The Big Picture

At the Money: Billionaire Divorce Planning

 

 

At the Money: Divorce Planning for the Ultra Wealthy (March 18, 2026)

DESCRIPTION:   Divorce is difficult under the best of circumstances, but when the uber wealthy split up, the complexities and potential missteps are even greater. And it’s not just because there are a few extra zeroes at the end of each number.

Full transcript below.

~~~

About this week’s guest:

Patrick Kilbane is General Counsel of the RIA Ullman Wealth Partners, where he leads the Divorce Advisory Group. In addition to his years as a divorce attorney, he is also a Certified Divorce Financial Analyst (CFDA) and Wealth Advisor at the firm.

For more info, see:

Professional Bio

LinkedIn

~~~

 

Find all of the previous At the Money episodes here, and in the MiB feed on Apple PodcastsYouTubeSpotify, and Bloomberg. And find the entire musical playlist of all the songs I have used on At the Money on Spotify

 

 

 

TRANSCRIPT:

 

Intro: You’re a rich girl, and you’ve gone too far
‘Cause you know it don’t matter anyway
You can rely on the old man’s money
You can rely on the old man’s money

Barry Ritholtz: Half of all marriages end in divorce. That’s just as true for the ultra wealthy and celebrities as it is for the rest of us. Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Kanye West, David Geffen. What happens when there are billions to divide?

I’m Barry Ritholtz, and on today’s edition of At the Money, we are gonna discuss the finances of divorce for the ultra wealthy. And full disclosure, I am not a billionaire and I remain happily married for 33 years.

To help us unpack all of this and what it means for your portfolio, let’s bring in Patrick Kilbane. He works at Oman Wealth Partners, where he is a CFP and General Counsel. He leads the Firm Divorce Advisory Group.

Patrick, the old joke is true. The wealthy are different than us, they have more money. All kidding aside, just how different are billionaire or celebrity divorces from the run of the mill splits?

Patrick Kilbane: Believe it or not, celebrity divorces and billionaire divorces are not all that different. They may have more assets, more zeros in the bank account, more complicated assets. But what you really gotta do is you gotta take a step back and you gotta figure out what you’re dealing with.

And then the biggest difference, I think, between a celebrity or a billionaire divorce versus the run-of-the-mill divorce is the privacy issues that go along with that. And we can unpack that a little bit more, but I think that’s a big non-financial issue that we’re dealing with in those cases.

Barry Ritholtz: So you’re talking NDAs and things along those lines for everybody involved?

Patrick Kilbane: NDAs and depending on what state you’re actually getting divorced in, there’s open government and sunshine laws that can get access to the divorce files.

One of the things that I enjoy working on the higher net worth and higher profile divorces is most of the time both parties to that case are very cognizant of that issue. So what we tend to do is we work very collaboratively and get everything settled and valued and tied up nice and neatly.

We are constantly thinking about how to keep away from the press.

 Barry Ritholtz: We mentioned people with a lot of zeros on their net worth. When you have ultra-high net worth couples splitting, are the mistakes that they make more or less the same as what we see in normal divorces? Or are there things that happen that are really problematic and potentially not reversible?

Patrick Kilbane: They are the same. The problem is a 1% tax mistake in your case or my case is magnified tremendously in that billionaire divorce case. The mistakes are the same. The consequences are tremendously more consequential in that type of case.

What I found in these higher net worth cases, generally, a young couple who starts making and earning and accumulating significant assets, they start doing what I call estate planning 2.0 or estate planning 3.0.

As I tell everybody, there’s two types of money problems, too much and not enough. And these people have the too much problem. So they have very complicated estate plans that are designed to not be busted apart.

This is a couple that’s been married 35, 40 years. They have SLATs and GRATs and QPRTs and these complicated estate vehicles. Well, okay, how do we separate them? What are the tax consequences as a result of separating or blowing apart that estate plan? And do we really want to do that?

Barry Ritholtz: I was out with a couple of guys right before the holidays. One of them was divorced, and another person at the table said, “Gee, I wish I could afford to get divorced.” That’s the too little money as opposed to too much money.

But let’s talk about the too much money. A lot of assets are not liquid. The headline value looks like it’s really big. How do you figure out the difference between what something appears, the liquidity factors, and then of course you end up either with a concentrated position or a tax headache, if there’s a liquidity event and sale for the divorce. How do you navigate those areas?

Patrick Kilbane: Let’s think back to the financial crisis. 2009, 2010. The late Elaine Wynn and Steve Wynn were getting a divorce and we think of Steve and Elaine Wynn, and we think about people that have tons of cash, cash flows, and no problem.

The Wynns had to liquidate shares of Wynn Resorts to free up money for their divorce case. So if Steve and Elaine Wynn have to sell assets from a liquidity standpoint in a divorce case, you can imagine that other business owners may have to do the same thing. And then, like you said, maybe the couples are going through a business sale or there’s some other liquidity event.

The great thing about these cases is generally people are motivated together to reduce tax liabilities and work together to maximize the size of the pie. And I think again, in the billionaire celebrity divorce case, there’s more motivation from both sides to do that.

Barry Ritholtz: What do you do with things that are kind of hard to put a dollar number on? Carried interest, RSUs, restricted stock, even deferred comp options. How do you navigate that?

Patrick Kilbane: There are all sorts of other professionals that are experts in placing a value on that.

You gotta step back and say, okay, what are my goals and what are my estranged spouse’s goals? So all of the contingent assets that you just rattled off, they have some sort of expectation that you’re still gonna have to be linked together for some period of time in order to realize those assets. And maybe the person who’s employed and is compensated in those alternative ways, they may not want to have their former spouse contacting their human resources department or their executive compensation department.

Then the question becomes, do we have enough liquidity to buy that person out? What sort of risk premium are we assigning on carry that may actually not materialize? Are these assets deferred? Are they qualified? Are they non-qualified? What sort of growth rate do we model? When we’re coming up with that, do we think that growth rate is fair?  If we don’t, then do we just say, okay, fine, I’m gonna roll the dice and I’m gonna ride along and see what happens with the carry and whether it materializes or not.

And then I think history is a good place to look to too. If we’ve been married for a significant amount of time, how have previous iterations of the funds done and how comfortable do I feel about carry actually being there.

Barry Ritholtz: You mentioned outside experts. How do you, as the advisor, coordinate with outside lawyers, accountants, and estate attorneys? You’re sort of trying to make sure the client isn’t stuck as a project manager as they’re undergoing this very emotional experience.

Patrick Kilbane: It’s not fair for the client to be the project manager. They’re the ones who are leaning on professional advice and having litigated for nearly a decade, I generally know all of the best of breed divorce lawyers in the area, and I’ll lean on law school classmates to find the best of breed divorce lawyers all over the country. And the divorce lawyer is going to be the quarterback. I think it’s very important to understand where the divorce is actually taking place.

So you can have a great expert witness, but if that expert witness is not known to the judge or they’re just simply not able to communicate their work product and make the court understand what’s going on, then they’re not a very good expert.

You really have to know where you’re at, know the experts that have significant experience doing this type of work. And then if that expert is well known to the court and to the opposing parties, and they do sort of a B-plus job, then maybe we need to sort of backstop them with that national expert that is really, really precise and really refined, that can help out.

I said this to a client the other day. I’m sort of the offensive coordinator. I know enough to be dangerous, but I’m not in the business of giving out legal advice. If I wanted to do that, I would still be an advocate. But we work together. I make suggestions. The head coach, the lawyer, has gotta be the one who ultimately implements the plan.

Barry Ritholtz: I mentioned in our introduction, Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates. It raises the question when you have highly appreciated founder stock at a very low-cost basis, and then all of the capital gains that come with getting liquid with that.

When I look at folks like Larry Ellison or Bezos or Gates, they’ve let it run for so long. What we saw with Gates is he literally, I think, just this week, there was an $8 billion transfer of Microsoft stock before the sell-off to the Melinda Gates Foundation.

What are best practices with dealing with things like founder stock at a really low cost basis?

Patrick Kilbane: You hit on one of the strategies right away. If philanthropy or charitable giving is part of the equation, then we bring in an expert in talking about, if a charitable foundation isn’t set up, what’s the best way to maximize a gift to charity. And you hit the nail on the head. Donating appreciated stock to the charity, to a charitable foundation, to a donor-advised fund is certainly a way to do that because, as you know, you get the market value for the contribution of the stock. You don’t have to worry about the capital gains tax, nor does the charity. Everybody wins.

 Barry Ritholtz: We saw that with Bezos, his wife also, right? A big chunk of Amazon stock went into her philanthropy. What do you do when it’s not a public company? What do you do when you have a highly valued private company? Things like tangible book value and goodwill. They’re so squishy. How do you put a dollar value on that?

 Patrick Kilbane: Sure. We’ll oftentimes bring in expert witnesses at valuing those privately held companies, and as you and I talked before the taping Barry, there’s two components to the value of a business. There’s the tangible assets and the goodwill. Well, in the context of a divorce case, we have to drill down into the goodwill and we have to say, alright, what component of the goodwill is the enterprise goodwill?

And then what component of the goodwill is attributable to the marital litigant? So let me give you an example. Let’s say there’s Barry Ritholtz Insurance Agency, or there’s State Farm Insurance where Barry Ritholtz is the registered agent. So if I live in some proximity to the State Farm office where Barry’s the registered agent, maybe I’m going there because I know Barry, but more likely than not, I’m going there because of the brand State Farm. So there’s more enterprise goodwill there. But if I’m going to the Ritholtz property and casualty insurance up the street, it’s probably because I rode the train to the city with Barry, maybe Barry sponsored the little league baseball team, Barry was referred to me by somebody else that you helped who needed those products. So those are the issues that we have to get into.

And on my team, you and I and your listeners know how significant small businesses are to the American economy. Well, in the higher net worth cases, a lot of these families have small businesses. It’s the biggest asset in the divorce case. So I found my business partner, Caitlin, she was working at a business brokerage firm. And I thought, man, this woman has great credentials, great presence. She has that business valuation expertise. So on my team, I have somebody who came from the valuation world to help the lawyers and our clients spot those business valuation issues because they are so essential to the divorce case.

Barry Ritholtz: Since we’re talking about ultra high net worth potential divorces, one of the things I was thinking about was liability protection. A lot of these families have umbrella policies. They have very specific lawsuits and potential liability they’re trying to shield themselves from. How do you manage that throughout a divorce process?

Patrick Kilbane: I mean, that’s probably the most important question that you’ve asked me. We can divide, we can design the best portfolio, have a great asset allocation, have strategy to redeem company stock and dilute concentrated positions. But if you don’t have the right protection in place, if you don’t have an umbrella policy, if you don’t have an umbrella policy that is taking into consideration uninsured motorists. And I’m gonna even back up before we even get to insurance and look at how assets are titled.

I live in Florida and Florida is one of the jurisdictions in the country where you can hold property as tenants by the entirety. And most of the other jurisdictions you can hold property as joint tenants with right of survivorship, and I don’t wanna make this a law class, but tenants by the entirety means that you and your spouse own an undivided 100% interest in that asset. Joint tenants with right of survivorship means that Barry and his wife each own 50%. So if you’re a tortfeasor and you don’t have an umbrella policy, I can go after 50% of your brokerage account, but if you hold it as tenants by the entirety, then you and your wife have to be the tortfeasor for me to try to go after those assets.

