HomeVideos

Risk and Reward with Marek Capital Co-Founder Matt Cherwin | At the Money

Now Playing

Risk and Reward with Marek Capital Co-Founder Matt Cherwin | At the Money

Transcript

1563 segments

0:00

[music]

0:02

Bloomberg Audio Studios podcasts, radio,

0:06

news.

0:13

[music]

0:14

This is Masters in Business with Barry

0:16

Rick Holtz on Bloomberg [music] Radio.

0:21

This week on the podcast, another extra

0:24

special guest. Matt Sherwin is

0:25

co-founder and chief investment officer

0:27

at Maric Capital. He previously spent 16

0:30

years at JP Morgan Chase and then a

0:32

bunch of years at uh Cityroup beforehand

0:35

running all sorts of spread markets,

0:38

head of securitized product, lots of CIO

0:41

and risk management titles. Uh I came to

0:44

know through

0:46

>> [music]

0:46

>> um a live event we did at Bloomberg last

0:49

year. I found that his approach to

0:52

credit and trading is absolutely

0:54

fascinating and what MARA is doing is

0:56

really quite interesting. I thought the

0:58

conversation was brilliant and I think

1:00

you will also with no further ado my

1:03

conversation with Mar Capitals Matt

1:06

Sherwin.

1:08

[music]

1:15

[music]

1:17

>> Matt Sherwin, welcome to Bloomberg.

1:20

>> Thanks for having me. This is exciting.

1:21

That was kind of that was that was a

1:23

bigger windup than I was uh

1:24

>> I likeing

1:26

>> I like a big windup cuz it gives us an

1:28

opportunity to roll back to the

1:30

beginning and say all right bachelor's

1:32

in economics from University of

1:34

Pennsylvania. What was the original

1:36

career plan? I I don't imagine people

1:39

going to college and saying I want to be

1:41

the head of global spread markets. Uh,

1:43

no. But that's super interesting because

1:45

um our oldest uh is a sophomore in

1:48

college now and he's in the business

1:49

school at American and I was just

1:51

talking to him yesterday and he said,

1:53

"I'm now in I think they call it like

1:55

finance for business. I really like this

1:57

new class." And I said to him,

1:58

>> "That reminds me so well of when I was

2:02

in undergrad business school and I did

2:04

the first couple semesters of econ and I

2:07

hated it." [laughter]

2:08

And

2:08

>> I had a similar experience.

2:10

>> It was like, you know, I I shouldn't

2:14

have hated it as much as I did, but at

2:16

the time, uh, it was ISLM curves, it was

2:20

supply, it was demand, etc. And it just

2:22

it felt it didn't feel very practical to

2:24

me and I didn't do very well. I didn't

2:26

go to class very often. I didn't do very

2:28

well. But then we got to kind of the

2:30

next semester which I think they called

2:31

finance 101 and was like

2:34

>> bond math discounted cash flows and I

2:37

was like oh this I like okay I am in the

2:39

right place.

2:39

>> Well it's much more realistic and you're

2:41

not dealing with homoe economy cuz that

2:43

is this theoretical version of humans.

2:46

>> Looking back on I wish I had listened a

2:49

bit more at some of those others. Um,

2:51

but you know, something I say maybe we

2:52

we'll get to is like it just a

2:55

recommendation I would give to other

2:56

people. It took me a little while to

2:58

realize what I was interested in, what I

3:01

was interested in being interested in.

3:04

>> And when I got into some of those

3:05

classes, kind of the more financy kind

3:08

of stuff, I was like, this I like this

3:09

makes sense. Uh, I want to learn more.

3:11

And I think that's kind of where it

3:13

starts. So I always wanted to get I just

3:15

like when there's, you know, numbers on

3:16

the page, it adds up to something.

3:17

You're trying to make money. It's

3:18

hopefully positive at the end. It might

3:20

be negative. It's pretty clear-cut.

3:22

>> Um, at least the goal is. And I always

3:25

like that. I always gravitate towards.

3:26

>> So, so economics way too abstract and

3:29

academic, but business and finance

3:32

practical, applicable, real life usage.

3:36

>> Yeah. Which is interesting too because I

3:37

also I'm a little bit like this a little

3:40

exaggerated, but I'm a little bit of

3:41

like a history buff. So, like it was

3:43

interesting that that what didn't appeal

3:46

to me because I do like kind of the

3:47

history of it. how did we get here? And

3:50

I think that's always something that I'm

3:52

like in this form as well. Um going back

3:56

to learn more about financial systems,

3:59

how money works, how they thought it

4:01

used to work, different schools of

4:02

thoughts, and I think really helps you

4:04

understand where you've been, where you

4:07

are, where you're going. So when you

4:09

look back when you were group treasurer

4:11

or chief investment officer at at the JP

4:13

Morgan um division you were you were

4:16

involved in what sort of lessons did you

4:19

take away from that? You're you're in

4:21

the real world managing real risk, real

4:24

portfolios. H how did that experience

4:26

change how you perceive risk?

4:28

>> Yeah, it's a great question. Um and

4:30

[clears throat] I'll tell you so

4:31

obviously I had a career with a

4:32

background in um trading running trading

4:35

teams both on the buy side and the sell

4:38

side and it was really that experience

4:40

that this next piece that was

4:42

transformative for me and um you know

4:46

really brought us to the point where um

4:48

my partner Derek Goodman and I decided

4:50

let's form Merrick and you know I'm sure

4:52

we'll get into that a bit but what

4:54

happened was I spent 20 odd years

4:57

trading mortgages trades, corporate

5:00

credit, high yield products like that,

5:02

working with specialty finance

5:03

companies, some that I worked with, some

5:05

I had a hand in running this kind of

5:08

universe and then uh in late 2019 I had

5:12

the opportunity to move over and this

5:14

was different building, different you

5:15

know walled off key card, different team

5:17

and be the CIO and the treasurer. So

5:19

this is now by side running the capital

5:22

of the firm, the investment of the firm,

5:25

hedging, managing, structural risk, lots

5:27

of things wrapped up in there. But the

5:29

real thing was the point in time where

5:32

this happened was late 2019, a few days

5:36

later was the repo crisis. If we

5:38

remember that

5:40

>> when all of a sudden if you wanted to

5:42

borrow overnight against treasuries, it

5:43

cost you 10%.

5:45

>> Okay. Six months after that pandemic

5:48

breaks out. And why I bring that up is

5:52

so much changed in dramatic size at

5:55

rapid speed that I saw something I'd

5:58

never seen before. And it was how does

6:02

the financial system really work and

6:04

what does it mean and how does it apply

6:07

to everything that I've done? And it was

6:10

one of these moments where I felt like I

6:12

just went from being the captain of the

6:14

ship, you know, my own little thing,

6:15

right? We'll be a little expansive with

6:17

it. I went from being the captain of the

6:18

ship to going to work in the engine room

6:21

and seeing the actual gearing and how it

6:24

works and how it doesn't and what could

6:26

stop it from working. And you spend

6:27

years, you know, you pull a lever, you

6:29

think the boat goes faster, but you

6:31

don't know why. And you don't know what

6:33

could stop it from doing that. And you

6:34

don't know what could make it work more

6:36

efficiently. But now you go work in the

6:37

engine room and you see it and you

6:39

understand it. It was just this aha

6:40

moment like we're two guys with glasses,

6:42

right? So, you know, when you go to the

6:45

the you get a new prescription, you get

6:48

your new glasses, you put them on,

6:49

you're like, "Oh my god, I can see."

6:52

Right? And by the way, how was I walking

6:54

around the streets of Manhattan with

6:56

that old prescription, but now I could

6:58

see clearly. And honestly, 20 odd years

7:00

into my career, that's how I felt at

7:02

that that moment

7:03

>> in 2019.

