have money to whatever money the other creditors would get from any other bid, they will get one hundred thousand dollars more from this Onion bid. So basically, like you know, if the Onion puts in one point seven five million dollars, as much as all of that can go to the other creditors, whereas a FUEC puts in three five million dollars, you know three quarters of that or something is going to go to the Santiagog parents because they have most of the claims and pankruptcy. And so because of that waiver, they could go to the court and say, look, we can guarantee that the other creditors will get more money from our bid than from any other bid, and like, these creditors support it. So it's the highest bid even though it has less money.

I think what happens now is we have another auction. And it seems like the decision was that the bankruptcy trustees procedures weren't good enough, and like you can have another auction where the Onion could win. The way it worked is that FUEX bid was cash. It's three point five million dollars. The Onion's bid was one point seventy five million dollars in cash. And also the parents, the Sandy Hook parents, signed a waiver basically saying whatever money other creditors, other people who ALEX, JANDZ have money to whatever money the other creditors would get from any other bid, they will get one hundred thousand dollars more from this Onion bid. So basically, like you know, if the Onion puts in one point seven five million dollars, as much as all of that can go to the other creditors, whereas a FUEC puts in three five million dollars, you know three quarters of that or something is going to go to the Santiagog parents because they have most of the claims and pankruptcy. And so because of that waiver, they could go to the court and say, look, we can guarantee that the other creditors will get more money from our bid than from any other bid, and like, these creditors support it. So it's the highest bid even though it has less money.

Interesting, so what needs to happen in round two of this auction for the Onion to be successful, do they just simply need more money.

Interesting, so what needs to happen in round two of this auction for the Onion to be successful, do they just simply need more money.

Well, so there's a couple of things. One is that like the procedure at the auction got sort of wonky at the end, where like it was supposed to be an open auction and it sort of turned to a sealed bid auction. And part of that is because the Onion bid was we will pay one hundred thousand dollars more than anyone else. So there's not really a point of having multiple rounds of bids. But you could imagine just structuring the bid again so that they can do a more open auction and then sort of coming too the same result. The other possibility is that, you know, a reader suggested this to me, like if FUEX says, this waiver from the parents isn't real, like it doesn't count as real value. And I think the trustee argued, and the Onion argues, and I think it's clearly true that this is like a normal way to provide value in bankruptcy. You know, I wrote about credit bids where the creditor who has a mortgage on a house could get that house without paying more cash for it. Because they can bid the amount of their lean Here. You know, these parents have a huge claim in the bankruptcy, and if they're wave a portion of their claim, then that provides value to the other creditors. But if you don't like that, then the answer is finance it. The answer is the onion could go out and borrow like two million dollars from a bank and pay it back. That two million dollars would then go to the Santiego parents when they win the auction, and then they could rout it back to the Onion and then to the bank. Right, if the parents want a non financial benefit from this and like are bidding a portion of their claims, you could probably find a way to like get the bank to put up the money and then have a circle back to the bank. So that might be another thing that happens here.

Well, so there's a couple of things. One is that like the procedure at the auction got sort of wonky at the end, where like it was supposed to be an open auction and it sort of turned to a sealed bid auction. And part of that is because the Onion bid was we will pay one hundred thousand dollars more than anyone else. So there's not really a point of having multiple rounds of bids. But you could imagine just structuring the bid again so that they can do a more open auction and then sort of coming too the same result. The other possibility is that, you know, a reader suggested this to me, like if FUEX says, this waiver from the parents isn't real, like it doesn't count as real value. And I think the trustee argued, and the Onion argues, and I think it's clearly true that this is like a normal way to provide value in bankruptcy. You know, I wrote about credit bids where the creditor who has a mortgage on a house could get that house without paying more cash for it. Because they can bid the amount of their lean Here. You know, these parents have a huge claim in the bankruptcy, and if they're wave a portion of their claim, then that provides value to the other creditors. But if you don't like that, then the answer is finance it. The answer is the onion could go out and borrow like two million dollars from a bank and pay it back. That two million dollars would then go to the Santiego parents when they win the auction, and then they could rout it back to the Onion and then to the bank. Right, if the parents want a non financial benefit from this and like are bidding a portion of their claims, you could probably find a way to like get the bank to put up the money and then have a circle back to the bank. So that might be another thing that happens here.

Do you think that something that that actually would? I mean, how do the bids change? But also like how the auction change is when it's run again.