What about titling cars? How many advisors are looking at how their clients title their car? I’m dealing with a case right now where somebody that I know was killed by a 16-year-old motorist. Well, the insurance companies are smart. They don’t wanna just title the car in the kid’s name, right. They’ll charge a higher premium to make sure that either mom and or dad is also on the title. So they can have mom and dad’s assets be used to satisfy a judgment. So these are all the things that I try to help people look at and say, hey, look, just by the way you title your assets, you can shield yourself from a potential liability.

Barry Ritholtz: What are your thoughts on finding hidden assets, and not just Swiss bank accounts, but other ownership of companies, of real estate, of what have you that perhaps one of the spouses is not fully aware of?

Patrick Kilbane: Right? That’s why tax returns and corporate tax returns and following the money and watching where it goes is so significant. Most of the time, one spouse trusts the other spouse or has no dealings whatsoever with what’s going on at work and the business accounts and so on and so forth.

It’s really important. You talked about big money mistakes before. Before you agree to a settlement, get a CPA to help you sit down and take a look at the tax returns and see how the money’s flowing. Generally there are things on there that raise significant red flags, which may make you wanna pause and say, okay, I need to take a look at this. I need to look at the corporate bank accounts. How are these retained earnings consistent with other businesses in the same industry? Is this too much? Did the salary significantly change? Did distributions significantly change? How have the historical expenses changed right around the time that the divorce was starting to bubble to the surface?

Barry Ritholtz: So to wrap up, billionaire divorces aren’t all that different from run-of-the-mill divorces. Sure, there are a couple more zeros at the end of the asset list and some complications, but generally speaking, the risks, the boxes you wanna check and the other issues that you’re gonna run through aren’t all that different from traditional divorces.

I’m Barry Ritholtz. You are listening to Bloomberg’s At the Money.

 

~~~

Find our entire music playlist for At the Money on Spotify.

 

The post At the Money: Billionaire Divorce Planning appeared first on The Big Picture.

10 Wednesday AM Reads

My mid-week morning train Malvern reads:

The stock market looks wild under the surface: The S&P 500 appears relatively calm on the surface this year, but dig a little deeper and you’ll find some wild swings. Dispersion hiding beneath calm headline indices — sector rotations, factor volatility, and the growing divergence between what the S&P shows and what individual stocks are doing. Investors have retreated from the Big Tech names that carried the market in recent years, putting downward pressure on stocks. By the numbers: The S&P 500 has fallen just 3% for the year, but that masks some big-time. (Axios)

The Biggest Active Stock Funds Picked the Right Stocks. They Still Lagged: A hypothetical portfolio of the largest active US stock funds’ collective holdings would have beaten the funds themselves. (Morningstar)

Who ate all the Chinese stock market returns? Long-term nominal GDP is the stuff earnings are made of. And emerging-market economies grow faster than developed ones. Put these two facts together and the case for long-term allocations to EM equities has looked compelling. But no matter how compelling, it hasn’t really worked for a long time. And it has singularly failed to work for investors in Chinese stocks over the past 25 years. While the biggest global economic story of the last three decades has been the rise and rise of China, Chinese stock price performance has been . . . well, a bit rubbish. China got rich. Less so equity punters. The structural reasons why China’s economic growth has so consistently failed to translate into equity market gains for foreign investors. (Financial Times)

Inside a $42 Billion Private-Credit Black Box: More Black Boxes: Cliffwater fund’s opacity helps explain why it is facing redemptions. A deep look at how private credit vehicles are layering complexity on top of complexity — and what that opacity means for investors who can’t see what they own. (Wall Street Journal)

When the Best Retirement Is No Retirement at All: The 60-plus crowd is hard at work, and it’s not (just) about the money.The emerging research and personal accounts behind why staying engaged in meaningful work — on your own terms — often produces better outcomes than full retirement. (Businessweek)

• Congress Weighs Axing FINRA. But Is SEC Ready to Pick Up the Slack?: The case for eliminating the broker-dealer self-regulator — and the serious capacity questions about whether the SEC could absorb the workload. (The Daily Upside)

• America’s Diminished Place In The World: Techdirt’s Mike Masnick on how failure to check executive overreach earlier created the conditions for the current collapse of American standing abroad. (TechDirt) see also • The US Seems to Be Deliberately Weakening its Global Position: A careful argument that the pattern of damage to alliances, institutions, and credibility isn’t incompetence — it looks intentional. (Phillip’s Newsletter)

Florida Is Trying to Ignore Measles Until It Can’t: Florida ranks third in measles cases and the state’s response has been conspicuous silence—a public health strategy best described as “pretend it isn’t happening.” Oh, and the state is in the midst of an outbreak. (The Atlantic)

Is MAGA in its cringe era? Trump 2.0 was supposed to be younger and cooler than what came before. The vibes have shifted. Signs that the cultural coalition holding Trumpism together may be fracturing — the aesthetic and attitudinal shifts that signal a movement losing its grip. (Washington Post)

Ticketmaster’s Grip on Live Concerts Is Finally Starting to Break: Live Nation’s settlement with the Justice Department is a big step toward accountability—and cheaper ticket prices. (Slate)

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business interview this weekend with Matt Cherwin, co-founder and Chief Investment Officer of Marek Capital. The alternative asset management firm launched in 2024. Previously, he spent 16-years at JPMorgan Chase & Co where he held titles of Chief Investment Officer, Group Treasurer, Co-Head of Global Spread Markets, Global Head of Securitized Products, and Global Head of Asset-Backed Trading.

 

Where rents are falling (or rising) most

Source: Axios

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

 

The post 10 Wednesday AM Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

Ill-Liquidity Premium


Source: Cambridge Associates/JPM assisted by Claude

 

 

There’s an excess of news flow from the SCOTUS rejection of IEEPA tariffs to the current Middle East/Iran war. I suspect some important items are getting overlooked.

Perhaps the biggest is the goings on in private credit.

I don’t want to get distracted by gates and redemptions, belated marks, or even blow-ups. Instead, let’s address the Tweepadock in the room. The combination of unfettered growth and massive consolidation has significantly reduced the number of public equities, even as public markets have grown enormously. This has created a huge surge in the number and variety of alternative asset classes, most notably private equity and debt.

Should you be considering adding illiquid debt, credit, equity, or RE, there are some ideas you may wish to consider. Too often, the debate gets framed in binary options, but the reality is far more complex and nuanced.

The Argument: The big selling point is that illiquid alternatives may improve your risk-adjusted returns, add diversification, and provide access to non-correlated returns. These are proven results from many top-tier managers. The drawbacks are illiquidity, lack of transparency, high fees, and (to borrow Cliff Asness’ phrase) volatility-laundering.

The biggest variables affecting all of the above are 1) Timing, or when you deploy your capital, and 2) Fund/Manager selection, or the exact fund and vintage you choose. It’s not as simple or clear-cut as much of the sales literature makes it out to be.

Illiquidity Premium: Investors in private alternatives select from a universe of options that do not provide daily liquidity. This creates a broad choice of potential investments that can (and sometimes do) generate a higher return than the public markets provide. The trade-off is that you have to be willing to tie up your capital for years at a time. And the caveat is that not all private investments generate an above-market return.

Do you need Privates? For the typical households with a diversified portfolio of stocks bonds whether through mutual funds and ETF’s or direct indexing, likely do not need alternatives. But that doesn’t mean they don’t want alts or aren’t interested in either additional returns and or diversification.

Households with $5,000,000 in investment portfolios or less are likely fully diversified, so long as they are willing to withstand the occasional market volatility and drawdown.

In the $5-10 million range, the main question is how long you’re willing to lock up capital. Life changes do happen, and if you need liquidity, exiting alternatives early can be costly. For households with portfolios over $10,000,000, the key question is whether alts meet their long-term goals and suit their financial planning needs.

Do Privates need you? As we’ve seen across all sorts of institutional products, the appeal of the retail investor is that they have become an immense pool of capital measured in the 10s of trillions of dollars. As the number of private funds have expanded many have exhausted how much they can tap the institutional investor base. It was inevitable that they would reach out o the 401K and retail investor base – the dollar amounts are simply catnip to so many funds.

Sturgeon’s Corollary: I’ve mentioned sturgeon’s law and its corollary too many times to count; the key element to remember is that most investment products are mediocre at best. This is true for mutual funds, ETF’s, SPACs, hedge funds, venture funds, as well as all forms of illiquid alts including private credit and debt.

I used Claude to access Cambridge Associates data and create the chart at top showing the dispersion among top and bottom quartiles of alternatives. Venture capital is the big outlier, with the widest disp[ersion imaginable. But private equity, and debt also have a very wide dispersion — good funds do a little better than public markets, and mediocre funds do much worse.

Quality: If you can get into the top decile (quartile even?) of alts/privates, that changes the calculus as to whether or not you should be deploying your capital in that direction.

The top tier is more than just good returns: it’s a long-term track record, transparency, reasonable fees, intelligent co-investors, and a general high degree of ethics and professionalism. I have heard far too many horror stories about alts gone wrong to advise you not to blindly stumble into too many of the available options.

Conclusion:  I remain unconvinced that the median alternative fund is worth the fees, illiquidity, and complexity. Unless you can get into a top fund, it is simply not worth the headaches.

 

 

 

Previously:
Sturgeon’s Corollary (December 4, 2025)

Your Co-Investors in BREIT (December 12, 2022)

 

~~~

NOTE: I wrote this entire post myself. I used Claude to generate the chart and table above; I use Grammarly to spell/grammar check the Word doc it was drafted in. 

 

The post Ill-Liquidity Premium appeared first on The Big Picture.

10 Tuesday AM Reads

My early two for Tuesday morning train WFH reads:

• Et Tu, S&P 500?: Robin Wigglesworth on the fascinating possibility that S&P index rules may be rewritten to accommodate SpaceX—the implications for passive investing and index integrity are enormous. (Financial Times) see also S&P Weighs Rule Changes That Would Speed SpaceX’s S&P 500 Entry: S&P Dow Jones is considering rule changes that would pave the way for SpaceX to join the index—a move that could reshape both the index and the IPO timeline for the world’s most valuable private company. (Yahoo Finance)

• Iran Has Just Fired the Most Dangerous Shot of This War and It Wasn’t a Missile: The argument that Iran’s most potent weapon isn’t military but economic—the oil market disruption may prove more damaging than any missile strike. (European Business Magazine)

• Judge Smacks Down Trump’s Investigation Into Jerome Powell: The judiciary steps in to protect Fed independence. The attempt to investigate the Fed chair was always legally dubious — now a judge has confirmed it. A federal judge said the Department of Justice had found “zero evidence” of wrongdoing. (New Republic) see also Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System v. United States of America (District Court Decision: Federal Reserve System v. United States (District of D.C., File No. 26-12)

• China’s Edge in an Oil Shock: Electric Cars and Renewables: Beijing’s massive investments in EVs and renewables are paying off precisely when it matters most—China is far better insulated from this oil shock than the West. (New York Times)

• How the Housing Market Split in Two: The housing market has fractured into haves and have-nots, with affordability varying wildly by region. The data here is granular and alarming. New and existing homeowners live in different worlds (Agglomerations) see also The Great American Condo Crisis: If America wants to remain a nation of homeowners, it needs to start building condos again—a compelling argument that the missing middle of housing is the condo, not just the duplex. If the U.S. wants to remain a nation of homeowners, it has no choice but to start building condos again. (The Atlantic)

• Encyclopedia Britannica Sues OpenAI Over AI Training: Britannica and Merriam-Webster take OpenAI to court over training data, adding to the growing pile of copyright litigation that will ultimately define what AI companies can and can’t scrape. (Reuters)

• Donald Trump Warns NATO Faces ‘Very Bad Future’ If Allies Fail to Help US in Iran: Trump demands NATO allies share the burden of the Iran conflict, threatening consequences—the transatlantic relationship continues to deteriorate at the worst possible moment. “It’s only appropriate that people who are the beneficiaries of the strait will help to make sure that nothing bad happens there,” Trump said, arguing that Europe and China are heavily dependent on oil from the Gulf, unlike the US. “If there’s no response or if it’s a negative response I think it will be very bad for the future of Nato,” he added. (Financial Times).

