Money Stuff: The Podcast

Episode: This Is Weird: A Mailbag Episode

Host: Bloomberg (Matt Levine, Katie Greifeld)
Date: September 26, 2025

Episode Overview

This episode of Money Stuff is a special “mailbag” edition in which co-hosts Matt Levine (author of Bloomberg's Money Stuff column) and Bloomberg News reporter/anchor Katie Greifeld answer listener questions about quirky financial regulations, technical details of market structure, the evolution of public and private markets, and offer their personal (sometimes heterodox) takes on investing. As always, the conversation blends finance nerdery, wit, and current events in Wall Street.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Mysterious Tungsten Cube (01:39–03:04)

• Matt recounts receiving a tungsten cube engraved with “this is weird” and speculates about the sender, appreciating the humor and the absurdity.
• Notable Quote:
  • “A tungsten cube with ‘this is weird’ engraved on it is very much my jam. And secondly, sending that with no note and thereby making it weird is kind of a good joke.” — Matt Levine (02:13)

2. Financial Reporting Frequency: Why Not Monthly? (03:50–07:55)

Listener Rod asks why public companies don’t report financials monthly, since management already has the data.

• Matt explains:
  • The theoretical purpose of reporting is for investors to have the same info as management.
  • The real barrier is the high legal liability public companies face (potential for shareholder lawsuits when something's wrong).
  • “The burden of public company reporting is an entirely different beast.” — Matt Levine (07:06)
  • More frequent reporting would multiply stress, not reduce it—even if companies do the work in-house.
• Katie notes:
  • Companies sometimes pre-announce earnings, but usually just for bad news.
  • What matters to investors is consistency in the reporting cadence, not necessarily frequency.

3. Leveraged ETFs and True Long-Term Leverage (07:56–12:22)

Listener Josh asks why there aren’t retail investment products that deliver true long-term leveraged equity performance, as opposed to daily leveraged ETFs that suffer from “volatility drag.”

• Matt:
  • Daily reset levered ETFs exist for gambling on short-term price moves, but not for long-term exposure.
  • “There’s no reason that if the thing you want is long-term levered exposure...it should be in a daily liquidity ETF.” — Matt Levine (09:35)
  • The private equity model (eventually accessible via 401(k)s) is likely where true leverage will come for retail.
• Katie:
  • Some monthly-reset levered ETFs have been tried, but have little demand and some have shut down.
  • The niche nature of these products is a barrier to their survival.

4. Fewer Public Companies & The Rise of Private Markets (12:22–15:14)

Listener Justin asks about the shrinking universe of U.S. public companies and the implications for individual investors, particularly in retirement plans.

• Matt:
  • The optimal world would have more companies going public and being investable via low-fee index funds.
  • Instead, access to high-growth companies increasingly comes via private funds with high fees.
  • This trend is “clearly happening,” with private capital providers lobbying for access to the trillions in 401(k)s.
  • “It’s not how anyone would design a financial system from first principles.” — Matt Levine (14:18)
• Katie:
  • Affirms that yes, 401(k) investors will likely have more exposure to costly private funds in the future.

5. The Onion Futures Act, Prediction Markets, and Legal Loopholes (17:56–22:26)

Listener Jordan asks: whether the infamous ban on onion futures can be dodged by using crypto prediction markets.

• Matt:
  • The Onion Futures Act of 1958 explicitly bans trading onion futures (as well as motion picture receipts).
  • While prediction markets have vastly expanded the universe of tradable events, onions remain a clear statutory exception—so, “The answer is no.”
• Segue to next question (Thomas):
  • The hosts move to discuss if insider trading in a company's own shares could be legal if done via prediction markets.
  • Matt: Securities-based swaps and equities involve distinct regulations. Bets on individual stocks remain off-limits on commodities exchanges, and even binary options on stocks are tricky.

6. Sharps and Sports Betting: Can Exchanges Ban You? (22:56–27:54)

Listener Josh #2 asks: if exchanges could ban sharp (winning) bettors in financial prediction markets as sports books do.

