WEBVTT - Biden Looks to Raise Global Pressure on Putin With Xi Call

0:00:01.800 --> 0:00:04.440
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Business Week. I'm Carol Masser and I'm

0:00:04.480 --> 0:00:07.280
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Quick Takes Tim Stanovk. We're here every day bringing

0:00:07.320 --> 0:00:09.840
<v Speaker 1>you the latest news from the world to business and finance,

0:00:09.840 --> 0:00:13.680
<v Speaker 1>plus technology, politics, economics, all purtnising the power of Business

0:00:13.680 --> 0:00:17.159
<v Speaker 1>Week reporters and editors, not to mention our journalists and

0:00:17.120 --> 0:00:20.440
<v Speaker 1>analysts in more than twenty countries. You can download Bloomberg

0:00:20.440 --> 0:00:23.480
<v Speaker 1>Business Week on iTunes, SoundCloud, or Bloomberg dot Com. You

0:00:23.480 --> 0:00:25.439
<v Speaker 1>can also listen to our radio show at two pm

0:00:25.440 --> 0:00:28.400
<v Speaker 1>Eastern Time on Bloomberg Radio or watch us on YouTube

0:00:28.400 --> 0:00:32.879
<v Speaker 1>search Bloomberg Global News. Earlier this year, Anthem came out

0:00:32.920 --> 0:00:35.280
<v Speaker 1>talking about medical costs this year, saying they would still

0:00:35.320 --> 0:00:39.080
<v Speaker 1>be elevated due to COVID nineteen. Really a sign that

0:00:39.120 --> 0:00:41.800
<v Speaker 1>the pandemic will continue to cast a shadow over the

0:00:41.800 --> 0:00:45.520
<v Speaker 1>health industry as it is in its third year the pandemic.

0:00:45.880 --> 0:00:48.440
<v Speaker 1>Just yesterday, Tim two, we heard from the US Federal

0:00:48.479 --> 0:00:52.120
<v Speaker 1>Reserve about its campaign to tackle the overall fastest US

0:00:52.159 --> 0:00:57.200
<v Speaker 1>inflation in four decades, and that certainly includes things like healthcare.

0:00:57.280 --> 0:01:00.200
<v Speaker 1>It's so interesting, Carol, when we talk about inflationary pre sure,

0:01:00.200 --> 0:01:02.720
<v Speaker 1>we often talk about gas prices. We talked about food prices,

0:01:02.720 --> 0:01:05.399
<v Speaker 1>and we don't necessarily talk about health health prices because

0:01:05.400 --> 0:01:08.160
<v Speaker 1>we're used to them going up. Um. But let's get

0:01:08.200 --> 0:01:10.240
<v Speaker 1>into it with g By, Professor of Health Policy and

0:01:10.280 --> 0:01:13.240
<v Speaker 1>Management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. The

0:01:13.319 --> 0:01:15.319
<v Speaker 1>Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. It is supported

0:01:15.319 --> 0:01:19.440
<v Speaker 1>by Michael R. Bloomberg, founder of Bloomberg LP and Bloomberg Philanthropies.

0:01:19.840 --> 0:01:22.000
<v Speaker 1>G really really good to have you with us. Um,

0:01:22.040 --> 0:01:24.520
<v Speaker 1>what have you been focused on at the Johns Hopkins

0:01:24.560 --> 0:01:27.040
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg School of Public Health when it comes to inflationary

0:01:27.080 --> 0:01:32.000
<v Speaker 1>pressure on the health care industry? Thank you, Kim Sanko Carroll.

0:01:32.280 --> 0:01:35.920
<v Speaker 1>I have been focusing on the hospital cost structure because

0:01:35.959 --> 0:01:40.199
<v Speaker 1>that would be the driving force for a price inflation

0:01:40.400 --> 0:01:43.720
<v Speaker 1>in the hospital setting. Okay, we'll tell us a bit

0:01:43.720 --> 0:01:46.280
<v Speaker 1>more about that. When you say hospital cost structure, Um,

0:01:46.360 --> 0:01:49.440
<v Speaker 1>you know, gee, it's probably I'm safe to say that

0:01:49.440 --> 0:01:51.600
<v Speaker 1>there's folks in our audience are like, okay, so what

0:01:51.720 --> 0:01:56.640
<v Speaker 1>does that mean, building beds, medicines, what does it mean? Yes,

0:01:56.880 --> 0:02:00.400
<v Speaker 1>our study found that they labor cost and the medical

0:02:00.520 --> 0:02:05.200
<v Speaker 1>supply costs are the key components for hospital costs. So

0:02:05.360 --> 0:02:10.720
<v Speaker 1>due to the labor shortages, especially nursing shortages, labor costs

0:02:10.720 --> 0:02:14.080
<v Speaker 1>has risen dramatically for hospitals. How much and then how

0:02:14.160 --> 0:02:15.880
<v Speaker 1>much has how much has it gone up? Like if

0:02:15.960 --> 0:02:18.240
<v Speaker 1>is there a number you can give it to us. Sure,

0:02:18.600 --> 0:02:22.800
<v Speaker 1>Sometimes hospitals have to hire traveling nurses because there's no

0:02:22.960 --> 0:02:26.440
<v Speaker 1>local nurses to hire, and the price can be doubling

0:02:26.560 --> 0:02:30.000
<v Speaker 1>or traveling what the hospital has been paying for their

0:02:30.080 --> 0:02:32.680
<v Speaker 1>own local nurses. But we've heard a lot of stories

0:02:32.720 --> 0:02:34.640
<v Speaker 1>about that, and in fact, the pay has been so

0:02:34.680 --> 0:02:37.640
<v Speaker 1>good for these traveling nurses that you find some nurses

0:02:37.720 --> 0:02:40.800
<v Speaker 1>quitting to go join these traveling nursing firms because they

0:02:40.800 --> 0:02:43.560
<v Speaker 1>can make so much more money. G Who gets affected

0:02:43.600 --> 0:02:46.760
<v Speaker 1>the most when we think about inflationary pressures when it

0:02:46.800 --> 0:02:51.240
<v Speaker 1>comes to healthcare? Who who are the victims out there? Unfortunately?

0:02:51.280 --> 0:02:54.240
<v Speaker 1>I think the middle class working Americans will be the

0:02:54.280 --> 0:02:57.960
<v Speaker 1>main victims of healthcare price inflations. You know, they are

0:02:58.000 --> 0:03:02.240
<v Speaker 1>more financially vulnerable than also individuals. More importantly, they are

0:03:02.280 --> 0:03:07.320
<v Speaker 1>more exposed to health care inflation than the lower income individuals.

0:03:07.400 --> 0:03:10.960
<v Speaker 1>Why because lower income in populations sometimes they were often

0:03:11.000 --> 0:03:14.440
<v Speaker 1>they're road in MEDICAIDS and other type payers subsidize. The

0:03:14.520 --> 0:03:18.240
<v Speaker 1>program was very limited out of pocket explosives. But the

0:03:18.280 --> 0:03:21.359
<v Speaker 1>middle class working Americans, in many cases, they are under insured,

0:03:21.600 --> 0:03:24.679
<v Speaker 1>so they have not only to pay the high premiums,

0:03:24.800 --> 0:03:26.760
<v Speaker 1>also had to pay on a pocket when they have

0:03:26.840 --> 0:03:29.880
<v Speaker 1>a medical episode. I feel like, um gee, that this

0:03:30.040 --> 0:03:33.920
<v Speaker 1>is so much um part of a larger story that

0:03:34.000 --> 0:03:36.680
<v Speaker 1>we have been talking for the last couple of decades.

0:03:36.720 --> 0:03:39.560
<v Speaker 1>I think about, you know, when the Clintons were in

0:03:39.560 --> 0:03:42.240
<v Speaker 1>the White House, when Bill Clinton was president and his

0:03:42.280 --> 0:03:45.160
<v Speaker 1>wife at that time, first Lady Hillary Clinton. You know,

0:03:45.160 --> 0:03:47.560
<v Speaker 1>it was working on healthcare for the first go round,

0:03:47.880 --> 0:03:49.920
<v Speaker 1>uh and putting something together, and of course it was

0:03:50.000 --> 0:03:52.560
<v Speaker 1>until President Obama that we actually got something through. But

0:03:52.760 --> 0:03:55.720
<v Speaker 1>we continue to look at the cost of healthcare obviously

0:03:55.720 --> 0:03:59.320
<v Speaker 1>exacerbated right now because of these inflationary times that were within,

0:03:59.640 --> 0:04:04.000
<v Speaker 1>but as something bigger or more broadly broken with the system.