• How Rivian Is Pulling Off Its $45,000 R2 Electric SUV: Rivian’s $45K R2 is the EV that could actually move the mass-market needle—if they can execute on manufacturing at scale, which remains the billion-dollar question. How the automaker’s engineering team learned to say no—or make some compromises to create a smaller, more affordable electric car. (Wired) see also Why Rivian Is Holding the $45,000 Base Model R2 Until ‘Late 2027’: The fine print on Rivian’s affordable R2: the base model won’t ship until late 2027, which is an eternity in the EV market and a test of consumer patience. (TechCrunch)

• Satellite Firm Pauses Imagery After Revealing Iran’s Attacks on US Bases: Planet Labs stops publishing satellite imagery of US bases hit by Iranian strikes to avoid giving adversaries battle damage assessments—the tension between transparency and operational security in real time. (Ars Technica)

The reviews are in. It’s not looking good, America. Allies are giving the U.S. one-star and two-star ratings on its efforts to protect democracy and dependability in a crisis. (Politico) see also America’s Diminished Place in the World and the Consequences of Not Impeaching: A sharp assessment of how America’s global standing has eroded and the institutional failures that accelerated the decline—the consequences of not holding power accountable are now impossible to ignore. (Techdirt)

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business interview this weekend with Matt Cherwin, co-founder and Chief Investment Officer of Marek Capital. The alternative asset management firm launched in 2024. Previously, he spent 16-years at JPMorgan Chase & Co where he held titles of Chief Investment Officer, Group Treasurer, Co-Head of Global Spread Markets, Global Head of Securitized Products, and Global Head of Asset-Backed Trading.

 

Quantifying the gas shock: Every 50 cent increase is a $75B annual drag on consumer purchasing power

Source: LinkedIn

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

 

The post 10 Tuesday AM Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

Transcript: Matt Cherwin, Co-Founder and Chief Investment Officer of Marek Capital

 

 

The transcript from this week’s MiB: Matt Cherwin, Co-Founder and Chief Investment Officer of Marek Capital, is below.

You can stream and download our full conversation, including any podcast extras, on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube (video), YouTube (audio), and Bloomberg. All of our earlier podcasts on your favorite pod hosts can be found here.