Do you think that something that that actually would? I mean, how do the bids change? But also like how the auction change is when it's run again.

I think that if the auction is run again it might be more transparent or whatever. But the trustee thinks that the waiver of claims provides a lot of value, and I think he's right. And it's sort of hard to imagine the trustee changing his mind on that, And I don't think the court ruled that he was wrong. But you could imagine something where the Onion puts up more cash and then gets the cash back so that they have a higher optical cash bid, but like ultimately come to the same place.

I think that if the auction is run again it might be more transparent or whatever. But the trustee thinks that the waiver of claims provides a lot of value, and I think he's right. And it's sort of hard to imagine the trustee changing his mind on that, And I don't think the court ruled that he was wrong. But you could imagine something where the Onion puts up more cash and then gets the cash back so that they have a higher optical cash bid, but like ultimately come to the same place.

Well, this will be interesting to follow, but I kind of wish that I just stayed in my ignorant little bubble and only had read the first headline, because it seems like really good poetic justice that the Onion, with the backing of the parents would buy info wars.

Well, this will be interesting to follow, but I kind of wish that I just stayed in my ignorant little bubble and only had read the first headline, because it seems like really good poetic justice that the Onion, with the backing of the parents would buy info wars.

I still would guess that that's what's going to happen. Yeah, but I'm not sure.

I still would guess that that's what's going to happen. Yeah, but I'm not sure.

Let's talk about Target. Do you remember the twenty twenty three Pride marketing event from Target?

Let's talk about Target. Do you remember the twenty twenty three Pride marketing event from Target?

No? I remember solely the controversy about it.

No? I remember solely the controversy about it.

I don't remember it either. I also remember the controversy, but only very vaguely.

I don't remember it either. I also remember the controversy, but only very vaguely.

I mean, they had like LGBT Pride themed merchandise at like the end of the aisle or something people got really mad about.

I mean, they had like LGBT Pride themed merchandise at like the end of the aisle or something people got really mad about.

It was this before or after the bud Light thing.

It was this before or after the bud Light thing.

I want to say it was after the buddlet I think, but I'm not sure. Man, is it around the same time it was after.

I want to say it was after the buddlet I think, but I'm not sure. Man, is it around the same time it was after.

The bud was after man, why do the companies keep doing this? It led to a boycott, the stock went down. Yeah, Target has a lot of problems that aren't related to this, whereas it feels like the bud Light thing like really jeopardized bud Light's position, as.

The bud was after man, why do the companies keep doing this? It led to a boycott, the stock went down. Yeah, Target has a lot of problems that aren't related to this, whereas it feels like the bud Light thing like really jeopardized bud Light's position, as.

The bud Light thing was like a sort of switch flipped on.

The bud Light thing was like a sort of switch flipped on.

Yeah, but in any case, security is fraud.

Yeah, but in any case, security is fraud.

So you do something in the stock goes down, someone's going to see you for securities for And here what happened is that America First legal group, like a Stephen Miller backed like sort of Trump official backed, anti Woke, anti DEI sort of legal entity.

So you do something in the stock goes down, someone's going to see you for securities for And here what happened is that America First legal group, like a Stephen Miller backed like sort of Trump official backed, anti Woke, anti DEI sort of legal entity.

Very in vogue right now, it.

Very in vogue right now, it.

Feels right now. They sued Target for securities fraud. And what they said was that you did this thing, you like, did this marketing event, you didn't disclose that it would cause a customer boycott and your stock went down, and so therefore we were defrauded because we bought the stock not knowing that you were doing this thing that would cause a customer boycott, and then when the stock went down, we lost because of that front, which struck me at the time. This is they sued in like August the last year. It struck me as sort of a crazy theory because it's not like Target was concealing that they were doing a Pride marketing event. It was marketing. It was quite public and you might say, well, okay, but they didn't warn investors that the event might lead to a boycott. But they actually did do that, Like there's actually a risk factor in their annual report saying that our position or perceived lack of position on environmental, social and governance ESG matters such as sustainability, responsible sourcing, and diversity, equity and inclusion de and I could harm a reputation and could result in consumer boycotts.

