ETF Edge - Reddit Stocks, Sports Betting & Bitcoin

Episode Date: February 8, 2021

CNBC's Bob Pisani spoke with Will Hershey, CEO and co-founder of Roundhill Investments, Dave Nadig, chief investment officer and director of research at ETF Trends and ETF Database, and Jeff Kilburg, CEO and founder of KKM Financial. They discussed the resounding impact on the Reddit short squeeze, the world of online sports betting and the crazy crypto ride. In the 'markets 102' portion of the podcast, Bob continues the conversation with Dave Nadiq from ETF Trends. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The ETF Edge podcast is sponsored by InvescoQQQ, Supporting the Innovators Changing the World, Investco Distributors, Inc. Welcome to ETF Edge, the podcast. If you're looking to learn the latest insights on all things, exchange, traded funds, you're in the right place. Every week, we're bringing you interviews, market analysis, and breaking down what it all means for investors. I'm your host, Bob Pisani. And today we're going to discuss the resounding impact of the Reddit short squeeze. Dive into the world of online sports betting following Super Bowl. and get more on the crazy crypto ride with Bitcoin above $43,000.

Here's my conversation with Dave Naughtick, Director of Research at ETF Trends, Jeff Kilberg, founder and CEO of KKM Financial, and Will Hershey, the co-founder and the CEO of Roundhill Investments, who runs that sports ETF. Dave, I want to start with you. You know, last week we were all over this discussion about the Reddit crowd, GameStop, AMC, what's going on with Bedbath and Beyond. down again today. Is this story all over? And is there any impact on trading in the ETF world? I think there is going to be trading in the ETF world. And I think trading in

general, I think the thing that we've learned here is not that somehow we have this new class of retail investors that's empowered by social media. I think that's been there. I think what we're recognizing is this class of players is going to add volatility to the market. I think it's a bit of a fool's game to try to chase the next thing that they might glom on. to, whether it's AMC or bedbath and beyond, or whatever it might be, the important thing is to recognize that in single names like this, there is this opportunity to get to run over if you're not careful from this new player, this retail social media-driven investor. So for me, it's not directional.

It's not up or down. It's just more volatility. Yeah, Jeff, you're an old market hand. Way in on this. I mean, Dave likes to warn about increasing volatility due to non-fundamental trading. I'm reading from Dave's comment to me this morning. And, you know, the VIX is down here, but does that mean that, you know, is there suddenly a greater chance of these Black Swan 4-Sigma events kind of popping up on us out of nowhere

like this? Well, Bob, I'm a big believer in that volatility, as we both know, and Dave knows. Volatility makes markets go up and down. So the volatility component, I think, is welcome and actually embrace. see this volatility, it attracts more and more, not just hedgeform air, but more institutions to really step into the game. And that volatility produces volume. That type of volume produces liquidity. So I think it's a win-win situation, but there is a little bit of a knee-jerk reaction when you see the volatility. Yeah. Okay, let me move on. Will, it's the day after Super Bowl. You're the guy

who's the expert on this. You run the Roundhill Sports Gaming ETF, B-E-T-Z is the symbol there. Tell us how much betting was done on the Super Bowl. And how does it compare to big sporting events in the past. Was there a lot of money on this one? Yeah, absolutely. So I think for those following the industry, it should come as no surprise. But the Super Bowl is the event of the year for the betting industry. This year, when the numbers roll in, we expect the Super Bowl to set a new record in terms of handle on a single event with more than $500 million in regulated wagers. That's up from $300 million last year.

And that's being driven in part by kind of the shift that we're seeing throughout the broader economy from brick and mortar to mobile and online. The sports betting industry, that is happening as well, and it's happening fast. And on top of that, we've seen new states that have come online in terms of legalizing sports betting. So recently we've had Michigan, Virginia, and Illinois launch. It's also worth highlighting that several billions more on top of that $500 million figure are coming in via black markets and unregulated sports books. We expect as kind of the U.S. it matures and more states come online. That's going to shift and it's going to mean revenues for these sportsbook operators, but maybe more importantly, it's going to mean tax dollars for

state legislatures. Yeah. I would note you're still not, I mean, it's you're legal in New Jersey in Pennsylvania, Nevada, Michigan, Virginia, Tennessee, but the, you know, the biggest four states in the United States, New York, California, Florida, Texas, still not legal. Is that any of the big four going to change? No, you got it, Bob. I mean, remember, sports betting only became legal at the federal level in the U.S. in 2018 with the repeal of PASPA. As you mentioned, it's now a state-by-state issue. 21 states have some form of legalized sports betting. Currently, we expect 10 to maybe even 12 more come online this year, including two of those

