Loading summary
Transcript156 lines
- [00:11]
A
Hello and welcome to Sleep Money, your guide to the business and finance news of the week. I'm Felix Hammond and I'm joined by Elizabeth Spires of New York Times right here in the Slate Money studio. Oh, I'm joined by Emily Peck of Axios.
- [00:30]
B
Hello. Hello.
- [00:31]
A
We are going to talk about meme stocks. Remember meme stocks from 2021? They're back. We are memeing again, people. YOLO, jump in, make lots of money. Buy Krispy Kreme stock instead of Krispy Kreme doughnuts. You might go bust, but at least won't get fat. We are going to talk about polymarket. Well, we kind of touch on Polymarket, but mainly we talk about crypto more generally and how it seems to be in a regulatory zone which allows it to do whatever it wants and whether that has the potential to cause some kind of monster financial crisis. We are going to talk about the cancellation of the Late show with Stephen Colbert and whether it was political or not. We have a Slate plus segment on Beach Reads. It's all coming up on Slate Money.
- [01:34]
C
This episode is brought to you by State Farm. Checking off the boxes on your to.
- [01:38]
B
Do list is a great feeling.
- [01:40]
C
And when it comes to checking off coverage, a State Farm agent can help you choose an option that's right for you. Whether you prefer talking in person on.
- [01:48]
B
The phone or using the award winning app, it's nice knowing you have help.
- [01:51]
C
Finding coverage that best fits your needs.
- [01:54]
B
Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there.
- [01:58]
A
This message is brought to you by Apple Card. Apple Card takes privacy seriously. It's your card, your info, your business. So if your credit card isn't Apple Card, maybe it should be subject to credit approval. Apple Card issued by Goldman Sachs Bank USA, Salt Lake City branch terms and more@applecard.com okay, let's start by talking about dorks. I can spell. Doork, D, O, R, K. Emily. What? What does it mean?
- [02:32]
B
Well, it means kind of nerdy. I don't. You're not familiar? No, it means it's an acronym and it stands for four different stocks. Okay. D stands for the Krispy Kreme stock, which is their ticker symbol. Is D N, U T Donut. Get it? O is for Open Door Technologies, a real estate company that will buy your house from you. The R is Rocket Companies, which is a mortgage platform. And the K is for Kohl's. Kohl's Cash anyone? Department store. Always doing perennially badly. That's dork. These are the four sort of new meme stocks of the week they went.
- [03:15]
A
Off the Four Horseman, the meme stock apocalypse.
- [03:19]
B
Yes, yes, they're not the only ones, but they make the best acronym dork, which I saw on Sherwood and thought was fun.
- [03:27]
A
It is fun. And the leader of these four horsemen is clearly Opendoor, a company that was left for dead after it suffered a double whammy of not only did it lose money on every house it bought, or on average, it lost money on every house it bought, but also it wasn't buying any houses because as we all know, no one's buying and selling houses right now because interest rates are too high and everyone is locked into their 3% mortgages. So it hasn't made a profit in living memory. Its stock was languishing at about 50 cents. It. It was about to get delisted from the Russell 2000. And that was part of the short thesis in the stock, which was that when it lost its inclusion in the Russell 2000, it would need to get sold by all of those fund managers who indexed the Russell 2000. And on top of that, there was talk that it might have to get delisted from the NASDAQ Stock Exchange and not even be a properly listed stock at all because its share price was under a dollar. And so they were talking about doing something called reverse share split. Now it seems they don't need to do a reverse share split because its share price is well over a dollar and the Reddit crowd has discovered it.
- [04:48]
C
This seems to just be a function of Reddit crowd plus a random fund manager named Eric Jackson made a post on X saying that he was taking a position in Opendoor, which I think gave it some.
- [05:00]
A
He's not entirely random, famous for having made a similar bet on Carvana and made an absolute fortune. That was what they call a hundred bagger. The stock went up a hundred times from where he bought it. And so he has, you know, prior form on this. And he gave a really interesting interview to Sherwood where he talked about things like the observer effect. And he's very open about this. He's like the immediate catalyst for the stock going up is the stock going up. And because the stock is going up, everyone is buying it. And what we really want, he said, is for Chamath or the board members or the CEO or other people to also start committing to buying the stock and saying that they're buying the stock, because then, as is kind of common sense, if everyone is buying the stock, especially if they're doing it in large quantities, it goes up. I like this theory. If you buy a stock, it goes up.
- [06:02]
B
It's true, until it's not true. I think the stock has since come down, since it got really bubbly and frothy earlier in the week. And then I didn't check. I should have checked, but the line went up and then went down.
- [06:15]
A
So the line, just to be clear, went up significantly from $0.50. It did not hit the 30 plus dollar levels that it was trading at back in 2021, during the first meme stock craziness, when it wasn't a meme stock, when it actually was a kind of hot technology company that looked like it had a bright future thanks to, number one, zirp, which meant it didn't need to pay any interest when it was holding houses and waiting for them to get sold. And number two, a booming housing market that meant it made money on every house it sold because the only all you needed to do to make money was just hold the house for a minute and then it went up in value. So it looked really good at the time. And in fact, it looked so good at the time that various other companies, including Zillow, decided they needed to do this kind of thing as well. And in principle, there are lots of good reasons why people would like to avail themselves of this kind of a service, both on the buy side and the sell side. On the sell side, people, you know, who often pay 6% in broker fees can just be like, yeah, we are going to just sell a house without paying a broker. It'll be much quicker. It'll be maybe a tiny discount, but it'll happen immediately. And then we'll have all of the cash we need to buy another house in cash. Everything becomes easier. On the sell side, you have big companies like Blackstone who want to build up portfolios of houses that they can rent out and have a nice income stream from. And trying to do that one at a time is very hard. But if you just go along to Opendoor and say, do you have a job, lot of 20,000 homes you can sell me, then suddenly they start getting interested. So in theory, it works. It's just that in practice, the market hasn't been the kind of place where it works for the past couple of years. And a company can't just go on forever losing money, waiting for the market to change.
- [08:16]
B
Yeah, and I mean, it is a really appealing business, at least if you are a home seller, because selling a home is not, and we've discussed it on the POD before, I think selling home is not easy beyond the cost that you have to pay to the broker that come to your house. They're like, okay, well, this is. You need to fix this. You need to do this. You need to get it ready to sell. It's like a whole process. You need to show it to people, decide how much this huge asset, what it should be priced at. It's a whole to do. So if you can create a company that comes in and is just like, I'll pay you this much and you deal with the rest and you don't have to do any of that other stuff, it makes the market so much more efficient. But I think the way Open Door and those Zillow knockoffs and the other firms tried to do it was through algorithms and without humans. And I think that's like, not a safe game to play when you're buying and selling individual homes in the United States. Right. Like, you can't trust the algorithm necessarily.