7:05

>> Yeah. I would say like in early 2020

7:07

about 6 months in it was kind of like oh

7:09

my goodness it's coming together now. I

7:11

wish I wish I had known this for the 20

7:14

years that preceded this but I felt like

7:17

now I know nothing and I'm starting to

7:19

learn. So I have to ask. So uh my

7:22

experience with 2019 was that wobble

7:26

seemed to go by so quickly compared to

7:30

0809 where you know to me you saw a lot

7:33

of warning signs first in housing and

7:36

then in securitized product and then in

7:39

construction and then you know the

7:41

market didn't peak till October07 and

7:44

the next 18 months were kind of fun if

7:47

you were on the right side of it but if

7:48

you weren't it must have been a blood

7:51

bath. It sounds like you derived more

7:56

out of the 2019 experience than you were

7:59

on a desk in 089. What sort of scar

8:02

tissue did that leave? H how informative

8:04

was that

8:05

>> moment? It's really interesting the way

8:06

you kind of put those together. And um

8:09

so to set the table a bit 0708 when I I

8:13

got to JP Morgan late ' 06 070809

8:17

I was in charge of um had a team we

8:20

traded asset back securities say credit

8:22

cards auto student loans um subprime

8:25

mortgages remember those?

8:27

>> Yeah. um CLOS's. So

8:30

really kind of like the center of what

8:33

ended up happening uh after that. And I

8:36

would say it was

8:39

so overwhelming at the time. I mean we

8:42

were there 2 in the morning handmarking

8:44

bonds. Okay. Walking across the street

8:46

between the two buildings like is there

8:48

more information? This company might buy

8:51

that company before the market opens.

8:53

What else can we do? Um the numbers were

8:56

huge. It was almost like a bit more than

8:58

you could process at the time. Um, but I

9:01

think each one of these became every

9:04

step there was like I understand what

9:06

I'm doing better now because but the

9:08

first thing I ever did was I started out

9:10

as a cash flow structure

9:12

>> and actually at that point in time um

9:15

the guy who ran the department was uh a

9:17

friend of mine named Bruce Richards who

9:18

went on to start Marathon and um has had

9:22

a fantastic career and we keep in touch

9:24

and he said I said I want to be a trader

9:26

and he said well I want you to be a

9:28

structure because if you learn how the

9:30

cash flow works, how the structure

9:32

works, then you'll be a better trader

9:34

later on. I think each piece helped me

9:36

understand the risk better and then the

9:38

system it sits in and that helps you

9:39

understand the risk better. And then

9:41

when you understand the risk better, you

9:42

understand the system it sits in better

9:44

and it builds and it builds on top of

9:46

each other. So I would say in '08 I

9:49

learned more in '08. We saw we felt like

9:52

we were the tip of the spear in like a

9:54

bad way and we could see it was getting

9:57

worse and it was accelerating and we

9:59

could see that people were maybe even

10:01

underestimating. And I remember some

10:03

conversations around at the time um that

10:06

we were basically saying like think

10:09

bigger, think broader, think worse.

10:11

That's the context we're talking about.

10:13

But all of that helped me understand how

10:16

does my product I'm trading fit into an

10:18

investment bank? How's an investment

10:20

bank impact the system? Um I think when

10:23

I went into 2019,

10:26

obviously a lot time had passed. I'd had

10:28

more experiences, etc. Um I remember

10:31

sitting in a meeting. We're in 7:30 a.m.

10:34

traders meeting. This is uh with the CIO

10:36

group. Um and we go around the table, my

10:39

you know, rates lead, my credit lead,

10:41

etc. And the repo guys walk in and they

10:44

say, "Hey, we can lend against

10:46

treasuries at 10%. should we do more?

10:49

And I said, "Guys, I this is my third

10:52

day with this team." Okay. [laughter]

10:54

Um I'm the person in the room who knows

10:57

the least about what you're talking

10:59

about.

11:00

>> But if you need my authorization, you

11:02

have it cuz that sounds pretty great.

11:04

>> 10% yield against Treasury.

11:06

>> Fantastic. My response to you is how

11:09

much can we not can we do more like how

11:11

much can we do? Meaning more and more.

11:14

Um, and that just became the beginning

11:17

of like why did that happen? How did we

11:20

get here? What's the where did it come

11:22

from? Where does it go? And I found that

11:24

certain people knew certain pieces but

11:26

not the picture. And then you're like it

11:28

it it was just starting to pull out

11:30

>> and that was your job to know the whole

11:31

picture.

11:32

>> It be it became it became the only it

11:35

became the focus of what I wanted to

11:37

know because unpacking that would help

11:39

me understand how do we get here? Why

11:41

does this happen? And by the way, what

11:43

are the pieces that put this all

11:45

together? Um and how do we um how do we

11:49

take advantage of that? How do we

11:50

protect ourselves? But also, how do we

11:52

take advantage of that? So, it was this

11:53

the whole thing um was this one of those

11:56

types of things you say, I opened up a

11:58

door, three doors behind it, and I want

11:59

to keep going that direction. And then

12:01

it felt to me like a purer and purer

12:04

version of everything I'd done in my

12:07

career getting closer and closer to the

12:10

source and pricing.

12:11

>> Really, really fascinating. One of the

12:13

things I think a lot of people don't

12:15

realize about JP Morgan Chase during the

12:18

financial crisis and I never uh doing

12:22

the research for Bailout Nation I never

12:25

got this really sourced the way I would

12:28

have liked to but JP Morgan Chase had

12:32

their own derivative scare a couple of

12:35

years earlier and the word was Jamie

12:38

just said clear all this junk off of our

12:41

balance sheet we we can't handle this

12:43

risk doesn't seem to be worth the

12:45

potential upside. So heading into 089,

12:48

they weren't dealing with the same sort

12:50

of um existential danger that Meil Lynch

12:56

and Wells Fargo and go down the list all

12:59

had all had to go through. They they

13:02

were ended up being an acquirer of

13:04

distressed assets, not a uh a seller of

13:08

distressed assets. Well, I think I mean

13:10

it was a tremendous place to work. I

13:12

worked with incredible people. I learned

13:14

a lot. Um, and I worked with great great

13:17

people that you're just part of a

13:19

terrific team. It's fantastic place.

13:22

I learned something that became

13:25

transformative to everything I'd spent

13:27

my career doing. So, that's why we set

13:29

out to and I said, I want to do this.

13:31

And that's why we set out to build

13:34

Merrick when we said, you know, I recall

13:36

Derek and I sat down one day and I said,

13:39

"Let me just here's how I think about

13:41

markets. I think about it in terms of

13:44

money, capital, credit, liquidity, and

13:48

regulation." That's my five. Money,

13:50

capital, credit, liquidity, regulation.

13:52

MCCLR.

13:53

>> How do you separate money from capital?

13:55

>> So, I think money to me is how do you

13:58

make it? How do you destroy it? How does

14:00

it move through the system? To me,

14:02

capital is a little bit more of how much

14:04

do you have? How do you measure it? How

14:07

much do you have? Are you making more?

14:09

Are you destroying it? Credit is really

14:12

how is it being formed? How is it moving

14:14

through the system? The financial system

14:15

is changing now.

14:17

>> It's very different than it was a few

14:19

years ago. We actually when we were you

14:22

know really trying to get our ideas uh

14:24

on paper we wrote a paper that we

14:26

outlined saying we described what we

14:29

thought was the new version of the

14:30

financial system. We said the financial

14:32

system is changing your de facto

14:34

recreating glass steagall. You have

14:38

gibbs. If you come from some of this

14:40

framework, you know, are the globally

14:42

systemat systematically important banks,

14:45

systemically important banks. Think JP

14:47

Morgan, Wells, Bank of America, etc. Um,

14:50

we said there are the new GIBs, people

14:52

like Apollo, Blackstone, KKR, BlackRock.

