4 ms·
This is really confusing, I wish Matt Levine would take it up. Could someone perhaps explain exactly what’s going on here? I get that they use the names of thes
by Overtonwindow 7y ago
This is really confusing, I wish Matt Levine would take it up. Could someone perhaps explain exactly what’s going on here? I get that they use the names of these children, but they didn’t say if there was more to it. If it’s just the names it could be anyone. How does it tie specifically to each child?
- perl4ever 7y agoHe did. It was in today's column. In describing what would happen if all of them died and the trust had to be shut down: "...money could move from SPY I to SPY II by passing a basket of S&P 500 stocks from SPY I to a bank trading desk, and from that trading desk to SPY II, without ever selling it in the market..." "...the assets of SPY I would pretty efficiently move over to SPY II, and the price of the underlying stocks would not be affected. Some retail investors wouldn’t want to move, because the move would trigger taxable gains for them, but over 20 years that problem would mostly go away as they cash out naturally. By 2039, the trust’s accelerated end date, SPY I would be pretty small and the real S&P 500 index ETF action would be in SPY II. No one would have to dump stock along the way, and the short-selling supervillain would never be rewarded for his evil deeds."