Feels right now. They sued Target for securities fraud. And what they said was that you did this thing, you like, did this marketing event, you didn't disclose that it would cause a customer boycott and your stock went down, and so therefore we were defrauded because we bought the stock not knowing that you were doing this thing that would cause a customer boycott, and then when the stock went down, we lost because of that front, which struck me at the time. This is they sued in like August the last year. It struck me as sort of a crazy theory because it's not like Target was concealing that they were doing a Pride marketing event. It was marketing. It was quite public and you might say, well, okay, but they didn't warn investors that the event might lead to a boycott. But they actually did do that, Like there's actually a risk factor in their annual report saying that our position or perceived lack of position on environmental, social and governance ESG matters such as sustainability, responsible sourcing, and diversity, equity and inclusion de and I could harm a reputation and could result in consumer boycotts.

That's pretty clear, Well not enough, Matt.

That's pretty clear, Well not enough, Matt.

That you know, you're saying our DEI initiatives could like harm a reputation and lead to consumer boycotts. And so what the people suing said is, well, okay, you said that, but you didn't say specifically this twenty twenty three marketing initiative could lead to a consumer boycott. You didn't specifically call out this thing as a problem. And last week a judge agreed with them and said, yes, this is not sufficient disclosure, and the case can go forward because Target really might have defrauded shaholders by not telling them about the possibility that there would be a boycott for this marketing initiative.

That you know, you're saying our DEI initiatives could like harm a reputation and lead to consumer boycotts. And so what the people suing said is, well, okay, you said that, but you didn't say specifically this twenty twenty three marketing initiative could lead to a consumer boycott. You didn't specifically call out this thing as a problem. And last week a judge agreed with them and said, yes, this is not sufficient disclosure, and the case can go forward because Target really might have defrauded shaholders by not telling them about the possibility that there would be a boycott for this marketing initiative.

So that's wild.

So that's wild.

It's pretty wild.

It's pretty wild.

Yeah, and you talk about this in the column. But it's kind of fun to imagine, like what does this mean going forward? Like when you see a Target ad on TV. I like to imagine, like you know, at the end of medicine and like pharmaceutical ads, they have that sped up voice talk about the side effects, like they should have that at the end of every commercial that's sped up voice.

Yeah, and you talk about this in the column. But it's kind of fun to imagine, like what does this mean going forward? Like when you see a Target ad on TV. I like to imagine, like you know, at the end of medicine and like pharmaceutical ads, they have that sped up voice talk about the side effects, like they should have that at the end of every commercial that's sped up voice.

You No, it's not in the ad, that's in the ten K that the securities fields have to be much much longer and say every possible risk.

You No, it's not in the ad, that's in the ten K that the securities fields have to be much much longer and say every possible risk.

But I don't think that's what they should They should go overboard.

But I don't think that's what they should They should go overboard.

I don't think it's really what it means. I think what it means is like, technically this is about disclosure, but it's not really because you can't possibly disclose everything that could go wrong, right, Like you have a risk factor and that's like what we do about DEI could cause a customer boycott. That's pretty good. That's like a pretty specific disclosure, but it's not specific enough. I think that what it means on its face is that everything is security is ruight. What it means on its face is that if you do something then the stock price goes down, doesn't matter what your disclosure said, there's some problem with the disclosure. No matter what, there's always something that you could have said that you didn't say, and you can always get sued. And so it's a true case of everything is security is for rud It's a true case of like any bad thing that a company does that causes it stock price to go down, it can be security as fraud without worrying about what its disclosure. So that's like one possible reading, and I think that's the right reading. I think the right reading is that this is a conservative legal group picking a place to file this case with like a very republican judge. And this sort of like anti dei, anti woke advocacy is like on the rise politically. And I've been writing about like the idea that everything is security is rude for a long time, right, the idea that like anything you don't like that a public company does you can say, well, what they really did is they felt to disclose it, and so it's security is fraud. And when I started writing about this like a decade ago, it was because the New York Attorney General was suing i think Exxon Mobile for not disclosing enough about climate change and basically saying, well, climate change is this like fraud political topic. But we can point to your securities disclosure and say, oh, you didn't like warn investors enough that like climate change was coming and it would be bad for oil companies, and therefore you're committing securities run. Ultimately, the New York ag lost that case, but that was like where this idea started. It was this idea that like, we can use securities laws to pursue the substance of political purposes. And what's happening now is like the same thing, but like from the other side politically, right, Like what's happening now is like if you don't like DEI initiatives, you can sue and call them securities fraud and like now you can win or you can like you know, your case doesn't get dismissed. You've seen in the current sec like there's been a lot of securities cases about climate disclosure. There's a case that I talk about a lot. This is a long time ago that the SEC sued Sea World for mistreating its orcas with Securities Red, and it's like all these like things that you can wrap up into securities for Red. In the next four years with like a very Republican judiciary and like a Trump sec it's going to be the reverse. It's going to be everything that conservatives don't like is going to be Security's rud.