0:04:04.040 --> 0:04:05.880
<v Speaker 1>I mean, anybody who picks up a medical bill or

0:04:06.200 --> 0:04:09.080
<v Speaker 1>hospital bill. We're so grateful if we have insurance because

0:04:09.160 --> 0:04:11.720
<v Speaker 1>so much is covered, but we're always blown away by

0:04:11.760 --> 0:04:17.760
<v Speaker 1>the costs. Absolutely, Thank you, Carroll. Your previous healthcare reforms

0:04:17.920 --> 0:04:22.400
<v Speaker 1>have been focused on expanding insurance coverage. Right, But as

0:04:22.440 --> 0:04:25.600
<v Speaker 1>we have seen, extended coverage has not yet solved the

0:04:25.760 --> 0:04:28.840
<v Speaker 1>longstanding problem of the cost as well as in the

0:04:28.960 --> 0:04:32.440
<v Speaker 1>poor outcomes that have really plagued the US healthcare system.

0:04:34.240 --> 0:04:37.680
<v Speaker 1>So you know, in my study we found that, you

0:04:37.720 --> 0:04:41.880
<v Speaker 1>know which, the current the highly subsidized insurance systems give

0:04:42.000 --> 0:04:47.040
<v Speaker 1>consumers and providers very little incentive opportunity right to provide

0:04:47.160 --> 0:04:50.200
<v Speaker 1>or speak appropriate to care that it is efficient and

0:04:50.240 --> 0:04:54.360
<v Speaker 1>the tree affordable. Why. I believe that is the main

0:04:54.440 --> 0:04:58.200
<v Speaker 1>reasons underlying the high cost of law outcomes. So let's

0:04:58.240 --> 0:05:01.040
<v Speaker 1>professor by push the solutions here and try to give

0:05:01.120 --> 0:05:03.680
<v Speaker 1>us an understanding of what your research has said about

0:05:03.720 --> 0:05:06.200
<v Speaker 1>the right way to solve these problems. And look inflationary pressure,

0:05:06.200 --> 0:05:08.080
<v Speaker 1>it's everywhere right now, we heard that from the Fed

0:05:08.160 --> 0:05:10.520
<v Speaker 1>chair yesterday. But when it comes specifically to healthcare, how

0:05:10.520 --> 0:05:15.880
<v Speaker 1>do you bring costs down? I believe the government has

0:05:15.960 --> 0:05:19.320
<v Speaker 1>limited ability to bring healthcare down. Let's look at the

0:05:19.600 --> 0:05:23.559
<v Speaker 1>Affordable Care Act, right. In order for that legislation to pass,

0:05:24.080 --> 0:05:27.640
<v Speaker 1>the Congress has to have the support from the industry,

0:05:27.760 --> 0:05:31.720
<v Speaker 1>and industry will not give Congress the power to redeo

0:05:31.839 --> 0:05:34.480
<v Speaker 1>the price that will hurt their own interests, right, So

0:05:34.680 --> 0:05:37.239
<v Speaker 1>I do believe eventually we need some kind of market

0:05:37.360 --> 0:05:41.960
<v Speaker 1>force competition to help lower the cost. So for example,

0:05:42.240 --> 0:05:44.760
<v Speaker 1>we should like the patients be able with the payers,

0:05:45.040 --> 0:05:49.160
<v Speaker 1>be able to do comparison shopping like transparency and give

0:05:49.240 --> 0:05:53.480
<v Speaker 1>them better insurance options, and also easing the government regulations

0:05:53.560 --> 0:05:57.360
<v Speaker 1>that actually add a cost and efficiency to the system. Well,

0:05:57.400 --> 0:05:59.120
<v Speaker 1>we all talk about you. You know, you look at

0:05:59.160 --> 0:06:01.360
<v Speaker 1>some other countries. Maybe it's not apples to apples in

0:06:01.440 --> 0:06:04.240
<v Speaker 1>terms of health care systems, but there seems to be

0:06:04.760 --> 0:06:08.039
<v Speaker 1>some better ways of certainly rating in cost um. Gee

0:06:08.080 --> 0:06:09.920
<v Speaker 1>we gotta run, Thank you so much. Gee buy. She

0:06:10.240 --> 0:06:12.920
<v Speaker 1>is Professor of Health Policy and Management at Johns Hopkins

0:06:12.920 --> 0:06:15.960
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg School of Public Health, of course, supported by Michael R. Bloomberg,

0:06:16.000 --> 0:06:19.320
<v Speaker 1>founder of Bloomberg LP and Bloomberg Philanthropies. Joining us on

0:06:19.400 --> 0:06:21.720
<v Speaker 1>the phone from Washington, d C. You know, it's funny

0:06:21.760 --> 0:06:23.800
<v Speaker 1>I think about the new issue Bloomberg Business Week. We're

0:06:23.800 --> 0:06:25.160
<v Speaker 1>gonna get into it in a little bit. It's the

0:06:25.240 --> 0:06:30.000
<v Speaker 1>equality issue. And it's finally, you know, the inequalities in

0:06:30.040 --> 0:06:34.159
<v Speaker 1>the system really tackling people who are actually doing something

0:06:34.279 --> 0:06:37.080
<v Speaker 1>to make things better. And I think health care. It's

0:06:37.120 --> 0:06:41.120
<v Speaker 1>just so tricky. Not a lot of optimism. No, well,

0:06:41.520 --> 0:06:44.320
<v Speaker 1>it's very entrenched and there's a lot of money at stake.

0:06:44.720 --> 0:06:48.960
<v Speaker 1>All right, you're listening to Bloomberg. You're listening to Bloomberg

0:06:49.040 --> 0:06:52.680
<v Speaker 1>Business Week with Carol Messer and Bloomberg Quick Takes Tim

0:06:52.760 --> 0:06:57.200
<v Speaker 1>Stinovic on Bloomberg Radio. Well, geopolitical relationships, they are definitely

0:06:57.240 --> 0:06:59.719
<v Speaker 1>being tested amid the Russian invasion and war with Ukraine.

0:06:59.760 --> 0:07:02.600
<v Speaker 1>And keeping with that, President Joe Biden is meeting with

0:07:02.680 --> 0:07:05.920
<v Speaker 1>Chinese President jijimping to try and coax him interacting at

0:07:05.960 --> 0:07:08.640
<v Speaker 1>pressure on Moscow to end its war in Ukraine. It

0:07:08.640 --> 0:07:10.800
<v Speaker 1>will be present Biden's first phone call with the Chinese

0:07:10.840 --> 0:07:13.960
<v Speaker 1>president since the invasion began. Oh, to be a fly

0:07:14.120 --> 0:07:16.040
<v Speaker 1>on the virtual wall, as I said earlier, Yeah, that

0:07:16.040 --> 0:07:18.760
<v Speaker 1>would certainly be something. Jody Schneider is political news director

0:07:18.800 --> 0:07:20.960
<v Speaker 1>at Bloomberg Television in Radio. She joins us from the

0:07:20.960 --> 0:07:24.720
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg studio in Washington, d C. And you can see

0:07:24.720 --> 0:07:27.000
<v Speaker 1>her via zoom as well if you're watching us on YouTube,

0:07:27.400 --> 0:07:30.840
<v Speaker 1>um or via you know, a camera, an actual camera,

0:07:30.920 --> 0:07:33.360
<v Speaker 1>not via zoom, because she's in one of our studios. Jody, Um,

0:07:34.040 --> 0:07:36.080
<v Speaker 1>what is the latest when it comes to diplomatic talks.

