Speaker 1: Hello, odd lots listeners. It's Joe Wisenthal. I wanted to
Speaker 1: share with you a new podcast from Bloomberg called What
Speaker 1: Goes Up. Each week, host Sarah pon Second Mike Reagan
Speaker 1: speak with expert guests about the main themes influencing global markets.
Speaker 1: They explore everything from stocks to bonds, to currencies and commodities.
Speaker 1: If you're curious about the latest plazz on Wall Street,
Speaker 1: this show is for you. We're going to play you
Speaker 1: the latest episode of What Goes Up and if you
Speaker 1: like what you hear and want to hear more, this
Speaker 1: show is out now and you can subscribe to it
Speaker 1: on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks
Speaker 1: and enjoy. Hello and welcome to What Goes Up, a
Speaker 1: Bloomberg weekly markets podcast. I'm Sarah Ponza, a markets reporter
Speaker 1: on the Cross Asset Team, and I am Mike Reagan,
Speaker 1: a senior editor on the Markets Team. This week on
Speaker 1: the show, from long shot to base case, Wall Street
Speaker 1: is growing increasingly pestimistic, but a trade deal might not
Speaker 1: be reached over the summer months, and even as the
Speaker 1: Fed preaches patients, bonn yields continue to fall with the
Speaker 1: ten year treasury yield reaching the lowest level since and
Speaker 1: of course, Sara, we will finish the show with the
Speaker 1: ever popular the craziest thing I ever saw in markets
Speaker 1: this week, at least this week. I hope you have
Speaker 1: a good one. You have a good crazy thing. I
Speaker 1: will have a good one by the end of the podcast.
Speaker 1: All right, I've got a good one. No pressure on
Speaker 1: our guests. The mind's mind's pretty good. I'm just throwing
Speaker 1: it out there. That's it. I'm not trying. Well, that's
Speaker 1: one of our guests there, Emily Barrett, you better have
Speaker 1: something good. Uh. Emily is our correspondent straight fresh from
Speaker 1: the trade Wars covering the bonds and FX markets. That's
Speaker 1: exactly how it feels, and also joining us on the show.
Speaker 1: Geno Martin Adams, the chief equity strategist here at Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: Gina spent many years as a strategist, said, Wells Fargo
Speaker 1: Waucobia Corp. Before that. But Sarah, I was looking at
Speaker 1: Gina's bio. Something I did not know about her. She's
Speaker 1: a Gator. Yes, you know that. I am from South
Speaker 1: Florida as well. I'm a Gator by birth. That's too
Speaker 1: Florida women on the show. I don't know, Florida women
Speaker 1: don't make the news quite as entertaining. Yeah, but maybe
Speaker 1: we can change that. I don't underestimate it. But this
Speaker 1: week We've been talking about US China trade for a
Speaker 1: while now, but it seems like we got a bit
Speaker 1: of a step up. We think about what's changed, for
Speaker 1: one being the Huawei blacklist. We've also heard talks that
Speaker 1: other surveillance companies out of China could be blacklisted as well.
Speaker 1: And we even have a fight song out of China
Speaker 1: and for gators. I went to school at Michigan. You know,
Speaker 1: a good fight song can really rile people up. Gina.
Speaker 1: From your perspective, is this becoming something that traders investors
Speaker 1: can really no longer ignore. Yeah, I don't necessarily think
Speaker 1: they have ignored it, but it did take a new
Speaker 1: step this week, and it took a step into a
Speaker 1: tech war as opposed to just a trade war. I
Speaker 1: think when you look back over the course of the
Speaker 1: last year, that's been the most dangerous aspect of the U. S.
Speaker 1: China relationship shift. It's not the tariffs. The tariffs are
Speaker 1: a teeny tiny portion of GDP growth. They're a teeny
Speaker 1: tiny portion of earnings growth. You know, you've run through
Speaker 1: the quantification of tariffs and you find out real quick
Speaker 1: how small they are, which is why stocks could sort
Speaker 1: of bounce around in the one to three percent decline
Speaker 1: range up until this week, and we did see an
Speaker 1: elevated level of volatility this week. We've seen a lot
Speaker 1: more angst evident in broad market classes, with the rise
Speaker 1: in gold as a good example. This week. Small caps
Speaker 1: really getting creamed this week, so much bigger risk off
Speaker 1: sentiment this week than last week. And I think the
Speaker 1: reason for that is this week it became about tech,
Speaker 1: not about trade. Gee, I'm curious, in uh, your career,
Speaker 1: have you ever thought about politics as much as as
Speaker 1: we have through these days. It seems like a very
Speaker 1: uncomfortable thing for numbers ended fundamental technical analysts. Yeah, it's uh.
