At The Money: Blurring the Lines Between Public and Private Investments

There used to be a clear distinction between public and private companies. Firms would take years or even decades to grow, build their revenue and profits, and eventually tap the public markets to go national or even global. This is no longer how it works. Dave Nadig is President and Director of Research at ETF.com, and he shares with us how investors should navigate all of these new products. Each week, “At the Money” discusses an important topic in money management. From portfolio construction to taxes and cutting down on fees, join Barry Ritholtz to learn the best ways to put your money to work. See omnystudio.com/listener https://omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Speaker 00

  At Brookfield, we believe you can own wealth that's measured in generations. Because true ownership looks beyond today and beyond cycles. For 125 years, we've built long-term wealth through expertise, discipline, and a clear vision for the future. Providing investors access to alternative strategies built for what's next. Brookfield. Own what's next. Learn more at Brookfield.com/own. This is not an offer to sell or investment advice. Investing involves risks, including loss of capital. Past performance is not indicative nor a guarantee of future results. Please review performance and offering materials before investing.

• 0:38Speaker 01

  This is the Bloomberg Tech Minute brought to you by ChatGPT. I'm Carol Muster. Getting hired at SpaceX requires exceptional ability and may include having Elon Musk review a candidate's resume. So writes Bloomberg Business Week's Lauren Grush. She reports that the company culture is defined by Musk and job candidates must understand that a commitment to SpaceX means adhering to this culture and exhibiting loyalty to Elon Musk. To get hired, candidates must demonstrate their achievements from past jobs and hands-on experience matters more to recruiters than advanced degrees, with the company looking for people with raw innate intelligence. A spokesperson for SpaceX didn't respond to a request for comment on its recruiting and hiring practices.

• 1:21Speaker 01

  But according to recruiters, advisors, and those who've interviewed for jobs there, it's the space exploration dream that draws people to the company and Musk invokes that dream regularly to remind workers why they're there. Prospective hires are told that the job will require stamina, including in job ads that candidates, quote, "must be willing to work extended hours and weekends as needed." One major perk for all that hard work? Employees' access to equity, either the right to buy shares or payment in the form of restricted stock units that vest over time. That's the Bloomberg Tech Minute brought to you by ChatGPT. Get started at ChatGPT.com.

• 2:03Speaker 01

  Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio, news.

• 2:29Barry Ritholtz?

  There used to be a clear distinction between public and private companies. Firm would take years or even decades to grow, build their revenues and profits and eventually tap the public markets to go national or even global. That doesn't seem to happen anymore. As endless amounts of capital sloshes through the system, more and more companies are staying private. But there's a group of private investors that are accessing public capital through various wrappers, including ETFs. To help us unpack all of this and what it means for your portfolio, let's bring in Dave Nodig.

• 3:10Barry Ritholtz?

  He's president and director of research at ETF.com and he shares with us how investors should navigate these public-private hybrids. Dave is also the author of the book, A Comprehensive Guide to Exchange-Traded Funds. So Dave, there was once a very bright line between public and private markets. Has that line disappeared or has it simply just moved into wrappers that investors don't fully grok?

• 3:38Speaker 03

  I think it's more the latter. I think the rules haven't really changed. I think that's important to point out here. It's not like we passed a law that said, everybody can get in. What's changed is that there's a willingness by the issuers of product to get a lot more aggressive in what they're positioning as retail-appropriate vehicles. So it's not, there's not a new wrapper here. What there are are new ways of stretching the edges of wrappers that have been around for, you know, almost 100 years at this point.

• 4:08Barry Ritholtz?

  So let's put some numbers on that. Since 2010, private credit raised something like $1.8 trillion. Every major firm, Blackstone, Apollo, KKR, Ares, blew out. They're building retail channels. There were 314 interval funds, tender offer funds with $277 billion in assets as of January of this year of 2026. A lot of chatter that private is going after the 401k market next. What does all this capital mean to investors?