0:07:36.240 --> 0:07:39.080
<v Speaker 1>When when we think about Russia's invasion of Ukraine, thinking

0:07:39.120 --> 0:07:42.320
<v Speaker 1>beyond what Biden and She are going to talk about tomorrow,

0:07:42.560 --> 0:07:46.440
<v Speaker 1>just what we've learned today. Yeah, Tim, Well, diplomatic is

0:07:46.440 --> 0:07:49.760
<v Speaker 1>an interesting word in this sense. I'm not sure how

0:07:49.880 --> 0:07:52.600
<v Speaker 1>much actual diplomacy is going on. We do have, as

0:07:52.600 --> 0:07:57.360
<v Speaker 1>you noted, Joe Biden and She jumping speaking tomorrow and

0:07:57.760 --> 0:08:01.000
<v Speaker 1>that has um, you know, all the world watching. But

0:08:01.200 --> 0:08:03.800
<v Speaker 1>at the same time, UM, we don't know that the

0:08:03.920 --> 0:08:08.000
<v Speaker 1>expectations are very high for that that talks. I think

0:08:08.040 --> 0:08:10.160
<v Speaker 1>it's more kind of what it sounds like is a

0:08:10.320 --> 0:08:13.720
<v Speaker 1>check in both on Russia Ukraine, but also they haven't

0:08:13.760 --> 0:08:16.680
<v Speaker 1>spoken in a while, and trade and other things could

0:08:16.760 --> 0:08:19.320
<v Speaker 1>come up. Uh. At the at the same time, we

0:08:19.480 --> 0:08:23.960
<v Speaker 1>have in the talks with h Russia, between Russia and Ukraine,

0:08:24.320 --> 0:08:26.240
<v Speaker 1>and it seems odd that there are talks going on,

0:08:26.400 --> 0:08:29.560
<v Speaker 1>but there are talks going on. But a Kremlin official

0:08:30.040 --> 0:08:33.840
<v Speaker 1>spokesperson said the report of major progress in the talks

0:08:34.360 --> 0:08:37.640
<v Speaker 1>was wrong, but he said talks would still continue. So

0:08:37.880 --> 0:08:41.360
<v Speaker 1>we're not seeing a whole lot there, but they are talking, uh.

0:08:41.640 --> 0:08:45.200
<v Speaker 1>And the problem, of course is that neither side really

0:08:45.280 --> 0:08:48.559
<v Speaker 1>wants to move off of its points that need to

0:08:48.720 --> 0:08:52.320
<v Speaker 1>happen before they'll have serious progress and talks. Ukraine says

0:08:52.360 --> 0:08:54.400
<v Speaker 1>it has to have a ceasefire, it has to have

0:08:54.520 --> 0:08:57.120
<v Speaker 1>a withdrawal of Russian troops and they have to promise

0:08:57.200 --> 0:09:01.480
<v Speaker 1>they won't come back. And Russia says it needs Ukraine, UH,

0:09:01.720 --> 0:09:04.720
<v Speaker 1>basically to give up its hopes of NATO and its

0:09:04.760 --> 0:09:07.599
<v Speaker 1>hopes of being part of the rest of Europe. I

0:09:07.640 --> 0:09:09.760
<v Speaker 1>gotta say, Jody, tib and I've been talking a lot

0:09:09.920 --> 0:09:14.080
<v Speaker 1>about China, the relationship with the US Russia. Which relationship

0:09:14.240 --> 0:09:17.080
<v Speaker 1>is more important? UH. And we've done that with our

0:09:17.120 --> 0:09:19.120
<v Speaker 1>Andy Brown of New Economy. We've also done it with

0:09:19.160 --> 0:09:22.480
<v Speaker 1>Tiff Roberts, who as the former Bloomberg business Week editor

0:09:22.720 --> 0:09:24.719
<v Speaker 1>and was based in China. Both of them understand the

0:09:24.760 --> 0:09:27.080
<v Speaker 1>region a lot. I want to ask you, though, because

0:09:27.120 --> 0:09:31.560
<v Speaker 1>you understand politics, you understand how the diplomatic sausage is done.

0:09:31.640 --> 0:09:34.439
<v Speaker 1>I mean, tell me how this goes down when you

0:09:34.559 --> 0:09:36.640
<v Speaker 1>have diplomacy. As you said, I almost feel like I

0:09:36.679 --> 0:09:38.880
<v Speaker 1>need to use quotes about it around it between two

0:09:38.920 --> 0:09:41.319
<v Speaker 1>superpowers like the U S and China, How does it

0:09:41.400 --> 0:09:44.000
<v Speaker 1>go down in a situation that's very tense, like the

0:09:44.040 --> 0:09:46.920
<v Speaker 1>one we are in today. Lots of formalities and sugarcoat

0:09:46.960 --> 0:09:50.160
<v Speaker 1>of conversation or are there get real moments between the

0:09:50.240 --> 0:09:55.160
<v Speaker 1>two leaders. Yeah, I think again between China and the US.

0:09:55.320 --> 0:09:57.280
<v Speaker 1>I think the fact that they're getting on the phone

0:09:57.320 --> 0:09:59.880
<v Speaker 1>and talking is important in and of itself. And we

0:10:00.040 --> 0:10:02.199
<v Speaker 1>said this during the trade talks when they may not

0:10:02.360 --> 0:10:04.920
<v Speaker 1>be going you know, they weren't going particularly well, and

0:10:05.200 --> 0:10:08.559
<v Speaker 1>that they may not have big uh you know asks

0:10:08.760 --> 0:10:12.520
<v Speaker 1>and and certainly not big to do lists. Uh. We're

0:10:12.559 --> 0:10:14.920
<v Speaker 1>not necessarily achieved off those calls, but the fact that

0:10:15.040 --> 0:10:18.120
<v Speaker 1>they had them, that they're still talking is important. And

0:10:18.360 --> 0:10:21.400
<v Speaker 1>I think what's important in this uh. And and we've

0:10:21.440 --> 0:10:24.560
<v Speaker 1>written about this, you know, it's stories on the terminal.

0:10:25.040 --> 0:10:28.640
<v Speaker 1>Uh is that uh for she for for she jumping

0:10:28.800 --> 0:10:32.360
<v Speaker 1>At this point, he's got a lot on his plate, right. Uh.

0:10:32.440 --> 0:10:35.600
<v Speaker 1>The economy is not going exactly the way they want.

0:10:35.920 --> 0:10:38.959
<v Speaker 1>They're still they're locking down major cities. Shenzhen, across the

0:10:39.040 --> 0:10:42.160
<v Speaker 1>border from Hong Kong is in lockdown, a place that

0:10:42.440 --> 0:10:45.319
<v Speaker 1>you know, was a thriving technology hub they called the

0:10:45.360 --> 0:10:48.959
<v Speaker 1>Silicon Valley of China. They wanted to be that nothing's

0:10:49.000 --> 0:10:51.880
<v Speaker 1>going on there now it's in total lockdown. Uh they

0:10:51.960 --> 0:10:53.679
<v Speaker 1>have you know, there's a lot of things going on

0:10:53.720 --> 0:10:56.520
<v Speaker 1>in China, and now there's this on the world stage.

0:10:57.080 --> 0:11:01.920
<v Speaker 1>She jumping had Vladimir Putin for a visit before the Olympics.

0:11:01.960 --> 0:11:04.480
<v Speaker 1>He attended the Olympics, all seem well. We think the

0:11:04.559 --> 0:11:06.840
<v Speaker 1>message there was if you're going to go into Ukraine,

0:11:07.160 --> 0:11:09.280
<v Speaker 1>do not do it while the Olympics are still on.

0:11:09.360 --> 0:11:12.920
<v Speaker 1>Wait until the Olympics are over, which which Vladimir Putin did.

0:11:13.200 --> 0:11:16.839
<v Speaker 1>But now I think even China is sort of walking away,

0:11:17.080 --> 0:11:21.240
<v Speaker 1>not necessarily walking away from overall support. That relationship between

0:11:21.600 --> 0:11:26.080
<v Speaker 1>uh Putin and Ji Jianping remains, and the relationships into

0:11:26.160 --> 0:11:28.760
<v Speaker 1>the country's obviously, But at the same time, we've heard

0:11:28.800 --> 0:11:33.360
<v Speaker 1>in recent days rhetoric from China that really seems to say, well,

0:11:33.720 --> 0:11:36.760
<v Speaker 1>we are not we don't want to become a pariah

0:11:36.840 --> 0:11:39.280
<v Speaker 1>on the world stage over this. For instance, the rhetoric

0:11:39.480 --> 0:11:43.760
<v Speaker 1>to to Ukraine about you China will not be unfriendly

0:11:43.840 --> 0:11:48.120
<v Speaker 1>to Ukraine, which is a very interesting statement. Yeah, it

0:11:48.240 --> 0:11:51.240
<v Speaker 1>certainly is. All right, Jodi, thank you so much. Jody Schnyder.