 

~~~

 

Masters in Business — Matt Cherwin Interview

[00:00:02] Narrator: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio News. This is Masters in business with Barry Ritholtzl on Bloomberg Radio

[00:00:21] Barry Ritholtz: This week on the podcast, another extra special guest, Matt Sherwin, is co-founder and chief investment officer at Merrick Capital. He previously spent 16 years at JP Morgan Chase and then a bunch of years at Citigroup beforehand running all sorts of spread markets, head of securitized product, lots of CIO and risk management titles. I came to know Merrick through a live event we did at Bloomberg last year. I found that his approach to credit and trading is absolutely fascinating and what Merrick is doing is really quite interesting. I thought the conversation was brilliant and I think you will also, with no further ado, my conversation with Merrick Capital’s. Matt Sherwin. Matt Gerwin, welcome to Bloomberg.

[00:01:20] Matt Cherwin: Thanks for having me. This is exciting. That was kind of, that was, that was a bigger windup than I was. I,

[00:01:24] Barry Ritholtz: I like a expecting, I like a big windup. Okay. ’cause it gives us an opportunity to roll back to the beginning and say, alright, bachelor’s in economics from the University of Pennsylvania. What was the original career plan? I, I don’t imagine people going to college and saying, I wanna be the head of global spread markets.

[00:01:43] Matt Cherwin: No, but that’s super interesting because our oldest is a sophomore in college now and he’s in the Business School of American. And I was just talking to him yesterday and he said, I’m now in, I think they call it like finance for business. I really like this new class. And I said to him, that reminds me so well of when I was in undergrad business school and I did the first couple semesters at econ and I hated it.

[00:02:08] Barry Ritholtz: And it was, I had a similar experience for that

[00:02:10] Matt Cherwin: Economics and it was like, you know, I, I shouldn’t have hated it as much as I did, but at the time it was ISLM curves, it was supply, it was demand, et cetera. And it just, it felt, it didn’t feel very practical to me and I didn’t do very well then. I didn’t go to class very often. I didn’t do very well. But then we got to kind of the next semester, right, which I think they called Finance 1 0 1, right. And was like, bond math, discounted cash flows. And I was like, oh this, I like right, okay, I am in the right place.

[00:02:39] Barry Ritholtz: Well, it’s much more realistic and you’re not dealing with homo economy ’cause that is this theoretical, although version of humans, you

[00:02:46] Matt Cherwin: Know, looking back on, I wish I had listened a bit more at some of those others, but you know, something I say maybe we’ll we’ll get to is like it just and recommendation I would give to other people. It took me a little while to realize what I was interested in, what I was interested in being interested in. And when I got into some of those classes, kind of the more financey kind of stuff, I was like this, I like this makes sense. I wanna learn more. And I think that’s kind of where it starts. I always wanted to get, I just like when there’s, you know, numbers on the page, it adds up to something you’re trying to make money. It’s hopefully positive at the end. It might be negative. It’s pretty clear cut. At least the goal is. And I always like that. I always gravitated

[00:03:26] Barry Ritholtz: Towards that. So, so economics way too abstract and academic, but business and finance, practical, applicable, real life usage. Yeah.

[00:03:36] Matt Cherwin: Which is interesting too. ’cause I also, I’m a little bit like a, this a little exaggerated, but I’m a little bit of like a history buff. So like it was interesting that, that what didn’t, didn’t appeal to me. ’cause I do like kind of the history of it. How did we get here? And I think that’s always something that I’m like in this form as well, going back to learn more about financial systems, how money works, how they thought it used to work, different schools of thoughts. And I think really helps you understand where you’ve been, where you are, where you’re going.

[00:04:08] Barry Ritholtz: So when you look back when you were group treasurer or chief investment officer at, at the JP Morgan division, you were, you were involved in, what sort of lessons did you take away from that? You’re, you’re in the real world managing real risk, real portfolios. How, how did that experience change how you perceive risk? Yeah, it’s

[00:04:28] Matt Cherwin: A great question and I’ll tell you. So like obviously I had a career with a background in trading, running, trading teams both on the buy side and the sell side. And it was really that experience that this next piece that was transformative for me and you know, really brought us to the point where my partner Derek Goodman and I decided let’s form Merrick. And you know, I’m sure we’ll get into that a bit. But what happened was I spent 20 odd years trading mortgages, rates, corporate credit, high yield products like that, working with specialty finance companies, some that I worked with, some I had a hand in running this kind of universe. And then in late 2019, the opportunity to move over. And this was a different building, different, you know, Waldorf key card, different team and be the CIO and the treasurer. So this is now buy side, running the capital of the firm, the investment of the firm, hedging and managing structuralists.

[00:05:27] Matt Cherwin: Lots of things wrapped up in there. But the real thing was, the point in time where this happened was late 2019, a few days later, was the repo crisis. If we remember that when all of a sudden if you wanted to borrow overnight against treasuries, it cost you 10%. Right? Okay. Six months after that pandemic breaks out. And why I bring that up is so much changed in dramatic size at rapid speed that I saw something I’d never seen before. And it was, how does the financial system really work and what does it mean and how does it apply to everything that I’ve done? And it was one of these moments where I felt like I just went from being the captain of the ship, you know, my own little thing, right? We’ll be a little expansive with it. I went from being a captain of ship to going to work in the engine room and seeing the actual gearing and how it works and how it doesn’t and what could stop it from working.

[00:06:26] Matt Cherwin: And you spend years, you know, you pull a lever, you think the boat goes faster, but you don’t know why and you don’t know what could stop it from doing that. And you don’t know what could make it work more efficiently. But now you go work in the engine room and you see it and you understand it. It was just this aha moment. Like, we’re two guys with glasses, right? So, you know, when you go to the the, you get a new prescription, you get your new glasses, you put ’em on, you’re like, oh my God, I can see, right? And by the way, how was I walking around the streets of Manhattan with that old prescription? But now I could see clearly and honestly 20 odd years into my career, that’s how I felt at that, that moment

[00:07:03] Barry Ritholtz: In 2019. Yeah,

[00:07:05] Matt Cherwin: I would say like in early 2020, about six months in, it was kind of like, oh my goodness, it’s coming together now. I wish, I wish I had known this for the 20 years that proceeded this, but I felt like now I know nothing and I’m starting to learn.

[00:07:20] Barry Ritholtz: So I have to ask. So my experience with 2019 was that wobble seemed to go by so quickly compared to oh 8, 0 9, where, you know, to me you saw a lot of warning signs first in housing and then in securitized product and then in construction. And then, you know, the market didn’t peak till October oh seven and the next 18 months were kind of fun if you were on the right side of it. But if you weren’t, I’m, it must have been a, a bloodbath. It sounds like you derived more out of the 2019 experience than you are on a desk in oh 8, 0 9. What sort of scar tissue did that leave? How, how, yeah. Informative was that Mom,

[00:08:05] Matt Cherwin: That’s really interesting the way you kind of put those together. And so to set the table a bit, oh 7 0 8 when I, I got to JP Morgan late oh 6, 0 7, 0 8, 0 9, I was in charge of head of team. We traded asset backed security, say credit cards, auto student loans, subprime mortgages, remember those? Yeah, CLOs. So really kind of like the center of what ended up happening after that. And I would say it was so overwhelming at the time. I mean we were there two in the morning hand marking bonds. Okay. Walking across the street between the two buildings. Like is there more information this company might buy that company before the market opens? What else can we do? The numbers were huge. It was almost like a bit more than you could process at the time. But I think each one of these became every step there was like, I understand what I’m doing better now because the first thing I ever did was I started, I was a cashflow structure.

[00:09:11] Matt Cherwin: And actually at that point in time, the guy who ran the department was a friend of mine named Bruce Richards, who went on to start marathon and has had a fantastic career. And we keep in touch and he said, I said, I wanna be a trader. And he said, well, I want you to be a structure because if you learn how the cash flow works, how the structure works, then you’ll be a better trader later on. I think each piece helped me understand the risk better and then the system it sits in and that helps you understand the risk better. And then when you understand the risk better, you understand the system, it sits in better and it builds and it builds on top of each other. So I would say in oh eight I learned more in oh eight we saw, we felt like we were the tip of the spear in like a bad way.

[00:09:55] Matt Cherwin: And we could see it was getting worse and it was accelerating and we could see that people were maybe even underestimating. And I remember some conversations around at the time that we were basically saying like, think bigger, think broader, think worse. That’s the context we’re talking about. But all of that helped me understand how does my product that I’m trading fit into an investment bank? How does an investment bank impact the system? I think when I went into 2019, obviously a lot time had passed, I’d had more experiences, et cetera. I remember sitting in a meeting, we’re in 7:30 AM traders meeting, this is with the CIO group. And we go around the table, my, you know, rates lead, my credit lead, et cetera. And the repo guys walk in and they say, Hey, we can lend against treasuries at 10%, should we do more? And I said, guys, I, this is my third day with this team. Okay, I’m the person in the room who knows the least about what you’re talking about. But if you need my authorization, you have it. ’cause that sounds pretty great.

[00:11:04] Barry Ritholtz: 10% yield begins with

[00:11:05] Matt Cherwin: Treasuries. That’s fantastic. My response to you is how much can we not, can we do more? Like how much can we do? Meaning more and more. And that just became the beginning of like, why did that happen? How did we get here? What’s the, where did it come from? Where does it go? And I found that certain people knew certain pieces, but not the picture. And then you’re like, it it, it was just starting to pull at

[00:11:30] Barry Ritholtz: And that was your job to know the whole picture.

[00:11:32] Matt Cherwin: It be, it became, it became the only, it became the focus of what I wanted to know. Because unpacking that would help me understand how do we get here, why does this happen? And by the way, what are the pieces that put this all together and how do we, how do we take advantage of that? How do we protect ourselves, but also how do we take advantage of that? So it it was this, the whole thing was this, one of those types of things you say, I opened up a door, three doors behind it and I wanna keep going that direction. And it felt to me like a pure and pure version of everything I’d done in my career getting closer and closer to the source and pricing really,

[00:12:11] Barry Ritholtz: Really fascinating. One of the things I think a lot of people don’t realize about JP Morgan Chase during the financial crisis, and I never doing the research for Bailout Nation, I never got this really sourced the way I would’ve liked to. But JP Morgan Chase had their own derivative scare a couple of years earlier. And the word was, Jamie just said, clear all this junk off of our balance sheet. We don’t, we can’t handle this. Risk doesn’t seem to be worth the potential upside. So heading into oh 8, 0 9, they weren’t dealing with the same sort of existential danger that Merrill Lynch and Wells Fargo and go down the list all had, all had to go through. They, they were ended up being an acquirer of distressed assets, not a, a seller of distressed assets.

[00:13:09] Matt Cherwin: Well I think, I mean it was a tremendous place to work. I worked with incredible people, I learned a lot and I worked with great, great people that you’re just part of a terrific team. It’s fan, it’s fantastic place. I learned something that became transformative to everything I’d spent my career doing. So that’s why we set out to, and I said I want to do this. And that’s why we set out to build Merrick. When we said, you know, I recall Derek and I sat down one day and I said, let me just, here’s how I think about markets. I think about it in terms of money, capital, credit, liquidity and regulation. That’s my thought. Money capital credit, liquidity regulation, M-C-C-L-R. How

[00:13:53] Barry Ritholtz: Do you separate money from capital?

[00:13:55] Matt Cherwin: So I think money to me is how do you make it, how do you destroy it? How does it move through the system? To me, capital is a little bit more of how much do you have, how do you measure it, how much do you have? Are you making more, you destroying it. Credit is really, how is it being formed? How is it moving through the system? The financial system is changing now. It’s very different than it was a few years ago. We actually, when we were, you know, really trying to get our ideas on paper, we wrote a paper that we outlined saying, we described what we thought was the new version of the financial system. We said the financial system is changing your defacto recreating glass stegel. You have gcis. If you come from some of this framework, you know, are the globally systema, systematically important banks, systemically important banks think JP Morgan, Wells, bank of America, et cetera.

[00:14:50] Matt Cherwin: We said they’re the new g sibs people like Apollo, Blackstone, KKR, BlackRock, these are Aries, these are the folks that are actually making credit extension decisions in this economy. Okay? You have the traders like Citadel Securities, jump, Jane, some of these other names everybody’s familiar with. This is disaggregating the financial system and putting it into different buckets. So basically we think about where’s it coming from, where does it go? Who wins? Who loses? What are the flywheels here? This is a process that we apply to everything we do. Some of the guys on the team call it mcle, M-C-C-L-R. It’s the lens that we look at because we believe money, capital, credit, liquidity and regulation drives, economies, markets, and prices. And then you can really start to understand monetary policy, real estate, housing, the types of specialty finance companies we’ve talked about consumer. So this to me actually explains how it all works.

[00:15:57] Matt Cherwin: And we apply that. It’s a huge addressable universe. We trade rates, mortgages, securitized products, corporate credit related equities. It’s an enormous addressable universe with investors that have very narrow mandates that transact at different points in time and sometimes non economically and bound by potentially non-economic rules. Which means there are a lot of overlaps that people don’t take the advantage of and there’s a lot of gaps that they quite simply don’t bridge. And the setup for all of this, I think, and I’ve seen some stuff, a lot of your, your, your listeners have seen quite a bunch of stuff. We’ve seen things go right, we’ve seen things go wrong. This is one of the best setups we’ve seen in a long time. And so that’s why we went out to say I saw some interesting stuff, I learned some interesting stuff. There’s an opportunity set that we want to prosecute right now and it is an incredible time to do so. So we built a team. Sorry, go ahead. I was

[00:17:01] Barry Ritholtz: Fantastic team. I was just, no, I’m fascinated. Yeah, I, I I wanna roll back to something you said earlier, which was glass stegel is sort of being backdoor reapplied. Is that a function of people being risk averse or is that a function of people just specializing in their own silo? So you don’t have, you know, glass Eagle for people who aren’t economic and policy wonks separated the FDIC safe banks from the riskier investment banks. And once that was repealed in the late nineties, didn’t cause a financial crisis, but allowed all these banks to merge and get bigger. And maybe it made the crisis a little worse, but it, I don’t, I don’t think of it as the underlying cause, but the idea that the market is working its way back towards that is kind of fascinating. Right? So let’s address that

[00:17:59] Matt Cherwin: Right as you laid out, like Glass Sal to say, to oversimplify basically said like, you can hold deposits, you can underwrite securities, you can trade securities, things like that. And there were rules right? Now there are like some rules that say what you can and can’t do. But really there’s a lot more that has morphed into what people like to call private credit or we’re going to extend credit through these fashions, or some of the rules don’t apply to this group so we can trade the markets differently or we can make markets in a way that maybe the big banks can’t. And then the big banks say, well we’re viewed as super safe because I would argue we are. And that has its advantages also. So it’s like we recreated these artificial boundaries. What is great for us and the way we look at the world is we saw that, we see that, we understand that we also see and understand and think about all day long and put it into our portfolio construction and the, the, the risk that we build, it’s all up for grabs again, right?

[00:19:03] Matt Cherwin: So we’ve got Kevin Walsh nominated to be the Fed chair and Mickey Bowman is the vice chair for supervision. And they are, I dunno what, what the right adjective for it is, but they’re changing the rules and they’re pulling some of them down. And in my opinion, people just don’t understand which of them matter and which of them don’t. And the market moves to place on some that simply don’t matter. Like it’s lack of understanding of what SLR was and how that worked. And we don’t need to dive into that. But to simplify, they said we’re gonna remove this rule and it’s a big deal. And we at Marck said, you can take it off. It doesn’t matter. So everything the market’s doing in reaction to that is a potential opportunity for us vice.

[00:19:48] Barry Ritholtz: In other words, vice versa. People are overreacting to a regulatory change that is insignificant long term in

[00:19:54] Matt Cherwin: That example. Yeah.

[00:19:55] Barry Ritholtz: Coming up we can continue our conversation with Matt Sherwin, co-founder and chief investment officer at Merrick Capital, discussing why he launched the firm in 2024. I’m Barry Ritholtz, your listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.