14:57

These are Aries. These are the folks

14:59

that are actually making credit

15:00

extension decisions in this economy.

15:03

Okay? You have the traders like Citadel

15:06

Securities,

15:07

uh, Jump, Jane, some of these other

15:09

names everybody's familiar with. This is

15:11

disagregating the financial system and

15:13

putting it into different buckets. So,

15:15

basically, we think about where's it

15:18

coming from, where does it go, who wins,

15:20

who loses, what are the flywheels here.

15:22

Um, this is a process that we apply to

15:26

everything we do. Some of the guys on

15:27

the team call it MC Clear, um, MCCLR.

15:30

It's the lens that we look at because we

15:33

believe money, capital, credit,

15:36

liquidity, and regulation drives

15:38

economies, markets, and prices. And then

15:42

you can really start to understand

15:44

monetary policy, real estate, housing,

15:48

um the types of specialty finance

15:50

companies, we've talked about, consumer.

15:53

So, this to me actually explains how it

15:56

all works and we apply that. It's a huge

15:59

addressable universe. Um, we trade

16:02

rates, mortgages, securitized products,

16:04

corporate credit related equities. It's

16:06

an enormous addressable universe with

16:09

investors that have very narrow mandates

16:12

that transact at different points in

16:13

time and sometimes non-economically and

16:16

bound by potentially non-economic rules,

16:19

which means there are a lot of overlaps

16:22

that people don't take the advantage of

16:24

and there's a lot of gaps that they

16:25

quite simply don't bridge. and the setup

16:29

for all of this, I think, um, and I've

16:32

seen some stuff. Um, a lot of your, um,

16:36

your your listeners have, um, seen quite

16:39

a bunch of stuff. We've seen things go

16:40

right. We've seen things go wrong. This

16:43

is one of the best setups we've seen in

16:45

a long time. And so, that's why we went

16:47

out to say, um, I saw some interesting

16:50

stuff. I learned some interesting stuff.

16:52

There's an opportunity set that we want

16:54

to prosecute right now. and it is an

16:57

incredible time to do so. So, we built

16:59

the team. Sorry, go ahead. I was going

17:00

to say I was just going to No, I'm

17:02

fascinated. I want to roll back to

17:05

something you said earlier, which was

17:08

GlassSteagall is sort of being backdoor

17:11

reapplied.

17:13

Is that a function of people being risk

17:16

averse or is that a function of people

17:18

just specializing in their own silo? So

17:22

you don't have, you know, glass deagle

17:24

for people who aren't uh economic and

17:27

policy wonks, separated the FDIC

17:32

safe banks from the riskier investment

17:35

banks. And once that was repealed in the

17:37

late '9s, didn't cause the financial

17:39

crisis, but allowed all these banks to

17:42

merge and get bigger. And maybe it made

17:45

the crisis a little worse, but it I

17:47

don't I don't think of it as the

17:48

underlying cause. But um the idea that

17:52

the market is working its way back

17:55

towards that is kind of fascinating.

17:58

Address that.

17:59

>> Right. As you laid out like glass

18:01

seagull to say to oversimplify basically

18:04

said like you can hold deposits, you can

18:06

underwrite securities, you can trade

18:08

securities, things like that. Um and

18:10

there were rules.

18:12

Right now, there are like some rules

18:16

that say what you can and can't do, but

18:18

really there's a lot more that has

18:20

morphed into um what people like to call

18:22

private credit or we're going to extend

18:24

credit through these fashions or some of

18:26

the rules don't apply to this group. So,

18:29

we can trade the markets differently or

18:31

we can make markets in a way that maybe

18:33

um the big banks can't. And then the big

18:35

banks say, well, we're viewed as super

18:37

safe because I would argue we are and

18:39

that has its advantages also. So it's

18:41

like we created these artificial

18:43

boundaries. What is great for us and the

18:47

way we look at the world is we saw that

18:50

we see that we understand that we also

18:52

see and understand and think about all

18:55

day long and put it into our portfolio

18:57

construction and the the the risk that

18:59

we build. It's all up for grabs again.

19:03

Right. So, um, we've got Kevin Walsh

19:06

nominated to be the Fed chair and Mickey

19:10

Bowman is the vice chair for supervision

19:12

and they are, um, I don't know what what

19:16

the right adjective for it is, but

19:17

they're changing the rules and they're

19:20

pulling some of them down. And in my

19:22

opinion, people just don't understand

19:25

which of them matter and which of them

19:27

don't. and the market moves to place on

19:30

some that simply don't matter like its

19:32

lack of understanding of what SLR was

19:34

and how that worked and we all need to

19:36

dive into that but to simplify they said

19:38

we're going to remove this rule and it's

19:39

a big deal and we at MARA said you can

19:42

take it off it doesn't matter so

19:45

everything the market's doing in

19:46

reaction to that is a potential

19:47

opportunity for us

19:48

>> in other words people are overreacting

19:51

to a regulatory change that isn't

19:53

[music] significant long term

19:54

>> in that example yeah

19:55

>> coming up we continue our conversation

19:57

with Matt Cherwin, co-founder and chief

19:59

investment officer at [music] Mara

20:01

Capital, discussing why he launched the

20:04

firm in 2024. [music] I'm Barry Rit

20:07

Haltz. You're listening to Masters in

20:09

Business on Bloomberg Radio.

20:15

[music]

20:22

I'm Barry Raltz. You're listening to

20:24

Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.

20:26

My extra special guest today is Matt

20:28

Sherwin. He is co-founder and chief

20:30

investment officer [music] of Mar

20:32

Capital specializing in a variety of

20:35

alternative credit and related private

20:38

[music] products. Uh previously he spent

20:41

16 years at JP Morgan Chase where he had

20:44

a number of very important titles. Uh

20:46

before that Croup. Are we in all that

20:50

unique a period of time? Is the

20:52

opportunity set that much greater than

20:55

what we typically see in the normal? You

20:57

know, this is a little more

20:59

geopolitically volatile administration

21:02

than than even the previous Trump

21:04

administration. Is that a driver or is

21:07

it the deregulation and misapprehension

21:10

of of what these rule changes mean?

21:12

>> I think it's a combination of what's

21:14

going on. So we have we just kind of use

21:16

some little catchphrases among the team

21:18

that help us sort of like you know

21:20

gravitate around concepts or communicate

21:22

quickly. Um we say this is an

21:24

administration that's in the business of

21:26

being in business

21:27

>> and that's just a there's no opinion or

21:30

judgment one way or the other. It's just

21:32

it's just a statement. Um

21:35

what this environment is also we also

21:38

came up with something that we thought

21:40

was just made us chuckle one like it's

21:42

important to have a little bit of sense

21:43

of humor. We found our investors

21:45

actually do read the materials very

21:46

closely and they tend to have a sense of

21:48

humor which is good but we created this

21:50

thing we called the one big beautiful

21:51

chart.

21:51

>> Uhhuh.

21:52

>> And we just said you know what they

21:55

really need they need rates to get down

21:58

and they need it to come down a lot more

22:00

than what the market and the curve has

22:02

already priced in because of how much

22:05

debt the country has, what it costs,

22:07

what they want to accomp. So here's what

22:08

they need to accomplish and they're

22:10

going to do everything they can to it.

22:12

So, you know, we construct poor

22:13

portfolio. We have a nar we have an

22:15

investment thesis. We have a narrative.

22:17

Everything we put in the book has to fit

22:19

that narrative. Has to contribute to

22:20

what we're trying to achieve. Has to be

22:22

the best version of that or it has to

22:24

protect us from what could go wrong. So,

22:27

getting back to your question a little

22:28

bit, we think it's a very business

22:30

forward environment, uh, business

22:32

forward administration.