big four you mentioned, Texas and New York. In New York right now, you have to go all the way up state and place a sports bet in person at one of the tribal casinos. The new legislation being introduced by Cuomo would allow for mobile betting. And I think really what's going on here, kind of similar to what we're seeing in the cannabis industry, is, look, there are material budget deficits at the state level, even at the country level outside of the U.S. How do you look to kind of bridge the gap in the wake of coronavirus? I think sports betting becomes kind of low-hanging fruit for these states' legislators to bring in additional tax revenue.

So I think we're really kind of just getting started. When we look at the total opportunity here, we're talking about for the U.S. market only in upwards of 20 to 30 billion in terms of total addressable market for sports betting. So we really are pardoned upon in the early innings here. Yeah. And where's the money? Is the real money in the live betting? Like, I'm going to, I'm going to, you know, bet that somebody's going to make a touchdown in the next 10 minutes on a football game? Or is it in the online casino business, just playing blackjack online? Where do you think the bulk of the money is going to be? Yeah. So, you know, it's interesting. We've seen this evolution from daily fantasy sports.

to now sports betting. I think you're hitting it on the head. Online casino is really going to be the big moneymaker for these players with sports books kind of being the kind of customer acquisition and kind of the top of funnel for these players. When you think about running a game of blackjack, it's much higher margin, it's much more predictable revenues. I mean, look at the game last night. Who could have seen that coming, right? You have to manage for that as a sports book. You mentioned live betting as well. I mean, technology is going to advance to the point where we're not even talking about the next 10 minutes. We're talking about whether the next pitch is a curve or a fastball. I think that's going to unlock real monetization opportunities when the technology gets to the

point that we can see that rolled out in mass. So Dave, we're all going to, we're all going to be participating in online gambling operations. We're all going to be, you know, buying pot shares, and we're all going to be investing in Bitcoin. And that's how we're going to balance all the state budgets. Is that what's going to happen here? I mean, he's painting a pretty rosy picture. I think that there is actually a fair amount of truth to that. I mean, certainly legalization of cannabis, a big part of that has been this push for tax revenue at the state level and at the local level. I think we're going to see the same thing, frankly, in anything that we have previously regulated out as a quote-unquote sin activity like gambling. I think this is really inevitable. Certainly, you know, in this COVID environment where we're all still fairly trapped, it makes a ton of sense for us to move some of these activities that historically, have been sort of vacation activities to the home. I mean, I live in Massachusetts. We have a handful of casinos that have opened up here.

But I think most of those folks would really just rather be able to do that at home as opposed to, say, driving to Springfield or to a reservation in order to be able to play a hand of blackjack. So I think it's a bit inevitable, and I think the tax story is real. Is it real, Jeff? I mean, I'm not asking you a policy question. I know you're in the trading business, but let me just ask you, in terms of these ETFs.

I've watched this ETF of his, BETZ, just gather a tremendous amount of assets. It was one of the big thematic hits of the year, sports gaming. Your firm does a lot of trading around the ETF space itself. How do you feel about sports gaming as a thematic idea? And just give us some thoughts on 2021 and what will be hot thematic themes? Bob, no, it's a great question. In 2021, I get excited about themes. And let's just rewind the 2008-200-19 post-crisis.

If you were just long, you had some P-500, utilizing spy, things were fine. But what change in 2020? Obviously, we had a pandemic. So that pandemic has made a lot of not just financial advisors, not just investors, but the whole globe really rethink their exposure in these themes, specific gambling, betting, if it's pot, whatever the actual theme is. People are trying to be more thoughtful, not just on their, themes, but also their sector exposure. So we run a lot of

ETF model portfolios. Actually powered by NASDAQ-RIC-RIC-RIC-R-C-R-C. We're always looking for sector tilting. We're always trying to drill down and produce Alpha somewhere by being different. And I think that's the thematic component. So you're seeing great ETFs like DETZ, and there's a lot of different ETFs coming to market. They're going to allow people to really slice an approach. And the same way you're seeing some of the active investors in the GameStops as well as the AMC,

they're looking for ideas. They're looking to This may be wrong, Bob, on the actual theme for that quarter or for that year, but nonetheless, they want to have the ability to have conviction. And that's what gets so excited about the ETF space. And that's why I think it continues to see growth in 2021, specifically in thematic ETFs. I really like thematic ETF concepts because it's easy for the investing public to understand. It's easy to understand, I want to own solar. 100%. I want to own, you know, environmental, social, governance. I want to, you know, order, own whatever. People think thematically. I don't have to, when I'd say thematic, I don't even have to explain to people.