• 4:47Speaker 03

  Well, you know, I think the thing investors need to realize is that if you're the one being offered a product, you need to ask yourself why, right? If somebody's coming to you and saying, I want to give you access to private credit or private equity, it's very smart to say, who is selling this to me and why are they selling it to me now? And unfortunately, the real answer here is that the, you know, look, we're in this incredible bull market. Let's just be really honest. Things have been going up for a very, very long time. And because of that, there is a lot of money that is looking for exits. And at the end of every cycle in my career, it is retail that is looked at to be the exit,

• 5:28Speaker 03

  whether that's buying beanie babies, used cars, or stocks. It doesn't really matter. At the end of the day, the retail investor is the one that the quote unquote smart money, the big institutional money, is looking to unload their positions onto. And so it's not surprising to me that we're seeing a lot of discussion around quote unquote democratizing private investing, whether it's venture capital or private credit, it doesn't really matter. It's all the same thing. And so now that we just have to accept that we're going to be marketed these products. And for the most part, I think investors are not well-served by them, but I think that that's worth poking at.

• 6:07Barry Ritholtz?

  So we should all take some advice from that great alternatives investor, Groucho Marx. I don't want to be a member of any club that would have me.

• 6:17Speaker 03

  Exactly.

• 6:19Barry Ritholtz?

  So let's talk a little bit about how this used to look in the old days. Historically, companies would go public to raise growth capital. Today, it seems like a lot of the best-known private firms can stay private indefinitely. And those that go public seem just to be reaching for liquidity for insiders. Is that what's happening with these various 40 Act funds and all sorts of new wrappers?

• 6:46Speaker 03

  Yeah, there's two things going on here. So on the one hand, eventually, these private companies go public, and there's a lot of effort to get investors involved in those IPOs. That's the end state of what we're talking about. I want to focus a little bit more on the beginning state, which is how the actual money in private equity gets there. And historically, how that money ends up in a private company is pretty simple. There's some pool of assets. Generally, it's an LLC or a limited partnership, and it collects a billion dollars of money from a bunch of rich people and endowments and institutions and financial advisors. And that money goes into a pool, which then makes a bunch of small investments in, say, 15 different startups in Silicon Valley. And the idea is that one of those hits big,

• 7:28Speaker 03

  and then the payout from that is either that company gets bought or it goes IPO, and all the investors in that limited partnership then get a big check. That's sort of the structure. How that little pool of private money gets managed can really vary. It's very common for it to be in just literally a limited partnership. But the problem with that is you can only get so many investors into it. When you want to get a lot of investors, you have to go to some sort of regulated vehicle. And then you end up in usually a closed-end fund of some kind, whether it's a traded closed-end fund, a non-traded closed-end fund, an interval fund, a tender offer fund. They're all sort of versions of the same things. They're funds that are roach motels. Money goes in, money never comes out.

• 8:13Barry Ritholtz?

  Define those various things. What's the difference between a tender offer fund, a limited fund, a closed-end fund? For people who may not be hip to all these different acronyms, what is going on in these interval funds? Go through the whole list.

• 8:32Speaker 03

  Yeah, so really, the main structure is the closed-end fund, or the CEF, which is part of the 40 Act, just like an open-ended fund, which is an ETF or a mutual fund. Same rules, same laws that have a board, have very similar structures at the very, very high level. The biggest difference is a closed-end fund is basically subscribed to once, like an IPO. You go out, you say, "I want to raise a billion dollars." You see if you can get a bunch of people to give you that billion dollars. Now that is a closed pool of money, and whether or not money ever comes out of that pool again depends on how the rules are written for that fund. In the most investor-friendly version, it tends to be a traded closed-end fund,

• 9:17Speaker 03

  meaning you can go to NYSE and you can get a bid for it, and it may be trading at a discount or not. That's the version that, for instance, Pershing Square just launched. Pershing Square just filed PSUS, which is a fairly traditional closed-end fund. They raised a bunch of money. Now it trades in the open market, and much to the dismay of Bill Ackman, it's trading at a 20% discount to what it's actually worth. That's pretty common in closed-end funds, because there's no liquidity. You can only buy it or sell it from other people who happen to want it or own it.

• 9:48Barry Ritholtz?

  And to clarify, PSUS, are the holdings private, or public, or both?

• 9:54Speaker 03

  At the moment, that's really going to be public equities. I think what people are trying to buy there is Bill Ackman's high concentration, use some leverage to get better exposure, special situations kind of investing. That was a specific offering that he's tried. I think this is his third tilt at this windmill, and finally got this one to close, albeit not with the pricing that he probably would have hoped for. But that's actually a pretty traditional closed-end fund. You raise a bunch of money, you trade it back and forth with your friends, maybe... It throws off dividends, maybe it throws off a capital gain someday if they have a big win. But you're never, you're never expecting to get your money out. You can do the exact same thing and not have it ever be traded. And that's a, that's a non-traded private equity fund.