0:11:51.320 --> 0:11:54.079
<v Speaker 1>She is political news director of Limberg Television Radio. She's

0:11:54.120 --> 0:11:56.480
<v Speaker 1>joining us from our ny I one studio in the

0:11:56.640 --> 0:12:01.120
<v Speaker 1>nation's capital. This is Bloomberg business Week with Carol Messer

0:12:01.360 --> 0:12:05.559
<v Speaker 1>and Bloomberg Quick Takes Tim Stenovic on Bloomberg Radio. The

0:12:05.600 --> 0:12:07.400
<v Speaker 1>new issue of Bloomberg Business Week it is out. The

0:12:07.480 --> 0:12:10.679
<v Speaker 1>domestic cover is about baby Bonds, one of the stories

0:12:11.040 --> 0:12:13.760
<v Speaker 1>making up the annual Equality Issue coverage, which this year

0:12:13.800 --> 0:12:16.800
<v Speaker 1>looks at people really trying to make change and bring

0:12:16.880 --> 0:12:19.360
<v Speaker 1>about change, actual actions being done in better our world.

0:12:19.600 --> 0:12:21.800
<v Speaker 1>Joel Weber is editor at Bloomberg Business Week. He's with

0:12:21.880 --> 0:12:24.640
<v Speaker 1>us in the Bloomberg Interactive Broker Studios. Along with us,

0:12:24.880 --> 0:12:27.520
<v Speaker 1>is the author of that cover story, Ben Steve Bermani's

0:12:27.520 --> 0:12:30.240
<v Speaker 1>personal finance editor at Bloomberg News with us again in

0:12:30.280 --> 0:12:33.760
<v Speaker 1>the Bloomberg Interactive Broker Studio. Ben's story is the US cover,

0:12:33.840 --> 0:12:36.440
<v Speaker 1>as Carol mentioned, of the business Week magazine Equality Issue,

0:12:36.480 --> 0:12:38.960
<v Speaker 1>available on news stands, on the Bloomberg and at Bloomberg

0:12:39.040 --> 0:12:42.800
<v Speaker 1>dot com slash business Week. Uh, Joel, because this is

0:12:42.840 --> 0:12:46.640
<v Speaker 1>the cover story here in the US, the Equality Issue. UH,

0:12:46.760 --> 0:12:49.040
<v Speaker 1>talk to us a little bit about about why this story,

0:12:49.160 --> 0:12:51.880
<v Speaker 1>why baby Bonds, is the one that you are focusing

0:12:51.960 --> 0:12:55.559
<v Speaker 1>on as sort of the overall arching concept for the

0:12:55.640 --> 0:12:59.800
<v Speaker 1>equality issue. Well, we wanted something that really could tie

0:12:59.840 --> 0:13:04.120
<v Speaker 1>that package together, and they're, like you mentioned one of

0:13:04.160 --> 0:13:06.280
<v Speaker 1>the elements that that we tried to do with this

0:13:06.360 --> 0:13:09.000
<v Speaker 1>equality issue is like, look, we can talk about the problems,

0:13:09.040 --> 0:13:11.719
<v Speaker 1>but there's also places that we're beginning to see some

0:13:11.840 --> 0:13:15.000
<v Speaker 1>progress and and baby buns which aren't actually baby buns,

0:13:15.040 --> 0:13:17.000
<v Speaker 1>but we'll get there in a second, are are an

0:13:17.080 --> 0:13:20.439
<v Speaker 1>early example of that. And there's been chatter at sort

0:13:20.440 --> 0:13:22.559
<v Speaker 1>of a federal level, but where it's actually where the

0:13:22.640 --> 0:13:25.520
<v Speaker 1>movement's actually happening is on a state level. And been

0:13:25.640 --> 0:13:28.280
<v Speaker 1>found a really interesting character that we could drive that

0:13:28.360 --> 0:13:31.160
<v Speaker 1>story through UM and then the art department just came

0:13:31.240 --> 0:13:33.800
<v Speaker 1>up with this an amazing you know, fake baby bond

0:13:33.920 --> 0:13:39.000
<v Speaker 1>that UM I thought was iconic. Right it's and often

0:13:39.040 --> 0:13:40.880
<v Speaker 1>when we think about the cover, how do I make

0:13:40.920 --> 0:13:43.920
<v Speaker 1>that iconic and breakthrough? And obviously we have an international

0:13:44.000 --> 0:13:47.280
<v Speaker 1>cover that's all about UM yet uh you know, ongoing

0:13:47.320 --> 0:13:50.360
<v Speaker 1>coverage of Ukraine and Russia and the fallout there. But

0:13:50.480 --> 0:13:52.679
<v Speaker 1>this was also was something that I just wanted to

0:13:52.720 --> 0:13:54.800
<v Speaker 1>make sure that we continue to prioritize because look like

0:13:54.880 --> 0:13:58.960
<v Speaker 1>here we are going on two years post George Floyd.

0:13:59.120 --> 0:14:01.959
<v Speaker 1>We do accounting that in the issue, and it's also like,

0:14:02.080 --> 0:14:04.320
<v Speaker 1>let's make sure that we continue to prioritize this coverage

0:14:04.400 --> 0:14:09.240
<v Speaker 1>going forward. But let's talk about Ben's story because it's

0:14:09.280 --> 0:14:12.559
<v Speaker 1>not a baby bond, it's actually a trust fund. And

0:14:12.920 --> 0:14:15.640
<v Speaker 1>what why is it breaking through on a state level

0:14:15.960 --> 0:14:18.240
<v Speaker 1>when it when it didn't do that on a on

0:14:18.320 --> 0:14:22.760
<v Speaker 1>a federal one yet. Well, I think after George Floyd's murder,

0:14:23.240 --> 0:14:26.160
<v Speaker 1>state lawmakers, local lawmakers were just scrambling looking for a

0:14:26.280 --> 0:14:29.440
<v Speaker 1>solution and they this is something that Derrick Hamilton's the

0:14:29.480 --> 0:14:31.600
<v Speaker 1>subject of this story, has been talking about for more

0:14:31.640 --> 0:14:34.800
<v Speaker 1>than a decade UM. And he's a progressive economist. He

0:14:34.920 --> 0:14:37.760
<v Speaker 1>was a big Bernie Sanders supporter. But this is an

0:14:37.800 --> 0:14:41.560
<v Speaker 1>idea that seems to be getting much broader um appeal

0:14:41.920 --> 0:14:44.280
<v Speaker 1>um mostly Democrats, but there are some Republicans who have

0:14:44.320 --> 0:14:47.720
<v Speaker 1>signed on as well. And the idea is give give

0:14:47.760 --> 0:14:49.960
<v Speaker 1>a certain amount of money to kip babies when they're born.

0:14:50.720 --> 0:14:54.040
<v Speaker 1>Um these states, they're only setting aside about three thousand dollars,

0:14:54.080 --> 0:14:55.800
<v Speaker 1>which doesn't seem like very much, but you invest it

0:14:55.880 --> 0:14:57.800
<v Speaker 1>and that could be more than ten thousand dollars by

0:14:57.840 --> 0:15:00.480
<v Speaker 1>the time they're eighteen, and then allow them to use

0:15:00.560 --> 0:15:06.240
<v Speaker 1>that for some wealth building purposes like education, UM, homeownership, UM,

0:15:06.560 --> 0:15:09.280
<v Speaker 1>starting a business. And the idea is, let's let's use

0:15:09.360 --> 0:15:12.120
<v Speaker 1>this as a one tool of many, maybe to narrow

0:15:12.200 --> 0:15:14.160
<v Speaker 1>the racial wealth gap, which is, as we know, is

0:15:14.360 --> 0:15:18.040
<v Speaker 1>very persistent and has been um lasted for decades. Even

0:15:18.080 --> 0:15:20.160
<v Speaker 1>as Black Americans have made huge progress in a lot

0:15:20.240 --> 0:15:24.440
<v Speaker 1>of other areas, their wealth really hasn't. The wealth gap

0:15:24.520 --> 0:15:27.360
<v Speaker 1>has not narrowed at all. Oh go ahead, please, So

0:15:28.160 --> 0:15:31.320
<v Speaker 1>narrowing the wealth gap is the ultimate goal here, right,

0:15:32.280 --> 0:15:34.160
<v Speaker 1>or or creating a device that can help do that.

0:15:34.360 --> 0:15:36.160
<v Speaker 1>I think I know how that's going to go over

0:15:36.200 --> 0:15:37.760
<v Speaker 1>on the left side of the aisle. How has it

0:15:37.800 --> 0:15:39.920
<v Speaker 1>gone over on the right side of the aisle? Well?