I mean, people like to think of categories. It's a more specific way of looking at it than the old GIC structure or the S&P subsectors, but it's thematic. And it makes a lot of sense. It's one of the great things about the EETF business that they can pick up on thematics very quickly and turn them into an ETF.

How many times have we seen that? Speaking of thematics, Jeff, it's time to discuss the Bitcoin the ageless, endless Bitcoin ETF story. You're with, you're a partner in Valkyrie. Not to be cynical about it, but hey, I mean, how many years have Dave and I sitting here debating the Bitcoin ETF? We're going into retirement debating the Bitcoin ETF at this point. So you've got one. You're with Valkyrie. Do one thing here. Just break this down. Number one, why would this be a good year for Bitcoin finally to have an ETF? Is there something about the SEC, now?

under this administration that will make them more amenable where they weren't in the past? Is there something about the quality or state of Bitcoin that has changed that would make the SEC more minimal? And Jeff, you know very clearly the SEC has cited many specific instances where why they don't want it, including custody issues, including the ability to control prices, because a lot of it's set overseas and what they consider questionable markets. So give us an overview here. What suddenly do you think has changed that would cause the SEC to approve a Bitcoin ETF?

Well, Bob, a similar approach to the way I strategically asked my wife to marry me. Around the 15th or 20th time I asked, she finally said yes. But all kidding aside, I think the Bitcoin ETF, and why I'm optimistic for 2021, it just gets exciting because here we are, I know we're celebrating the S&P 500, making a new all-time high above 3,900. But we're also celebrating Bitcoin, as it nearly kissed 45,000. So as we see all this confluence of exciting debt, I think we go back to why do the SEC say no for all these years? And yes, we did file Valkyrie Fund.

It's a team of seasoned industry veterans led by our CEO, Leah Wall. But we have the ability and the confidence that we're seeing a change of guard at the SEC with Mr. Clayton leaving. But nonetheless, I think the maturity of the product, that maturity of Bitcoin is actually being confirmed today. With the Ethereum futures being traded to the CME group. So an additional crypto created in the futures market. But I go back to why is it going to happen in 2021, Bob? I think it's the fact that the SEC has been watching patiently watching, and they're really trying to make sure that trading in markets,

that's the division of the SEC that has to get comfortable before any review of any filing, no matter how many findings of these BTFs are out there. But once trading markets get more comfortable with the actual concept of just Bitcoin and crypto in general, I think that makes sense. And the active and passive investors, they're trying to find a solution, a remedy, to own Bitcoin. trying not to forget their passcos and their digital walls. They're trying to find a more secure way of holding those cryptocurrencies. You take that and add on the fact that we're seeing a lot of companies like Tesla in the news today,

owning Bitcoin or go back to last fall when we saw PayPal, PayPal, and now it's the fact that they're going to let 350 million of their users transact in Bitcoin or crypto. I think this is all coming together here in 2021. And more importantly, why we think we're different at Valkyrie, why we think we have confidence in our ETOF. Of course, price is going to be a big piece of it, Bob. But also it's the expertise in trading markets, trading futures. And that should be assistive in adjusting the historical slippage

or the historical premium to NAV and some of the other products. And the FCC is watching that component, that premium to NAV. And I think if they can offer a solution via EETF regulated and it can trade more accurate to the actual spot price of Bitcoin, that's the win-win solution for all active and passive investors, even the hogglars. Jeff, you are a great salesman for your Bitcoin ETF, I have to say. But Dave, seriously, maturity? Is that really a reason the SEC is going to approve a Bitcoin ETF? And now that Elon Musk is endorsing it, we all know about that wonderful relationship he has with the SEC. I mean, if that doesn't get him over the gold line, I don't know what will for a crying out loud. Go ahead, Dave. Enlighten us. We definitely, maturity definitely does matter. And that is effectively what the SEC is, effectively what the SEC is. has said in rejecting or asking filings to be pulled, that these markets are not yet ready to be