• 10:38Speaker 03

  And, and that, that's a pretty common thing. BRET, a really well-known REIT fund is one of those sort of non-traded closed-end funds. And we've had a bunch of those launched recently also really targeting private equity. So that's another very common version of it.

• 10:54Barry Ritholtz?

  And, um, full disclosure, what I'm about to talk about is something I own. Boaz Weinstein has an ETF, CEFS, closed-end funds, that he looks for these closed-end funds that are trading at a discount to NAV. He buys them and then either agitates for the manager to either buy back enough stock so it's trading at NAV, or to break it up and just sell all the pieces and return the money, or give the stock back to the investors. Why do so many of these closed-end funds trade at such a discount

• 11:32Barry Ritholtz?

  that activists are haranguing management for what essentially is a dollar trading at 75 cents?

• 11:40Speaker 03

  Well, the discount comes because of what you just said. There's no, there's no liquidity in it. There's no way to ever extract real value from the fund. It's permanent capital largely from the perspective of the issuer. That's why the issuer loves it because they're just like, I have a $2 billion portfolio. I never have to worry about providing liquidity. I'm fine. So if it trades at a discount, that manager really doesn't care. They're still getting paid based on NAV. You know, often they're getting paid on NAV that's been goose by a bunch of leverage. So they still get paid. The end investor is the one sitting here going, why did I pay? Like, why, why am I sitting here at a discount? So that AR being out of the discount is a, is a, it's a classic tale. People have been doing that since the 60s.

• 12:24Speaker 03

  And that's been the story for closed-end funds.

• 12:26Barry Ritholtz?

  Right. ETFs, the, the AR means that there's no discount because you could always buy it. And open the wrapper and sell the stock. So it just seems weird that closed end funds don't have the same

• 12:40Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 12:41Barry Ritholtz?

  Response to ARB.

• 12:42Speaker 03

  It's like an appendix on regulatory structure, right? It's this like vestigial piece of flesh that's attached to the 40 act. And that's why you mentioned at the top of the show, there are only a couple hundred of these things.

• 12:55Barry Ritholtz?

  Right.

• 12:55Speaker 03

  And, and generally people only use the closed end fund structure when they have one of a couple problems to solve. One is they're buying stuff they literally can't sell. So in the case of USVC, which is the one that Angel List Naval just launched, I'm still trying to get my money into. Like the whole idea there is that buying stakes in SpaceX and private companies like that, they can't just liquidate that. They need to be able to close the liquidity gate. That's usually usually reason number two. And you reason number, reason number two is usually leverage. So if you're trying to do some sort of, uh, sort of, uh, you know, like levering up bonds to try to get 15% returns out of them, you know, those kinds of portable alpha strategies, uh, you know, or risk parity strategies where you really need to be able to go long and short

• 13:40Speaker 03

  and get lots of leverage, you can do that in the closed end fund structure where you can't do that in a traditional mutual fund or ETF. So it does solve a problem. The, the issue is it's very rarely a problem the normal investor has.

• 13:54Barry Ritholtz?

  So, so are you, you mentioned PSUS and I, I remember that fee was not five bips. What was the fee on PSUS?

• 14:01Speaker 03

  Uh, I think it's 2% out of the gate.

• 14:03Barry Ritholtz?

  Oh, that's a chunk of cash. Uh, but no 20. It's not a two and 20 hedge fund. It's just a two.

• 14:09Speaker 03

  Exactly.

• 14:10Barry Ritholtz?

  And, and what about products like USVC? By the way, I love that these all have the name US in it. I guess the plan is they'll do a overseas version one day as well.

• 14:20Speaker 03

  I, I, I guess, I guess. Look, they're all, all of these funds are generally pretty expensive. You know, something like the USPE, which is the one that's come from TAP, uh, which is basically you're just going to buy a bunch of private stuff that they get access to. That's charging 2%. But then they're, what they're buying is other funds. And so you get a lot of acquired fund expenses. So it's not uncommon to see these. Expenses creep up towards three or 4% when you start rolling all this stuff together.

• 14:47Barry Ritholtz?

  Oh, because it's fees on fees.