- [09:13]
C
Well, I think it was mostly just bad timing for them. There's, you know, they didn't actually shut down their iBuying business. They just sort of paused it.
- [09:21]
B
Right.
- [09:21]
A
Zillow or Opendoor?
- [09:22]
C
Zillow.
- [09:23]
A
Yeah. But I think you're right about the algorithms, because they think find themselves vulnerable to what economists like to talk about as adverse selection, which is basically, let's say for the sake of argument, that everyone who is about to put their house on the market at least throws it up on the Open Door website just to see what the bid is. Right. Because there's no harm in seeing if Open Door will pay you what you want. And so the percentage of houses that Open Door actually buys as a percentage of the ones that it bids on is tiny. It's like less than 1%, I think. And what that means is that if sellers only accept your bid 1% of the time, those sellers are likely to be the people who know something that you don't about why their house is not worth as much as you're offering.
- [10:16]
B
Yes. So, yeah, that makes sense. So then you're scooping up all the bad deals.
- [10:21]
A
Exactly. It's. It's, you know, the winner's curse or a variation thereof.
- [10:25]
B
And I should say, I looked it up. The Stock is up 35% over the past few days, but it was up in triple digits earlier in the week, I think it was. So it's kind of come down off the frenzy, but still up.
- [10:37]
A
And then more broadly, there does seem to be this kind of flight to shit in the stock market. I believe someone said something along those lines where, you know, there was A lot of months and possibly even years there where people were like, if I want to buy the high flying stocks, I'm just going to buy the Magnificent Seven. I'm going to buy the mega cap tech stocks. Now that trade seems to have played itself out a bit and they're like, where's the YOLO returns? Where's the 10 baggers? Where can I get the massive returns? I know by buying complete shit and hoping that it goes up. And frankly, buying complete shit and hoping that it goes up has been a really good trade over the past couple months.
- [11:17]
C
I feel like this is a kind of a rehash of the day trading trend in the early aughts. It feels like because there are so many stories about outlier situations with meme stocks and things like that, people are more inclined to take that kind of risk without really evaluating it.
- [11:33]
A
Well, I mean, the classic day trading boom was 2021. That dwarfed anything that happened in the early 2000s, partly because in 2021 we had free trading of stocks. In the early 2000s, you still had to pay like $15 every trade. So we now have a situation where retail investors comprise a significant proportion of total volume on the stock market. This is new. This is something that institutional investors are still sort of getting their arms around. And it's something that they often forget when they do things like short open door because it's about to drop out of the Russell 2000. They don't think to themselves, ah, I, I'm at risk of a Reddit instigated short squeeze. But they are.
- [12:17]
C
If you're Eric Jackson and you are taking a position opendoor because you do on some level believe in the fundamentals. Is it good for you or bad for you that a bunch of retailer investors are flooding to the stock spectacular.
- [12:30]
A
It is all your wildest dreams coming true. Because yeah, what you want is a million people with diamond hands coming along and bidding up the stock and bidding it further and making your holding go up in value. Yeah, that's only good.
- [12:46]
B
Okay, so the reasons this is happening, first we should say meme stocks are like, maybe back, but not to the levels of GameStop or 2021 or anything like that.
- [12:56]
A
Yeah.
- [12:56]
B
But then second, it's like, okay, well why is this happening? So, you know, I've read a bunch of pieces that are like, this is just a sign that we're in a frothy market and FOMO and buying things that are going up is like a key part of a bull market, a late stage bull market, whatever that Means. Well, I know what it means. It means people are bullish or excited about stocks and they think they're going to keep going up and so they're buying more and they're buying stuff. That's crazy because everyone's just super excited about the market. And then the other thing I read that I thought was kind of interesting and dubious is a theory that Americans need something to do with their money slash nest eggs. Because it's not a good time to buy a house. So you have like a little pot of savings hanging around. You can't buy a house right now because mortgage rates are too high or homes are too high or home prices are too high rather. So you take your little extra savings and you plow it into dork stocks.
- [13:52]
A
Yeah, that's a good theory by that one at all. Especially not given that the Fed has been very slow to cut interest rates and that therefore you can still find savings accounts paying like 4% risk free on your nest egg. So, like.
- [14:08]
B
Right, yeah, there's other steps to take. It's not like buy a house or invest in Krispy Kreme, which is another one of the meme stocks.
- [14:14]
A
That's a very zerp y argument. And we're not in a ZIRP environment right now. And it's not like now is some obvious time to rotate your cash out of your savings account and into meme stocks. Like, why would that doesn't make any sense either.
- [14:30]
B
So why is this happening now? Like, we know why it was happening in 2021. It was like everyone was online, the stimulus checks, people were bored. Like, those were all the reasons. But now 2025 people are back in the office mostly, I guess they're still online. Inflation is high. So what? It's just part of the culture now.
- [14:53]
C
I wonder if it's just very recent FOMO where people who bought the dip when everybody thought tariffs were going to blow up the economy made a lot of money. And now people are looking at the stock market. Speculative retail investors are looking at it because they maybe have some regrets about not doing that.
- [15:11]
B
I like that.
- [15:12]
A
I think the astonishing health of the broad stock market of The S&P 500 has basically convinced the day trading crowds that the gray beards that just. You can't trust anything they say. They were all saying that the crash in April was entirely justified and could get much worse. And in fact there was this, you know, quite violent bounce back and they're like, yeah, let's just ignore everything in the real world and just trade the market As a kind of like, whatever's cheap and shorted. Let's just trade that and have some fun. And, yeah, maybe. Maybe it's just like a summer of, I want to have some fun, I want to do some gambling. Maybe there's not a lot of exciting sports ball to be gambling on right now, so I'll just throw my money into Krispy Kreme.
- [16:07]
B
I buy that. I buy it. I do. It's just like, the stock market's going up. Let's get in. That's all it is. It's just that simple. And nothing Trump can do can stop it. So screw it, let's do it.
- [16:20]
A
That's the important question, right, which is that Trump has claimed that a whole slew of tariffs are going to go into effect on August 1, if that turns out to be the case. And certainly the stock market isn't trying to stop him. It's not like tanking in anticipation of tariffs or anything like that. Could the imposition of those tariffs cause another massive 20% plunge in the stock market, just like we saw in April?