[00:20:22] Barry Ritholtz: I am Barry Ritholtz. You are listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. My extra special guest today is Matt Sherwin. He is co-founder and chief investment officer of Merrick Capital’s specializing in a variety of alternative credit and related private products. Previously he spent 16 years at JP Morgan Chase where he had a number of very important titles before that Citi Group. Are we, in all that unique a period of time, is the opportunity set that much greater than what we typically see in the normal? You know, this is a little more geopolitically volatile administration than, than even the previous Trump administration. Is that a driver or is it the deregulation and misapprehension of, of what these rule changes mean? I

[00:21:12] Matt Cherwin: Think it’s a combination of what’s going on. So we have, we just kind of use some little catchphrases among the team that help us sort of like, you know, gravitate around concepts or communicate quickly. We say this is an administration that’s in the business of being in business and that’s just a, there’s no opinion or or judgment one way or the other. It’s just a, it’s just a statement. What this environment is Also, we also came up with something that we thought was just made us chuckle. One, like it’s important to have a little bit of sense of humor. We found our investors actually do read the materials very closely and they tend to have a sense of humor, which is good. But we created this thing, we called the one big beautiful chart and we just said, you know what they really need, they need rates to get down and they needed to come down a lot more than what the market and the curve has already priced in because of how much debt the country has, what it costs, what they want to accomplish.

[00:22:08] Matt Cherwin: So here’s what they need to accomplish and they’re gonna do everything they can to, so, you know, we construct portfolio, we have a, we have an investment thesis, we have a narrative. Everything we put in the book has to fit that narrative has to contribute to what we’re trying to achieve. Has to be the best version of that or has to protect us from what could go wrong. So getting back to your question a little bit, we think it’s a very business forward environment, business forward administration. We think that it is one that needs rates to come down. We are going to have a new fed chair in the middle of June and there he’ll say all sorts of things in the confirmation hearing, but really it will be a catalyst potentially for change in the middle of the year. And then we have a bias within markets to strip back some of the layers of, of regulation and away from whether you support that or not, I can tell you ’cause I’ve been on the other side of it, the layers of process and bureaucracy and spending your time back solving instead of what could we do better.

[00:23:14] Matt Cherwin: When you change what your goal is and how you’re pointed, you’re gonna get different results. We think that combination is spinning flywheels in the market now that in our opinion people are just, they’re underestimating the power of some of these flywheels.

[00:23:31] Barry Ritholtz: Huh, really, really interesting. Last question before we talk a little bit about Merrick. In the old days, and I was never a big believer in this, but everybody else was, there was some constraints on deficits and ongoing government debt. ’cause the bond vigilantes would punish you. The bond vigilantes seem to have disappeared in part replaced by the stock vigilantes who, any policy they don’t like, they just sell off until they have their hissy fit, until they get their way. And then, okay, thank you very much and we’re off to the races again. What do you think of the, you know, eighties, nineties era bond vigilantes? Is that just ancient history? There’s no discipline on deficit spending anymore or, and by the way, I think deficits are not all that relevant. Look at Japan, look at the US history. We’ve been warned about deficits and they haven’t caused much of a problem, most of this history. Yeah,

[00:24:31] Matt Cherwin: I mean look, I love the term and I think we’ve seen some of those episodes last year we saw around the whatever we call liberation day in April, like there were a couple days where treasuries and mortgages said like, enough, okay, that’s it. And we’re either going to have one of those days where they are giving stuff away or you gotta pull back. And I think what we saw was the administration did pull back. So I think in some level it’s still there. But part of what we do at Merrick and what influences our thought process is big parts of this have been really broken down. The markets are so big now that it’s been broken into specific functions, like people have a thing to do and they do that in a narrow mandate. We have a more flexible mandate to us, the products, their widgets, their tools in the toolbox for us to achieve our goals and our investment thesis and the portfolio risk and construction and diversification that we’d like to have.

[00:25:33] Matt Cherwin: But the markets are hyper specialized in very, very large markets. So you get some of those episodes where it’s like, oh, crowded trade, we gotta get out. I think the question of does the administration react to the markets, does the markets react to the administration? It’s something that we’ve actually focused on quite a bit. We actually, you know, we wrote another piece in June of 2025 that we called the War Fed and it was just about what could happen. And we sort of went through to your point like the concept of risk-free rate and credit spread are completely intertwined and commingled now and they don’t exist separately. So I think that’s some of the concepts you’re getting at. Like, is this a problem for credit? Is it a problem for rates? Are those the same thing? Now one of the most interesting things, and I I would just say before we get back to your, your question is, what was really interesting observation to us was during the last government shutdown, whatever mini version of that we’re going through right now, it was almost in the data was not forthcoming and then vol went down.

[00:26:45] Matt Cherwin: So it was this sort of like a little bit like if we don’t know, maybe nothing’s happening, but what it also was, was a little bit to the, to what you were saying is when things were a little less hyper-focused, they actually were a little less jumpy around small moves. And that was a big takeaway, big takeaway for us. Hmm. It’s a big thing you’re gonna hear from Kevin Walsh. If he ends up in the chair seat, you’re gonna hear a long narrative from him for his time in that seat of we need to step back from the day to day and the minute by minute information and think about the big bigger picture and the trend and where we’re headed and be a little, be a little more forward looking. I think that’s the kind of guidance that you will get from that chair.

[00:27:34] Barry Ritholtz: Hmm. Really, really interesting. So, so let’s just start out with why you left the comfort of a big shop to have the headache of your own firm. What, what’s the El elevator pitch? What problem does merit capital solve that couldn’t be solved at a large Wall Street bank?

[00:27:54] Matt Cherwin: Look, I think quite simply, there are some things that banks can do and some things that banks can’t do. There are some things that they can do and that they don’t want to do. In my career, I’ve always been involved in these types of markets being rates, mortgages, securitized products, corporate credit, the equities related to that around it, these types of specialty finance operating companies. And always felt that when you have, when you can apply the various lenses to these products being the trader lens, the structure lens, the operator lens, you understand it better and you get the gearing and the pieces. And when you learn about the financial system that it sits within, then you actually can understand, but take advantage of the risk and return in a more elevated and efficient way.

[00:28:47] Barry Ritholtz: I wanna address that. Is it that the big firms, the bigger banks were risk averse and didn’t want to take advantage of it where they were prohibited on a regulatory basis or when they’re just doing their macro risk assessment, Hey, we’ll go this far but no further.

[00:29:04] Matt Cherwin: I, I think it’s even simpler than that. We look at the world through our lens. We look at the world through the Merrick lens of money, capital, credit, liquidity and regulation, which drives economies, markets and prices. That helps us understand the drivers of the capital markets that we sit within. Helps us understand monetary policy, housing, finance, commercial real estate, finance. Understand both the gearing of it, then you can look at something and you can say, okay, I’m looking at Citigroup, I could buy it, I could sell it, I could understand what they’re doing in the markets. They have a footprint in what that means for the markets. Do I wanna buy that? So like where are the flywheels? What does it spin to next? So everything we were doing was very much about what do we want to do because we see a very large addressable opportunity where we have a unique perspective, a defined lens, and a way of applying that to these big liquid markets that we think very strongly we can take advantage of in a way that people simply haven’t had the opportunity to learn about and to understand and apply to these products with the type of flexible mandate that we have.

[00:30:18] Matt Cherwin: Which boiled down means we look at the world a little differently. These are big addressable markets which have dislocations, volatility, and opportunity all the time. And we can use that combination to achieve what’s a very, very simple goal, improve the return a little bit while reducing the risk a little bit.

[00:30:38] Barry Ritholtz: That’s all anyone can ask for better returns at lower risk. I’m, I’m kind of fascinated by the overall Merrick investment philosophy we’ll get to, but let’s, let’s start with a little bit with structure. I think of you guys as an alt credit shop, but you also look a little bit like a multi-strat shop, like a, is it, so we’re kind of a hybrid, like tell us about the structure.

[00:31:05] Matt Cherwin: We just define what we do. Okay. We are who we are. We do it the way that we do. We run, we’re, right now we’re running a hedge fund which trades these products as like I said, tools in the toolbox as as widgets. We do it in one collaborative portfolio. So our setup, our structure, we’ve got an amazing team. We have specialists in rates, in mortgages, in non-agency mortgages and a BS in credit in CLOs. I am on the phone every day with traders and salespeople myself. We trade it as one book,

[00:31:42] Barry Ritholtz: One portfolio. So it’s really a multi-strat within a single expression.

[00:31:50] Matt Cherwin: It is what we think is the best expression of the trade.

[00:31:54] Barry Ritholtz: Well I shouldn’t call it multi-strat, it’s really multi-asset. It’s a variety of different credit assets all under one umbrella

[00:32:01] Matt Cherwin: Within our lane. Okay. Sticking to our knitting, what we believe we know very well, what we know we have a differentiated insight into and extracting from that. Okay. The team is phenomenal. They have a ton of buy-side and sell side experience. They work very well together. It’s very exciting to be, I mean, and additionally doing this together, like Derek and I doing this together, putting our name on the door like Merrick is Matt and Derek, right? Because we spent way too much time trying to think of what’s a clever name means

[00:32:40] Barry Ritholtz: They’ve all been taken. Good luck in New York,

[00:32:42] Matt Cherwin: You know, means, you know, alpha extraction in Sanskrit or some something, you know. And Derek’s wife one day was like, enough, it’s Merrick, Matt and Derek now go do some real work. And I think she said in a little bit more of a spicy way, but we were like, yeah, that could work. Alright, let’s do that.

[00:33:01] Barry Ritholtz: I, I think just a little footnote, if you’ve ever incorporated an LLC or any other entity in New York state, every Greek and Roman, god, every Babylonian god, every sebus na name, the creature from mythology, it’s either a fund or an LLC. Yeah. They’re all, they’re all taken. It’s astonishing.

[00:33:21] Matt Cherwin: But the real point I I, I wanted to make also that I don’t wanna lose is this was putting our name on the door. Okay, it’s our name, it’s our reputation ’cause and that really cemented it for us. That was something we really wanted. I took some time off and which was fantastic and I met some of the most amazing and interesting people in the world. When you’re unaffiliated, people speak to you in a different way. Huh. That’s interesting. Because they had no one to talk to. Okay. I sat down with the CEO of one of the world’s largest pension fund sovereign wealth funds. And we had, and I’d never met the person before, we had an hour long conversation because he just needed to talk to someone. And I learned a lot in that. And I met some of the most interesting people in venture cap, in alt, in private equity, et cetera.

[00:34:07] Matt Cherwin: And it was just more way of learning parts of the system. But it got to the point where after my, you know, academic wander through the wilderness, I was like, okay, you know what? ’cause at the time we had three teenagers living at home and it was an amazing time. I used to always say, you should be able to retire in your forties and go back to work in your fifties. Like that’s the way business should work. Obviously that’s a luxury that very few have, but I was getting to the point where I was like, okay, I feel great. I want to do this. I miss markets, I love this. I want to get back to it and I want to do it in the way that I want to do it. How

[00:34:41] Barry Ritholtz: Long of a gap was that between Jason

[00:34:42] Matt Cherwin: And that? Well, I took like about a year off. You know, it’s a, you know, it’s a riot. So in our deck we put a little timeline of my experience and Derek’s experience and just to help people understand who hadn’t met us, who we are. And at the very end I put, you know, this is my background, simple. I was here for 10 years, I was there for 16 years. And then we put like a level one year nugget on the end of the timeline that just said chilling. But no G, no G, just C-H-I-L-L-I-N. Right? I don’t remember,

[00:35:11] Barry Ritholtz: Which is a very un wall street sort of thing.

[00:35:15] Matt Cherwin: Well it was like our 900th version of the deck, right? And we were just getting a little punchy and we’re like, it made us laugh. Okay. Right. You gotta have a sense of humor. It made us laugh. So we were like, this is going in. Every investor brings it up, they bring it up and they love it. And you know what, to us it’s like, wow, you are reading every part of the deck. Right? And also, it’s nice to know you have a sense of humor, but getting back, getting back to it was like PE people,

[00:35:40] Barry Ritholtz: This is always shocking. People read the footnotes.

[00:35:43] Matt Cherwin: Oh yeah. That’s been a big learning for us. Yeah, they read it. So when we were doing all this, you know, my wife was like, yeah, why would you wanna do something for anybody else? And I thought to myself, exactly what are we gonna work hard at? What are we gonna make sure succeeds the thing that we put our name on the door, our reputation that we believe other people don’t get it, that we believe is the right way to approach these markets that we believe can extract from a setup is, which is one of the best that we’ve ever seen. So if you tick all those boxes, why would you do it for anybody else?

[00:36:24] Barry Ritholtz: Huh? Really, really intriguing. So it’s 2026. I’m legally obligated to ask how do you use artificial intelligence in research portfolio construction or operations at Merit Capital?

[00:36:37] Matt Cherwin: Sure. I would, I would sort of make two, two points. I’m an AI optimist, that’s not one of my two points. So that doesn’t count. We use it every day. We build stuff more quickly. We build our own tools and we build ’em more quickly than we ever could before. You know, the guys on the team, they’re building stuff at their desk in a week that would’ve taken a year Wow. To do somewhere else, literally. And I know because I’ve been in that, and then once you built it, it would’ve taken like six months to get approval to release it into your sys, et cetera. This is like Lightspeed versus what we used to do. Now, changing a little bit of how you frame that question, AI is a really, really interesting thing in financial markets as well. Okay? So I don’t think we’re there yet, but we’re gonna get to a place where people are using it for risk management, they’re using it for compliance, they’re using it for KYC. But put all that aside, the most interesting to me right now is we look at the AI CapEx boom and we say, here’s a product that is commercial real estate with securitization technology around it. You’re talking about where is it? Is it built? If not, how long is it gonna take to build it? Who are the tenants? How long are the leases? What are they paying? What’s it worth when it’s all done? Is there residual risk like you have in an auto lease?

[00:37:56] Matt Cherwin: Only some of it comes to the securitized market because it’s just not that, that market’s not big enough for it, right? So it comes to the corporate bond market. So that to us is like, that’s the type of opportunity that piques our interest where we say, this is something that looks like A, B, C, and it’s being wrapped up and put into a different market that is asking 1, 2, 3. And those are good questions, but it’s really like, put it all together, look at all the factors. What are the additional, are you getting more structure, are you getting less, are you charging for the risk? Are you paying away for it? So the AI CapEx boom to us is actually like a source of very cheap risk for us to look at. And each one has a little bit of different flavor and we’re very opinionated about which ones we like.

[00:38:45] Barry Ritholtz: Huh. It sounds, it sounds really fascinating. It also sounds like anytime there’s a novel area, the opportunity for mispricing seems to really,

[00:38:56] Matt Cherwin: There’s that, there’s that, we look at some of those first time issuers we have, like, we have some things in the book. We have something called the North Star Playbook, which is what are companies and bonds that have clear missions and objectives that they can execute on that are aligned with us with the instrument that we have or misaligned or that they’re not able to execute. But some of it, it’s actually not just about the novel structures. Let’s look at agency mortgage-backed securities. Those have been around for a long time, right? Okay. Couple weeks ago, tweet from the pre or whatever we call a, a post on truth social, right? 4:26 PM I’ve instructed my representatives to buy 200 billion of agency MBS boom bomb in the agency mortgage back market. This is a, there are, was it 12 billion, 12 trillion of these things outstanding in the agency. Mortgage market is 9 trillion, hundreds of billions of a trade every day. And that was a aftermarket post tweet that

[00:40:00] Barry Ritholtz: Set off. And

[00:40:01] Matt Cherwin: Do you do, when that happens, event, so then

[00:40:03] Barry Ritholtz: Are you out buying into that, that rise to take advantage? Are you, are you a price taker, a price maker? What are you doing when that that’s happening? It’s

[00:40:12] Matt Cherwin: Both. We look instantly at like, what does this mean? What was our expectation? Now in that instance, we expected the GSEs who will be the one to actually buy it. We expected the GSEs to be buyer. I think our view was a little bit at the high sider outta consensus even. We thought this is gonna be a support mechanism for this market over the course of the year. Fannie and Freddie are gonna buy a lot of this

[00:40:32] Barry Ritholtz: Stuff, assuming they haven’t already started two 10 million.