22:34

Um, we think that it is one that needs

22:37

rates to come down. we are going to have

22:40

a new Fed chair in the middle of June

22:43

and there he'll say all sorts of things

22:46

in the confirmation hearing but really

22:47

it will be um a catalyst potentially for

22:50

change uh in the middle of the year and

22:54

then we have a bias within markets to

22:57

strip back some of the layers of of

23:00

regulation and away from whether you

23:03

support that or not I can tell you

23:04

because I've been on the other side of

23:06

it the layers of process

23:09

and bureaucracy and spending your time

23:12

backsolving instead of what could we do

23:14

better. When you change what your goal

23:17

is and how you're pointed, you're going

23:19

to get different results. We think that

23:21

combination is spinning flywheels in the

23:23

market now that um in our opinion,

23:27

people are just they're underestimating

23:29

the power of some of these flywheels.

23:32

>> Really, really interesting. Last

23:34

question before we talk a little bit

23:36

about Merrick. Um, in the old days, and

23:40

I was never a big believer in this, but

23:42

everybody else was, there was some

23:45

constraints on deficits and ongoing

23:48

government debt, cuz the bond vigilantes

23:51

would punish you. The bond vigilantes

23:54

seem to have disappeared in part

23:56

replaced by the stock vigilantes who any

24:00

policy they don't like they just sell

24:02

off until they have their hissy fit

24:04

until they get their way and then okay

24:07

thank you very much and we're off to the

24:08

races again. Uh what do you think of the

24:12

you know 80s9s era bond vigilantes? Is

24:15

that just ancient history? there's no

24:17

discipline on deficit spending anymore

24:20

or and by the way I think deficits are

24:22

not all that relevant. Look at Japan.

24:25

Look at the US history. We've been

24:26

warned about deficits and they haven't

24:29

caused much of a problem most of this

24:30

history.

24:31

>> Yeah. I mean look, I love the term and I

24:33

think we've seen some of those episodes

24:36

um last year we saw um around the

24:40

whatever we call liberation day in

24:42

April. There were a couple days where

24:45

treasuries and mortgages said like

24:46

enough, okay, that's it. Um, and we're

24:51

either going to have one of those days

24:53

where they are giving stuff away or you

24:55

got to pull back. And I think what we

24:58

saw was the administration did pull

25:00

back. So I think in some level it's

25:02

still there. But part of what we do at

25:04

Merrick and what influences our thought

25:06

process is um big parts of this have

25:09

been really broken down. The markets are

25:11

so big now that it's been broken into

25:13

specific functions. Like people have a

25:15

thing to do and they do that in a narrow

25:17

mandate. We have a more flexible mandate

25:20

to us. The products, they're widgets.

25:23

They're tools in the toolbox for us to

25:25

achieve our goals and our investment

25:27

thesis and the portfolio risk and

25:29

construction and diversification that

25:31

we'd like to have. Um, but the markets

25:34

are hyper specialized in very very large

25:36

markets. So, you get some of those

25:38

episodes where it's like, uhoh, crowded

25:40

trade, we got to get out. Um, I think

25:42

the question of

25:44

um, does the administration react to the

25:46

markets? Does the markets react to the

25:48

administration? It's something that

25:50

we've actually focused on uh, quite a

25:53

bit. We actually um

25:57

you know we wrote another piece in June

26:00

of 2025 that we called the wars fed and

26:04

it was just about what could happen and

26:06

we sort of went through to your point

26:08

like the concept of risk-free rate and

26:11

credit spread are completely intertwined

26:13

and co-mingled now and they don't exist

26:15

separately. So I think that's some of

26:16

the concepts you're getting at like is

26:18

this um a problem for credit? Is it a

26:22

problem for rates? Are those the same

26:24

thing? Now um one of the most

26:27

interesting things and um I would just

26:30

say before we get back to your your

26:31

question is um what was really

26:33

interesting observation to us was during

26:35

the last government shutdown whatever

26:38

mini version of that we're going through

26:39

right now it was almost in the data was

26:42

not forthcoming and then VO went down.

26:45

So, it was this sort of like a little

26:48

bit like if we don't know, maybe

26:50

nothing's happening. But what it also

26:52

was was a little bit to the to what you

26:54

were saying is

26:56

when things were a little less

26:57

hyperfocused,

26:59

they actually were a little less jumpy

27:02

around um small moves. And that was a

27:05

big takeaway um big takeaway for us.

27:08

It's a big thing you're going to hear

27:10

from Kevin Walsh if he ends up in the

27:13

chair seat. Um, you're going to hear a

27:16

long narrative from him for his time in

27:19

that seat of we need to step back from

27:21

the dayto-day and the minute-by-minute

27:24

information and think about the bigger

27:26

picture and the trend and where we're

27:27

headed and be a be a little more

27:30

forward-looking. I think that's the kind

27:31

of guidance that you will get from that

27:34

chair.

27:35

>> Really, really interesting. So, so let's

27:37

just start out with why you left the

27:40

comfort of a big shop to have the uh

27:43

headache of your own firm. What What's

27:45

the elevator pitch? What problem does

27:48

Maric Capital solve that couldn't be

27:51

solved at a large Wall Street bank?

27:54

>> Look, I think quite simply there are

27:56

some things that banks can do and some

27:58

things that banks can't do. There are

28:00

some things that they can do and that

28:01

they don't want to do. Um in my career

28:05

I've always been involved in these types

28:07

of markets being rates, mortgages,

28:10

curized products, corporate credit, the

28:12

equities related to that that around it,

28:14

these types of specialty finance

28:16

operating companies and always felt that

28:19

when you have when you can apply the

28:22

various lenses to these products being

28:25

the trader lens, the structurer lens,

28:28

the operator lens, you understand it

28:31

better and you get the gearing and the

28:32

pieces. is and when you learn about the

28:35

financial system that it sits within

28:37

then you actually can understand but

28:40

take advantage of the risk and return in

28:44

a more elevated and efficient way.

28:47

>> I want to address that. Is it that the

28:49

big firms, the bigger banks were risk

28:53

averse and didn't want to take advantage

28:54

of it where they were prohibited on a

28:57

regulatory basis or when they're just

28:59

doing their macro risk assessment? Hey,

29:01

we'll go this far, but no further.

29:04

>> I I think it's even simpler than that.

29:06

Um, we look at the world through our

29:09

lens. We look at the world through the

29:12

Maric lens of money, capital, credit,

29:14

liquidity, and regulation,

29:17

which drives economies, markets, and

29:19

prices.

29:20

That helps us understand the drivers of

29:24

the capital markets that we sit within.

29:26

helps us understand monetary policy,

29:29

housing finance, commercial real estate

29:32

finance. Understand both the gearing of

29:34

it. Then you can look at something and

29:35

you can say, "Okay, I'm looking at

29:37

Croup. I could buy it. I could sell it.

29:40

I could understand what they're doing in

29:41

the markets. They have a footprint in

29:43

what that means for the markets. Do I

29:45

want to buy that?" So like where are the

29:46

flywheels? What does it spin to next? So

29:49

everything we were doing was very much

29:51

about

29:52

what do we want to do? because we see a

29:55

very large addressable opportunity where

29:58

we have a unique perspective, a defined

30:01

lens and a way of applying that to these

30:04

big liquid markets that we think very

30:07

strongly we can take advantage of in a

30:08

way that people simply haven't had the

30:11

opportunity to learn about and to

30:14

understand and apply to these products

30:16

with the type of flexible mandate that

30:18

we have. Which boiled down means we look

30:21

at the world a little differently.

30:24

These are big addressable markets which

30:27

have dislocations, volatility, and

30:28

opportunity all the time. And we can use

30:31

that combination to achieve what's a

30:34

very very simple goal. Improve the

30:36

return a little bit while reducing the

30:37

risk a little bit.