- [16:51]
B
No, because I think Trump, he reset everyone's expectations in such a way that when extreme things happen now, they're not viewed as extreme. Like, he threatened Japan with 20% tariffs and now. Or he threatened them with 25% tariffs.
- [17:04]
A
And now they threaten them with 50%. No, that was Brazil, wasn't it? Was 50%. Yeah. It's hard to keep up.
- [17:10]
B
He threatens such high numbers that when these new tariff announcements come and they're less than what he threatened, the market's like, oh, great. You know, Whereas that once upon a time, 15, 20% tariff on Japan would have been insane and would have tanked the market now. And I'm not the first to say this. I think Neil Irwin wrote this and Axios this week, but now the announcement comes out and everyone breathes a sigh of relief because he's managed to change everyone's psychology.
- [17:37]
A
And I think the most important thing you need to understand about markets and why they fall in particular, doesn't quite explain why they rise as much, but it definitely explains precipitous falls. Some precipitous falls, many, not all, is they hate negative surprises. And so that's why something like Argentina defaulting, that was a big negative thing, but was massively telegraphed years in advance and everyone knew was about to happen, didn't cause a ripple in the markets because everyone. It was priced in, everyone expected it. It's also why the original. If you look at what happened on April 2, when the tariffs were announced, when everyone thought that the tariffs were going to be across the board, 10%, the stock market was like, yeah, this is kind of what Donald Trump promised on the campaign trail. It's what we're expecting. So the market didn't move. And then he gives this batshit press conference where he starts announcing 65% tariffs on penguins or whatever and then everyone's like, shit, this is not what we expected at all. And the market fell out of bed. At this point, no one is expecting nothing. It's not like a complete taco is priced in. It's just people have managed to get used to the idea that tariffs are going to be part of what happens and that the United States government is going to go around in circles and move the tariffs up and move the tariffs down and people are going to get hurt and people are going to lose money and make money and eventually we'll come out the other end of the second Trump administration in three and a half years time and we will be in a place that may be better or worse than we are right now. But it doesn't feel existential, especially to the stock market, because stocks, remember, people complain about how short term they are, but they are permanent capital and most of the earnings that are priced into and share prices are 4, 5, 10, 20, 30 years in the future. So like, what happens over the next year with tariff chaos shouldn't necessarily be a massive driver of share prices.
- [19:54]
C
Well, also, don't you think that a lot of the perception of how well the market is doing is really dominated by the Magnificent Seven and how much value they create?
- [20:03]
A
I think not. Weirdly, I think that was true until April. But one of the interesting things about the market rally post April 2 is that it has not been led by the Magnificent Seven. And in fact, you are seeing a whole bunch of shit stocks like Krispy Kreme and Opendoor that are driving a lot of the gains. Now, it hasn't been the meme stocks up until now, but there has been this kind of phenomenon over the last couple of months. The sort of call it S&P 493, all of the S&P 500 that isn't the Magnificent Seven has actually been sort of outperforming and doing quite well. And the thing that people were worried about when people complained about stock market concentration was if those Magnificent Seven implode, then that will take the entire stock market down with it. What actually happened was that the other 493 stocks, like the rest of the stock market started slowly getting re rated up to those levels and that has been really what has kept the S&P 500 hitting new all time highs.
- [21:24]
B
Slate Money is brought to you by Charles Schwab Decisions made in Washington can affect your portfolio every day, but what policy changes should investors be watching? Listen to Washington Wise, an original podcast for investors from Charles Schwab to hear the stories making news in Washington right now. Host Mike Townsend, Charles Schwab's Managing director for Legislative and Regulatory affairs, takes a nonpartisan look at the stories that matter most to investors, including policy initiatives for retirement savings, taxes and trade, inflation concerns, the Federal Reserve, and how regulatory developments can affect companies, sectors and even the entire market. Mike and his guests offer their perspective on how policy changes could affect what you do with your portfolio. Download the latest episode and follow@schwab.com WashingtonWise or wherever you listen.
- [22:20]
A
Slate Money is sponsored this week by OpenPhone. If you're running a business, you know every customer conversation matters. Whether you're a one person operation or whether you have a large team that needs better collaboration tools. OpenPhone is the number one business phone system that streamlines and scales your customer communications. OpenPhone works through an app on your phone or computer and your team can share one number and collaborate on customer calls and texts like a shared inbox. That way any teammate can pick up right where the last person left off, keeping response times faster than ever. Plus, OpenPhone's AI agent can be set up in minutes to handle calls after hours, answer questions and capture leads so you never miss a customer. See why over 60,000 businesses trust OpenPhone to manage their businesses calls and texts? OpenPhone is offering Slate Money listeners 20% off the first six months at openphone.com slatemoney that's O P E N P-H-O-N-E.com slatemoney and if you have existing numbers with another service, OpenPhone will port them over at no extra charge. Open Phone no missed calls, no missed customers. We can move on to our second segment, which is also sort of government related in a way, which is the rebanking of crypto, the legitimization of Polymarket, and basically the way in which, if you are a crypto based entrepreneur, all of the regulatory obstacles that you faced a year ago have evaporated into thin air. And although technically many of the laws might still be on the books, the regulators have made it clear that they're not going to enforce any of them. And a whole bunch of companies are springing up, often with dumb Names that you've never heard of to basically say, I will fill that vacuum. I will do the thing that is officially against the law according to what regulators say. But given that the regulators have made it clear they're not going to enforce it, I'm just going to do it anyway and make lots of money. And so that's what they're doing.
- [24:46]
C
These are basically fintech companies that sit on top of regular banks though, right? We're talking about companies like Meow to your plate. Meow.
- [24:53]
A
Exactly. Meow. Like who the hell. Like the idea that a company called Meow is actually a bank. No, I don't think a company called Meow is ever going to get a banking license, but yeah, it has.
- [25:03]
C
Only a Gen Z entrepreneur would call a fintech company Meow.
- [25:07]
B
I love it. Meow, Mercury, Brex. These are the fintech names that are willing to bank the crypto companies. And of course they should. This is. This feels good and right. And to Felix's point, the law has not changed as far. I mean, there was just a new law passed, it was a stable.
- [25:26]
A
But this has nothing to do with.
