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

This episode features an interview with Matt Sherwin, co-founder and Chief Investment Officer at Maric Capital. Sherwin discusses his career path, starting from his early education in economics and his eventual pivot to finance due to its practical application. He reflects on his significant experience at JP Morgan Chase and Citigroup, highlighting how the 2019 repo crisis and the subsequent pandemic provided a transformative "engine room" perspective on the financial system. This experience, he explains, was crucial in the decision to co-found Maric Capital with Derek Goodman. Sherwin elaborates on Maric Capital's investment philosophy, centered around the "MCCLR" framework (Money, Capital, Credit, Liquidity, Regulation), which guides their approach to identifying opportunities in complex markets. The conversation touches upon the evolving financial landscape, including the re-emergence of Glass-Steagall-like principles through new financial entities, the impact of regulatory changes, and the diminishing role of traditional bond vigilantes. Sherwin also shares insights on the firm's operational structure, their multi-asset, single-portfolio approach, and their perspective on current market opportunities, particularly in securitized markets and commercial real estate. He emphasizes the importance of a deep understanding of market mechanics, risk management through stress-testing, and identifying "flywheels" within financing markets. Finally, he offers advice to aspiring investors and reflects on the lessons learned throughout his career.

Suggested questions

6 ready-made prompts