• Matt:
  • In traditional sports betting, sharps are limited to preserve bookmaker profits.
  • On regulated exchanges, which are more like marketplaces than bookies, open access is required by law—so banning is not allowed in the same way.
  • In U.S. equity markets, there are still quiet forms of exclusion where market makers prefer “noisy” (retail) traders over sharps, often via order flow segmentation.
  • “If you continue to pick off your brokers, your brokers will stop answering their calls.” — Matt Levine (28:09)

7. Who “Misses” Earnings: Companies or Analysts? (29:40–32:46)

Listener Mike: Should the burden of “missing” earnings be on the analysts who are wrong, not the company?

• Katie and Matt:
  • In reality, company management actively manages analyst expectations; missing estimates often signals a failure in communication, not just numbers.
  • The real-world impact is that stocks move on the news, so the causality is functionally from company to investor sentiment.
  • “Earnings expectations are not analysts putting their finger in the wind...earnings expectations are analysts talking to the companies.” — Matt Levine (30:18)
  • Regulatory lines are fuzzy, but some expectation management is considered fair play.

8. Heterodox Investing Opinions (32:47–34:58)

Listener Charlie asks: Do Matt or Katie hold any non-mainstream finance views?

• Matt:
  • Mostly sticks to orthodox ideas, but pushes back on Fintwit’s hatred of comparing stocks and flows, arguing that it’s just “valuation.”
• Katie:
  • Admits to a hot take: “Fixed income and bonds seem kind of stupid to me.”
  • “Money market funds, sure, that’s basically cash, but why on earth would anyone buy…even the belly of the treasury curve and especially out from there?” — Katie Greifeld (34:40)

Notable Quotes & Moments

• “I wouldn’t mind hearing from whoever sent it to me.” — Matt Levine on the mystery tungsten cube (02:18)
• “Everything that happens in US Financial regulation...is in the shadow of litigation.” — Matt Levine (04:36)
• “You can’t really have monthly public reporting, because...the task of turning those numbers into something you could give to shareholders and not worry about getting sued is monumental.” — Matt Levine (05:13)
• “If you enjoy gambling, you'll enjoy a double gamble twice as much.” — Matt Levine, on the appeal of leveraged ETFs (11:09)
• “It's not how anyone would design a financial system from first principles.” — Matt Levine, on private funds for retail investors (14:18)
• “The answer is no...onions are actually covered by the statute...” — Matt Levine, responding to the possibility of betting on onions via crypto (18:37)
• “Commodities exchange has to have some sort of fair open access. And so...they can't limit you or cut you off.” — Matt Levine (24:23)
• “If you miss expectations, you have done a poor job of managing your analysts.” — Matt Levine (30:23)
• “I don't know, fixed income and bonds seem kind of stupid to me.” — Katie Greifeld (34:00)

Timestamps of Key Segments

• Tungsten Cube Story: 01:39–03:04
• Why Not Monthly Reporting? 03:50–07:55
• Retail Leveraged Products: 07:56–12:22
• Public vs. Private Markets: 12:22–15:14
• Onion Futures & Prediction Markets: 17:56–22:26
• Sharps & Sports Betting in Finance: 22:56–27:54
• Earnings “Misses” – Fault?: 29:40–32:46
• Non-Mainstream Finance Opinions: 32:47–34:58

Tone and Style

As always, the episode maintains a wry, thoughtful, and slightly irreverent tone: Matt Levine delivers technical explanations with deadpan clarity; Katie Greifeld brings relatable candor and energy. They tackle complex questions while sprinkling in finance in-jokes, personal opinions, and friendly banter.

Conclusion

A signature “mailbag” episode full of sharp listener questions, honest (and sometimes unconventional) answers, and education on the behind-the-scenes reality of finance and investing. This installment covers everything from auditing practices and leveraged products to policy quirks like the Onion Futures Act—and reminds you that sometimes the weirdest mail you get might just be the best content.