- [25:27]
B
It has nothing to do with banking. So the law really hasn't changed. But the vibe. The vibe has really changed. So now all these crypto companies are able to get bank accounts from Meow. I don't know. I guess laws are more. Every day in this new administration you find out that laws are just, they're just words on paper, you know.
- [25:51]
A
Well, let's.
- [25:52]
C
There are some steps toward, you know, regulating this area of banking though. And on the Republican side, you know, they have a bill up called the Firm act that basically allows banks to interact with businesses that might cause reputational risk. And historically those are things like cannabis businesses or porn or things like that. But crypto has been lumped in there too. And this bill hasn't passed. It probably will, but the idea that reputational risk oriented businesses are no longer being treated the same way by banks because they don't see any downside anymore in banking. These companies. This is happening a little bit in cannabis too, I think is.
- [26:35]
A
Yeah, I feel like the reason why banks like big, established, normal banks, not banks called Meow, don't bank crypto companies and don't bank cannabis companies has absolutely nothing to do with. We are worried about our reputation. If it comes out that we're banking those people.
- [26:55]
C
It's term of art, reputational risk, not colloquially, you know, like we are worried about our brand. It's a term of art for a certain kind of Risk that's built into a business that isn't fully regulated or is parts of it are considered illegal. I don't mean it in the colloquial sense.
- [27:13]
A
Well, so let's just be clear about how we mean it, because that does explain why banks don't bank. Like firearms companies, for instance. They're like, we don't want to be associated with those people with cannabis. The reason they don't do it is because dealing in cannabis is illegal under federal law. And if you're a bank, you don't want to bank companies who do illegal things like that is pretty high up there on the list of don'ts that you get taught in your first day at banking regulator school. With crypto, it's not so much that it's illegal, but it's that there has been a huge amount of illegal activity in the crypto world, as we know. There has been a lot of fraud, there's been a lot of money laundering, there has been people taking out hits on other people and all manner of stuff. And as a result of.
- [28:01]
B
I'm sorry, people taking out hits on other people? Did you just say that?
- [28:04]
A
Silk Road.
- [28:05]
B
Silk Road, yeah.
- [28:06]
A
That's what, you know. Didn't he just get pardoned? The Silk Road guy? Didn't Trump just pardon him? I can't remember. This was back when everyone thought that bitcoin transactions were anonymous.
- [28:16]
B
Haha.
- [28:19]
A
But in any case, you know, it is impossible to go a week without reading about another crypto scam somewhere.
- [28:24]
B
True.
- [28:25]
A
So there is a lot of bad shit, to use the technical term, that goes on in the crypto world. And as a result of that, what the regulators say is, if you want to bank a crypto company, fine, but do this thing called EDD Enhanced due diligence. Make sure that this company is genuinely legit. And then if you do the EDD and they turn out to be genuinely legit, then by all means, go ahead and bank them. The problem is that banking a crypto company is not a massively profitable business to be in. While doing enhanced due diligence on the company is a very expensive thing to do. So you don't get paid back for all of that investment you make in the EDD from the profits on the checking account. So you just kind of say no. And what historically happened, and this long predates Trump, is that there was one bank in particular that was like, we will do the edd. We will bring you onto our platform, we will take all of that risk with the regulators and we will bank you, even if no one else will. That bank was called Silvergate and it went bust in May 2023 when we had that little banking crisis. And one of the things that transpired in the world wake of Silvergate going bust was that for all that it claimed to be doing enhanced due diligence on all of its customers, it really wasn't. And it was really just taking absolutely anyone and allowing clear fraud to happen under its nose. Silvergate was a multibillion dollar bank listed bank on the stock exchange with a huge market cap and a really relatively good reputation. It wasn't Meow. Right. And I'm just going to come out and say that if Silvergate was slipping on the enhanced due diligence, I just, I have zero faith that Meow is getting it absolutely right.
- [30:27]
C
Well, does it matter if Trump is systematically both failing to staff the government and eroding the agencies that would ostensibly enforce this kind of thing?
- [30:37]
A
And I think that's exactly right. I think that what the meows of this world have done is they've just basically said, you know what? We're going to obviously do our best to EDD these companies, whatever their best is they'll probably go to some EDD as a service company and sign them up and say, great, now I've done that thing. And if things slip, they have made the bet that the regulators aren't going to come down on them like a ton of bricks, because the regulators have made it very clear that they love crypto everything and that they want to encourage it rather than crush it.
- [31:13]
C
I just imagine that they came up with the name Meow while a couple of 30 late 20 something entrepreneurs were in a room completely stoned. And so I sort of imagine them responding to regulators in much the same fashion where it's like, yeah, sure, we'll do extra due diligence here.
- [31:31]
B
We got it, we can handle it. One question I had, Felix. This Wired story is why we're talking about this. The great crypto rebanking has begun. They start their story off with an anecdote because they have words, word count available to them as writers.
- [31:50]
A
They probably went to journalism school and were taught that anecdotal leads are a lovely thing to have.
- [31:55]
B
So their lead anecdote is about a crypto entrepreneur called Azim Khan, and it says he had just raised $19 million for his startup Morph. So not Meow, but also starts with an M Morph and needed somewhere to keep it. So my question is like, literally like, so what? He had like a $19 million in checks, and he needed somewhere to keep it. Like, I don't really understand the anecdote, actually. Like, what is that? How seed funding works? You get a check or something or a promise, and then you have to go find a bank, and then you take the money, have a bank.
- [32:30]
A
So historically speaking, like $19 million sounds to me like a Series A. Right?
- [32:37]
B
Okay, yeah, sure.
- [32:38]
A
And historically speaking, when you do a Series A, what you do is you get like a Silicon Valley law firm, Wilson Sonsini, or someone like that, and they will put together the term sheet, and they will send it out to all of the VCs, and the VCs will sign the whatsits, and as part of that whole. And then the VCs will be like, I'm not just here to write a check. I'm here to help you every step of the way. And so. And they're like, well, one of the things you do say the VC is, one of the ways we add value is I will introduce you to my friend Fred at Silicon Valley Bank. And he's really good at banking people like you. And so let me set you up with him, and he will look after you. And so you open up a bank account with Silicon Valley bank because they, you know, because you've been introduced to them by the VCs, and then the VCs just wire all of their money straight into your SVB bank account. Post SVB implosion, things have got a little bit messier. And so, yeah, you need a bank account for them to wire money into. And if you don't have a bank account for them to wire money into, various different possibilities present themselves. One of them, which is what Sam Bankman Fried did, was basically just open up bank accounts under his own name, just personal bank accounts, to just say, like, pay me the money. And everyone was like, you're a genius. Of course, I'll just pay you.