Speaker 1: I have thought about politics a lot over the course
Speaker 1: of the last several years. I mean, I can distinctly
Speaker 1: remember sixteen as a year in which it was all
Speaker 1: you know, the popular sentiment on Wall Street was if
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton wins, stocks should do fine. If trade, if Trump,
Speaker 1: when stocks are going to get pummeled, right, and the opposite,
Speaker 1: The exact opposite thing occurred right after the Trump election
Speaker 1: in seen, then the thing was stocks just climbed this
Speaker 1: wall of wari because everyone was really concerned about Trump.
Speaker 1: I think throughout my career, I've always had to focus
Speaker 1: on policy in general, but more so on monetary policy
Speaker 1: than on fiscal policy, and certainly never on trade policy.
Speaker 1: And you know, even the smartest trade policy movements in
Speaker 1: the Bush administration weren't so meaningful for the broad market.
Speaker 1: So it's definitely a very different kind of policy that
Speaker 1: we were now focused on. Though policy is always important,
Speaker 1: it's just usually monetary other than than trade or fiscal
Speaker 1: that really matters. And you mentioned how and I think
Speaker 1: everyone's doing this now. You take the x percent tariffs
Speaker 1: on x dollar value of goods, and you get why
Speaker 1: you get a certain effect on earnings on revenue, But
Speaker 1: I wonder is there more to it than that or
Speaker 1: there's sort of unquantifiable risks, uh to confidence, to sentiment,
Speaker 1: that sort of thing, and and how you know, how
Speaker 1: do you wrap your head around that as the type
Speaker 1: of strategists you are who is deep into the numbers. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's it's frankly, very very difficult because behavioral analysis is
Speaker 1: a huge part of markets and I think the only
Speaker 1: way to really analyze the potential impact to this is
Speaker 1: through price itself. You know, we can all speculate as
Speaker 1: to what it means for GDP growth globally. We can
Speaker 1: all speculate as to how much this is either inflationary
Speaker 1: or deflationary. But the hard truth is nobody knows. We
Speaker 1: could try to quantify it, we could try to pretend
Speaker 1: we know more than anybody else, but the reality is
Speaker 1: the market itself, which is an aggregate of millions and
Speaker 1: millions of people's opinions, is probably smarter than any of
Speaker 1: us in this room. Right I've made a whole career
Speaker 1: out of pretending I know more than uh, and so
Speaker 1: I watch price very very carefully, and what price tells
Speaker 1: me right now is okay. So far the risk of
Speaker 1: this there's somewhat contained five percent correction and stucks is nothing.
Speaker 1: These things come around every nine months or so on average.
Speaker 1: But if we start to work our way toward ten percent,
Speaker 1: we break that ten percent line, it becomes very clear
Speaker 1: that the market's impression of this is something much worse.
Speaker 1: Right now, something I've been hearing as to why markets
Speaker 1: have been decently resilient. We're not too far off the highs.
Speaker 1: Like you said, is that you look at the economic data,
Speaker 1: you look at the fundamentals, and they're still largely strong. However,
Speaker 1: this past week we did see some weak er pm
Speaker 1: I numbers in the US, not yet contracting, but pretty
Speaker 1: close on the cusp. What could it take to really
Speaker 1: push us off the edge? Yeah, so historically you're not
Speaker 1: pushed off the edge until manufacturing p m I in
Speaker 1: the US is all the way down at forty three.
Speaker 1: We got I think the market will absolutely hesitate reach
Speaker 1: a point of very big insecurity if I s M
Speaker 1: falls below fifty. Uh. That's one of the big keys
Speaker 1: that we watch. Initial claims is another one incredibly important
Speaker 1: to the direction of equities, long term initial claims. If
Speaker 1: initial claims start rise, saying, and especially if they rise
Speaker 1: more than fifty, thou start to move towards seventy in
Speaker 1: a rise, you're pretty much assured that you're falling into recession. Uh.