[00:40:34] Matt Cherwin: Well, they have been, and that’s a great point. They had been, but buying 200 billion with like an aftermarket tweet and nobody knew like, is it gonna be 200 and then another 200? Are you gonna start buying? You gonna buy 40 tomorrow? How’s this all gonna work? This exceeded even our expectations. And you saw right away, I think we were positioned for that type of event. We were positioned to take advantage of some of the policy risk as opposed to get hit by some of the policy risk. You could see that there was a massive short covering rally right after that. And you could see that that wasn’t necessarily people’s expectations in how they were, how they were set up for it.

[00:41:14] Barry Ritholtz: I, I have, I have a mortgage related question to this. Okay. But I’m gonna save it to the next segment. Coming up, we’ve continue our conversation with Matt Gerwin, co-founder and chief investment officer of Merrick Capital, discussing credit and risk in today’s markets. I’m Barry Riol, you’re listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.

[00:41:48] Barry Ritholtz: I’m Barry Ritholtz, you’re listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. My extra special guest this week is Matt Gerwin, co-founder and chief investment officer of Merrick Capital. Previously he spent 25 or so years running credit and various types of risks at JP Morgan Chase and Citigroup. So we were talking earlier about the Trump tweet directing the GSEs to buy $200 billion worth of agency paper. You would’ve thought that should have sent yields plummeting and mortgage rates down, which would stimulate the housing market. I assume part of the motivation for that tweet and for that purchase. What, what’s going on in that market and why does it seem so difficult to drive rates lower?

[00:42:36] Matt Cherwin: Right. That’s a great question. And as silly as it sounds like 200 billion, it’s just not enough

[00:42:41] Barry Ritholtz: Pocket cash, right? Walking around money,

[00:42:45] Matt Cherwin: That’s one way. I

[00:42:46] Barry Ritholtz: Mean in a $12 trillion market, sure. 12 trillion, it’s not even 1%.

[00:42:50] Matt Cherwin: Yeah. If you’re, if you are, if you’ve got 35 trillion in treasuries, outstanding and yeah, yeah, it’s a big number and it moves the needle. But what they, they really want to move it. They keep it there. Like that’s a little bit of the hard part because don’t forget that the Fed owns 2.2 trillion, so they’re gonna buy 200 billion. Didn’t give a lot of information. And that sort of helped them in that moment. The lack of information after probably led some of it to kind of like bleed out and unwind a bit. But the Fed owns 2.2 trillion and those are paying off and that’s approximately 180 billion a year. So then you start to think about like, well if the rate moves and mortgage prices go up, or some of the money managers going to sell a a hundred billion over time and do you kind of neutralize it?

[00:43:43] Matt Cherwin: So I think it’s helpful. It’s indicative, here’s the real takeaway for us. Okay, so at that moment it’s how do we trade this? What’s the price? What’s the next step? But then we’re really thinking from there, like what does this mean? What’s going to happen next? And sort of coming full circle, what it really does is show you how hard they’re gonna try to drive the mortgage rate down to drive rates down overall to sign up for an agenda and a plan to get rates down. Okay. So some of it is what do we do in that specific market? And some of it is, how’s it informing our view of the bigger picture.

[00:44:23] Barry Ritholtz: So you guys have two i i, I don’t wanna say conflicting, but somewhat different risk factors you’re juggling with, obviously when you buy paper you’re thinking long term and we wanna watch this play out to our broader thesis, but at the same time you’re actively trading on the short term. How much do these complement each other? Or do you ever find yourself long in one duration of the portfolio and short in another? How do you, how do you balance this out?

[00:44:55] Matt Cherwin: Yeah, I mean we have longs and shorts across the book within mortgages within credit we, there’s we’re, you know, long what we like and short what we don’t to keep it super simple or long, what helps contribute to our thesis or prote and vice versa. And you know, protect the convexity profile that we’re looking to achieve. We are, we trade every day. We are active in these markets. It’s part of more of a sort of a medium term thought process, how they’re gonna play out. But every day is iterating on that. Is this still what we think? Are we positioned with the best version of it? Do we have the bonds that are going to contribute to what we are trying to achieve? Like right now we’re very focused on the flywheels that exist within financing markets. And if you think about what does that mean?

[00:45:46] Matt Cherwin: Okay, so rates come lower, we talk, we rates go lower. We talked about that a little bit, but credit spreads are also really tightening. And when rates are lower and credit spreads are tightener tighter, your cost of borrowing has gone down. Means you can refinance all sorts of assets. It means some assets are even at that point in time worth more valued highly. Now that it’s worth more, you’ve got a lower LTV loan that you could take out an even tighter credit spread on. And how did these spin and what is it? So this is very much what we’re thinking about now. I think the market completely underestimates the power of those flywheels and what it can be achieved. So we, that is one of, we look at our portfolio and say we want to have about 20 trades in it. And the trade is not one line item.

[00:46:33] Matt Cherwin: A trade could be 30 line items, but the flywheel is a trade. It’s a little bit of a, maybe even a bigger higher order one. But we look at what is happening at that moment. Is there something to take advantage of? But also what are the ripple effects of what’s happening in that moment? And what does the market need to do? What is it going to do? Does it understand this? And then we unpack it and say like, where, where’s the opportunity? So coming back to what we talked about, we believe, when you look at the world through this lens, we look at markets through the Merrick lens that the lack of connections made through these markets and the lack of extracting from some pretty obvious pockets are an opportunity. And I would like we talked about to improve your return and reduce your risk.

[00:47:26] Matt Cherwin: And it’s a process. So it’s just as much a process in a machine through which you’re extracting alpha from from the market. We have our views, we hope to be right. It’s also, it’s a process through which you work through these markets that you extract all the time. And the mandate is pretty clear. Like, as I think of it, the mandate’s very clear. You need to make money when markets go up and you need to make money when markets go down every day, every month, every quarter, every year. And you probably won’t. But that’s the mandate. That’s what, and that’s you’re going for. And it’s, it’s quite simple when you frame it out that way. You

[00:48:04] Barry Ritholtz: Mention in 2019 there was a sea change in how you perceived what was happening in the market and how different that had become. How does that affect how you look at and define risk? It, it risk definitions have obviously changed over your career, but 2019 was such a sea change. What’s different about managing risk today?

[00:48:27] Matt Cherwin: Yeah, I think, I believe managing risk at scale is a skill. Okay. You have your numbers and you want to know what those are and those are indicators and those are starting places. VAR is a number and a starting place and an indicator stress is un numbered DV oh one CS oh one, these are we, I like to look at the world in a stress-based framework and we create a bunch of different stresses. Some are quite simple. Rates go up, rates go down, credit crunch, a flight to quality. Some we had our little like, you know, we’re getting a little punch drunk. We have one we call QE forever and ever. And looking at these, it’s really about, like, it’s a starting place for a conversation. Okay. Because you do need to know where it’s coming from and what’s the attribution, what’s the return attribution, where’s it, where are you hoping it comes from and what’s the risk attribution and very importantly what could go wrong. Understanding that what you’re trying to achieve, but knowing where the exits are, like, I think it’s really like a philosophy to, to risk and to managing risk to make sure you’re pointed to achieve your goals while managing your risk properly and knowing what you would do if things changed. Right? You have a plan and then things change.

[00:49:49] Barry Ritholtz: Hmm. Really, really interesting. What, when you’re looking out at a variety of different opportunities, what do you think today presents the best risk opportunity looking at structured credit corporates relative value? What, what, what is really drawing your attention? Yeah,

[00:50:06] Matt Cherwin: We really thought that one of the places to extract from the flywheel is in securitized markets. Actually as an example, like we’ve been very focused on trophy quality office in gateway cities. And this goes back a little ways,

[00:50:20] Barry Ritholtz: These are the super A residential, yeah, commercial real co office

[00:50:24] Matt Cherwin: Commercial, right? So that all came to be from us pulling it, the thread of how the financial system works. We talked a little bit about the new Gs Cs and what you had was everybody was going back to work back to the office, but took longer than we kind looking back on it, that took a long time. The part of the financial system that was changing were those new Gs, CS, Apollo, Aries, KKR, Blackstone, BlackRock. And they were coming back to the office and they were growing and they were finding that two things. One, they needed nice offices to kind of, you know, get everybody where they want ’em to be. But also they were growing and they outgrew what they had and then they went looking for more. And what they found was there’s actually not that much trophy real estate out there. And so like our view on the evolving financial system led us to have very strong conviction about a supply demand imbalance in commercial real estate when applied correctly. And then we just looked for what’s the best place. And it’s tightened a lot, but actually it think it continues to and has been because it’s like the, it’s continued to be one to two steps behind the fundamentals. So what that really means, the way we think about, to wrap it up in a nutshell, this is a triple B bond that we think is a double a

[00:51:35] Barry Ritholtz: Hmm. Really, really in, because everybody’s painting with a broad brush of, hey, forget bs, even a buildings are 60% occupied in terms of staff, but

[00:51:45] Matt Cherwin: They’re not, they’re a hundred percent occupied with the waiting list.

[00:51:47] Barry Ritholtz: I mean in terms of staff returning to office. Yeah, so it’s fully leased, but the, what is it? Castle key cards are running 60% of pre pandemic levels in a lot of cities. But the a plus the bigger shops, the JP Morgans, they want everybody back in the office, as does Goldman Sachs, as does a lot of these places. And they’re all in trophy properties.

[00:52:08] Matt Cherwin: And it’s not just New York, it’s Miami, it’s actually San Fran has come a long way. There’s certain buildings there that we like. We actually, I would say a little bit outta consensus, we like DC certain po not the government buildings, but nice offices, like we said, this is administration that’s in the business of being in business, which means you gotta go see ’em and make your case. You want to get some business done, which means you need lawyers with a nice conference room that need a decent office and et cetera, et cetera. I mean, like, it sounds a little glib, but it’s

[00:52:37] Barry Ritholtz: True. It’s the cost of doing business. It’s

[00:52:39] Matt Cherwin: True. Yeah, absolutely. And so you can see there are certain companies that are buying buildings, knocking them down in DC and building brand new ones. And there are buildings that are being taken offline to convert to resi. By the way, everything we wrapped up in what we said, the conversion from office resi is actually spinning faster now in dc some buildings are being con and just outside DC some buildings are being converted to data centers. Interesting. So actually like interesting stocks being removed all the time anyways, it’s just an example of how, like we’re pulling on threads and we’re finding where we can best take advantage of it and like what are the next couple steps? And ultimately we’re looking for what’s something that’s already gotten better except the price hasn’t changed yet.

[00:53:22] Barry Ritholtz: Huh? That, that’s really, that’s really interesting. You, you’ve mentioned stress scenarios a couple of times. We know that correlations have a tendency to go to one and liquidity disappears.

[00:53:35] Matt Cherwin: Well, I think I’ve seen that personally, right? Liquidity enough times over your career liquidity disappears. Yeah, I think I would just wrap that up. We, I make two comments to people. I say like, one, you don’t go outta business ’cause of your assets, you go outta business because your liabilities.

[00:53:49] Matt Cherwin: And when you start looking at that side of the balance sheet first, then you understand things a little bit better. And then also, you know, with, with my traders and all the people I work for, and it’s really great. ’cause some of the people I hired a long time ago, they’re MDs at places now. They’re all, it’s, I actually take a lot of pride in the people I’ve worked with who have gone on and done fantastic things. I really, really hate the phrase money. Good. Okay. I don’t think anybody should be allowed to say it. It is this like false crutch. I also, in many, many conversations have said to people, I think you’re right. In fact, you’ve convinced me, I believe you are right. I’m just saying, you know, you’re gonna get fired long before we know the answer to this question. Okay, let’s take everything we thought, everything we’ve known, and let’s put it into the context of how do we apply this in markets? What’s gonna happen, what’s everybody else doing? And how do we take advantage of that?

[00:54:40] Barry Ritholtz: Huh? Really, really fascinating. Last question before I get to my favorite questions, what do you think investors? I

[00:54:47] Matt Cherwin: Thought those were your favorite

[00:54:48] Barry Ritholtz: Questions. Oh no, though you’ll, you’ll, oh, okay. You’ll see the favorite questions. All right. What do you think investors in the credit and alt space are not talking about, but perhaps should be? What topics, assets, geographies, data points are getting overlooked, but really shouldn’t.

[00:55:05] Matt Cherwin: Yeah, so it’s a great question. We touched on a little bit. They’re underestimating the power of this flywheel. Like with, with the background I’ve had, and we’ve talked about and I’ve seen a lot of things blow up. Like we could come up with a lot of examples of things that could go wrong. I think they’re underestimating the things that could go right or what the power of financing and the mechanics around financing and the provision of liquidity and credit, credit spreads when they’re good and when they’re tight and when the machine is flowing. What that financial engineering can really do to both un recover value and create value. I think they’re underestimating. Huh? Really, really. The other quick thing is in the middle of the year, if Kevin Wars ends up sitting in that seat, and if we get a little bit of the, the setup that he’s looking for. He’s gonna change everything, right? So he believes we’re gonna have a big productivity dividend from ai, and we’re gonna have a big productivity dividend from deregulation. And then that would allow you to have lower rates and a smaller Fed Balance sheet at the same time. And if he gets a little bit of what he needs to craft that argument, we’re gonna have a very different second half of 26th than the first.

[00:56:21] Barry Ritholtz: Huh. Really, really interesting. All right. Right. Let’s jump to our favorite questions, our speed round. We’ll get you guys outta here at a reasonable time. Starting with, who are your mentors who helped shape your career?

[00:56:33] Matt Cherwin: Oh, I’ve worked for some pretty amazing people, and I tried to learn from everyone. I’ve just had the, the bosses that I’ve had are, you know, legends in this industry, whether it’s Bruce Richards, T and Perlow. Oh, Jimmy DeMar, Ziems, Daniel Pinto. I mean, these are guy, these are people who defined these markets. And they all had a huge impact on my career.

[00:56:56] Barry Ritholtz: Huh, really interesting. Let’s talk about books. What are you reading now? What are some of your favorites?

[00:57:02] Matt Cherwin: Oh, you know, but like I am in front of a computer screen and reading so much, and I read so much analytics, research, et cetera. When I get home, it’s a little bit more like, hang out with my wife and kids. And it’s a little tv.

[00:57:14] Barry Ritholtz: Well, that’s my next question. What are you listening to or streaming? Oh, give us your favorite next. Netflix, Amazon Prime, whatever.

[00:57:22] Matt Cherwin: I will watch pretty much anything. Taylor Sheridan. You know, like

[00:57:26] Barry Ritholtz: We spent season two of Landman. It’s so good. Like

[00:57:29] Matt Cherwin: Landman, all the Yellowstones, everyone. 19 80, 18, 23, 19. All of those lion, any of those, I’m suckers.

[00:57:36] Barry Ritholtz: Linus was also great. This should be a new season of that coming out one of these days.

[00:57:41] Matt Cherwin: Yeah, there is. I mean, I think I’ve watched both seasons like a hundred times.

[00:57:45] Barry Ritholtz: Final two questions. What sort of advice would you give to a college grad interest in a career in investing, credit trading, what have you?

[00:57:54] Matt Cherwin: I just think it’s not, you know, it doesn’t have to be a commitment for life. Just look at it as what’s something I’m interested in being interested in. I think you can pick the kind of people you work with and you want to be around good people who will teach you, who will support what you’re doing. And just say, I’m gonna give this a spin for three to five years, and if I like it, I love it, maybe I’ll sign up for another five. But you know, you have an opportunity to try something out and see if it’s for you.

[00:58:22] Barry Ritholtz: And our final question, what do you know about the world of trading credit, investing in alternative sources of, of liquidity and other products that would’ve been helpful 25 or so years ago when you were just getting your legs on? Do you

[00:58:38] Matt Cherwin: I wish I knew a fraction of what we are applying at Merrick. Any point before we did this, if I knew a drop of what we’re doing when I sat in other seats. Yeah, I’ll put that all in the I wish I knew bucket.

[00:58:55] Barry Ritholtz: Really, really absolutely fascinating. Matt, thank you for being so generous. Thanks for having me with your time. We have been speaking with Matt Sherwin. He’s co-founder and chief investment officer of Merri Capital. If you enjoy this conversation, well be sure and check out any of the previous 600 or so we’ve done over the past 12 years. You can find those at iTunes, Spotify, Bloomberg, YouTube, wherever you get your favorite podcasts. I would be remiss if I didn’t thank the correct team that helps us put these conversations together each week. Alexis Noriega is my video producer. Sean Russo is my researcher. Anna Luke is my podcast producer. I’m Barry Ol. You’ve been listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.

 