• 14:49Speaker 03

  Because it's fees on fees. Now, I should point out, though, the USVC is the one that made a bunch of big splash lately because they're basically saying the limit's $500. Get your money in now. And they're structuring that as a bit more of an interval fund where, once a quarter, they're saying, we'll give 5% liquidity to people who want to get out. That's, again, a fairly common structure, although none of those things are written in stone. They can say they're going to do that and then not do it, and there's no recourse, but the intent is to create-

• 15:17Barry Ritholtz?

  And USVC does not trade on any-

• 15:20Speaker 03

  It won't trade anywhere. It's non-traded. So the only way you'll ever get your money out of it is either they make a distribution because something big happened in the fund, or you sign up for one of these quarterly windows where you can get 5% of your money out.

• 15:33Barry Ritholtz?

  So, so some of these are private and hold non-liquid assets. Some of these are public and hold public assets. Are there public versions of these that hold private assets?

• 15:48Speaker 03

  Well, the equivalent to that would be something like USPE, which is the one that's coming from TAP. The idea there is that they're going to have, it'll be trading on exchange. No, it's not an ETF. It's still a closed-end fund, but it'll be a traded closed-end fund, so it'll have its big discounts. The other version of this is you can take an ETF and use the 15% illiquid bucket that all mutual funds are technically allowed to have, and you can try to use that aggressively. There are ETFs doing that. XOVR is the big one that has a 15% SpaceX chunk in it. Ron Baron Funds, R O N B, has a big chunk of SpaceX in there right now. So there are more ETFs and mutual funds that are trying to do that, but it's obviously fraught with peril.

• 16:31Speaker 03

  You don't want to go too down, too far down that road and then have a giant pile of redemptions you can't meet.

• 16:36Barry Ritholtz?

  So here's the obvious question. USPE, or even better, Pershing Square, P S U S, with Bill Ackman.

• 16:45Barry Ritholtz?

  These funds convinced savvy institutional investors and others to put a bunch of money in. They launch at a couple of billion dollars. Wait, I could buy me some, some Bill Ackman at a 20% discount? How come more people don't see this and say, oh, I get, I get to buy a premier hedge fund manager at a discount to NAV? What's the disconnect? Why haven't people themselves just said, I want some of this? Is, is the expectation that, hey, if you want to be in Persian Square, that's where all the good stuff is taking place. But the, the

• 17:26Barry Ritholtz?

  PSUS just isn't going to have, the closed end fund isn't going to have the same juice?

• 17:31Speaker 03

  Interestingly, part of the reason Ackman had such a hard time getting this capital raise done over the years was exactly that argument. People were like, I want to be part of the management company. I don't want to own this garbage fund. And so what they actually floated was the combo platter where for every, I think it's every four or five shares of

• 17:49Barry Ritholtz?

  You get one.

• 17:49Speaker 03

  Fund, you get one share of the, of the, the big daddy, of the main.

• 17:53Barry Ritholtz?

  So you're both an LP. So if this was a hedge fund,

• 17:56Speaker 03

  You get an LP and a GP.

• 17:57Barry Ritholtz?

  You would both be an LP and a GP at the same time.

• 17:59Speaker 03

  Exactly.

• 18:00Barry Ritholtz?

  Which is a very clever way to do it. How much of the overall GP did Ackman allow outsiders to buy? Or is it just built into the fund?

• 18:10Speaker 03

  It's built into the, the structure of the fund. Um, I don't know exactly.

• 18:14Barry Ritholtz?

  So you're not getting 20% of the GP?

• 18:17Speaker 03

  You're simply not getting 100% of it.

• 18:19Barry Ritholtz?

  You're getting one out of, well, if you're buying it, you're only getting one out of five shares or whatever there is. But he could say, oh, we're going to have 100 million shares and I'm going to put a million into this or whatever the float is.

• 18:30Speaker 03

  Right. I mean, this is part of the problem with these kinds of funds is that you ask why people aren't, you know, storming the gates to try to get into this thing? Well, you don't know that much about it, right? You're not getting regular reporting. It's not super transparent. You don't really know what the marks are. Obviously, if they're only holding public securities, you can impute the marks yourself. That's fine. But on anything that's private, you're just kind of guessing and taking their word for it, for it. So yeah, it's trading at a 20% discount to what you think it's worth. But is that really even what it's worth? And how do you value the GP component of this in that 20% discount, et cetera? So I, I think the combo, combo platter of lack of transparency and lack of liquidity is enough to scare most rational investors out of something like this.

• 19:14Barry Ritholtz?