Speaker 1: The other thing to watch is, of course the bond markets.
Speaker 1: We you still haven't had that inversion of the two
Speaker 1: stents at least last I checked, and that's a big
Speaker 1: key trigger for the equity market sentiment as well. So
Speaker 1: there are a lot of different things that I think
Speaker 1: you want to watch for the economic data. You know, frankly,
Speaker 1: consumer confidence, which is still near a fifteen year high,
Speaker 1: is still pretty supportive, so you need to see a
Speaker 1: big deterioration and consumer confidence as well. What's a good
Speaker 1: segue into our next guest on the Bonds team, Emily,
Speaker 1: You had a story out this week talking about the
Speaker 1: market expectations for inflation. I just want to read one
Speaker 1: line because I think it's it's pretty important, uh, right
Speaker 1: that since consumer price gains have been lagging the FEDS
Speaker 1: two percent target for much of the past decade, it's
Speaker 1: a little wonder that inflation isn't a hot topic in
Speaker 1: the market yet. Don't don't done, But it may be
Speaker 1: warming up with the Fed actively debating how it can
Speaker 1: meet its inflation goals, including a June fourth the Fifth
Speaker 1: Conference to discuss different approaches. I feel like the trade
Speaker 1: tensions are UH causing a lot of confusion about what
Speaker 1: we should expect for inflation. Obviously, the market is pricing
Speaker 1: in lower inflation going forward, um, but a lot of
Speaker 1: people are talking about the pure inflationary effects of the
Speaker 1: tariffs on the consumer. What is sort of the consensus
Speaker 1: out there or what's the smartest take you've heard about
Speaker 1: what we should expect as far as inflation in the
Speaker 1: trade trade war, right, Yeah, I mean this is the
Speaker 1: interesting thing. I think people trying to segregate what's the
Speaker 1: short term issue in terms of the inflation impact, and
Speaker 1: directly I've seen some Golden Sacks Golden Sacks analysis saying,
Speaker 1: you know, this is the boost that we might see
Speaker 1: two cp I and the mean in sort of the
Speaker 1: medium term, but people are really focusing on that longer
Speaker 1: term potential drag on growth. And as they're looking to that,
Speaker 1: they're sort of seeing if growth starts to slow, then
Speaker 1: you have more and more headwinds to that inflationary impulse.
Speaker 1: And so really that's where we're seeing this decline and
Speaker 1: break evens, which is the inflation premium that have built
Speaker 1: into treasuries. Um, we're seeing that just coming down and down.
Speaker 1: And that's despite the fact that you know, we've had
Speaker 1: tariffs put on their other things, there's been oil price
Speaker 1: gains sort of uh in the year to date hasn't
Speaker 1: been reflected at all, and normally break evens would follow
Speaker 1: that pretty closely. So we're seeing this kind of really
Speaker 1: sort of counterintuitive moving inflation markets. And it's because you know,
Speaker 1: people talked for ages about secular stagnation. You've got bored
Speaker 1: of hearing about this. But it seems that the forces
Speaker 1: that are pressuring inflation lower. It's not just in the US,
Speaker 1: it's globally and so much stronger else where. People would argue,
Speaker 1: really our top of mind from a investors and so
Speaker 1: that's going to be hard to fight. And this is
Speaker 1: this is where it comes down to people's expectations for
Speaker 1: rate cuts. I mean, there's a sense in the market
Speaker 1: that the FED, if it's going to be serious about
Speaker 1: hitting its two percent inflation target, is really going to
Speaker 1: need to take some action on rates to lower them UM.