~~~

 

 

 

The post Transcript: Matt Cherwin, Co-Founder and Chief Investment Officer of Marek Capital appeared first on The Big Picture.

10 Monday AM Reads

My back-to-work morning train WFH reads:

Barron’s 100 Most Influential Women in U.S. Finance: Our annual list honors women helping their companies, clients, and country through volatile markets and challenging times. Meet this year’s 28 new additions. (Barron’s)

Why Private Market Funds Are Dangerous for Retail Investors.  Private market practices have developed without significant regulatory oversight, and the markets themselves have long been dominated by sophisticated players, potentially leaving inexperienced investors vulnerable. The push to democratize private equity access is really about expanding the fee pool. Retail investors should understand they’re buying illiquidity and opacity at premium prices. (ProMarket) see also The AltView’s take on industry propaganda: A summary feat. A skeptical look at the narratives the alternative investment industry sells to its investors. A summary. feat. *Altie* nominees Mercer, Pru, Goldman, Georgetown University, Willis Towers Watson, Blackrock, Neuberger Berman, Franklin Templeton, State Street, Empower and more! (TheAltView)

• For the Best Long-Term Bet in the AI Economy, Look to the Past: Morningstar makes the case that the real AI winners might be boring diversified funds, not the flashy thematic plays. History suggests they’re right. AI isn’t the first game-changing technology for the economy. Here’s what investors can learn from previous waves of innovation. (Morningstar)

Global Investment Returns Yearbook 2026: UBS’s annual compendium of long-term asset class returns across global markets. Essential reference material for any serious investor. The latest edition highlights what has driven real asset returns over time and what lessons we can draw to help navigate the future. (UBS)

Should Hot IPOs Get Special Treatment? With offerings from SpaceX and OpenAI on the horizon, Nasdaq is considering a rules change that goes too far. The eternal debate about IPO allocation and whether retail investors deserve better access. Wall Street’s answer has always been ‘no,’ but the pressure is building. (Wall Street Journal)

As AI Threatens Certain Jobs, How Will It Impact the Housing Market? If white-collar workers start earning less — or stop earning altogether — that has real consequences for housing demand.(Housing Notes)

• Prices for New Cars Have Soared. Here’s One Big Reason Why. Tariffs, supply chain friction, and regulatory costs keep pushing sticker prices higher.(Reuters)

January’s EV Registrations Fell 41% As The Full Weight Of Trump’s Policy Changes Hit Home: Electric vehicle registrations fell off a cliff to begin the year, history says the U.S. and Israel’s war with Iran will be disastrous for our auto industry, the Honda Prologue will soon join its newly canceled electric siblings in heaven and the Trump administration is suing California over its zero-emission vehicle and greenhouse gas rules. So much for states’ rights. Policy matters. Strip away the EV incentives and watch adoption collapse in real time. A masterclass in how government can kill a market transition. (Jalopnik)

Marco Rubio’s Florida Bestie Is an Accused ‘Foreign Agent’ Set to Go on Trial — With Rubio on the Witness List. The Secretary of State’s close friend faces foreign agent charges, and Rubio himself may have to testify. David Rivera and Rubio bought a house in Tallahassee when they were coming up together in Florida politics. But he’s been a headache for the secretary of state ever since, and now he could be one for the Trump White House, too. (Vanity Fair)

Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years: “Our parliament should always be a place where talents are recognized and merit counts,” he said. “It should never be a gallery of old boys’ networks, nor a place where titles, many of which were handed out centuries ago, hold power over the will of the people.” The House of Lords finally evicts members whose qualification for lawmaking is having the right great-great-great-grandfather. Better seven centuries late than never. (PBS)

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business interview this weekend with Matt Cherwin, co-founder and Chief Investment Officer of Marek Capital. The alternative asset management firm launched in 2024. Previously, he spent 16-years at JPMorgan Chase & Co where he held titles of Chief Investment Officer, Group Treasurer, Co-Head of Global Spread Markets, Global Head of Securitized Products, and Global Head of Asset-Backed Trading.

 

The real reason sunlight is increasing (it’s not daylight saving time).