I don't think it's really what it means. I think what it means is like, technically this is about disclosure, but it's not really because you can't possibly disclose everything that could go wrong, right, Like you have a risk factor and that's like what we do about DEI could cause a customer boycott. That's pretty good. That's like a pretty specific disclosure, but it's not specific enough. I think that what it means on its face is that everything is security is ruight. What it means on its face is that if you do something then the stock price goes down, doesn't matter what your disclosure said, there's some problem with the disclosure. No matter what, there's always something that you could have said that you didn't say, and you can always get sued. And so it's a true case of everything is security is for rud It's a true case of like any bad thing that a company does that causes it stock price to go down, it can be security as fraud without worrying about what its disclosure. So that's like one possible reading, and I think that's the right reading. I think the right reading is that this is a conservative legal group picking a place to file this case with like a very republican judge. And this sort of like anti dei, anti woke advocacy is like on the rise politically. And I've been writing about like the idea that everything is security is rude for a long time, right, the idea that like anything you don't like that a public company does you can say, well, what they really did is they felt to disclose it, and so it's security is fraud. And when I started writing about this like a decade ago, it was because the New York Attorney General was suing i think Exxon Mobile for not disclosing enough about climate change and basically saying, well, climate change is this like fraud political topic. But we can point to your securities disclosure and say, oh, you didn't like warn investors enough that like climate change was coming and it would be bad for oil companies, and therefore you're committing securities run. Ultimately, the New York ag lost that case, but that was like where this idea started. It was this idea that like, we can use securities laws to pursue the substance of political purposes. And what's happening now is like the same thing, but like from the other side politically, right, Like what's happening now is like if you don't like DEI initiatives, you can sue and call them securities fraud and like now you can win or you can like you know, your case doesn't get dismissed. You've seen in the current sec like there's been a lot of securities cases about climate disclosure. There's a case that I talk about a lot. This is a long time ago that the SEC sued Sea World for mistreating its orcas with Securities Red, and it's like all these like things that you can wrap up into securities for Red. In the next four years with like a very Republican judiciary and like a Trump sec it's going to be the reverse. It's going to be everything that conservatives don't like is going to be Security's rud.

How does that make you feel because that feels like a lot of fodder for the money stuff column and potentially the podcast. Does that excite you or do you feel tired?

How does that make you feel because that feels like a lot of fodder for the money stuff column and potentially the podcast. Does that excite you or do you feel tired?

I feel tired. This decision seems wrong and not like traditional securities fraud reasoning. So I think there's going to be a lot of stuff where it's like, yeah, this doesn't really make sense. Yeah, you know, fodder for the column.

I feel tired. This decision seems wrong and not like traditional securities fraud reasoning. So I think there's going to be a lot of stuff where it's like, yeah, this doesn't really make sense. Yeah, you know, fodder for the column.

Totally different from esg Ordi. But in just talking about the disclosures and like thinking about, you know, how does this change things about you know, how companies disclose possible risks. It kind of reminded me of that short seller I think it was Carstille Capital with that very tongue in cheek letter, which was basically just like, assume we don't hold the stock anymore. I don't know, I could see some parallels there.

Totally different from esg Ordi. But in just talking about the disclosures and like thinking about, you know, how does this change things about you know, how companies disclose possible risks. It kind of reminded me of that short seller I think it was Carstille Capital with that very tongue in cheek letter, which was basically just like, assume we don't hold the stock anymore. I don't know, I could see some parallels there.

Yeah, I think it's harder to do in like the corporate risk factor. Yeah, context, you can't be a sarcastic.

Yeah, I think it's harder to do in like the corporate risk factor. Yeah, context, you can't be a sarcastic.

No, that's too bad. I do wonder at what point you know it turns in on itself if it does it all, Like if you're disclosing every possible risk factor, if the stock does go down because of that risk factor, I mean, could they then get sued because hello, you knew this was going to you know, potentially hurt the stock price and you did it anyway? Or is that silly?

No, that's too bad. I do wonder at what point you know it turns in on itself if it does it all, Like if you're disclosing every possible risk factor, if the stock does go down because of that risk factor, I mean, could they then get sued because hello, you knew this was going to you know, potentially hurt the stock price and you did it anyway? Or is that silly?