Speaker 1: And people have gone so far as to say, a
Speaker 1: couple of people I spoke to, you know, it's not
Speaker 1: just one cut, it's probably two or three if you
Speaker 1: want to hit UM. The thing that's interesting about where
Speaker 1: c p I is at the moment is relative to
Speaker 1: the Fed's target. The FED prefers consumption expenditure, so they
Speaker 1: look at a PC rate which is actually forty to
Speaker 1: forty basis points below where CPI is, so UM, so
Speaker 1: that's it's even worse really if you look at the
Speaker 1: Fed's preferred measure. I know a lot of people are
Speaker 1: looking at the FED minutes that came out this week
Speaker 1: and calling it old news, um, but I ran a
Speaker 1: little control fine just to see where the word transitory
Speaker 1: comes up, and transitory appeared twice as it relates to inflation,
Speaker 1: whereas the last time around we saw the word transitory once,
Speaker 1: but it was related to g d P and first
Speaker 1: quarter slower growth being transitory. What else did we possibly
Speaker 1: learn from the minutes, if it's possible to clean anything
Speaker 1: more from what we've heard from FAT officials, I think
Speaker 1: what people wanted to see. I mean, this must be
Speaker 1: the shortest lived transitory impact on markets ever, because after
Speaker 1: you know, when Fed, the Fed's power was really pushing
Speaker 1: that transitory message. You know, what's weighing on inflation is
Speaker 1: going to be very short lived. You did see a
Speaker 1: market correction that started to sell off a little. Oh right, Okay,
Speaker 1: we might come back if the FED believes this is
Speaker 1: going to happen, But that just got crushed. And what
Speaker 1: the minutes gave us was this sense that at least
Speaker 1: among the f O m C, that the FEDS committee,
Speaker 1: there is a broad agreement that these or at least
Speaker 1: they're on message that people seem to think that, yes,
Speaker 1: this could be a transitory impact. But from the people
Speaker 1: I've spoken to, they're listening at the fact to the
Speaker 1: fact that the transitory effects don't quite make up for
Speaker 1: the short form inflation. They really do believe that there
Speaker 1: are stronger forces at work here. So what we learned
Speaker 1: from the minut it's it's a really good question. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm not even sure that, uh, you know, the trade
Speaker 1: impact wasn't factored in because obviously most of the trade
Speaker 1: fall out really happened after the minutes were released. Um,
Speaker 1: so the bump that we should have got, I've got
Speaker 1: a much more hype of getting it back. Really at
Speaker 1: this point, if the break evens are right and we're
Speaker 1: due for some weak inflation going forward, what does that
Speaker 1: make certain sectors, certain factors look more attractive to you?
Speaker 1: How would how would you recommend playing sort of low
Speaker 1: inflation environment. Well, it depends on if we are indeed
Speaker 1: in for a transitory or a longer term sort of
Speaker 1: disinflationary deflationary trend first start. But if we assume that
Speaker 1: it's very very short term, more than likely it pushes
Speaker 1: you into more defensive sort of sectors, and I think
Speaker 1: we've seen that over the course of the last couple
Speaker 1: of months. Our sector strategy model even pushed us into
Speaker 1: defensive sectors as early as the end of April. And
Speaker 1: that largely reflects what's happening in right. Some rates are
Speaker 1: rallying so much, indicating that this inflation pressure is somewhat nil,
Speaker 1: at least in the short run, suggesting that the downside
Speaker 1: risk to growth is still pretty evident. And at a
Speaker 1: time after stocks had already rallied tremendously in the first quarter,
Speaker 1: the valuation multiple started to shift as well on the
Speaker 1: cyclicals versus defensives. Call I can tell you one sector
Speaker 1: it absolutely suggests you want to stay away from, and
Speaker 1: this is manifestans price performance as well as energy. There's
Speaker 1: one sector that is just constantly the inflation play in
Speaker 1: the equity market. It's energy, and then to a lesser extent, materials.
Speaker 1: As much as this last month of weakness in the
Speaker 1: equity market seems to have been about tech, the energy
Speaker 1: sector is down four bases points more than tech stocks.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just getting crushed. It's making new relative
Speaker 1: price lows in comparison to the SMP five hundred and
Speaker 1: has been persistently for the last several years, So the
Speaker 1: equity signal is actually very deflationary. If not deflationary, then
Speaker 1: at least disinflationary, and as persons sisted through a long
Speaker 1: period of time. At the beginning of the year, I
Speaker 1: heard the case being made a lot that we needed
Speaker 1: to see energy prices close the gap with oil prices
Speaker 1: because we had seen oil rally so much. Well, now
Speaker 1: clearly we're seeing oil prices roll over, we're seeing energy
Speaker 1: stocks roll over. Is the case for that, for energy
Speaker 1: prices to move up to oil prices and close the
Speaker 1: gap kind of disintegrating? Yeah, you know, that gap has
Speaker 1: been existing for the last three years, so you could
Speaker 1: even take it all the way back to eleven when
Speaker 1: the gaps started to widen. You know, I think that
Speaker 1: the terrible fate for energy stocks is unfortunately, every time
Speaker 1: oil prices rise, it's met with a new wave of supply,
Speaker 1: which constrains profitability and constrains the inevitent and constrains the
Speaker 1: oil price from continuing to rise. And that's very well
Speaker 1: played out in energy stocks and energy investors. Investors just
Speaker 1: don't want to touch the sector on that premise alone.