the target of ETF investors. Now, I think that that is changing. I think Gensler coming at the SEC between him and PERS. They really understand crypto, and that's got to be a good sign. I'm maybe not quite as Pollyanna about it. I think maybe we're still looking at 22, but I do think it's inevitable, and I think we're starting to make that progress towards a sort of fully liquid, fully exchanged traded crypto vehicle of some sort, whether it shows up in a traditional ETF or not. I think the success we've seen of things like BITW and GBTC, which are not ETFs, they are pink sheet traded companies that happen to own cryptocurrencies under the hood, I think that that is really going to force the SEC's hand. When we have companies like Tesla making Bitcoin a major balance sheet asset,

and we have companies for whom that is their whole balance sheet asset trading on the pink sheets, I think it's going to get hard for them to say no for very much longer. You really think so. I mean, I keep going back to the reasons they said no in the past. There was custody problems. They weren't sure of the security of custody. And the fact that the prices were still largely set overseas by markets they couldn't control. I think I'm trying to think like a lawyer.

I'm not a lawyer, but how do you cure those defects? It seems like a tough one. I know the SEC, I was pretty close to the SEC, the last administration, They were terrified that five or six years from now, they were going to get hauled in front of Congress and said, are you the guys who approved granny buying the Bitcoin ETF, which was at $4,000 and is now at $400? I know they were really worried about the incredible volatility of that.

I think they were at a bit of a turning point there because I think the SEC has to do something. And one thing they can do is approve these products and put them in a structure that we all understand. The other thing they could do, which I don't think anybody wants, do I think is predicting is they could come down very hard against crypto and about this whole space, you know, and start banning some of the access vehicles that we do have. I don't think that that's

going to happen, but I don't think they can stand here on the head of the pin forever. And so I think we're going to see some structures that allow Bitcoin to show up or any crypto to show up in a regulated product. We may not like some of the conditions, but I do think it's going to happen. Jeff, last word on this one before I move on? No, I think you see more of a sensationalized. You're not giving enough credit to what happens at the CME group, Bob. The CMEA group launching another cryptocurrency futures. I think that is a huge win for a Bitcoin ETF being approved in 2021.

Yeah, for my two cents on this, I'm waiting for a tethered coin. I think blockchain is the revolutionary technology here. I would love to see a tethered coin, a U.S. dollar tethered coin, a euro tethered coin. That will revolutionize trading. I'll be able to send money to my friends in London. I'll be able to move things around really quickly, and I think that will take away some of the intense interest in Bitcoin as a source of payment.

That's my two cents. You can send money to your friend in Chicago, Bob, anytime you want. Yeah. Isn't it an outrageous to you that it still takes three days to send $100 to London? And, you know, J.P. Morgan still controls all that? And six banks essentially control all that. It makes me furious.

That's why Black, Black, We'll solve all that. Blockchain will solve the real estate problems. Blockchain could even help solve the clearing problem that we had. We all know that. That's why it's blockchain you want to promote, folks, not Bitcoin. Sorry, editorial, stop Bob. Okay, before we go, can I just point out to our friends over at the NASDAQ?

Today is the 50th anniversary of the NASDAQ. It started 50 years ago, February 8, 1971. NASDAQ began operations for the very first time. And it was originally, Dave, you'll remember this because you were full at the time, or three, that it was originally a quotation system. You couldn't trade on that. All it was was a screen. That's right, quotation, that's right. Originally, it was just a screen you could stare at, but that was revolutionary.

You couldn't trade. You could just stare at it, but it was revolutionary because these stocks were traded over the counter and, of course, by the phone, and you could drive a truck through the bid and ask. And one of the things that this did was it helped to lower the bid-s spread because everyone could see the prices on the screen. Now it wasn't until 1998 actually that it became the first stock market to actually trade online. We were able to do that and actually do the trading, but it was quite a revolution for the over-the-counter guys to get together and put together NASDAQ 50 years ago. And of course you can buy it now for ETFs. Fidelity has a composite NASDAQ composite index

tracking. OnEQ is the symbol. And of course you know about the QQQQ. and the QQQQ juniors that were launched just last year. And, you know, Dave, they're still out there, still trying to innovate and do all sorts of new things here. But this goes to show you 50 years ago, this was considered a crazy idea. Like who wants to look at stock prices on a computer? You call you a broker if you want to make a trade.