0:15:40.000 --> 0:15:42.240
<v Speaker 1>The thing is this is this is UM. You know,

0:15:42.520 --> 0:15:46.600
<v Speaker 1>when Derrick Hamilton's um started talking about this UM, he

0:15:46.760 --> 0:15:49.480
<v Speaker 1>was basically he had been talking about reparations and he

0:15:49.520 --> 0:15:52.680
<v Speaker 1>still talks about reparations. But people were like, well, let's

0:15:52.920 --> 0:15:55.600
<v Speaker 1>give us something that's actually gonna pass, something that's actually

0:15:55.640 --> 0:15:58.120
<v Speaker 1>gonna work. UM and I get through the legislature as

0:15:58.160 --> 0:16:02.040
<v Speaker 1>we came up with this. But the idea is, um, uh,

0:16:02.960 --> 0:16:05.680
<v Speaker 1>let's let's make this race neutral. This isn't as focused

0:16:05.720 --> 0:16:08.000
<v Speaker 1>on Black Americans, as focused on focused on every kid

0:16:08.960 --> 0:16:12.280
<v Speaker 1>in America. Potentially, if you have the full Derrick Hamilton,

0:16:12.440 --> 0:16:15.720
<v Speaker 1>like a much more expansive, generous federal program, but then

0:16:15.800 --> 0:16:18.360
<v Speaker 1>you give the most money to the poorest kids. And

0:16:18.440 --> 0:16:22.000
<v Speaker 1>because race and wealth are so correlated in this country, um,

0:16:22.160 --> 0:16:25.320
<v Speaker 1>you actually end up giving a real boost to Black Americans.

0:16:25.320 --> 0:16:27.320
<v Speaker 1>But you also give a big boost of rural areas,

0:16:27.400 --> 0:16:30.880
<v Speaker 1>which are for the most part represented by Republicans these days.

0:16:31.240 --> 0:16:35.000
<v Speaker 1>And there's been huge capital drain out of rural communities

0:16:35.320 --> 0:16:37.400
<v Speaker 1>where people are growing up and they're getting into young

0:16:37.440 --> 0:16:39.240
<v Speaker 1>adulthood and they don't have the capital to start that

0:16:39.320 --> 0:16:42.920
<v Speaker 1>business or to go to vocational school or whatever. So um,

0:16:44.480 --> 0:16:47.720
<v Speaker 1>these folks who are passing these things, that's Washington State

0:16:47.840 --> 0:16:52.080
<v Speaker 1>is working on something. Massachusetts, UM, Connecticut and DC already

0:16:52.120 --> 0:16:55.640
<v Speaker 1>have them. They're really trying to appeal to everyone across

0:16:55.720 --> 0:16:58.160
<v Speaker 1>the spectrum, saying by saying this is can this can

0:16:58.200 --> 0:17:00.760
<v Speaker 1>help people in your community? Well, and it really speaks

0:17:00.760 --> 0:17:02.360
<v Speaker 1>to and I feel like we are all getting smarter

0:17:02.400 --> 0:17:04.080
<v Speaker 1>about the words we use. Right, we still talk about

0:17:04.359 --> 0:17:06.639
<v Speaker 1>making more money or making you know, higher income. But

0:17:06.680 --> 0:17:08.639
<v Speaker 1>it's not about that. It's about wealth creation, right, and

0:17:08.680 --> 0:17:12.000
<v Speaker 1>that comes through generational wealth, it comes through homes. And

0:17:12.119 --> 0:17:15.720
<v Speaker 1>there's many people, as we know we keep identifying that

0:17:15.760 --> 0:17:17.359
<v Speaker 1>have been left behind and this is a way to

0:17:17.440 --> 0:17:20.239
<v Speaker 1>give them a leg up. Yeah, you know that's one

0:17:20.240 --> 0:17:23.000
<v Speaker 1>of them. Create wealth. Yeah, and wealth that This is

0:17:23.040 --> 0:17:25.600
<v Speaker 1>one of the core concepts behind baby bond. Is it

0:17:25.680 --> 0:17:28.879
<v Speaker 1>just the importance of wealth? Like making more money in

0:17:29.440 --> 0:17:32.400
<v Speaker 1>one year? Okay, so you make four thousand dollars more

0:17:32.760 --> 0:17:34.960
<v Speaker 1>and you're able to save you know, a thousand of it.

0:17:35.440 --> 0:17:37.240
<v Speaker 1>Is that really going to change your life in a

0:17:37.320 --> 0:17:39.520
<v Speaker 1>significant way? Is that I'm going to change your children's

0:17:39.520 --> 0:17:41.800
<v Speaker 1>life or your grand children's life. Probably not. But what

0:17:41.880 --> 0:17:44.480
<v Speaker 1>if you can build build um some home equity, What

0:17:44.560 --> 0:17:47.480
<v Speaker 1>if you can get a college degree that will really

0:17:47.920 --> 0:17:50.119
<v Speaker 1>triple your earnings or or could you do your earnings

0:17:50.160 --> 0:17:52.440
<v Speaker 1>over your lifetime? Those are the things that really build

0:17:52.520 --> 0:17:55.440
<v Speaker 1>wealth over multiple generations. And those that those are the

0:17:55.480 --> 0:17:59.240
<v Speaker 1>opportunities that Black Americans and other poor Americans have not

0:17:59.320 --> 0:18:04.600
<v Speaker 1>been allowed to do all up over years. So then

0:18:04.680 --> 0:18:06.159
<v Speaker 1>just in the last minute that we have with you,

0:18:07.560 --> 0:18:11.240
<v Speaker 1>the confidence that you have based on your reporting that

0:18:11.800 --> 0:18:14.760
<v Speaker 1>there will be widespread adoption of this on a state

0:18:14.880 --> 0:18:17.880
<v Speaker 1>or or local level versus that federal level that you'll

0:18:18.080 --> 0:18:21.520
<v Speaker 1>will refer to earlier. So we already have these programs

0:18:21.560 --> 0:18:24.920
<v Speaker 1>in Connecticut, in d C. And um, we think it

0:18:24.960 --> 0:18:27.320
<v Speaker 1>will probably get I think it's going to get some

0:18:27.440 --> 0:18:30.600
<v Speaker 1>momentum in some blue states, UM, a few others. New

0:18:30.680 --> 0:18:33.720
<v Speaker 1>York has there's a proposal there as well. So I

0:18:33.800 --> 0:18:37.000
<v Speaker 1>think it's all going to depend on how maybe how

0:18:37.080 --> 0:18:38.840
<v Speaker 1>this money is going to be used and is it

0:18:38.880 --> 0:18:41.159
<v Speaker 1>actually going to make a difference. Um, you know, I

0:18:41.280 --> 0:18:44.159
<v Speaker 1>think the results will maybe create the political will to

0:18:44.280 --> 0:18:47.239
<v Speaker 1>do something much more significant on the federal level if

0:18:47.320 --> 0:18:49.919
<v Speaker 1>this is a successful policy, right, Like I do think

0:18:49.960 --> 0:18:52.280
<v Speaker 1>everybody's gonna be watching right as it rolls out, as

0:18:52.320 --> 0:18:54.280
<v Speaker 1>it's put to use, and the difference that makes in

0:18:54.320 --> 0:18:58.040
<v Speaker 1>these individuals lives. Let's hope it does. Um, great story, Ben,

0:18:58.119 --> 0:19:01.280
<v Speaker 1>Thank you so much. Ben Stepherman, Personal Finance editor, Bloomberg News,

0:19:01.560 --> 0:19:03.840
<v Speaker 1>along with Chill Weber, Editor Bloomberg business Week. Check out

0:19:03.840 --> 0:19:06.720
<v Speaker 1>the new issue of Business Week. It is the equality issue.

0:19:07.160 --> 0:19:10.720
<v Speaker 1>You're listening to Bloomberg Business Week with Carol Messer and

0:19:10.840 --> 0:19:15.359
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Quick Takes, Tim Stinovic on Bloomberg Radio. Well, the

0:19:15.440 --> 0:19:17.840
<v Speaker 1>oracle of Omaha himself, we know he likes to get

0:19:17.880 --> 0:19:20.680
<v Speaker 1>greedy when others are being too fearful, which may explain

0:19:20.760 --> 0:19:24.320
<v Speaker 1>Berkshire Hathaway raising its stake in Occidental Petroleum by more

0:19:24.359 --> 0:19:27.400
<v Speaker 1>than eighteen million shares. Are more shares, I should say

0:19:27.480 --> 0:19:30.240
<v Speaker 1>this week. So let's find out and put it into

0:19:30.320 --> 0:19:32.600
<v Speaker 1>context of what Buffett and Berkshire up to. Let's bring

0:19:32.760 --> 0:19:35.200
<v Speaker 1>catch to Glinsky. She's finance reporter at Bloomberg News. She

0:19:35.280 --> 0:19:38.640
<v Speaker 1>follows all things Warren Buffett and Berkshire and the finance base,

0:19:38.720 --> 0:19:41.560
<v Speaker 1>along with Justin Zach's Bloomberg News Equities report at Bloomberg News,

0:19:41.640 --> 0:19:44.320
<v Speaker 1>both here in our interactive broker studio. Alright, Cat to

0:19:44.480 --> 0:19:47.280
<v Speaker 1>lay it out for us, what is Berkshire up to?