Speaker 1: From a sentiment perspective, you got a love energy for
Speaker 1: a long term sort of sentiment call. You're looking at
Speaker 1: a sector that's now less as a share of market
Speaker 1: cap of the SMP five hundred than it was when
Speaker 1: oil prices were ten dollars of barrel. So nobody wants
Speaker 1: to touch this stuff. But how do you jump in
Speaker 1: in the face of clear signals from the rates market
Speaker 1: generally sort of depressed economic signals relative to where we
Speaker 1: were at least a year ago, stock price signals that
Speaker 1: are still very, very negative, and frankly, the dynamics of
Speaker 1: oil supply and demand are different today than they were
Speaker 1: ten years ago. So it's a tough space. And there's
Speaker 1: just not a lot to suggest that that gap necessarily
Speaker 1: needs to close, because frankly, oil prices keep closing back
Speaker 1: toward energy stocks every time they try to rally, and
Speaker 1: that's just the fracking boom. I take it, just the supply. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you think about sort of how things
Speaker 1: have changed over the last decade or so, go back
Speaker 1: to two thousand seven, two thousand and eight, when oil
Speaker 1: prices were moving towards a hundred and fifty dollars in
Speaker 1: the center, it was We're never going to find supply again.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's just just not enough oil in the world.
Speaker 1: And oh yeah, over the course of the next several
Speaker 1: years we found out, oh lo and behold, there is
Speaker 1: actually plenty of supply. We just needed to use new
Speaker 1: technologies to get to it. That's created this massive downtrend
Speaker 1: and oil prices really since they peaked in twenty seven
Speaker 1: and then again in and the result of that is
Speaker 1: just this this persistence of supply, or even the perceived
Speaker 1: persistence of supply, con strange your upward potential for price growth,
Speaker 1: and it's feeding through the energy stacks emily. To get
Speaker 1: back to the Fed minutes, there's this weird situation that
Speaker 1: happens where, okay, the trade war escalates a couple of
Speaker 1: weeks ago with President Trump's tweets, and then he follows
Speaker 1: through and raises the terror Then along come the minutes,
Speaker 1: which are reflecting a meeting that occurred before it. So
Speaker 1: yet people still seem to react to them. I mean,
Speaker 1: assuming this is the last best evidence we've gotten from
Speaker 1: the Federal Reserve on their thinking, but at some point
Speaker 1: to people just to ignore them. You've talked to a
Speaker 1: lot of investors after the minutes, Presumably they're still reading
Speaker 1: these minutes even though so much has changed since then,
Speaker 1: or did they discount them to some degree. I think
Speaker 1: this is the weird thing, and this is the thing
Speaker 1: that always makes me just sigh and kind of want
Speaker 1: to scream sometimes when you look at the minutes, because
Speaker 1: like this is essentially stale news, right, and particularly at
Speaker 1: this point because it's prior to all of the trade
Speaker 1: stuff that happened. So I was actually really interested myself
Speaker 1: to see what the market was going to do to this,
Speaker 1: And it just it's funny because I don't know if
Speaker 1: people actually forget they're still they're so busy reading the
Speaker 1: Fed's ruins sometimes that any signal like this sort of
Speaker 1: smoke signal is going to tell them what to do.