- [33:57]
B
Trustworthy.
- [33:58]
A
We trust you, Sam. But another thing you can do is just have the whole thing in sort of limbo, where it's just like one wire transfer away from closing, and you're just awaiting, you know, a routing number, basically for the money to go into before it officially closes.
- [34:18]
C
What Felix is describing is exactly how I ended up with an SVB account. I was. I was dealing with a billionaire tech guy who introduced us to Wilson Sonsini, who then set up our SVB account. But if you didn't have an account to wire the money into, I think another route is that people will just create accounts in the Caymans or whatever. It makes it still much harder to do business in the US in terms of just everyday operations and paying vendors. But I think that is the route that a lot of crypto entrepreneurs.
- [34:52]
B
Well, what crypto said in the piece too. Yeah, Switzerland and the Caymans.
- [34:56]
A
Yeah, what crypto entrepreneurs do. And crypto entrepreneurs often do weird like projects that don't involve old fashioned raising equity. But when they do do old fashioned raising equity and they're raising money like this often they're like, they're just like, well, send me stablecoins, you know, send me $17 million in tether or USDC or something and that will do it. And then they can just hold those stablecoins in their crypto wallet. And that serves the same purpose. And so long as most of what they're doing is in the crypto verse rather than in the real world, it works. It's a little bit harder for making payroll. But then again, if your employees are all, you know, crypto true believers, you can be like, we will pay you in stablecoins and then leave it up to you to convert those stablecoins into dollars.
- [35:41]
C
Well another thing though is if you're taking venture money from large VCs, they typically want you to keep the cash in, you know, interest bearing accounts, you know, things that are a little bit.
- [35:49]
A
Stable coins pay 4% now or so I'm told. This is all part of the crazy reason why Coinbase seems to be making more money off USDC than Circle is.
- [36:00]
B
Does seem like. So this great crypto rebanking is happening because fintechs and these smaller banks that the fintechs use are less worried about getting in trouble and you know, they'll do what they can maybe for their edd. So it's like deregulation by benign neglect. And it's not just happening in crypto with rebanking, which you could argue is like a good thing or whatever, but it's happening like across the financial industry. This push for deregulation either by benign neglect or by like firing or pushing out all the regulators, which you might call malign neglect. Malign neglect, yeah. It just seems like we've been down this road before. Like when you deregulate too much, things get out of hand pretty quickly in the finance industry.
- [36:55]
A
And are you old enough to remember Graham Leach Bliley? No, that was the too young big deregulatory push under Clinton.
- [37:06]
B
Yes. Oh yes, yes, yes.
- [37:08]
A
Talk about that was spearheaded by friend of the pod, Larry Summers, and which ultimately in large part led to the 2008 financial crisis because it deregulated a whole bunch of financial activity to the point at which everyone took way too much risk and everything wound up blowing up. So yeah, I think the financial world in general is highly attuned to the risks of too much deregulation.
- [37:41]
B
Attuned, but not where like there's excitement. I see the press releases, you know, from the banking industry, trade groups, and they're super excited about it, they like it.
- [37:53]
A
But, and this is a very interesting question, which is, is there a real risk that the current wave of deregulation that's surrounding crypto and is spilling over into other things will end up having a similar blow up effect like Ramleach Bliley did? And is there a risk? Yes. Is there a large risk? I'm going to say probably not because the banks, and I know you're right that the banking industry loves looser regulation, but the banks are still operating. And as we've seen, the big banks, the actual real banks where 99% of the money in the country is held, they are not out there banking crypto. They are not meow. If meow goes bust, meow goes bust, it's fine. That is not systemically dangerous. And we have much safer banks now than we did pre crisis, which has caused a bunch of risk to move into other bits of the financial system. The non banks, the private credit people, the hedge funds and so on and so forth. And all of these places can blow up. And a hedge fund blowing up can be systemically dangerous, as we saw with ltcm. But I don't think it's systemically dangerous to the point of causing a financial crisis. The thing that I worry about is the dream of the cryptoverse is that everything becomes crypto and everything becomes tokenized. So instead of buying a stock, you buy a crypto token that represents the stock and instead of buying a money market fund, you buy a crypto token that represents the money market fund and those tokens are much less regulated than the underlying securities. And if we reach that sort of crypto nirvana and it really takes on to the point at which most people own the tokens rather than the underlying securities, that's the point at which I start getting worried.
- [39:50]
C
Well, one thing that's happening, and maybe this is a not entirely bad thing, the current SEC commissioner seems more willing to give guidance to crypto companies than Gary Gensler was. And Gensler was super hostile to crypto. But I think most of the guidance really emerged from enforcement. And it seems like this SEC commissioner is more willing to communicate and say, you know, give people parameters around what they can and can't do.
- [40:17]
A
I was on a panel with a very large bank a few months ago, one of the big four, talking about tokenization of money market funds and other things. And this was at a big crypto conference. And at one point the flack for the bank basically said, you have to promise me that you won't use the word crypto, otherwise we'll have to pull our representative from the panel.
- [40:38]
B
Why?
- [40:39]
A
And I just laughed. But, like, the banks are still clearly very nervous. And I think as long as the banks remain nervous, that's a good sign, I suppose.
- [40:48]
B
I mean, there was just this week news about JP Morgan considering looking at people's crypto holdings to evaluate lending against them. Lending against. Yeah, lending against crypto. And the fhfa, which oversees Fannie and Freddie, has also said it's looking into mortgage lending based on. On crypto. Plus talking about what you're talking about when the tokens are so popular and the underlying asset is regulated but the token isn't regulated. Is that kind of what's happening with stablecoins? A little bit like they just made stablecoins legal. If you buy stablecoins, they're not FDIC insured the way, you know, they're not holding the dollars.