Technically that's not a securities FROD clan, I'd say, like state law fiduciary duty clan, Yeah, which people are less excited to bring for various reasons. But now sure, I mean, like even when it's in a risk factor, like often what happens is like a company says, if we got hacked, that would be really bad for us, and then like once they get hacked, it's like you have this risk factor saying if we get hacked, but you already got hacked, you haven't updated that risk factor, Like you're deceiving us by saying if we get hacked, when you did get hacked. So like there's a lot of that where like even the exist thin so that the risk factor like creates a potential for more liability because like you have to update the risk factor to to sort of cover what's actually happened already.

Technically that's not a securities FROD clan, I'd say, like state law fiduciary duty clan, Yeah, which people are less excited to bring for various reasons. But now sure, I mean, like even when it's in a risk factor, like often what happens is like a company says, if we got hacked, that would be really bad for us, and then like once they get hacked, it's like you have this risk factor saying if we get hacked, but you already got hacked, you haven't updated that risk factor, Like you're deceiving us by saying if we get hacked, when you did get hacked. So like there's a lot of that where like even the exist thin so that the risk factor like creates a potential for more liability because like you have to update the risk factor to to sort of cover what's actually happened already.

How should be on this section?

How should be on this section?

My summing up would be, like I've said for ten years that every bad thing that a public company does is security is for raud. And like what's happening now is that what counts as a bad thing is shifting, right, Like you might think that, like polluting is bad, but the new vibe is that having ESG policies is bad. And so a lot of stuff is going to be treated as bad and is then going to be treated as securities fraud because everything is security is for I don't.

My summing up would be, like I've said for ten years that every bad thing that a public company does is security is for raud. And like what's happening now is that what counts as a bad thing is shifting, right, Like you might think that, like polluting is bad, but the new vibe is that having ESG policies is bad. And so a lot of stuff is going to be treated as bad and is then going to be treated as securities fraud because everything is security is for I don't.

Know everything subjective. What is bad? I don't know. You know what's bad? No being fired? But you know what else I don't want that super bad is insider trading.

Know everything subjective. What is bad? I don't know. You know what's bad? No being fired? But you know what else I don't want that super bad is insider trading.

Wow, I don't want to be fired. I like insider trading. Oh I mean no, I mean I enjoyed writing about insider trading. I have a soft spot for insider traders, so incredibly a sec case this week. Ken Peterman was the sea of a pretty small company called ComTech Telecommunications, and the following sequence of events allegedly occurred. One he got like their earnings results like a few weeks before they were announced that they were terrible. Two he got called into a meeting with like a lawyer doing an investigation of his alleged sexual relationship with a subordinate. In this meeting, he won confessed to that relationship, and two confessed that he had had someone else watched the like mandatory sexual harassment training video for him because he was too busy.

Wow, I don't want to be fired. I like insider trading. Oh I mean no, I mean I enjoyed writing about insider trading. I have a soft spot for insider traders, so incredibly a sec case this week. Ken Peterman was the sea of a pretty small company called ComTech Telecommunications, and the following sequence of events allegedly occurred. One he got like their earnings results like a few weeks before they were announced that they were terrible. Two he got called into a meeting with like a lawyer doing an investigation of his alleged sexual relationship with a subordinate. In this meeting, he won confessed to that relationship, and two confessed that he had had someone else watched the like mandatory sexual harassment training video for him because he was too busy.

To do it.

To do it.

Just like right, right, Probably not, But I write a lot about like accounting firm partners or whatever, who you know don't take their regulatory continuing education or civement seriously. But if you're like doing sexual arrassment, you should really watch the sexual arrassment video. You'll learn something.

Just like right, right, Probably not, But I write a lot about like accounting firm partners or whatever, who you know don't take their regulatory continuing education or civement seriously. But if you're like doing sexual arrassment, you should really watch the sexual arrassment video. You'll learn something.

Well, maybe he thought it wasn't, which is also why he should have watched the video, but I maybe realized the error of his ways.

Well, maybe he thought it wasn't, which is also why he should have watched the video, but I maybe realized the error of his ways.