0:19:47.520 --> 0:19:49.600
<v Speaker 1>It's been a busy past few weeks, Berkshire, they have

0:19:49.720 --> 0:19:52.320
<v Speaker 1>been that way. Yeah, they've been all in on Occidental stock.

0:19:52.400 --> 0:19:55.479
<v Speaker 1>And even this week Monday through Wednesday, they bought um

0:19:55.680 --> 0:19:58.320
<v Speaker 1>eighteen point one million additional shares. So now they have

0:19:58.400 --> 0:20:01.639
<v Speaker 1>a total common equity stake, have seven point one billion

0:20:01.720 --> 0:20:04.440
<v Speaker 1>dollars in Accidental and that's just in addition to the

0:20:04.640 --> 0:20:07.399
<v Speaker 1>ten billion dollars in preferred stock and warrants they already

0:20:07.440 --> 0:20:09.800
<v Speaker 1>owned in the company. You know you you brought up.

0:20:09.840 --> 0:20:11.399
<v Speaker 1>Can I just say, Timmy, you brought up on our

0:20:11.400 --> 0:20:13.680
<v Speaker 1>planning call? You're like, what was it? Somebody who was

0:20:13.760 --> 0:20:17.080
<v Speaker 1>just selling? Right? Yeah? So I I saw this and

0:20:17.160 --> 0:20:18.320
<v Speaker 1>I was like, wait, So I saw this, you know

0:20:18.320 --> 0:20:19.680
<v Speaker 1>a couple of weeks ago when I con sold, and

0:20:19.720 --> 0:20:21.119
<v Speaker 1>I was like, Okay, maybe it's time to get out

0:20:21.160 --> 0:20:24.280
<v Speaker 1>of the energy trade. But what is Buffett getting into

0:20:24.320 --> 0:20:27.040
<v Speaker 1>the energy trade? Signal justin right now about that it

0:20:27.080 --> 0:20:29.520
<v Speaker 1>still has room to run because it's up. What it's

0:20:29.560 --> 0:20:32.240
<v Speaker 1>the only sector that's up this here, Yeah, it's up.

0:20:32.320 --> 0:20:35.480
<v Speaker 1>The sector itself is up thirty percent, while Occidental is

0:20:35.600 --> 0:20:40.760
<v Speaker 1>up over It's the uh biggest gainer among all SMP

0:20:40.880 --> 0:20:45.080
<v Speaker 1>five components. Haliburton is the next at So that can

0:20:45.119 --> 0:20:47.640
<v Speaker 1>just show you and what it What's interesting for Buffett

0:20:47.720 --> 0:20:50.480
<v Speaker 1>is most people think of Buffett as a value investor.

0:20:50.600 --> 0:20:53.560
<v Speaker 1>You don't think of him as chasing these huge returns.

0:20:54.040 --> 0:20:57.000
<v Speaker 1>And I think with these recent purchases Monday through Wednesday,

0:20:57.080 --> 0:20:59.480
<v Speaker 1>he did wait for oil came down from about one

0:21:00.280 --> 0:21:03.280
<v Speaker 1>in two about and he brought back in. But it's

0:21:03.280 --> 0:21:06.080
<v Speaker 1>a small blip compared to how much it's run, So

0:21:06.240 --> 0:21:09.680
<v Speaker 1>he must really think that there's, you know, still a

0:21:09.760 --> 0:21:11.680
<v Speaker 1>lot of room for the stock to run, and there's

0:21:11.680 --> 0:21:13.920
<v Speaker 1>still a lot of value. Meanwhile, other investors who have

0:21:14.320 --> 0:21:16.119
<v Speaker 1>kind of been in this trade for a while on

0:21:16.280 --> 0:21:18.760
<v Speaker 1>the reopening, you know, they were looking at from the

0:21:18.840 --> 0:21:21.399
<v Speaker 1>demand side. They're saying, well, we're reopening all this and

0:21:21.600 --> 0:21:24.560
<v Speaker 1>the energy talk stocks have done so well. So when

0:21:24.680 --> 0:21:29.960
<v Speaker 1>we came to the invasion of Ukraine, uh, they you know,

0:21:30.040 --> 0:21:32.879
<v Speaker 1>now we have a supply issue that's exacerbating the whole thing.

0:21:32.920 --> 0:21:34.440
<v Speaker 1>But I think a lot of investors are a little

0:21:34.440 --> 0:21:37.160
<v Speaker 1>bit skittish and saying, well, we don't want to We've

0:21:37.160 --> 0:21:40.399
<v Speaker 1>already done so well, but the dynamics have changed so

0:21:40.600 --> 0:21:43.879
<v Speaker 1>much recently that there could still be a huge amount

0:21:43.920 --> 0:21:47.160
<v Speaker 1>of room to run on the upside. It's Kate Cat

0:21:47.280 --> 0:21:49.679
<v Speaker 1>rather help me out here, because I'm looking at Occidental,

0:21:49.960 --> 0:21:51.840
<v Speaker 1>Like you know, we just heard from Justin that I

0:21:51.960 --> 0:21:55.040
<v Speaker 1>do think of Warren and Berkshire as like value plays,

0:21:55.080 --> 0:21:57.560
<v Speaker 1>and yet it's been on such a tear. What's the

0:21:57.640 --> 0:22:00.320
<v Speaker 1>strategy here? How does this fit into the portfolio? Well,

0:22:00.320 --> 0:22:03.119
<v Speaker 1>I think you can hurt him back to his apple stock.

0:22:03.160 --> 0:22:05.160
<v Speaker 1>Everyone was like, oh, you're getting an apple too late,

0:22:05.280 --> 0:22:06.879
<v Speaker 1>and then now you look at the stock, it was

0:22:06.960 --> 0:22:09.119
<v Speaker 1>a really good bet. So I think we have to

0:22:09.960 --> 0:22:11.840
<v Speaker 1>caution ourselves a little bit when we're like, oh, is

0:22:11.880 --> 0:22:13.639
<v Speaker 1>he getting into late or has it you know, been

0:22:13.680 --> 0:22:15.800
<v Speaker 1>on too much of a run. But I really think here,

0:22:16.080 --> 0:22:19.359
<v Speaker 1>I mean, Buffett knows the energy business pretty well. You know,

0:22:19.440 --> 0:22:22.280
<v Speaker 1>they have a huge obviously power business. But you know

0:22:22.400 --> 0:22:25.639
<v Speaker 1>Greg Abel, his key deputy and his likely successor, they

0:22:25.760 --> 0:22:28.680
<v Speaker 1>know this space well. They've been around Occidental for a

0:22:28.760 --> 0:22:31.280
<v Speaker 1>while and Buffett and Berkshire are way more of an

0:22:31.320 --> 0:22:33.920
<v Speaker 1>industrial behemoth than they used to be. And I think

0:22:34.280 --> 0:22:36.960
<v Speaker 1>he's always on the hunt for an elephant sized deal

0:22:37.160 --> 0:22:40.639
<v Speaker 1>and who knows, you know, um, if he's would he

0:22:40.760 --> 0:22:43.560
<v Speaker 1>buy who knows? Yeah, we we don't have any confirmation

0:22:43.600 --> 0:22:47.800
<v Speaker 1>about any means, but I'm not it's a big company,

0:22:47.840 --> 0:22:50.400
<v Speaker 1>and you know, I think there always on market cap

0:22:50.760 --> 0:22:52.600
<v Speaker 1>and I think Buffet's always on the hunt. So I

0:22:52.680 --> 0:22:55.680
<v Speaker 1>think we shouldn't ever rule out. Yes, he has a

0:22:55.760 --> 0:22:58.560
<v Speaker 1>hundred nearly a hundred fifty billion to put to work,