And now they're pushing the front end of innovation. Yeah, it's crazy. Well, that's the point here, which is why I think your point about maturity, even though I have problems with Bitcoin, is correct. You've got to be able to keep pushing financial innovation forward. And just remember, in 1971, it was revolutionary to stare at a stock price on a computer screen. You didn't even trade it. It was just revolutionary to look at it. And now look where we are. So remember that, folks.

That's the key point. That does it. Enough buntipicating. For this week's ETF Edge, thanks to Dave, Will, and Jeff. Now it's time to round out the conversation with some thoughtful analysis. That's a perspective to help you better day in ETFs. This is the Markets 102 portion of the podcast. Today we'll be continuing the conversation with Dave Notick from ETF trends. And Dave, I know you've been writing about a lot about the social media impacts of this whole Reddit thing. And even though Reddit, even though the whole situation around the most shortest stocks, around AMC and around some of the other ones like Bed Bath and Beyond, is all kind of dying down a little bit, the impact is still there and is likely to be a little longer lasting. Tell us what you're going to do. Tell us what you.

your thoughts are briefly on what the longer-term impacts are. Yeah, I mean, I think it's a mistake to get hung up in the specifics of GameStop or AMC or, you know, BlackBerry or any of the individual plays here. I think the important thing is to recognize that the very technologies that we've been talking about for the last year around the election, whether it's Facebook or TikTok or Twitter, and how they serve as amplifiers to give in messages, the same thing is happening in finance. And it has been happening it in finance. I don't think we paid as much attention to it, frankly, because of the noise around the election cycle and obviously the midst of a global pandemic and a global recession. We've had plenty going on. But if you look back over the last

year, even at things like the gamma squeeze we saw in Tesla last year before its introduction to the S&P 500, it's hard not to look at that and say that there's been an influence of this. I'm reluctant to call it retail, but let's just call it social media influence. investors. I don't want to call it retail because if you actually have spent any time in the space, you realize there are some quite large players in it. And honestly, even folks like Elon Musk are part of the, I won't say the problem, but they are part of this, right? Elon Musk and Dave Portnoy and Mark Cuban, they are both fanning the flames and also cheerleading what they see as a bit of a revolution amongst, you know, self-directed investors, whether we truly call them retail or not.

How do you feel about Chimov and Mark Cuban being cheerleaders? These were very respected guys. And suddenly, they're acting like cheerleaders. There's a part of me that says, well, I understand they're getting in the zeities. Another part is kind of disappointed. Isn't that, do you want to be in that situation? And number two, isn't that a little dangerous? I mean, that meme or that community can easily turn on you.

I don't know. How do you feel about that kind of, like, That's call it cheerleading, is what it is. So look, on the one hand, yes. Is it somehow irresponsible or a little inappropriate to have Elon Musk talking about doge coin and things like that? And then, you know, a raft of fairly uninformed investors chase them into an asset that I think even he would admit as a joke and not particularly real.

Yeah, I think there's a little bit of that that is it is probably not great. But, and I think this is a reasonable thing to say, you know, folks like Warren Buffett have been pretty big cheerleaders for their portfolio stocks too. I mean, how many times did we heard Warren Buffett talk about the importance of the insurance industry or about why Kraft Hines was going to be the next big thing, right? Now, they may not do this on Twitter. They may not do it in the middle of a trading day. They may do it in letters that get sent out to shareholders, but it's fundamentally the same thing. The only thing we've done is compress the timeline of that.

So, you know, I'm not trying to say that all of these guys are Warren Buffett's in disguise. but the idea of talking your book and doing it in an aggressive way is hardly new to the market. Yeah, I agree with you. But you mentioned the timeline compression. That seems to be very important. Is there any difference between the fact that you can move the market that way? I mean, it seems like, yes, we've always waited for Warren Buffett's letter to come out, and people did buy around this stuff.