30:38

>> That's all anyone can ask for. Better

30:40

returns at lower risk. Um I'm I'm kind

30:43

of fascinated by the overall Merrick

30:46

investment philosophy we'll get to, but

30:48

let's let's start a little bit with

30:50

structure. I think of you guys as an alt

30:54

credit shop, but you also look a little

30:57

bit like a multistrat shop. Like a is it

31:00

kind of a hybrid? Like tell us about the

31:02

structure.

31:03

>> Um we just define what we do. Okay. We

31:07

are who we are. We do it the way that we

31:09

do.

31:10

>> Um

31:13

we run we're right now we're running a

31:15

hedge fund um which trades these

31:18

products as Oh yes. has tools in the

31:21

toolbox as as widgets. We do it in one

31:23

collaborative portfolio. So, our setup,

31:25

our structure, we've got an amazing

31:27

team. Um, we have specialists in rates,

31:31

in mortgages, in non- agency mortgages

31:33

and ABS, in credit, in CLOS's. Um, I am

31:37

on the phone every day with traders and

31:39

salespeople myself. Um, we trade it as

31:42

one book,

31:43

>> one portfolio. So, it's really a

31:44

multistrat within a single um

31:49

expression. It is what we think is the

31:52

best expression of the trade

31:54

>> or I shouldn't call it multistrat. It's

31:56

really multi-asset. It's a variety of

31:57

different credit assets all under one

32:00

umbrella

32:01

>> within our lane. Okay. Sticking to our

32:05

knitting what we believe we know very

32:07

well. Um what we know we have a

32:09

differentiated insight into

32:12

>> and extracting from that. Okay. The team

32:16

is phenomenal. Um they have a ton of

32:19

buyside and sellside experience. They

32:21

work very well together. Um it's very

32:24

exciting to be I mean and and

32:26

additionally

32:27

doing this together like Derek and I

32:30

doing this together putting our name on

32:32

the door like Marrick is Matt and Derek,

32:34

>> right?

32:35

>> Um because we spent way too much time

32:38

trying to think of what's a clever name.

32:40

>> They've all been taken. Good luck in New

32:42

York. means, you know, alpha extraction

32:45

in Sanskrit or some something, you know,

32:47

and um Derek's wife one day was like,

32:50

"Enough. It's Merrick, Matt and Derek,

32:53

now go do some real work." And I think

32:55

she said in a little bit more of a spicy

32:57

way. Um but we were like, "Yeah, that

32:59

could work. All right, let's do that."

33:01

I think just a little footnote, if

33:04

you've ever incorporated an LLC or any

33:06

other entity in New York State, every

33:09

Greek and Roman god, every Babylonian

33:11

god, every cereabus, name the creature

33:15

from mythology, it's either a fund or an

33:18

LLC, they're all they're all taken. It's

33:20

astonishing.

33:21

>> But the real point I I I wanted to make

33:23

also um that I don't want to lose is

33:26

this is putting our name on the door.

33:28

Okay? It's our name. It's our reputation

33:30

because and that really cemented it for

33:32

us. That was something we really wanted.

33:34

I took some time off and which was

33:36

fantastic and I met some of the most

33:38

amazing and interesting people in the

33:39

world. When you're unaffiliated, people

33:42

speak to you in a different way because

33:44

they have no one to talk to. Okay. I sat

33:47

down with the CEO of one of the world's

33:48

largest pension fund uh sovereign wealth

33:51

funds and we had and I'd never met the

33:53

person before. We had an hourlong

33:54

conversation

33:56

because

33:58

he just needed to talk to someone and I

34:00

learned a lot in that and I met some of

34:02

the most interesting people in venture

34:03

cap in um alts in private equity etc.

34:07

And it was just more way of learning

34:08

parts of the system but it got to the

34:11

point where after my you know academic

34:13

wander through the wilderness I was like

34:15

okay you know what um at the time we had

34:17

three teenagers living at home and it

34:19

was an amazing time. I used to always

34:20

say you should be able to retire in your

34:22

40s and go back to work in your 50s.

34:23

Like that's the way business should

34:25

work. Um obviously that's a luxury that

34:27

very few have. But um

34:31

I was getting to the point where I was

34:33

like, "Okay, I feel great. I want to do

34:35

this. I miss markets. I love this. I

34:36

want to get back to it and I want to do

34:38

it in the way that I want to do it."

34:41

>> How long of a gap was that between

34:42

>> I took like about a year off. You know,

34:43

it's a you know it's a riot. So in our

34:46

deck, we put a little timeline of my

34:50

experience and Derek's experience and

34:51

just to help people understand who

34:52

hadn't met us, who we are.

34:54

>> Uhhuh.

34:54

>> And at the very end, I put, you know,

34:56

this my background simple. I was here

34:58

for 10 years. I was there for 16 years.

35:00

And then we put like a little one-year

35:03

nugget on the end of the timeline that

35:05

just said chilling with no G. No G. Just

35:08

C H I L L I N.

35:10

>> Right.

35:10

>> I don't remember.

35:12

very unw wall street sort of

35:15

>> thing. It was like our 900th version of

35:17

the deck and we were just getting a

35:19

little punchy and we're like it made us

35:20

laugh. Okay, you got to have a sense of

35:22

humor. It made us laugh. So we're like

35:24

this is going in.

35:25

>> Every investor brings it up. They bring

35:28

it up and they love it. And you know

35:29

what to us it's like wow you are reading

35:33

every part of the deck and also it's

35:35

nice to know you have a sense of humor.

35:37

But getting back getting back to it was

35:39

like

35:39

>> people this is always shocking people

35:42

read the foot.

35:43

>> Oh yeah that's been a big learning for

35:45

us. They read it. Um so when we were

35:47

doing all this you know my wife was like

35:51

yeah why would you want to do something

35:53

for anybody else?

35:55

>> And I thought to myself exactly what are

35:58

we going to work harder at? What are we

35:59

going to make sure succeeds? It's the

36:01

thing that we put our name on the door,

36:03

our reputation that we believe

36:06

other people don't get it that we

36:09

believe is the right way to approach

36:12

these markets that we believe can

36:14

extract from a setup is which is one of

36:16

the best that we've ever seen. So if you

36:20

tick all those boxes,

36:22

why would you do it for anybody else?

36:24

>> Huh. Really, really intriguing. So it's

36:27

2026. I'm legally obligated to ask how

36:30

do you use artificial intelligence in

36:32

research portfolio construction or

36:34

operations at Meritt Capital?

36:37

>> Sure. I would I was make two two points.

36:39

I'm an AI optimist. That's not one of my

36:41

two points. That doesn't count.

36:43

>> Um we use it every day. We build stuff

36:46

more quickly. We build our own tools and

36:48

we build them more quickly than we ever

36:50

could before. You know, the guys on the

36:51

team, they're building stuff at their

36:53

desk in a week that would have taken a

36:55

year to do somewhere else, literally.

36:57

And I know because I've been in that.

36:59

And then once you built it, it would

37:01

have taken like six months to get

37:02

approval to release it into your s etc.

37:05

This is like light speed versus what we

37:07

used to do. Now

37:10

changing a little bit of how you frame

37:12

that question. Um AI is a really really

37:16

interesting um thing in financial

37:19

markets as well. Okay. So I don't think

37:22

we're there yet, but we're going to get

37:23

to a place where people are using it for

37:24

risk management. They're using it for

37:26

compliance. They're using it for KYC.

37:28

Put all that aside. The most interesting

37:30

to me right now is we look at the AI

37:33

capex boom.

37:34

>> Mhm.

37:35

>> And we say here's a product that is

37:38

commercial real estate with securization

37:40

technology around it. You're talking

37:41

about where is it? Is it built? If not,

37:44

how long is it going to take to build

37:46

it? Who are the tenants? How long are

37:48

the leases? What are they paying? What's

37:50

it worth when it's all done? Is there

37:52

residual risk like you have in an auto

37:54

lease?