- [41:28]
A
But thanks to the Genius act being signed into law, like now, there is actually pretty robust regulation surrounding stablecoins. And yeah, there's no FDIC insurance. But I for one am relatively satisfied that USDC and other coins that are regulated under the Genius act are in fact safe and do in fact have an actual dollar backing up every single stablecoin. Of all the things I'm worried about that could blow up like that, USDC is very, very low down the list. And in terms of considering crypto to be part of someone's wealth, that you can lend money against J.P. morgan, like, yeah, that's the world we live in now. You know, I sit on my co op board and every so often we get people sending in financial packages saying, like, I would like to buy into this building as part of their financial package. They have to tell us all of their wealth. And increasingly a significant chunk of that wealth is crypto. And one of the things we need to do as a board is kind of think to ourselves, is this crypto wealth real money or is it all. Do we just ignore it? And the answer is somewhere in between? And you wind up doing what JP Morgan is probably going to be doing, which is you basically treat crypto wealth as being worth 50 cents on the dollar or something like that. This message is brought to you by Apple Card. Did you know Apple Card is designed to help you pay off your balance faster with smart payment suggestions? And and because fees don't help you, Apple Card doesn't have any. So if your credit card isn't Apple Card, maybe it should be subject to credit approval. Apple Card issued by Goldman Sachs Bank USA Salt Lake City Branch Variable APRs range from 18.24% to 28.49% based on creditworthiness rates as of July 1, 2025. Terms and more at applecard.com Slate Money is sponsored this week by Upwork. If you're running a business right now, you already know it's hard. Budgets are tight, hiring is frozen, economic uncertainty is just the background. The good news is that Upwork is helping small businesses do more with less. It's the hiring platform designed for the modern playbook where you can find, hire and pay expert freelancers who deliver results from day one. It's perfect for businesses on light budgets, fast timelines and zero room for error. Never tried Upwork. Well, now is the perfect time because they are giving Sleep Money listeners a $200 credit after spending $1,000 in the first 30 days. That's $200 you can put towards your next freelancer. Whether it's design help, AI, automation, admin support, support marketing, or whatever your business needs. Visit upwork.comsave right now for this great offer that is upwork.comsave to get a $200 credit to put towards your next freelancer to help grow your business. That's upwork.com/upwork.com Save don't wait. This offer is only valid June 24 through August 5, 2025. Okay, let's move on to Paramount, CBS, Skydance, all of these big media companies. The news of the week Elizabeth is that someone, somewhere technically the head of cbs Because Skydance still doesn't control CBS decided that this season will be the last season of the Late show that is currently hosted by Stephen Colbert and that it is losing too much money. It's losing $40 million a year or so we're told and bye bye Late Show. On the one hand, it seems pretty obvious that if something is losing $40 million a year and it's not easy to see a way to it making money kind of makes sense to cancel it. On the other hand, there has been a huge amount of talk about how Stephen Colbert was a big critic of President Trump and CBS And Paramount are trying to ingratiate themselves with President Trump, as we saw recently with their $16 million payment to the president to settle a completely baseless case that he brought about. An interview with Kamala Harris, and obviously this was a political decision. So what do you think? Do you think it was financial or political or both?
- [46:29]
C
I think it was mostly political. I do think the late night category is suffering because people are not watching broadcast TV very much anymore. And the genre of show has declined in the last decade. But that said, within the genre and for the time slot, Stephen Colbert's show was the highest rated show. And the timing just, you know, doesn't look great. So it strains credulity that.
- [46:55]
A
So it was the highest rated show of the three big ones, but also the one with the lowest ad revenue. Like, it turns out, the ratings don't translate directly into money. And you can chase ratings, and that's all well and good, but you still need advertisers to advertise on your show. And the advertisers were happier to go with the Jimmies instead of Stephen Colbert, even if Stephen Colbert could deliver a larger audience.
- [47:24]
C
To me, though, that points to a problem on the business side, not the person who's doing the show. It's sort of in media, you have the sort of business side, and then whoever's doing the product, the editorial. If Colbert is tasked with getting the highest ratings he can, the biggest audience he can, and CBS is struggling to monetize it, is that Colbert's fault, or is that the fault of the people who should be selling more ads against it?
- [47:54]
A
Well, I mean, I think everyone who's ever worked in journalism has felt that I've done my part of the bargain. Why can't you sell ads against it? But ultimately, if you can't sell ads against it, you lose your job. Emily, we talk a lot about salaries on this here podcast. So can you explain to me how it is that someone who oversees or fronts a show that loses $40 million a year can somehow negotiate himself a $20 million a year salary because that's apparently what he's being paid.
- [48:29]
B
Well, yeah, I mean, his contract is apparently is out, is done this year, and it was time to renegotiate the contract. So I believe that at the time he negotiated the contract, the $20 million a year paycheck, that the show was not losing $40 million a year. Right. So I presumably the negotiations would have been hairy if they had decided to re up the show, and maybe he wouldn't have gotten that $20 million. Also media companies losing money, but networks still paying for them is. Is not a new story. Right? Like, it's always been. Like, flagship news programs aren't really the money maker, but they. They bring in viewers, they bring prestige for. For a network, especially a network like. Like cbs. Like, it's not just a money consideration. When listening to some of the more knowledgeable people talk about the Colbert story, they talked about how the Jimmies, they don't just, you know, host their shows. They. They also provide these. They make these clips that go viral. They have a lot of YouTube followers, and they also serve as, like, spokesmen for their network. So, like, NBC is like trotting out Jimmy Fallon to do other stuff besides his show. You know, he appears on other things and serves as, like, the face of the network in a way that, I guess Colbert really didn't. So all of it to say is, like, there's other considerations for these talk show hosts besides literally, like, how much money they're losing.
- [50:01]
A
My feeling is that, much as it pains me to say so, I think probably mostly this is a financial decision. And the reason I say that is because you look at what Paramount did at exactly the same time, coming to a deal with the south park guys and paying the South park guys, like, $1.5 billion, upon which they immediately released an episode just ripping Trump to bits. And surely Paramount knew that was gonna happen, but so long as they're getting the money that they need from south park being on the air, they really don't care.
- [50:40]
C
Yeah, I don't think Paramount knew that was gonna happen because I think south park is kind of generally perceived as, you know, they don't really have sacred cows, but in the last few years, they've gone a lot after what they considered things that are too woke. So it didn't surprise me that they would go after Trump. But I know there's a lot of media executives who think of them as being ideologically slightly to the right.
- [51:04]
A
I think they are. I think the south park guys are not liberal. I think they do lean libertarian, but they're definitely not Trumpy.
- [51:13]
C
I mean, they haven't. I feel like they haven't gone after their. Their premiere episode that just came out was almost entirely about Trump, and it skewered Paramount, too. And it was done at such the last minute. You know, they really do those shows pretty quickly that it was news pegged when it came out, and there was a line in it that said something about, you know, they had a Jesus Christ figure who was advising the town of south park, which was being sued by Donald Trump because South park kids had too much Jesus in their school. And so Christ comes to the school and advises the residents of south park to just settle with Trump. And there's a line that says, you don't want what happened to Colbert to happen to you.