Source: USA Today

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

 

The post 10 Monday AM Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

10 Sunday Reads

Avert your eyes! My Sunday morning look at incompetency, corruption and policy failures:

• Nasdaq’s Shame. How to rig an index to appease a billionaire. A look at how the exchange has lost its way. (Keubiko’s Musings)

U.S. Plan to Unblock Strait of Hormuz Collides With Realities of Global Insurance: This U.S.-centric insurance idea runs counter to the realities of an international market, according to industry executives. You can clear the mines, but if no insurer will underwrite the tankers, the strait stays effectively closed.(Wall Street Journal) see also Pentagon Tells Congress First Week of Iran War Cost More Than $11.3 Billion. One week, $11.3 billion. And that’s before the real costs start compounding. In a Capitol Hill briefing, officials gave their most comprehensive assessment of the cost of the first six days of the war, but the number omitted several aspects of the operation. (New York Times)

The insurance catastrophe: Whole regions of the world are now uninsurable, bringing radical uncertainty to the economy. How do we fix the problem? (Aeon)

Inside the Dirty, Dystopian World of AI Data Centers: The race to power AI is already remaking the physical world. (The Atlantic)

• Indexing Capital Gains to Inflation by Executive Order Is Still Illegal and Still a Bad Idea. Bruce Bartlett explains why this perennial conservative wish list item remains both unlawful and economically dubious. The Usual Suspects Have Been Trying Since 1992 (Bartlett’s Notations)

• Trump Just Pardoned Ticketmaster When No One Was Looking. The DOJ’s settlement with Live Nation amounts to a get-out-of-jail-free card for the concert monopoly. The Trump DOJ settled with Ticketmaster, while state enforcers said they’ll continue. The judge is mad, the parties showed “absolute disrespect for the court, for the jury, for this entire process.” (BIG by Matt Stoller)

• Foreign Hacker Reportedly Breached FBI Servers Holding Epstein Files in 2023. Cybercriminal reportedly accessed a server at the FBI’s New York field office, according to a source and DoJ documents. The foreign hacker got into the FBI’s Epstein files three years ago. What did they get — and what happens next? (The Guardian)

• The US Is Counting Traffic Deaths Wrong. How you measure road fatalities changes whether the picture looks like progress or catastrophe.By emphasizing the number of people killed per mile rather than deaths per capita, traffic safety groups risk normalizing the factors that make American roads so deadly. (CityLab)

President Trump’s Head-Spinning Pivot on an Emergency Oil Release: In a matter of hours, the White House changed its position and pushed allies to move forward with a massive oil market intervention. (Wall Street Journal) see also Oil Prices Could Easily Go Much Higher: If the Strait stays closed, look out above: If one looks at the state of global oil supply, it’s extremely dire. Around 20 percent of the world’s normal flow of oil is bottled up inside the Strait of Hormuz — and as we’ve seen in the past day, even tankers and oil facilities inside the Strait are vulnerable to attack. If this blockade persists, it will be a much worse shock to world oil supplies than the 1973 embargo, the 1979 Iranian revolution, or the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. (Paul Krugman)

Preliminary Inquiry: U.S. at Fault in Strike on School in Iran: Outdated targeting data may have resulted in a mistaken missile strike, according to the ongoing military investigation, which undercuts President Trump’s assertion that Iran could be to blame.  (New York Times)

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business interview this weekend with Matt Cherwin, co-founder and Chief Investment Officer of Marek Capital. The alternative asset management firm launched in 2024. Previously, he spent 16-years at JPMorgan Chase & Co where he held titles of Chief Investment Officer, Group Treasurer, Co-Head of Global Spread Markets, Global Head of Securitized Products, and Global Head of Asset-Backed Trading.

 

Per capita income for the bottom 95% of the population, as measured by the World Inequality Database’s pre-tax national income series

Source: Informer

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

~~~

To learn how these reads are assembled each day, please see this.

 

The post 10 Sunday Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

MiB: Matt Cherwin, Co-Founder and Chief Investment Officer of Marek Capital



 

 

This week, I speak with Matt Cherwin, Co-Founder and Chief Investment Officer of Marek Capital, an alternative asset management firm launched in 2024. He is responsible for the firm’s investment strategy, portfolio construction, research and risk management.

Previously, he spent 16-years at JPMorgan Chase & Co where he held titles of Chief Investment Officer, Group Treasurer, Co-Head of Global Spread Markets, Global Head of Securitized Products, and Global Head of Asset-Backed Trading.

His framework for analyzing markets relies on five vectors: Money, Capital, Credit, Liquidity and Regulation.

A transcript of our conversation is available here Tuesday.

You can stream and download our full conversation, including any podcast extras, on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube (video), YouTube (audio), and Bloomberg. All of our earlier podcasts on your favorite pod hosts can be found here.

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business next week with Bill Miller IV, Chief Investment Officer and Portfolio Manager at Miller Value Fund. Previously, he was at Legg Mason Capital Management covering specialty finance + consumer spaces with a focus on high-yielding securities. Miller competed in the Poker World Series Main Event. He began his career working for his father, famed investor Bill Miller III.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The post MiB: Matt Cherwin, Co-Founder and Chief Investment Officer of Marek Capital appeared first on The Big Picture.

10 Weekend Reads

The weekend is here! Pour yourself a mug of Danish Blend coffee, grab a seat outside, and get ready for our longer-form weekend reads:

• David Zaslav Gets the Last Laugh.  The Warner Bros. mogul’s $111 billion deal with David Ellison reveals the next stage of the business: The rich get richer, the big get bigger and everybody else is left in the dust. A look inside the Ellison empire and how Warner Bros. Discovery’s much-mocked CEO wound up in a stronger position than anyone expected. (Hollywood Reporter

• Coding After Coders: The End of Computer Programming as We Know It. Yes, In the era of A.I. agents, many Silicon Valley programmers are now barely programming. Instead, what they’re doing is deeply, deeply weird. (New York Times) see also After the AI Revolution. What does the economy — and society — actually look like on the other side of the AI transformation? Like a prism, AI will reveal the civilizational differences between China and the U.S., making visible the invisible within each society. (NOEMA

• They Came to Spy on America. They Stayed to Coach Little League. Soviet spies who settled into American suburban life and couldn’t quite bring themselves to leave. In the wake of the Cold War, some Soviet bloc spies decided their fake American lives weren’t so bad. (Politico)

Sucker: My year as a degenerate gambler: When I set out to report on the sports-betting industry—its explosive growth, its sudden cultural ubiquity, and what it’s doing to America—my editors thought I should experience the phenomenon firsthand. Mindful of my religious constraints, they proposed a work-around: The Atlantic would stake me $10,000 to gamble with over the course of the upcoming NFL season. The magazine would cover any losses, and—to ensure my ongoing emotional investment—split any winnings with me, 50–50. Surely God would approve of such an arrangement, my editors reasoned, because I wouldn’t be risking my own hard-earned money. (The Atlantic)

• Inside the Space-Age Bid to Build Millions of Homes in Factories. Operation Breakthrough, a 1970s federal moonshot to build 26 million homes using advanced manufacturing, has lessons for today’s abundance movement. Operation Breakthrough, a 1970s federal moonshot to build 26 million homes using advanced manufacturing methods, has lessons for today’s abundance movement. (CityLab)

The Status Economy: How the signaling game has shifted from logos and luxury goods to taste, access, and knowledge. “Every purchase is now a status signal. Discover The Status Economy — three reports exploring the categories defining cultural credibility and taste in 2026. “For the last decade, fashion has been the most direct way to communicate status, knowledge, and cultural credibility. Today, that concentration has broken apart. For Cultural Pioneers, everything is now a signal. Every purchase, product, and experience functions as a marker of taste, knowledge, and cultural credibility, regardless of category. We’re calling this shift The Status Economy. Across three reports, we take a deep dive into the categories defining status in 2026.  (Highsnobiety)

Building Brasília: A twentieth-century experiment in urban planning promised progress—but carried immense financial and human costs. (JSTOR Daily)

Tech legend Stewart Brand on Musk, Bezos and his extraordinary life: ‘We don’t need to passively accept our fate’ The Whole Earth Catalog creator reflects on Silicon Valley’s evolution and our collective agency. He was at the heart of 1960s counterculture, then paved the way for the libertarian mindset of Silicon Valley. At 87, Brand is still keen to ensure the world is maintained properly – not just today, but for the next 10,000 years. “We don’t need to passively accept our fate.” (The Guardian)

How the ‘Neo-Vintage’ Era Became the Hottest Thing in Watches From ornate perpetual calendars to classic divers, watches from the 1980s and 1990s hit the sweet spot between value, reliability, and soul. (GQ)

Hollywood’s Most Invisible Job Gets Its Own Oscar: After nearly a century, the Oscars are finally honoring the art of casting. But those who built the category say the toughest questions are just beginning. (Wall Street Journal)

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business interview this weekend with Matt Cherwin, co-founder and Chief Investment Officer of Marek Capital. The alternative asset management firm launched in 2024. Previously, he spent 16-years at JPMorgan Chase & Co where he held titles of Chief Investment Officer, Group Treasurer, Co-Head of Global Spread Markets, Global Head of Securitized Products, and Global Head of Asset-Backed Trading.

 

YouTube Lays Claim to Another Crown: The World’s Largest Media Company

Source: Hollywood Reporter

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

~~~

To learn how these reads are assembled each day, please see this.

 

The post 10 Weekend Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

10 Friday AM Reads

My end-of-week morning train WFH reads:

AI Isn’t Coming for Everyone’s Job: The Atlantic on the limits of artificial intelligence — the things AI does brilliantly and the vast terrain of human work it can’t touch. The rise and fall of the player piano indicates a robust demand for human labor that machines cannot replace. (The Atlantic)

How Homeowners Are Turning to Adjustable-Rate Mortgages, in Charts: The prospect of short-term savings is pushing more buyers to adjustable-rate mortgages. (Wall Street Journal) see also How elevator rules are throwing a wrench into America’s housing market: The unintended consequences of a 1988 law are making housing less accessible and driving up prices. Disability-access elevator requirements are adding enormous cost to mid-rise construction, making affordable housing harder to build. (Washington Post)

What the Push for Alts in Retail Channels Means for Institutional Investors: Limited partners have questions about their managers’ quest for new sources of capital. (Chief Investment Officer)

The return-to-the-office trend backfires: Across practitioner reports and peer-reviewed research, organizations that commit to highly flexible models, including remote-first, report strong output, healthier engagement, and faster growth than mandate-driven peers. (The Hill)

Why ATMs didn’t kill bank teller jobs, but the iPhone did: The classic automation parable gets a second act — and the real job killer wasn’t the machine you’d expect. There’s a lot more to replacing labor than just automating tasks. (David Oks) see also Silicon Valley’s New Obsession: Watching Bots Do Their Grunt Work:  Tech workers are mesmerized by watching AI agents click through spreadsheets and fill out forms on their behalf; they compare notes on how long their fleet of virtual interns can labor away without making a mistake (Wall Street Journal)

Microsoft Takes a Stand Against the Trump Administration: The technology giant’s siding with Anthropic in its fight against the Pentagon stands out in an era when big companies have tended to keep quiet. As the tech giant pushes back on Pentagon demands, Anthropic is caught in the middle. (DealBook)

How a Die-Hard Libertarian Is Negotiating Lower Health-Care Costs:  An Oklahoma anesthesiologist has spent decades posting transparent prices at his surgery center. Others are now following his lead. (Businessweek)

The right way to be a scientific contrarian: Being a skeptic is important. Being a crank is not. Here’s how to tell the difference. Not everyone accepts the scientific consensus; some even make careers out of challenging it. But only a select few do it the right way. (Big Think)

• YouTube Just Ate TV. It’s Only Getting Started. YouTube has surpassed traditional television in viewership across sports, late night, and comedy — and the gap is widening fast.(Hollywood Reporter)

What Brad Pitt in ‘F1’ and Michael B. Jordan in ‘Sinners’ Can Teach Men About Style: This year’s Oscar-nominated movies are a menswear feast. Stylists and costume designers offer five takeaways. Hollywood’s latest leading men are offering a masterclass in how to dress like a grown-up. (Wall Street Journal)

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business interview this weekend with Matt Cherwin, co-founder and Chief Investment Officer of Marek Capital. The alternative asset management firm launched in 2024. Previously, he spent 16-years at JPMorgan Chase & Co where he held titles of Chief Investment Officer, Group Treasurer, Co-Head of Global Spread Markets, Global Head of Securitized Products, and Global Head of Asset-Backed Trading.

We assume human cognitive labor is scarce and predictably compensated. AI, however, undoes this scarcity.

Source: Paul Kedrosky

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

 

The post 10 Friday AM Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.