37:56

only some of it comes to the securitized

37:59

market because it's just not that that

38:01

market is not big enough for it. So it

38:02

comes to the corporate bond market. So

38:04

that to us is like that's the type of

38:07

opportunity that piques our interest

38:10

where we say um this is something that

38:14

looks like ABC

38:17

[snorts] and being wrapped up and put

38:19

into a different market that is asking

38:22

one two three and those are good

38:23

questions but it's really like put it

38:26

all together look at all the factors

38:28

what are the additional are you getting

38:30

more structure are you getting less are

38:32

you charging for the risk are you paying

38:34

away for it? So the AI capex boom to us

38:37

is actually like a source of very cheap

38:40

risk for us to look at and each one has

38:42

a little bit of different flavor and

38:43

we're very opinionated about which ones

38:45

we like.

38:46

>> Huh. It sounds It sounds really

38:47

fascinating. It also sounds like um

38:50

anytime there's a novel area, the

38:53

opportunity for mispricing seems to

38:56

really

38:57

>> There's that. There's that. Um we look

39:00

at some of those firsttime issuers. We

39:02

have like we have some things in the

39:04

book. We have something called the

39:05

northstar playbook

39:06

>> which is what are companies and bonds

39:09

that have clear missions and objectives

39:11

that they can execute on that are

39:13

aligned with us with the instrument that

39:15

we have or misaligned or that they're

39:17

not able to execute. Um but some of it

39:21

it's actually not just about the novel

39:23

structures. Let's look at agency

39:25

mortgage back securities. Those have

39:27

been around for a long time. Okay.

39:29

couple weeks ago tweet from the press or

39:32

whatever we call a post on truth social

39:34

4:26 PM I've instructed my

39:37

representatives to buy 200 billion of

39:39

agency MBS boom bomb in the agency

39:43

mortgage back this is a there are it

39:47

billion 12 trillion of these things

39:49

outstanding in the agency mortgage

39:51

market it's 9 trillion hundreds of

39:53

billions of it trade every day and that

39:56

was a aftermarket

39:59

post tweet um when complexity event. So

40:03

then

40:03

>> are you out buying into that that rise

40:06

to take advantage? Are you are you a

40:08

price taker or a price maker? What are

40:10

you doing when that that's happening?

40:12

>> It's both. We look instantly like what

40:13

does this mean? What was our

40:14

expectation? Now in that instance we

40:17

expected the GSC's who will be the ones

40:19

who actually buy it. We expected the

40:20

GSC's to be buyer.

40:23

I think our view was a little bit at the

40:25

high side or out of consensus. Even we

40:27

thought this is going to be a support

40:28

mechanism for this market over the

40:30

course of the year. Fanny and Freddy are

40:31

going to buy a lot of this stuff

40:32

>> assuming they haven't already started.

40:34

>> Well, they had been and that's a great

40:36

point. They had been, but buying 200

40:38

billion with like an aftermarket tweet

40:40

and nobody knew like is it going to be

40:42

200 and then another 200? Are you going

40:43

to start buy are you going to buy 40

40:45

tomorrow? How's this all going to work?

40:47

>> Um this exceeded even our expectations

40:50

and you saw right away. Um I think we

40:53

were positioned for that type of event.

40:55

Um we were positioned to take advantage

40:58

of some of the policy risk as opposed to

41:00

get hit by some of the policy risk. You

41:02

could see that um there was a massive

41:05

short covering rally right after that.

41:07

Um and you could see that that wasn't

41:09

necessarily people's expectations and

41:11

how they were uh how they were set up

41:14

for it.

41:14

>> I have I have a mortgage related

41:16

question to this but I'm going to save

41:17

it to the next segment. Uh coming up we

41:19

continue our conversation with Matt

41:21

Sherwin, co-founder and chief investment

41:24

officer of Marrick Capital, discussing

41:27

credit and risk in today's markets. I'm

41:30

Barry Rhalt. You're listening to [music]

41:32

Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.

41:41

[music]

41:48

I'm Barry Rholz. You're listening to

41:49

Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.

41:51

[music] My extra special guest this week

41:54

is Matt Cherwin, co-founder and chief

41:56

investment officer of Maric Capital.

41:59

Previously, he spent 25 or so years uh

42:02

running credit and various types of risk

42:04

at JP Morgan Chase and Croup. So, we

42:07

were talking earlier about the Trump

42:10

tweet uh directing the GSC's to buy $200

42:13

billion worth of agency paper. You would

42:16

have thought that should have sent

42:18

yields plummeting and mortgage rates

42:21

down, which would stimulate the housing

42:23

market. I assume part of the motivation

42:26

for that tweet and for that purchase.

42:28

What What's going on in that market? And

42:31

why does it seem so difficult to drive

42:34

rates lower? Right. That's a great

42:37

question. And as silly as it sounds,

42:39

like 200 billion, it's just not enough.

42:42

>> Pocket cash, right? Walking around

42:43

money.

42:45

>> That's one way.

42:46

>> I mean, in a 12 trillion market, 12

42:49

trillion, it's not even 1%.

42:50

>> Yeah. If you're if you are if you've got

42:52

35 trillion in treasuries outstanding

42:54

and Yeah. Yeah. Um it's a big number and

42:58

it moves the needle. But what they they

43:01

really want to move it and keep it

43:03

there. Like that's a little bit of the

43:05

hard part because don't forget that the

43:07

Fed owns 2.2 trillion. So they're going

43:10

to buy 200 billion.

43:13

Didn't give a lot of information and

43:15

that sort of helped them in that moment.

43:18

The lack of information after probably

43:20

led some of it to kind of like bleed out

43:22

and unwind a bit. But the Fed owns 2.2

43:25

trillion and those are paying off and

43:27

that's approximately 180 billion a year.

43:31

So then you start to think about like

43:33

well if the rate moves and mortgage

43:36

prices go up are some of the money

43:37

managers just going to sell a hundred

43:40

billion over time and do you kind of

43:42

neutralize it? So I think it's helpful.

43:45

Um it's indicative. Here's the real

43:47

takeaway for us. Okay. So at that moment

43:50

it's how do we trade this? What's the

43:52

price? What's the next step? But then

43:53

we're really thinking from there like

43:55

what does this mean? What's going to

43:57

happen next? um and sort of coming full

44:01

circle. What it really does is show you

44:03

how hard they're going to try to drive

44:06

the mortgage rate down to drive rates

44:08

down overall to um sign up for an agenda

44:13

and a plan to get rates down. Okay. So,

44:17

some of it is what do we do in that

44:18

specific market and some of it is how's

44:20

it informing our view of the bigger

44:23

picture. So, you guys have two

44:26

I I I don't want to say conflicting, but

44:29

somewhat different

44:31

um risk factors you're juggling with.

44:33

Obviously, when you buy paper, you're

44:35

thinking long term, and we want to watch

44:37

this play out to our broader thesis, but

44:41

at the same time, you're actively

44:42

trading on the short term. uh uh how

44:46

much do these complement each other or

44:48

do you ever find yourself long in one

44:51

duration of the portfolio and short in

44:53

another? How do how do you balance this

44:55

out?

44:55

>> Yeah, I mean we have longs and shorts

44:56

across the book within mortgages, within

44:58

credit. Um we there we're you know long

45:01

what we like and short what we don't to

45:03

keep it super simple. um or long what

45:07

helps uh contribute to our thesis or

45:09

protect and vice versa and you know

45:11

protect the convexity profile that we're

45:13

looking to achieve. Um we are we trade

45:17

every day. We are active in these

45:19

markets. It's part of more of a sort of

45:21

a medium-term um thought process how

45:25

they're going to play out. But every day

45:27

is iterating on that. Is this still what

45:30

we think? Are we positioned with the

45:32

best version of it? Do we have the bonds

45:34

that are going to contribute to what we

45:36

are trying to achieve? Like right now,

45:39

we're very focused on the flywheels that

45:42

exist within financing markets. And if

45:44

you think about what does that mean?