Anyway, anyway, so that happened at this meeting and shortly after the meeting, the board called him and said we're going to fire you for cause, and then he called his breaker and tried to sell all of his stock in the company, sell it all. Then the next day the company announced that he was fired. In the stock felt like twenty seven percent, and then like a few days later they announced their earnings of the stockfell even more. So by selling the stock, he avoided something like twelve thousand dollars of losses, which is like, this is a small company, right, right, the SEC says is inside of trading. You read the description of what he was doing, he was in a blackout period, right, So the company had a policy saying executives can't trade the stock in the like couple of weeks before earnings, right because like they worry about exactly what happened, which is that here he knew the earnings before they were public, and he was trying to trade stocks during the earnings, and so he tried to sell stock and his broker was like, aren't you in a blackout period for executives, And he said, I'm not an executive anymore. Yeah, he's not an insider. It's not insider trading.

Anyway, anyway, so that happened at this meeting and shortly after the meeting, the board called him and said we're going to fire you for cause, and then he called his breaker and tried to sell all of his stock in the company, sell it all. Then the next day the company announced that he was fired. In the stock felt like twenty seven percent, and then like a few days later they announced their earnings of the stockfell even more. So by selling the stock, he avoided something like twelve thousand dollars of losses, which is like, this is a small company, right, right, the SEC says is inside of trading. You read the description of what he was doing, he was in a blackout period, right, So the company had a policy saying executives can't trade the stock in the like couple of weeks before earnings, right because like they worry about exactly what happened, which is that here he knew the earnings before they were public, and he was trying to trade stocks during the earnings, and so he tried to sell stock and his broker was like, aren't you in a blackout period for executives, And he said, I'm not an executive anymore. Yeah, he's not an insider. It's not insider trading.

That seems pretty water tight.

That seems pretty water tight.

No, it's not.

No, it's not.

Promise.

Promise.

But in any case, it's it's a little unclear what his what his defense or what his resuoning was. But like to be like one, you're not an insider anymore, not subject to the black out. And by the way, the company told him he was subject to the black eyed even after he was fired, and like he probably was. But there's an argument, Ah, I didn't know a subject to a black euy i'd been fired. But then the other thing is like I just think that you should be able to do a little insider trading out of like peak, he was mad at them, they fired him. Why should he keep owning the.

But in any case, it's it's a little unclear what his what his defense or what his resuoning was. But like to be like one, you're not an insider anymore, not subject to the black out. And by the way, the company told him he was subject to the black eyed even after he was fired, and like he probably was. But there's an argument, Ah, I didn't know a subject to a black euy i'd been fired. But then the other thing is like I just think that you should be able to do a little insider trading out of like peak, he was mad at them, they fired him. Why should he keep owning the.

Store all entitled to fits of passion where we just sell a lot of stocks.

Store all entitled to fits of passion where we just sell a lot of stocks.

Right, it's not that he was I mean it probably was, but like it maybe wasn't that he was like trying to sell the stock before it went down. He was just like mad at the company. Didn't want to own the stock anymore.

Right, it's not that he was I mean it probably was, but like it maybe wasn't that he was like trying to sell the stock before it went down. He was just like mad at the company. Didn't want to own the stock anymore.

Yeah, very reason. It's all been ticked off before it, so would it.

Yeah, very reason. It's all been ticked off before it, so would it.

I should be a defense there, not real there maybe.

I should be a defense there, not real there maybe.

Hey Ken Peterman, if you're listening, but I mean it's insider trading whatever, But what if the earnings had been really great and the stock actually went up by twenty five percent after earnings, but he had sold all his stock. Do you think that you know, he would still be in hot water?

Hey Ken Peterman, if you're listening, but I mean it's insider trading whatever, But what if the earnings had been really great and the stock actually went up by twenty five percent after earnings, but he had sold all his stock. Do you think that you know, he would still be in hot water?

No, because the only really been cases where it's like you had material non public information and like active on it, and here in your hypothetically it wouldn't seem like he was acting on material information because it went the other way.

No, because the only really been cases where it's like you had material non public information and like active on it, and here in your hypothetically it wouldn't seem like he was acting on material information because it went the other way.

He was just following his emotions and selling his emotions.

He was just following his emotions and selling his emotions.

Yeah, I don't know, man, like you like you sell the stock like an hour after get fired. You're not like making a calculation of Like no, maybe you are, I don't know what. Once about the CEO of Ias the Dutch Socker Club, like yeah, they hired him and after his job interview, he was like, I'm going to be the CEO. I crushed that that maybe the CEO. I went on the stock of the company in the ceo. So he went out and bought a bunch of stock. And then the Christen did the job offer because they're like he's inside of treading.