Speaker 1: But I think the interesting thing that most people are
Speaker 1: trying to pause out of that document is how much
Speaker 1: consensus is there, how firmly held a belief is this
Speaker 1: in the fit, and how difficult it might it be
Speaker 1: to dislodge, Like how much they're looking at the data
Speaker 1: really and what what is their interpretation of the data,
Speaker 1: So people are constant. The thing that I find most
Speaker 1: amusing is looking at how people understand the word few
Speaker 1: versus several versus a number of us some know as
Speaker 1: a measure of how many people on the committee actually
Speaker 1: hold a certain view. So that's that's one of the
Speaker 1: things you talk about stale news. If you looked at
Speaker 1: the staff economic projections in the minutes, they actually talked
Speaker 1: about how trade the U. S and China coming together
Speaker 1: was positive. It was optimistic. So how that's changed since
Speaker 1: good minutes were actually written. I want to ask you, though,
Speaker 1: how far off does it seem like the bond market
Speaker 1: is from where the Fed actually stands at this point
Speaker 1: in time. This is starting to feel as if that
Speaker 1: disconnect is actually widening again. I mean, we saw earlier
Speaker 1: this year there was, you know, the market was really
Speaker 1: doubling down to say even as many as you know,
Speaker 1: sort of too high extarting to get We're getting closer
Speaker 1: to that now. I think that the interesting point from
Speaker 1: what the market is pricing in is there is actually
Speaker 1: now still more than one hike priced in by the
Speaker 1: end of the year, just a little more the Fed.
Speaker 1: I think that after giving that message of transient, they're
Speaker 1: just sitting there with that for the time being, and
Speaker 1: it seems as if that that conviction among policymakers is
Speaker 1: really at odds with the markets movements lately. Um, But
Speaker 1: it's hard to see. I mean, as as you, Jina,
Speaker 1: you were discussing before, you know, the data are still
Speaker 1: reasonably strong. There's there's actually looking at it objectively from
Speaker 1: a dispassionate viewpoint, it's hard to see whether the FED
Speaker 1: would find a decent case to cut rates at this point.
Speaker 1: And now that they're starting up their inflation review, this
Speaker 1: is going to become a really interesting topic to follow
Speaker 1: over the next couple of months because they're really going
Speaker 1: to have to look at what other kinds of strategies
Speaker 1: they might take to try and meet their mandate. Now, Gina,
Speaker 1: you have a lot of letters after your name, C
Speaker 1: F A, CMT. I also have three names, and I'm
Speaker 1: just trying to extend their business parts as continued on
Speaker 1: the confusion part of the game here. So I was
Speaker 1: I was curious to see your technicals, putting your CMT
Speaker 1: head on Chartered Market Technician and and looking at the technicals. UM,
Speaker 1: So walk us through two things. I'm curious a sort
Speaker 1: of what levels you're looking at, but also is it
Speaker 1: the time, uh right now where technicals kind of take
Speaker 1: a back seat to the fact that everyone's waiting for
Speaker 1: the next headline, waiting for the next tweet. You know,
Speaker 1: are there times when you sort of uh discount technicals
Speaker 1: to some degree and don't give them as much weight
Speaker 1: as you normally would, And are we in a period
Speaker 1: like that now? I never discount technical I am a technician.
Speaker 1: I think they're actually always valuable at every market stage,
Speaker 1: and they're valuable in different ways. They give you different signals,
Speaker 1: either they're confirming or not confirming your fundamental case. That
Speaker 1: gives you a reason to go back and look at
Speaker 1: the fundament until case. Nonetheless, I think you know right
Speaker 1: now what the technicals are saying is near term there's
Speaker 1: just not a lot of reason for optimism. It's still markets.
Speaker 1: You know, maybe testing the early May lows, which were
Speaker 1: support levels created by resistance points that we had matched
Speaker 1: on the SMP five hundred back in the October attempted
Speaker 1: an advance, November attempt at advance, and then during the
Speaker 1: rise earlier this year, we sort of got stuck in
Speaker 1: this level in the SMP fire. We're back there again.
Speaker 1: If we can hold these levels. Fantastic stocks are probably
Speaker 1: in pretty good shape, but it's really questionable because you're
Speaker 1: getting breakdowns, some small capture getting breakdowns, and semiconductors, you're
Speaker 1: getting breakdowns and transportation stocks. Just the near term weakness
Speaker 1: is evident. Longer term, is there any evidence of the
Speaker 1: bull market is over? No? Right? I mean, even the
Speaker 1: line last year only confirmed that the bolt trend is
Speaker 1: still intact because bottomed right at major support lines that
Speaker 1: have existed since two thousand nine. I use a fifty
Speaker 1: week a lot, but that really defines sort of shorter
Speaker 1: term bowl trends and bear trends. The fifty week moving
Speaker 1: average on the SMP five hundreds right around twenty seven
Speaker 1: seventy seven seventy six right now, Uh that if we
Speaker 1: crossed through the fifty week, then you're most likely going
Speaker 1: to continue to go lower and see a fifteen correction again.