45:46

Okay, so rates come lower. We talk rates

45:48

go lower. We talked about that a little

45:50

bit. But credit spreads are also really

45:52

tightening. And when rates are lower and

45:55

credit spreads are tighter, tighter,

45:57

your cost of borrowing has gone down

45:59

means you can refinance all sorts of

46:01

assets. It means some assets are even at

46:04

that point in time worth more valued

46:06

highly. Now that it's worth more, you've

46:09

got a lower LTV loan that you could take

46:12

out an even tighter credit spread on.

46:14

And how did these spin and what is this?

46:16

So this is very much what we're thinking

46:18

about now. I think the market completely

46:20

underestimates the power of those

46:23

flywheels and what it can be achieved.

46:25

So we that is one of we look at our

46:28

portfolio and say we want to have about

46:30

20 trades in it. And a trade is not one

46:32

line item. A trade could be 30 line

46:34

items. But

46:35

>> the flywheel is a trade. It's a little

46:38

bit of a maybe even a bigger higher

46:40

order one. But

46:42

>> we look at what is happening at that

46:45

moment. Is there something to take

46:47

advantage of? But also

46:50

what are the ripple effects of what's

46:52

happening in that moment? And what does

46:54

the market need to do? what is it going

46:56

to do? Does it understand this? And then

46:58

we unpack it and say like where's where

46:59

where's the opportunity? So coming back

47:01

to what we talked about, we believe when

47:04

you look at the world through this lens,

47:08

>> we look at markets through the Maric

47:10

lens

47:12

that the lack of connections made

47:14

through these markets and the lack of

47:16

extracting from some pretty obvious

47:18

pockets are an opportunity an like we

47:22

talked about to improve your return and

47:26

reduce your risk. And it's a process. So

47:28

it's just as much a process in a machine

47:32

through which you're extracting alpha

47:35

from from the market. We have our views.

47:37

We hope to be right. It's also it's a

47:41

process through which you work through

47:42

these markets that you extract all the

47:45

time. And the mandate is pretty clear.

47:47

Like as I think of it, the mandate is

47:49

very clear. You need to make money when

47:51

markets go up and you need to make money

47:52

when markets go down.

47:55

Every day, every month, every quarter,

47:57

every year. then you probably won't, but

47:59

that's the mandate that you're going

48:01

for. And it's it's quite simple when you

48:03

frame it out that way.

48:04

>> You mentioned in 2019 there was a sea

48:06

change in how you perceived what was

48:09

happening in the market and how

48:11

different that had become. How does that

48:13

affect how you look at and define risk?

48:17

It it risk definitions have obviously

48:19

changed over your career, but 2019 was

48:22

such a sea change. What's different

48:25

about managing risk today? Yeah, I think

48:29

I believe managing risk at scale is a

48:31

skill.

48:32

Okay,

48:34

you have your numbers and you want to

48:36

know what those are and those are

48:37

indicators and those are starting

48:39

places. VAR is a number and a starting

48:42

place and an indicator. Stress is a

48:44

number. DV1, CSO1, these are we I like

48:49

to look at the world in a stressbased

48:50

framework and we create a bunch of

48:53

different stresses. Some are quite

48:55

simple. Um, rates go up, rates go down,

48:58

credit crunch, a flight to quality. Some

49:00

we had our little like, you know, we're

49:02

getting a little punched. We have one we

49:03

call QE for Eva and Eva.

49:05

>> Um, and looking at these, it's really

49:09

about like it's a starting place for a

49:11

conversation, okay? Because you do need

49:13

to know where it's coming from and

49:15

what's the attribution. What's the

49:18

return attribution? Where's it where you

49:20

hoping it comes from? And what's the

49:21

risk attribution? And very importantly,

49:23

what could go wrong? um understanding

49:27

that what you're trying to achieve, but

49:28

knowing where the exits are. Like I

49:30

think it's really like a philosophy to

49:32

to risk and to managing risk to make

49:35

sure you're pointed to achieve your

49:37

goals

49:39

um while managing your risk properly and

49:43

knowing what you would do if things

49:45

changed. Right? You have a plan and then

49:47

things change.

49:49

>> H really really interesting. What when

49:52

you're looking out at a variety of

49:54

different opportunities, what do you

49:55

think today presents the best risk

49:59

opportunity? You're looking at

50:00

structured credit, corporates, relative

50:03

value. What what what is really drawing

50:05

your attention?

50:06

>> Yeah, we really thought that one of the

50:07

places to extract from the flywheel is

50:10

in securitized markets.

50:12

>> Um actually, as an example, like we've

50:14

been very focused on um Trophy Quality

50:17

Office and Gateway Cities, and this goes

50:19

back a little ways. These are the super

50:21

a resident um commercial real office,

50:25

>> right? So that all came to be from us

50:27

pulling at the thread of how the

50:28

financial system works. We talked a

50:30

little bit about the new gibs and what

50:32

you had was everybody was going back to

50:34

work, back to the office, but took

50:35

longer than we kind looking back on it.

50:37

That took a long time. The part of the

50:39

financial system that was changing were

50:41

those new GIBs, Apollo, Aries, KKR,

50:44

Blackstone, Black Rockck, and they were

50:45

coming back to office and they were

50:47

growing and they were finding that two

50:49

things. one, they needed nice offices to

50:51

kind of, you know, get everybody where

50:52

they want them to be, but also they were

50:54

growing and they outgrew what they had.

50:57

And then they went looking for more. And

50:58

what they found was there's actually not

51:01

that much trophy real estate out there.

51:04

And so like our view on the evolving

51:07

financial system led us to have very

51:09

strong conviction about a supply demand

51:11

imbalance in commercial real estate when

51:13

applied correctly. And then we just

51:15

looked for what's the best place and

51:18

it's tightened a lot but actually we

51:20

think it continues to and has been

51:22

because it's like the it's continued to

51:25

be one to two steps behind the

51:28

fundamentals. So what that really means

51:30

the way we think of to wrap it up in a

51:32

nutshell this is a triple B bond that we

51:34

think is a double A

51:35

>> h really really cuz everybody's painting

51:38

with a broad brush of hey forget B's

51:41

even A buildings are 60% occupied in

51:45

terms of

51:45

>> but they're not they're 100% occupied

51:47

with

51:47

>> I mean in terms of staff returning to

51:49

office so it's fully leased but the uh

51:52

what is it castle key cards are running

51:54

60% of prepandemic levels in a lot of

51:57

cities but the A+ the bigger shops, the

52:00

JP Morgans, they want everybody back in

52:03

the office, as does Goldman Sachs, as

52:05

does a lot of these places. And they're

52:07

all in trophy properties.

52:09

>> And it's not just New York, it's uh

52:11

Miami, it's actually San Fran has come a

52:13

long way. There are certain buildings

52:15

there that we like. We actually, I would

52:17

say, a little bit out of consensus. We

52:18

like DC, certain part, not the

52:20

government buildings, but um nice

52:22

offices. Like we said, this is an

52:25

administration that's in the business of

52:26

being in business, which means you got

52:28

to go see them and make your case. You

52:30

want to get some business done, which

52:31

means you need lawyers with a nice

52:33

conference room that need a decent

52:34

office and etc., etc. I mean, like, it

52:36

sounds a little glib, but it's true.

52:38

>> It's the cost of doing business.

52:39

>> It's true. And so, you can see there are

52:41

certain companies that are buying

52:43

buildings, knocking them down in DC, and

52:45

building brand new ones. And there are

52:47

buildings that are being taken offline

52:49

to convert to resi. By the way,

52:51

everything we wrapped up in what we

52:52

said, the conversion from office resi is

52:54

actually spinning faster now. In DC,

52:58

some buildings are being con and just

53:00

outside DC, some buildings are being

53:01

converted to data centers.