  So those are the downsides. There obviously has to be an upside if someone like Bill Ackman is saying, I have an idea and $2 billion worth of smart money theoretically, threw some cash into that. What's the upside?

• 19:30Speaker 03

  Well, the upside is Bill Ackman could be right, right? Like, I mean, he runs high concentration, somewhat levered portfolios of, I know a dozen stocks. That's a high conviction bet. If he gets those dozen stocks right, he could absolutely blow away the market. I've, I've fully acknowledged that there are investors out there.

• 19:48Barry Ritholtz?

  And his track record has shown years.

• 19:49Speaker 03

  It's not bad.

• 19:50Barry Ritholtz?

  The lights out, right?

• 19:51Speaker 03

  Exactly.

• 19:52Barry Ritholtz?

  Not, not necessarily consistent, but mostly pretty good years and a handful of spectacular ones.

• 19:58Speaker 03

  Some flashes of genius, right? So like, that's why people are buying into these things is because they believe in this case for, you know, purring squared, they believe in Ackman and his prowess and his access to inside information, quote unquote, or his access to insight that other people aren't getting. In the case of something like USVC, I think what they're counting on is, oh, those are the angel list guys. They're getting to see all of this deal flow from Silicon Valley way before everybody else. USVC is going to get these nice little slugs of whatever the next SpaceX or the next big IPO is going to be way before anybody else. That's not insane, right? I mean, I, I have some private investments of my own. I've chosen to be much more careful and pick exactly what I want to do.

• 20:41Speaker 03

  But I'm not going to sit here and tell people private investing is a terrible idea. Lots of people have made lots of money doing it. So that's the allure is, hey, USVC, once they finally let people's money in and start investing, maybe they will in fact carry the whole tailwind of everything going on in Silicon Valley venture. And your $500 becomes $5,000. I, that, it's not impossible.

• 21:05Barry Ritholtz?

  Here's the math on, on private investing that I think a lot of people overlook. The median fund, it does okay, doesn't, doesn't do great. You're better off in the S and P. It's expensive and it's a liquid versus the S and P. But a top decile fund does really well. Diversified, non-correlated, and very often outperforms the index. The problem is, unless you get into that, I'll, I'll be generous and say top quartile fund. The performance, the juice isn't worth the squeeze. I love that expression. So, so given all of that, how do you think regulators should be treating this private exposure

• 21:49Barry Ritholtz?

  in these various public wrappers?

• 21:52Speaker 03

  Well, so my two big issues are liquidity and transparency. I think we should enforce the liquidity rules, right? Which means that if you're sticking something in like an ETF, you should not be able to violate the 15%. If you cannot trade it and get a price on it intra-day, it is not liquid and you should not count it as liquid. So step one, we should actually enforce those liquidity rules.

• 22:14Barry Ritholtz?

  Intra-day, meaning once a day or anytime throughout the day?

• 22:17Speaker 03

  Well, you've got to at least be able to do it once a day.

• 22:19Barry Ritholtz?

  Okay.

• 22:20Speaker 03

  And I, and I would argue, holding an intra-day priced vehicle, you should probably be holding most of your assets in intra-day priced securities.

• 22:29Barry Ritholtz?

  85%.

• 22:30Speaker 03

  Yeah, 85%, right. So like, that seems pretty rational. And then, you know, the other, you know, so that's the, that's the liquidity side of it. And then the transparency side of it, look, the problem in private equity and private credit, as everybody who knows who's played in any of this, is that the marks don't matter. Right? I mean, we've all seen those, those, those pitch books that say, look, you should invest in privates. They're so stable. They hardly ever go up or down.

• 22:56Barry Ritholtz?

  I love, I love Cliff Asness calls that volatility laundering.

• 23:00Speaker 03

  And it's exactly what it is.

• 23:01Barry Ritholtz?

  Perfect phrase.

• 23:02Speaker 03

  Right? So you're taking what would obviously be wildly volatile assets and you're marking them once a quarter and you're marking them, you know, based on a lower vol metric on what its comps did. So of course, those are ridiculous and stupid marks. So that would be the next thing I would focus on is independent. valuation agents for anything that is going to touch the public hand. Right. If it's not in a private, if it's not in a limited partnership where you've got your own governing documents. If you're going to touch the 1940 Act, we should have independent verification and we should at least publish valuation rules. That's the other big one is that they don't tell you how they value any of these things. That's the board. The board values whether or not your private thing is worth X or Y.