Speaker 1: But you have to go all the way down into
Speaker 1: the twenty three hundreds to really eliminate the long term
Speaker 1: bowl trend. So, just thinking perspective wise, you could easily
Speaker 1: have another recession with the twenty correction and stocks and
Speaker 1: you're still in a long term secular bowl market. Right.
Speaker 1: Short term you're absolutely in another bearish condition like we
Speaker 1: were in eighteen. But you've got to have a significant
Speaker 1: dismantling of trend in order to eliminate the overall bowl
Speaker 1: trend that's been in place for now more than ten years.
Speaker 1: How about my personal favorite champoo, hadn't shoulders. A lot
Speaker 1: of people are talking about a head and shoulders, are
Speaker 1: talking about the size of the neckline, right, yeah, I am.
Speaker 1: But the other the really strong fundamental like tenant of
Speaker 1: technical analysis is you never call a pattern before it
Speaker 1: actually occurs. And that's what people are at risk of doing. Um,
Speaker 1: I think you know, to call this a head and shoulders,
Speaker 1: you have to have a significant breakdown beneath the neckline.
Speaker 1: I haven't had that yet. To call it a triple top,
Speaker 1: you've got to have a similar breakdown. So I you know,
Speaker 1: just I like to follow the rules, despite the fact
Speaker 1: that I'm from Florida or went to the Florida. The
Speaker 1: rules of technical analysis say, don't get hasty to call
Speaker 1: a pattern before it actually occurs. All right, Well, there's
Speaker 1: one role in this podcast, and it's if you show up.
Speaker 1: You have to have a crazy thing, the craziest thing
Speaker 1: you've seen in markets this week, So Emily is looking nervous.
Speaker 1: I don't think I don't think she prepared. Let her
Speaker 1: go last, Let hang on, hang on, you have little faith.
Speaker 1: I actually I tried here. I don't want to go
Speaker 1: to last because then You're going to give you a
Speaker 1: great ones and then I'm going to kind of limp
Speaker 1: in with So yeah, I'll go first. Okay, this is
Speaker 1: this is a royalties thing, so it's not actually our
Speaker 1: markets thing, for say, but it's about money, so it's
Speaker 1: close enough. Asset all out. But I was a fan
Speaker 1: of The Verve back in the nineties. So there's this
Speaker 1: song Bitter Sweet Symphony if anyone knows that I was
Speaker 1: very fond of. It has this lovely string sort of
Speaker 1: intro to it. And it turns out that Richard Ashcroft,
Speaker 1: the lead singer of The Verve, lost the royalties to
Speaker 1: that song because he sam put a little too much
Speaker 1: of a Stone song to do it, and so the
Speaker 1: Stones ended up getting all the royalties. At that time,
Speaker 1: it was huge, that album was huge, um and they
Speaker 1: just recently gave them back. So so they petitioned for
Speaker 1: Mick Jagger to handback the royalties and without hesitation, apparently said, yeah,
Speaker 1: just there, just out of their good nature, out of it. Well,
Speaker 1: I I'm suspecting they may not have needed it. I
Speaker 1: thought you're gonna go Rick Astley there. I thought I
Speaker 1: was getting Rick rolled. For a minute, I'm trying to
Speaker 1: think of the fact. What about him next? Alright, Gina
Speaker 1: Martin Adams. Yeah, so I'm afraid I'm going to disappoint
Speaker 1: everyone because mine is incredibly obvious. But it just has
Speaker 1: to be noted that we had a video go viral
Speaker 1: out of China with a giant gold fist and a nationalist,
Speaker 1: populist message that suggests like the Soviet Union is rising again,
Speaker 1: except for it's in China. I see that video and
Speaker 1: I'm just blown away. If you haven't seen it, you
Speaker 1: need to go out and search the Chinese trade War
Speaker 1: fight song. It's it's just amazing and really, you know,
Speaker 1: and then you have all the just the yamp up
Speaker 1: in uh sort of this nationalistic sort of message coming