53:04

>> So, actually like stocks being removed

53:06

all the time. Anyways, it's just an

53:07

example of how like we're pulling on

53:09

threads and we're finding where we can

53:13

best take advantage of it and like what

53:15

are the next couple steps and ultimately

53:17

we're looking for what's something

53:19

that's already gotten better except the

53:21

price hasn't changed yet.

53:22

>> Huh. That that's really that's really

53:24

interesting. You you've mentioned stress

53:27

scenarios a couple of times. Um we know

53:30

that correlations have a tendency to go

53:32

to one and liquidity disappears. Well, I

53:35

think I've seen that personally, right?

53:37

Liquidity disappears. Um,

53:40

>> I think I would just wrap that up. We I

53:42

make two comments to people. I say like

53:44

one, you don't go out of business

53:46

because your assets. You go out of

53:47

business because your liabilities.

53:48

>> Uhhuh.

53:49

>> And when you start looking at that side

53:51

of the balance sheet first, then you

53:52

understand things a little bit better.

53:54

And then also, you know, with with my

53:56

traders and all the people I work for,

53:58

it's really great because some of the

53:59

people I hired a long time ago, they're

54:00

MDs at places now. It's I actually take

54:02

a lot of pride in the people I've worked

54:04

with who have gone on and done fantastic

54:07

things. I really really hate the phrase

54:10

money good. Okay, I don't think anybody

54:12

should be allowed to say it.

54:14

>> Um it is this like false crutch. I also

54:18

in many many conversations have said to

54:20

people I think you're right. In fact,

54:23

you've convinced me. I believe you are

54:24

right. I'm just letting you know you're

54:26

going to get fired long before we know

54:27

the answer to this question. Okay, let's

54:30

take everything we thought, everything

54:31

we've known, and let's put it into the

54:32

context of how do we apply this in

54:34

markets? What's going to happen? What's

54:36

everybody else doing? And how do we take

54:39

advantage of that?

54:40

>> Huh. Really, really fascinating. Last

54:42

question before I get to my favorite

54:44

questions. What do you think investors

54:47

>> I thought those were your favorite

54:48

questions.

54:48

>> Oh, no. You'll you'll you'll see the

54:50

favorite questions. Um, what do you

54:52

think investors in the credit and alt

54:55

space are not talking about but perhaps

54:58

should be? What topics, assets,

55:00

geographies, data points are getting

55:02

overlooked, but really shouldn't.

55:05

>> Yeah. So, it's a great question. Um, we

55:08

touched on a little bit. They're

55:10

underestimating the power of this

55:11

flywheel. Like with with the background

55:13

I've had and we've talked about and I've

55:15

seen a lot of things blow up. Like we

55:17

could come up with a lot of examples of

55:19

things that could go wrong. I think

55:20

they're underestimating

55:22

the things that could go right or what

55:24

the power of financing and um the

55:29

mechanics around financing and the

55:30

provision of liquidity and credit credit

55:33

spreads when they're good and when

55:34

they're tight and when the machine is

55:35

flowing what that financial engineering

55:38

can really do to both un recover value

55:41

and create value. I think they're

55:42

underestimating that really. The other

55:44

quick thing is

55:46

>> in the middle of the year

55:49

if Kevin Worsh ends up sitting in that

55:51

seat and if we get a little bit of the

55:53

the setup that he's looking for,

55:56

he's going to change everything, right?

55:57

So he believes we're going to have a big

56:00

productivity dividend from AI and we're

56:02

going to have a big productivity

56:03

dividend from deregulation. And that

56:05

that would allow you to have lower rates

56:08

and a smaller Fed balance sheet at the

56:11

same time.

56:13

And if he gets a little bit of what he

56:15

needs to craft that argument,

56:18

we're gonna have a very different second

56:19

half of 26 than the first half.

56:21

>> Really, really interesting. All right,

56:23

let's jump to our favorite questions,

56:24

our speed round. We'll get you guys out

56:27

of here at a reasonable time. Uh,

56:29

starting with who are your mentors who

56:31

helped shape your career?

56:33

>> Oh, I've worked for some pretty amazing

56:35

people. Um, and I tried to learn from

56:38

everyone. I just had the the bosses that

56:40

I've had are, you know, legends in this

56:42

industry, whether it's Bruce Richards,

56:45

TM Plo,

56:47

Jimmy Demar, Matt Z, Daniel Pinto. I

56:50

mean, these are got these are people who

56:52

defined these markets. Um, and they all

56:55

had a huge impact on my career.

56:57

>> Really interesting. Let's talk about

56:58

books. What are you reading now? What

57:00

are some of your favorites?

57:02

Oh, you know, but like I am in front of

57:04

a computer screen and reading so much

57:06

and I read so much analytics, research,

57:08

etc. When I get home, it's a little bit

57:10

more like hang out with my wife and kids

57:12

and a little TV.

57:13

>> Uhhuh.

57:14

>> Um,

57:15

>> well, that's my next question. What are

57:16

you listening to or streaming?

57:18

>> Give us your favorite next Netflix,

57:20

Amazon Prime, whatever.

57:22

>> I will watch pretty much anything.

57:24

Taylor Sheridan, you know, like

57:26

>> we just finished season two of Land Man.

57:28

It's so good. like Land Man, all the

57:30

Yellowstones, everyone. 198, 1823, 1920,

57:34

all of those. Lionist, uh, any of those.

57:36

>> Lionus was also great. There should be a

57:38

new season of that coming out one of

57:40

these days.

57:40

>> Uh, yeah, there is. I mean, I think I've

57:43

watched both seasons like a hundred

57:44

times.

57:45

>> Final two questions. What sort of advice

57:47

would you give to a college grad

57:50

interest in a career in investing,

57:52

credit, trading, what have you? I just

57:55

think it's not, you know, it doesn't

57:56

have to be a commitment for life. Just

57:58

look at it as what's something I'm

58:01

interested in being interested in. I

58:03

think you can pick the kind of people

58:05

you work with and you want to be around

58:06

good people who will teach you, who will

58:09

support what you're doing and just say,

58:10

I'm going to give this a spin for 3 to 5

58:12

years and if I like it, I love it. Um

58:15

maybe I'll sign up for another five. Um

58:17

but you know, you have an opportunity to

58:20

try something out and see if it's for

58:21

you. And our final question, what do you

58:24

know about the world of trading credit,

58:26

investing in alternative sources of of

58:30

liquidity and other products that would

58:33

have been helpful 25 or so years ago

58:35

when you were just getting your legs

58:37

onto you?

58:38

>> I wish I knew a fraction

58:41

of what we are applying at MARIC any

58:44

point before we did this. If I knew a

58:47

drop of what we're doing when I sat in

58:50

other seats. Yeah, I'll put that all in

58:53

the I wish I knew bucket.

58:55

>> Really, really absolutely fascinating.

58:57

Matt, thank you for being so generous

58:59

with your time. We have been speaking

59:01

with Matt Sherwin. He's co-founder and

59:03

chief investment officer of Mara [music]

59:05

Capital. If you enjoy this conversation,

59:08

well, be sure and check out any of

59:10

[music] the previous 600 or so we've

59:13

done over the past 12 years. You can

59:15

find those at iTunes, Spotify, [music]

59:19

um, Bloomberg, YouTube, wherever you get

59:22

your favorite podcasts. I would be

59:24

remiss if I didn't thank the Crack team

59:26

that helps us put these conversations

59:27

[music]

59:27

together each week. Alexis Noriega is my

59:31

video producer. Sean Russo [music] is my

59:34

researcher. Anna Luke is my podcast

59:37

producer. I'm Barry Rutultz. You've been

59:40

listening to Masters in Business on

59:42

Bloomberg Radio.

Interactive Summary

Loading summary...

Recently Distilled

Videos recently processed by our community