0:22:58.640 --> 0:23:01.760
<v Speaker 1>and I think I think there's a chance that you know,

0:23:01.880 --> 0:23:03.520
<v Speaker 1>he keeps going after the stock and it becomes a

0:23:03.600 --> 0:23:05.800
<v Speaker 1>really good bet for him, like Apple. Obviously you know

0:23:05.960 --> 0:23:09.080
<v Speaker 1>did has performed well, but but I also think he

0:23:09.359 --> 0:23:11.080
<v Speaker 1>wants to get close to some big companies. And I

0:23:11.160 --> 0:23:13.080
<v Speaker 1>think about listen, we are all going back and forth

0:23:13.119 --> 0:23:15.680
<v Speaker 1>every day about alternative energy fossil fuel world, right, Like

0:23:15.720 --> 0:23:17.680
<v Speaker 1>we understand climate change and the push away, but we

0:23:17.760 --> 0:23:20.040
<v Speaker 1>also know, right tim Lett, it's gonna be a while

0:23:20.280 --> 0:23:22.760
<v Speaker 1>before you can totually fully make that pivot off a

0:23:22.800 --> 0:23:24.800
<v Speaker 1>fossil fuel it is. But justin I wonder how crowded

0:23:24.840 --> 0:23:26.919
<v Speaker 1>this trade is because we saw the way that oil

0:23:27.200 --> 0:23:29.920
<v Speaker 1>bounced back to about a hundred dollars a barrel yesterday.

0:23:29.960 --> 0:23:33.360
<v Speaker 1>It's higher today. Um. But you know, on Quick take

0:23:33.359 --> 0:23:35.440
<v Speaker 1>Stock we talk a lot about the retail investors getting

0:23:35.440 --> 0:23:37.640
<v Speaker 1>into the energy stocks over the last week. And I'm

0:23:37.720 --> 0:23:39.959
<v Speaker 1>and I'm wondering what your data tells you, what your

0:23:40.000 --> 0:23:41.960
<v Speaker 1>reporting tells you about how crowded the trade is. Well,

0:23:42.040 --> 0:23:44.639
<v Speaker 1>it's not as crowded as you might think. Bank of

0:23:44.680 --> 0:23:49.080
<v Speaker 1>America reported recently that that active fund managers there are

0:23:49.119 --> 0:23:52.720
<v Speaker 1>still thirty underweight the sector. And the other thing to

0:23:52.840 --> 0:23:55.280
<v Speaker 1>look at this, this is really this trade is really

0:23:55.320 --> 0:23:59.160
<v Speaker 1>a trade on oil. Occidental had been hedging their oil

0:23:59.200 --> 0:24:01.359
<v Speaker 1>positions up until the end of last year and they

0:24:01.440 --> 0:24:03.880
<v Speaker 1>let those hedges roll off. So now if the price

0:24:03.920 --> 0:24:07.040
<v Speaker 1>of oil goes up, there completely exposed. And what will

0:24:07.080 --> 0:24:10.640
<v Speaker 1>happen there is that that the oil producers have less

0:24:10.720 --> 0:24:13.520
<v Speaker 1>incentive to produce more. They want the price to go higher,

0:24:13.560 --> 0:24:15.600
<v Speaker 1>and it will that will push the price higher in

0:24:15.680 --> 0:24:20.159
<v Speaker 1>addition to uh problems of supply constraints in labor shortages.

0:24:20.400 --> 0:24:23.439
<v Speaker 1>Hey cat. In terms of Berkshire and Buffett's biggest holdings,

0:24:23.560 --> 0:24:26.320
<v Speaker 1>this is not the top but number eight in terms

0:24:26.359 --> 0:24:28.920
<v Speaker 1>of their common stock bets and so, and that's sizeable

0:24:29.080 --> 0:24:31.720
<v Speaker 1>given that they at the end of the year one

0:24:31.760 --> 0:24:35.200
<v Speaker 1>they didn't have a single common stock holding in this company.

0:24:35.400 --> 0:24:37.960
<v Speaker 1>What are other energy bets? Effects absolutely say that again

0:24:38.640 --> 0:24:43.080
<v Speaker 1>they didn't have any common stock of Incidental. At the

0:24:43.160 --> 0:24:44.679
<v Speaker 1>end of the year, they did have it, so they

0:24:44.760 --> 0:24:48.280
<v Speaker 1>had ramps. Yes, it's it's a big recent ramp up.

0:24:48.440 --> 0:24:51.400
<v Speaker 1>And he's even said publicly he really liked the CEO's

0:24:51.440 --> 0:24:53.639
<v Speaker 1>last earnings call, and so I think that you know,

0:24:53.720 --> 0:24:57.040
<v Speaker 1>he's signaling that it's not just an in and outplay

0:24:57.200 --> 0:25:00.159
<v Speaker 1>or a simple market bet. Right now, although you know,

0:25:00.280 --> 0:25:03.639
<v Speaker 1>obviously Berkshire can and might change his mind. Run by

0:25:03.640 --> 0:25:06.240
<v Speaker 1>a woman, I'm just going to say that other energy

0:25:06.280 --> 0:25:11.000
<v Speaker 1>bets Cat Chevron is one of the big, big common

0:25:11.040 --> 0:25:14.120
<v Speaker 1>stock holdings. So yeah, so Berkshire is exposed in general

0:25:14.200 --> 0:25:16.800
<v Speaker 1>to the energy market, the oil market, and then obviously

0:25:16.840 --> 0:25:18.720
<v Speaker 1>they own their own energy business. And I think to

0:25:18.840 --> 0:25:21.800
<v Speaker 1>your point earlier of you know, he is really into

0:25:21.840 --> 0:25:23.520
<v Speaker 1>this idea that it's going to be a long time

0:25:23.600 --> 0:25:27.080
<v Speaker 1>until we really see sort of this renewable energy kind

0:25:27.119 --> 0:25:30.119
<v Speaker 1>of dominance, and and Berkshire Energy is doing a lot

0:25:30.200 --> 0:25:32.880
<v Speaker 1>in that space. But I think, you know, he's willing

0:25:32.920 --> 0:25:35.199
<v Speaker 1>to bet on these companies that may be still very

0:25:35.240 --> 0:25:36.880
<v Speaker 1>tied to oil. And you know, as we were talking

0:25:36.920 --> 0:25:39.320
<v Speaker 1>about the war, I mean, you see the world rethinking

0:25:39.320 --> 0:25:41.159
<v Speaker 1>about where they're getting their energy from. And there was

0:25:41.200 --> 0:25:43.440
<v Speaker 1>some headlines just about you know, the moves France is

0:25:43.520 --> 0:25:46.240
<v Speaker 1>making and everybody's rethinking about it and their exposure and

0:25:46.240 --> 0:25:48.919
<v Speaker 1>their vulnerability. Um, guys, thank you so much. Well they appreciate.

0:25:49.000 --> 0:25:51.600
<v Speaker 1>Ketch Glensky, finance reporter at Bloomberg News, along with Justin

0:25:51.680 --> 0:25:58.560
<v Speaker 1>Zach's Bloomberg News equities reporter here in the studio. Yeah,

0:25:58.680 --> 0:26:06.320
<v Speaker 1>but you let me drive now, all right, pleasels, I

0:26:06.440 --> 0:26:15.119
<v Speaker 1>want to drive. It's good question. Drive is the drive

0:26:15.200 --> 0:26:22.080
<v Speaker 1>to the clothes? Well Briar on Bloomberg Radio, all right, everybody,

0:26:22.160 --> 0:26:25.040
<v Speaker 1>just about ten minutes left in today's trading session. You

0:26:25.119 --> 0:26:28.000
<v Speaker 1>heard Charlie breaking down, uh the numbers where you see

0:26:28.520 --> 0:26:32.840
<v Speaker 1>equities building on yesterday's gains. Really some out performance? Well,

0:26:32.920 --> 0:26:34.760
<v Speaker 1>I guess actually as about one percent higher, as Charlie

0:26:34.840 --> 0:26:36.560
<v Speaker 1>mentioned on the S and P and the Dow and

0:26:36.600 --> 0:26:38.840
<v Speaker 1>the NAZAC. So let's get to it. Vance Howard is

0:26:38.880 --> 0:26:42.600
<v Speaker 1>in the house. He's portfolio manager CEO at Howard Capital Management,

0:26:42.760 --> 0:26:45.760
<v Speaker 1>roughly five billion in assets under management, and he's here

0:26:45.800 --> 0:26:47.840
<v Speaker 1>in our Interactive broker studio. So nice to have you

0:26:47.920 --> 0:26:50.520
<v Speaker 1>here with Tim and myself. Nice to have you in studio.