Speaker 1: out of China this week has been extraordinarily aggressively. They're
Speaker 1: not back and down. You know. It also tells me
Speaker 1: this is a lot about tech. This is And then
Speaker 1: I go back to what I said at the beginning,
Speaker 1: everybody's focused on trade. It is not about trade. It's
Speaker 1: about tech and who's going to be the global leader
Speaker 1: in technology development and advancement and dissemination around the world
Speaker 1: over the next several decades. So China is not backing
Speaker 1: down because they're taking this really seriously. Well, Sarah, want
Speaker 1: to bring ye back onto singing. You can sing the
Speaker 1: song for us. He sang the US Bond Markets theme
Speaker 1: song last week, so pretty impressive. Also, last week, I
Speaker 1: have to bring us an update just because last week,
Speaker 1: for those of you who didn't tune in, we talked
Speaker 1: about how Steve Minusian's dad Um actually bought a ninety
Speaker 1: over ninety million dollar bunny rabbit. It was an art
Speaker 1: piece um on the behalf of someone and now we
Speaker 1: know that it was on behalf of point seventy two
Speaker 1: Steve Colin Um. So he is now I think, I
Speaker 1: can't believe we didn't guess that. Yeah, yeah, he is
Speaker 1: now the owner of a beloved over ninety million dollars
Speaker 1: silver and able bunny rabbit. Pretty amazing. Um. But another
Speaker 1: one that I'll bring forwards this week that I guess
Speaker 1: two is kind of obvious. Tesla. I mean, we have
Speaker 1: analysts coming out one after another, going as far as
Speaker 1: saying that the worst case scenario, we could see Tesla
Speaker 1: stock fall down to ten dollars a share, and we
Speaker 1: did see Tesla fall below two hundred dollars a share,
Speaker 1: which we haven't seen in quite a while. So pretty amazing.
Speaker 1: I've got to say it is that is a soap
Speaker 1: opera for the ages. I think, yes, all right, I'll
Speaker 1: give you mine. Uh now, Sarah, it was a pretty
Speaker 1: ugly day in the stock market on Thursday. You wouldn't
Speaker 1: expect to see a lot of companies rising. What if
Speaker 1: I told you there was a stock that rose thousand
Speaker 1: and nine on Thursday a penny. This is why I
Speaker 1: love the penny stocks there. Uh so, Rhino International Corp.
Speaker 1: It's a Chinese company. Sounds legit right, designs, manufacturers, installs
Speaker 1: and services, proprietary and patented wastewater treatment, the sulfur is
Speaker 1: Asian equipment and YadA, YadA, YadA. Anyway, Yes, it rose
Speaker 1: to one penny, a true penny stock, from one a
Speaker 1: penny um by by my math, it required about seven
Speaker 1: hundred bucks to do this. The funny thing is the
Speaker 1: market cap of the company yesterday. It was only like
Speaker 1: two hundred and sixty eight dollars period, not million. It's
Speaker 1: so um. Congratulations to all the shareholders of Rhino International
Speaker 1: Core about there. Uh. I try to find out more
Speaker 1: about the company, but when you click on their website
Speaker 1: are web security software prevented me from seeing. I think
Speaker 1: that's how you all you need to know about this company.
Speaker 1: But with that said, Gina Martin Adams, Emily Barrett, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for coming on the show today. We
Speaker 1: really enjoyed it. Thank you, thank you. What Goes Up
Speaker 1: will be back next week. Until then, you can find
Speaker 1: us on the Bloomberg Terminal, website and app, or wherever
Speaker 1: you get your podcasts. We'd love it if you took
Speaker 1: the time to rate interview the show so more listeners
Speaker 1: can find us, and you can find us on Twitter,
Speaker 1: Follow me at at Sarah pontzat, Mike is at you Anonymous.
Speaker 1: Our guest, Gina Martin Adams is at Gina Martin Adams,
Speaker 1: and Emily Barrett is at not That ECB. What Goes
Speaker 1: Up is produced by topor Foreheads. The head of Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Podcast is Francesca LEVI. See you next time.