- [52:01]
A
It's a good line.
- [52:03]
B
I mean, the optics are really bad and it really, it's hard to believe, like Trump has been trashing Colbert for at least the past year. It was like a year ago already. He was. Because Colbert called him boring. And that really upset the President of the United States to be called boring. So he said at that point, and this was 2024, that Colbert should be forced out. And we know that the fcc, we know that the Trump administration likes to pick winners and losers with deals. Come on.
- [52:34]
C
Also, they're just, let's, let's assume that, you know, it is an honest argument that the show was losing money and that was the reason to cancel it. What are they going to put in that time slot that's going to be better? Because the whole reason why late night is increasingly not performing is because it's, first of all, late night and people can watch things sort of on demand whenever they want to. So what else goes in that time slot for them?
- [53:03]
A
Well, I think time slots in general are losing important in an era where people watch less and less linear TV. The idea that, you know, this is a 7:00 show, this is an 8:00 clock show, this is an 11:00 clock show. Yeah, I mean, the old might still watch TV in that fashion, but mostly people don't anymore and people want watch whatever show they want to watch when they want to watch it. And so that whole.
- [53:32]
C
That's my point. That's because of that, you know, if your ad team is selling specific slots for, you know, that time period, what are they going to put in that time period that's going to increase advertising revenue for them, right?
- [53:46]
A
No, I think they've given up on that. So I think they've thrown in the town and they're like, we're not going to increase advertising revenue. Advertising revenue for linear TV is going down and to the right and will do for the foreseeable future. So we just need to, if we're going to make brand new TV for that time slot, which is not by any means a given, but if we are, we're not going to spend $100 million a year doing so, because there's no way we're going to be able to make $100 million a year in ads in that time slot.
- [54:17]
B
So to zoom back out, basically, Paramount owns CBS and David Ellison, who owns Skydance, wants to buy Paramount. And I only understood all of this last night. I swear, I've been paying only half attention to all of this. So David Ellison owns Skydance, which is a company that made the Top Gun remake. But David Ellison's dad is Larry Ellison, who is a friend of Trump's. Right? And who Donald Trump has said maybe could buy TikTok, maybe Larry Ellison, super rich guy, he's the one with the.
- [54:50]
A
Hawaiian Eye thing is still going on. This is the story that refused to.
- [54:53]
B
Still out there, still floating out there, still unresolved. But we still, we soldier on. We look at Tiktoks. I'm using the Royal weave in that case, because I look at TikToks. Anyways, if you're about to have your company be sold and you're going to about to do a big deal, is isn't it unusual that you would like, cancel one of your flagship contents? Like, wouldn't you wait on that to see what the new ownership wants to do rather than be like, I mean.
- [55:22]
A
It doesn't, it doesn't quite rise to the level of materiality. You know, the Late show is big ish for cbs. It's not huge. CBS is big ish for Paramount. It's not huge. So if you're selling Paramount to Skydance, then you know, it's a big ish part of a big ish part of the company. And I think you can get away with doing the cancellation. The Alison angle is interesting, though. And by all accounts, he was not consulted on this decision because he doesn't own or control.
- [56:01]
B
David Ellison wasn't consulted.
- [56:03]
A
The deal hasn't closed, so he can't tell anyone what to do. And he wasn't asked because that would actually be illegal for various different reasons. But he's already started musing about what he will do with CBS in the probable eventuality that he ends up buying it. And one of the musings that we've been reading about this week, hey, guess what? We're the business and finance news of the week. We get to talk about this is that he might buy the Free Press for $200 million and install Barry Weiss as some kind of editorial gadfly, making sure that CBS doesn't get too woke. So I think if you're looking for a political agenda and people prosecuting a political agenda and, you know, sucking up to Trump in various ways to get what they want. You can definitely see that in Shari Redstone settling with the doj or whoever she settled with in order to make. Or Trump in order to make this lawsuit against CBS go away. You can definitely see that if it happens in the sky dance, the acquisition of the Free Press. And it's very natural in the wake of those two things or in the vicinity of those two things to say, well, canceling Colbert is a little bit like that, though. So that's obviously a political decision, too. And I'm. I'm not saying that. It's clearly not. But I do think that if they did want to make it political, they wouldn't have it continue until May. They were just like, kill it tonight.
- [57:47]
B
Both things can be true, right? Like, they may have wanted to cancel Colbert. His contract was expiring, he was losing money. And they're like, we're gonna. We're gonna do this. And then it's like, oh, and we get to show the Trump administration who can kill this deal if they don't like it. We get to show them that we are getting rid of someone they don't like. It's just like an extra bonus. And CBS has to be savvy enough to understand what the optics were going to be like. On Colbert's show, just days before he got canceled, he called that 60 Minutes settlement a big fat bribe. So these are smart people on the communication staff of Paramount, right? They understand before they announce publicly what they're going to do. They understand what it is going to look like. They say in their communications, this is absolutely nothing to do with that. Definitely nothing. This is about money. Like, believe us. Please believe us. But I mean, the perception was going to be there. They had to know that they did it anyway. If they really cared about that perception, maybe they would have waited a couple of months after.
- [58:54]
A
I think that's right. And I think that probably at the margin, the perception that this is a political decision is not actually bad for them.
- [59:04]
C
No, I don't think they actually care that much about the perception because, you know, if they are doing it to sort of please Trump, then their perception was, like, slight.
- [59:13]
B
You know, they want the perception. Actually.
- [59:17]
A
If Trump ends up thinking that they did that to please him, then so much the better. That's just icing on the cake.
- [59:22]
B
That's like the playbook for, you know, dealing with the administration. I. I have a story about this. I think that's coming out later this week. But, like, the playbook for companies is like, do things that you think the administration's gonna like where possible, credit them with it. Where not possible, at least do things that the administration's gonna like. Look for ways to give them wins. This would be a perfect way to give them a win. It's a thing you were gonna do anyway, and you know that they're gonna like it.