That's for sure. But there certainly seems to be something a little different than the way this trading is being conducted. It may be hyper-compressed, but... Yeah, I mean, you know, I think we forget that when we talk about volatility, volatility is actually the measurement of two things, right? It's the measurement of a movement over a time period, right? So if the S&P goes up a thousand points over the next two years, we wouldn't even notice. If it goes up a thousand points today, we'd say, holy cats, the market's incredibly volatile. So time is the other half of a volatility equation.

and everything we've done in terms of market structure and in terms of society and how we process information has been about compressing time as much as humanly possible, right? We talk about microsecond trading now. You know, we talk about a time to market for a new ETF measured in weeks, not months. This is new, and that acceleration means that our ability to process information has to keep up, and frankly, it can't. And that's why we end up with things like memes driving investment.

because it's one of the only ways to communicate fast enough. Yeah. Let me just move on and ask you about Robin Hood. One of the remarkable things about this whole Robin Hood episode is essentially it's a clear it was a clearing problem that they had. Yes. They self-cleared. The amount of trades were potentially so big and perhaps so many of them may not have they may not have able to make good on the trades that they had to put up an awful lot of money. This goes back to this, what we call the T plus two issue. We used to have T plus three, take the three days, now it's two days. Why the hell does it take so long to clear?

Is there any, would this have been less of a problem if it would have been T plus one, or we could have put clearing on a blockchain and done it in the sub-second interval? If we would have dealt with that T-plus-2 issue, would that have reduced the probability of Robin Hood having the kind of problem in had? Sure, we could change the entire clearing. infrastructure to be effectively real-time settlement or something very close. In order to do that, you have to effectively pre-fund all notional transactions in the country. And I think that's the piece that people miss here, right? The reason that Robin Hood got caught out is because Dodd-Frank

put in place a collateral requirement in the settlement process, which basically insulates the DTCC from the potential catastrophic impact of big market moves while trades are unsettled. So, yes, yeah, we can squish that window narrower and narrower, but what it means is trades have to be better and better funded from the beginning. So Robin Hood wouldn't be able to provide the kind of margin call leverage that they had been putting, or the margin leverage that they had been putting into the system because they simply would not have had that capital. So if we did, in fact, crush settlement windows down to something close to real time, we'd have to actually rebuild how markets work, because markets currently rely on this idea of a

an overnight matching of ledgers with an opportunity to correct deficiencies. And if we remove that entirely, it means every trade is completely funded and deliverable at the time it's made, which means all of that leverage has to come completely out of the system. Well, how about could we go to a T plus one? We were T plus three. We went to T plus two a little while. Could we go to T plus one? Would that would overnight be sufficient?

And it seemed to me like, you know, cutting the amount of time in half would significantly reduce the settlement risk. Well, it removes the settlement risk, but then, you know, part of the beauty of modern markets is that we have this central counterparty for most of where the real money is traded, right? We have the OCC to be the central counterparty for clearing options trades. We have DTCC and the National Security Clearing Corporation to handle that process. And that's important because it means that when I buy stock, I don't have to worry about who I've. bought it from because I know that the system itself is acting as the counterparty. To remove that from the equation is problematic. And yes, blockchain technology is one of the solutions there, right? You remove a clearing party because we can verify each other's half of the

transaction using the system. I'm not suggesting we can't do that. I'm suggesting we have to completely destroy and replace the plumbing of how markets work. So just going from T2 to T1 would probably necessitate a lot of those changes because this isn't about the ability of bits to move through a fiber optic pipe fast enough. That's not what we're solving for. We're solving for risk management. The reason T2 is safer than T1 is because it gives you an extra day to deal with a broken trade, to deal with a crazy volatile market at the close. I mean, imagine, if you will, a world where we had something like a flash crash, but we had zero time to fix anything because settlement happened 4 p.m. I'm not sure anybody really wants that when you start working through it. There's

trillions of dollars at stake here. Some level of prudence, I think, is appropriate. You know what I like about all this? It's a great teaching moment because you get to teach people about the plumbing of the system, which never gets on the air. Nobody ever wants to hear me talk about selling. Oh, yeah. It's like the three days out of my career. I'm relevant. Yeah, exactly. And I love clearing. I mean, if there's ever one business I would ever want to own, it's a clearing business because clearing is terrific. No matter, I don't care what you do, but you pay me every time you do something.

Every time you want to trade a stock, I get something for that. It's a great business. Being a middleman and providing liquidity, it turns out to be a great business. Yeah. Hell yeah. Hell yeah. All right, Dave Nautic,

always a pleasure getting your thoughts and appreciate your health and your friendship as always. Dave Nautica from ETF trends, everybody. Thank you for joining us. Have a healthy, happy and safe trading week. InvescoQQQ believes new innovations create new opportunities. Here's the greater possibilities together.

Learn more at investco.com slash QQ, Invesco Distributors, Inc.