• 23:46Speaker 03

  I don't like that. I would like to know the rules. Why do you think SpaceX is worth $185 instead of 500?

• 23:53Barry Ritholtz?

  Huh. Really, really, really fascinating. Last question. Five years from now, how do you think this public-private distinction? These public wrappers around private investments. I love the phrase liquid alts. Kind of reminds me of the George Carlin word routine Jumbo Shrimp.

• 24:16Speaker 03

  Military Intelligence.

• 24:17Barry Ritholtz?

  Right, exactly. That's the exact routine. Listen, either it's private and illiquid or public and liquid, but private and liquid doesn't really. At that point, it might as well be public. It doesn't make any sense. How do you think this distinction is going to show up in the minds of investors and/or regulators?

• 24:36Speaker 03

  Uh, I, I, I feel, I don't want to be Doomburg about this, but I feel fairly confident suggesting we're going to have some event in the next couple of years, which is going to like pull the scales off our eyes around.

• 24:51Barry Ritholtz?

  Haven't we kind of had those sort of events already this year? We've had a bunch of privates.

• 24:57Speaker 03

  Oh, no, no, very, very thin, like Blue Owls, like closing your BDC for redemptions. That's, that's, that's, that's course of business.

• 25:05Barry Ritholtz?

  You're talking not quite GFC, but in the same neighborhood.

• 25:09Speaker 03

  I, yeah, I think we're going to have a few funds really have to, to, you know, either close. Whether it's a high-profile private equity fund unwinding, whether it's some of the private credit stuff really coming home to roost. Now, initially, it looks like we may have dodged some of that, like the private credit stuff. I think there was a lot of concern that that was going to blow up the world. We seem to be being a little more rational about that. On the private equity side, you know, I think most of the money going into private equity is pretty high risk tolerance money anyway. So until we actually cross that Rubicon of shoving this stuff in 401ks, which I think is still going to be a while out. I don't think that's happening tomorrow.

• 25:49Barry Ritholtz?

  I hope that's a very far out.

• 25:52Speaker 03

  Yeah, so, so I, I think we'll have some high profile blowups, but I think that they will be, they'll be good for investors in the sense that they will wake us up and will be more skeptical, which I think is what's happened with private credit. There is not billions and billions and billions of dollars chasing private credit from retail right now. That's a good thing. I think we dodged a bullet.

• 26:11Barry Ritholtz?

  Well, well, there certainly was billions of dollars chasing 24 and 25.

• 26:16Speaker 03

  Millions.

• 26:17Barry Ritholtz?

  That's right. So, so to wrap up, for those of you interested in everything from liquid alts to interval funds to M and A funds to what have you, you have to be aware of the downside risks. These things tend to be expensive. They often trade at a discount, assuming they trade at all. They are not especially transparent. There is a lot of good faith in relying on management to tell you what these things are worth. No, no conflicts there. And generally speaking, they seem to operate at a, on a very different plane than publicly traded stocks and bonds. I'm Barry Ritholtz.

• 27:02Barry Ritholtz?

  You're listening to Bloomberg's At The Money.

• 27:14Speaker 04

  Congratulations, you've built a dashboard. But now comes the follow-up question and the follow-up to the follow-up and the dashboard for that. Meet Hex. Give everyone the power to ask their own questions, explore data and build with AI, all in natural language, because every answer should spark another question, limited only by your curiosity, not your data team's bandwidth. Go deeper than dashboards. Visit hex.ai.

• 27:45Speaker 05

  Empower is all about helping you invest well so you can go out and live a little. And their free Empower Personal Dashboard shows you your full financial life in one place. You'll be able to see your net worth, monitor budgets, analyze your portfolio, set retirement goals, and more. Whether you're saving for something big, want to treat yourself, friends, or family, or meet long-term goals, Empower helps you see where you stand. You've worked hard for your money, and Empower can help you make the most of it. Download the Empower Personal Dashboard or visit empower.com. Not an Empower client paid or sponsored.

• 28:16Speaker 06

  With ChatGPT, you can do more than get answers. You can get things done. Whether you're leading a big project, planning an elaborate trip, or trying to balance work and life, ChatGPT can help. Give it a goal, plus things like files, notes, or project plans, develop a trip itinerary with daily updates, or create a prioritized schedule. So you can spend less energy sorting out the details and more on bringing your biggest ideas to life. Get started at chatgpt.com.