- [59:48]
A
You know, I think, I think that's probably right. I think that the fact that there was a political valence to this decision probably only made the decision easier to make. I should mention that we love summer Fridays here at Slate Money. And so this episode was recorded on Thursday afternoon, which was after the release of the south park episode on Paramount that skewered Donald Trump, but before the FCC officially approved Skydance's acquisition of Paramount. In a decision that was not unanimous, the Democratic commissioner objected. Slate Money is sponsored this week by Business wars, which is a podcast from Wondery. You will remember, perhaps if you're old like me, a time before the Internet, or when the Internet was just young and AOL brought America Online with email and instant messenger. There was a movie called you'd've got mail. By 2000, AOL was so powerful it managed to buy a media giant called Time Warner. This was supposed to be a deal that brought digital society into the future, but instead it became one of the biggest corporate disasters in the history of capitalism. So what went wrong? Was it culture clashes? The dot com crash? Was it something deeper? Business wars gives you a front row seat to the biggest moments in business. Because when your flight perks disappear or your favorite restaurant chain goes bankrupt or tech reshapes every everything overnight, there's always a deeper story behind the headlines. Follow Business wars on the Wondery app or wherever you get your podcasts. You can binge all the episodes of Business the AOL Time Warner disaster early and ad free. Right now on Wondery, we should have a numbers round and I'm going to launch straight in with my 200 million number because it segues nicely from what we were just talking about. 200 million is the number of dollars that Columbia University is paying the Trump administration to make all of the anti Columbia meshuggahs go away. On the face of it, it's not a terrible deal for Columbia. They get their $1.4 billion per year in various pieces of federal funding back. They get to retain academic freedom in terms of appointments and publishing and stuff like that. They only have to pay the 200 million over three years. Friend of the pod, Larry Summers thought it was a good deal. So Obviously this was great, right?
- [62:46]
C
So far, caving to Trump has not really bought anybody anything. Columbia caved to him initially on student protest and then he doubled down on them. I don't, you know, I feel like he might come back again and say, actually you need to do more or I'm yanking your funding again.
- [63:04]
A
Yeah, yeah. I mean, that is absolutely possible. I'm, I would probably take the under. I feel like at this point he's had his fight with Colombia and he's going to move on. But Emily, what do you think?
- [63:16]
B
Yeah, I think, I think the, that probably the administration's moving on. It's very much mission accomplished. Like they've brought universities to heal colleges. Universities are gonna think twice about doing diversity programs, about just allowing protests, allowing protests, making public statements about diversity related subjects, all of that. Like, that's all. The message has been sent. And the chill has been chilled, the.
- [63:42]
A
Sector has been chilled. And inevitably we're gonna see a series of similar settlements from. Who else is on the list? Johns Hopkins, Harvard, obviously Harvard. Yeah. It's just going to be like the bank fines after the financial crisis. They'll just kind of go down the list. Tick, tick, tick. You pay this much, you pay that much. And it does seem to be that if you go first, you pay a lower fine. I would expect that Harvard, if and when it settles, will pay more than 200 million.
- [64:08]
B
Yeah, that makes sense.
- [64:10]
A
Elizabeth, what's your number?
- [64:12]
C
My number is 50 and that's pounds. And this was as in British pounds.
- [64:16]
A
Or pounds of weight.
- [64:17]
C
British pounds, British pounds. There is a company called Jet2holidays, which is largest store operator that offered, had an ad about this time last year, maybe like a little bit further back, where they offered £50 off of a specific deal package. And this ad didn't go anywhere, you know, it sort of did what the ad was supposed to do, but nobody was really talking about it. And now the tiktokers have revived the audio for this ad which has a.
- [64:45]
B
Woman saying nothing beats a jet to holiday.
- [64:49]
C
And they're basically running that audio over disastrous scenes. Like there was one where the New York City subway platform was flooding last week.
- [65:00]
A
One train platform? Yeah. Apparently that's where Jet2 will send you. I'm not quite sure how poor Jet2 got associated with like the worst things that can happen in the world, but at least it's getting its brand out there. What do you think, Emily? Is this good or bad for the Jet2 brand?
- [65:17]
B
I think there's no such thing, almost no such thing as bad publicity. Like even that company astronomer we all know. We've all heard of it.
- [65:25]
A
I still have no idea what it does.
- [65:26]
B
It's like, AI, blah, blah, blah.
- [65:29]
A
It's AI, blah, blah, blah, something. Yeah. I just read a press release about how a bunch of our former colleagues, including friend of the genuine friend of the pod, Bethany MacLean, are setting up a comms shop to advise AI companies on differentiating themselves because no one knows what they all do.
- [65:47]
B
Sounds right.
- [65:48]
A
Emily, what's your number?
- [65:49]
B
My number is 122. Okay. That's an index. It is consumer sentiment in the US among people who make over $100,000. That's pretty positive. 122. This is consumer sentiment measured by Morning Consult. And that compares to an index of 89 for people who make under $50,000. So the gap between them is almost 33 points. It is blowing out, as they say, because high income people are feeling really good lately because of what we talked about. The stock market's doing great and that makes people feel really good, have money in the stock market, but people who do not have money in the stock market are feeling worse and worse. And the gap, the distance between these two lines is getting wider and wider, and that is concerning.
- [66:35]
A
So it's now at 33 and it's normally what, half that?
- [66:38]
B
Yeah, it's normally half that. That sounds right. I'm just looking at my chart and I didn't calculate it, but yeah, I.
- [66:45]
A
Like it when I pull a number out my ass and it turns out to be correct. I feel like that that's validating.
- [66:49]
B
It's not. It's not incorrect. And when the pandemic hit, the gap was almost nil. No gap. When there was big inflation in 2022 and the stock market went down again, like, almost no gap. So now that there is a gap, I think that is a worrying sign. Like, it's better if everyone's feeling the same way than if there's big differences. I think that is bad for social cohesion.
- [67:12]
A
Oh, social cohesion. If only the rich and the poor could agree, then we'd have social cohesion. Maybe.
- [67:18]
B
You know, that's what happened in 2020, right? For a brief shining moment, you got to believe me.
- [67:23]
A
For a brief shining moment, we were all miserable.
- [67:27]
C
Yes.
- [67:28]
A
On which note, I think we will wrap up this here podcast. Many thanks to Jessamyn, Molly and Shayna Roth for producing. Many thanks to all of you for listening and sending in your emails to slatemoneylateg.com we are going to have a slate plus segment about beach reads. Please listen to that if you're a Slate plus member, which you should be. And other than that, we'll be back next week with more Slate money. Listen. That's the sound of the fully electric Audi Q6E Tron. The sound of captivating electric performance. Dynamic drive and the quiet get confidence of ultra smooth handling. The elevated interior reminds you this is more than an EV. This is electric performance. Redefined.
- [68:29]
C
The fully electric Audi Q6E Tron.