Yeah, I don't know, man, like you like you sell the stock like an hour after get fired. You're not like making a calculation of Like no, maybe you are, I don't know what. Once about the CEO of Ias the Dutch Socker Club, like yeah, they hired him and after his job interview, he was like, I'm going to be the CEO. I crushed that that maybe the CEO. I went on the stock of the company in the ceo. So he went out and bought a bunch of stock. And then the Christen did the job offer because they're like he's inside of treading.

Wow.

Wow.

Ultimately he got like a different job there, Like it was I toned down the punishment, but they initially thought it was not okay for him to buy the stock before he was announced the CEO.

Ultimately he got like a different job there, Like it was I toned down the punishment, but they initially thought it was not okay for him to buy the stock before he was announced the CEO.

That feels like thin cruel, But what do I know. I cover ETFs in a newsletter called Etfiq.

That feels like thin cruel, But what do I know. I cover ETFs in a newsletter called Etfiq.

People love it in the ETF world. You're a celebrity.

People love it in the ETF world. You're a celebrity.

I mention it because we got an email to the podcast mail bag asking why I don't promote the fact that I also have a newsletter. But it just felt, you know.

I mention it because we got an email to the podcast mail bag asking why I don't promote the fact that I also have a newsletter. But it just felt, you know.

Some emailers to the podcast wish that it was much much more about ETFs, some others much less.

Some emailers to the podcast wish that it was much much more about ETFs, some others much less.

Some writers to the mail bag wish that we didn't talk about ETF so much. But thank you for writing it, and thank you for reading etfiq mail Bag. Hey write in to the.

Some writers to the mail bag wish that we didn't talk about ETF so much. But thank you for writing it, and thank you for reading etfiq mail Bag. Hey write in to the.

Podcast Moneypod at Bloomberg dot bet.

Podcast Moneypod at Bloomberg dot bet.

Yeah, the holidays quickly approaching. We want to do another mealbag episode. Appreciate everyone who's written in so far, but keep them coming.

Yeah, the holidays quickly approaching. We want to do another mealbag episode. Appreciate everyone who's written in so far, but keep them coming.

And that was the Money Stuff Podcast.

And that was the Money Stuff Podcast.

I'm Matt Levian and I'm Katie Greifeld.

I'm Matt Levian and I'm Katie Greifeld.

You can find my work by subscribing to the moneystuffnewsletter on Bloomberg dot com.

You can find my work by subscribing to the moneystuffnewsletter on Bloomberg dot com.

And you can find me on Bloomberg TV every day on Open Interest between nine to eleven am.

And you can find me on Bloomberg TV every day on Open Interest between nine to eleven am.

Eastern we'd love to hear from you. You can send an email to Moneypod at bloomberg dot net, ask us a question, and we might answer it on air.

Eastern we'd love to hear from you. You can send an email to Moneypod at bloomberg dot net, ask us a question, and we might answer it on air.

You can also subscribe to our show wherever you're listening right now and leave us a review. It helps more people find the show.

You can also subscribe to our show wherever you're listening right now and leave us a review. It helps more people find the show.

The Money Stuff Podcast is produced by Anna Maserakus and Moses onm Our.

The Money Stuff Podcast is produced by Anna Maserakus and Moses onm Our.

Theme music was composed by Blake.

Theme music was composed by Blake.

Maples, Brandon Francis Nunims our executive.

Maples, Brandon Francis Nunims our executive.

Producer, and Stage Bauman is Bloomberg's head of podcasts.

Producer, and Stage Bauman is Bloomberg's head of podcasts.

Thanks for listening to The Money Stuff Podcast. We'll be back next week with more stuff.

Thanks for listening to The Money Stuff Podcast. We'll be back next week with more stuff.

Thanks for listening to The Money Stuff Podcast. If you never want to miss a story, become a bloomberg dot com subscriber today. Check out our special intro offer right now at bloomberg dot com Slash Podcast Offer, or click the link in our show notes. You also unlock deep reporting data and analysis from reporters around the world.

Thanks for listening to The Money Stuff Podcast. If you never want to miss a story, become a bloomberg dot com subscriber today. Check out our special intro offer right now at bloomberg dot com Slash Podcast Offer, or click the link in our show notes. You also unlock deep reporting data and analysis from reporters around the world.