0:26:50.680 --> 0:26:52.639
<v Speaker 1>How are you? Thank you, Thank you so much for

0:26:52.720 --> 0:26:54.600
<v Speaker 1>having me. It's it's real. Well, it's great to have

0:26:54.760 --> 0:26:58.000
<v Speaker 1>you here. Um, also thrilling depending on the day. Are

0:26:58.080 --> 0:27:00.840
<v Speaker 1>the market's a lot of volatility and it's interesting to

0:27:00.920 --> 0:27:03.560
<v Speaker 1>see the reaction coming off of the FED meeting. How

0:27:03.600 --> 0:27:06.600
<v Speaker 1>do you see it? What's the outlook here for equities

0:27:06.640 --> 0:27:09.480
<v Speaker 1>in particular? Well, you know, Carol, we're we're in a

0:27:09.560 --> 0:27:11.920
<v Speaker 1>down trend, so we're our proprietary indicated. The h C

0:27:12.040 --> 0:27:14.160
<v Speaker 1>on boline is still negative. So we're holding about thirty

0:27:14.200 --> 0:27:16.200
<v Speaker 1>thirty five were sent in cash right now and the

0:27:17.480 --> 0:27:19.200
<v Speaker 1>funds across the board, my two et s or what

0:27:19.240 --> 0:27:22.119
<v Speaker 1>do you normally care held? Usually we're hundred invested in

0:27:22.160 --> 0:27:24.119
<v Speaker 1>unless the h C on biolines negative. Now the a

0:27:24.200 --> 0:27:26.280
<v Speaker 1>c bolin is negative, we we pull pull money off

0:27:27.520 --> 0:27:30.640
<v Speaker 1>HTN byline. H C on biolin is our proprietary trend indicator,

0:27:30.680 --> 0:27:32.320
<v Speaker 1>and it tells us it doesn't fire off a signal

0:27:32.440 --> 0:27:34.200
<v Speaker 1>very often. But I fired off a negative single on

0:27:34.280 --> 0:27:36.760
<v Speaker 1>January nineteenth of this year, So we were pulling money

0:27:36.760 --> 0:27:38.320
<v Speaker 1>away from the markets and just sitting it out and

0:27:38.400 --> 0:27:40.479
<v Speaker 1>letting the market. What is it looking, it's proprietary. Can

0:27:40.560 --> 0:27:41.639
<v Speaker 1>you give us a hint? What is it? Well, it's

0:27:41.840 --> 0:27:44.439
<v Speaker 1>it's just a good, solid intermediate term trend indicator. Basically,

0:27:44.480 --> 0:27:46.800
<v Speaker 1>it's very, very in my opinion's best one ever built.

0:27:46.800 --> 0:27:48.880
<v Speaker 1>I built it back in the nineties. We've never ever

0:27:48.960 --> 0:27:50.600
<v Speaker 1>sat through a bear market in the history of Howard

0:27:50.680 --> 0:27:52.960
<v Speaker 1>Capital to two thousand and to two thousand, eight hundred

0:27:53.080 --> 0:27:55.280
<v Speaker 1>sit in cash. You're in the height of the pandemic.

0:27:55.400 --> 0:27:58.880
<v Speaker 1>Were Yeah, it's called capital preservation. It is I want

0:27:58.920 --> 0:28:03.040
<v Speaker 1>I want to learn more about well, no, I want

0:28:03.080 --> 0:28:04.600
<v Speaker 1>to learn more about it because you know, if you

0:28:04.720 --> 0:28:07.440
<v Speaker 1>built this in the nine nineties, Uh, ostensibly you'd be

0:28:07.480 --> 0:28:10.160
<v Speaker 1>adding different signals to it as the data gets better

0:28:10.240 --> 0:28:12.600
<v Speaker 1>and you get more forces alternative data. Oh, Tim, we

0:28:12.680 --> 0:28:14.280
<v Speaker 1>used to run this thing on a big chief tablet,

0:28:14.359 --> 0:28:16.760
<v Speaker 1>pen and paper, and then now it's computer driven. And

0:28:17.000 --> 0:28:19.760
<v Speaker 1>now we've got seven computer programmers working on a seven

0:28:19.800 --> 0:28:21.600
<v Speaker 1>trying to make it better and better and better. So

0:28:21.720 --> 0:28:23.320
<v Speaker 1>you know, during the health of the pandemic, we were

0:28:23.359 --> 0:28:25.679
<v Speaker 1>sixty percent in cash when the market was bottoming out.

0:28:25.760 --> 0:28:27.040
<v Speaker 1>Do you know when you get back in, That's the

0:28:27.119 --> 0:28:28.960
<v Speaker 1>great part what we built it is to be slow

0:28:29.040 --> 0:28:30.840
<v Speaker 1>to get out, but very fast to get back in.

0:28:30.960 --> 0:28:32.760
<v Speaker 1>Because what I'm trying to do, Tim, is I'm always

0:28:32.800 --> 0:28:34.800
<v Speaker 1>trying to catch the curve of the turn of the market.

0:28:35.160 --> 0:28:37.119
<v Speaker 1>I'm not so I can't call a topper bottom and

0:28:37.200 --> 0:28:39.040
<v Speaker 1>we're not doing that. I just want to stay in

0:28:39.120 --> 0:28:41.080
<v Speaker 1>eighty five percent of the good and out of eighty

0:28:41.120 --> 0:28:42.880
<v Speaker 1>five percent of the bad, and I'll have a much

0:28:42.880 --> 0:28:45.600
<v Speaker 1>more smoother ride with higher return, and we are not yet.

0:28:46.000 --> 0:28:48.800
<v Speaker 1>Your argument two is that we're not yet to the

0:28:49.120 --> 0:28:51.440
<v Speaker 1>to buying into that curve when the market's gonna start

0:28:51.440 --> 0:28:52.880
<v Speaker 1>going up again, despite the fact that this is the

0:28:52.880 --> 0:28:55.760
<v Speaker 1>third day in the row of the sp rallying. Yeah,

0:28:55.800 --> 0:28:57.920
<v Speaker 1>we were not there yet. No, the trends clearly down.

0:28:58.200 --> 0:29:00.000
<v Speaker 1>It's uh, you know, sometimes you get a dead cap bound.

0:29:00.160 --> 0:29:02.200
<v Speaker 1>I hope the bottoms in. There's a good chance that

0:29:02.280 --> 0:29:04.880
<v Speaker 1>maybe we put the bottom in February. Who knows, Maybe

0:29:04.920 --> 0:29:06.960
<v Speaker 1>that's what this is. And then I was so glad

0:29:07.000 --> 0:29:08.800
<v Speaker 1>just to get a rally we did, Carol, you were

0:29:08.840 --> 0:29:12.320
<v Speaker 1>off that day. We called that a cat bounces, aren't it. Hey,

0:29:12.520 --> 0:29:15.840
<v Speaker 1>The methodology hasn't changed, though, it's always evolving, because you know,

0:29:15.920 --> 0:29:18.000
<v Speaker 1>you can't stay static. The markets are faster now than

0:29:18.040 --> 0:29:20.360
<v Speaker 1>they've ever been. You know, you're not trading against the

0:29:20.400 --> 0:29:22.400
<v Speaker 1>three of us aren't trading against one another anymore. We're

0:29:22.520 --> 0:29:24.840
<v Speaker 1>trading against a computer. So you're gonna have to get

0:29:24.880 --> 0:29:27.240
<v Speaker 1>faster and faster. Everything we do has to have a

0:29:27.320 --> 0:29:29.960
<v Speaker 1>quantitative edge to win. And and you got to be

0:29:30.040 --> 0:29:31.760
<v Speaker 1>fast anymore. And you can't sit there and being the

0:29:31.800 --> 0:29:33.400
<v Speaker 1>guessing game. You gotta get in the odds game like

0:29:33.480 --> 0:29:35.640
<v Speaker 1>we are all right? So I mentioned, um, you've got

0:29:35.680 --> 0:29:37.600
<v Speaker 1>a bunch of fun. Your Tactical Growth fund and dividend

0:29:37.600 --> 0:29:39.440
<v Speaker 1>Sector plus fund each beating just about all of its

0:29:39.520 --> 0:29:41.640
<v Speaker 1>peers in its category of the past three years, putting

0:29:41.640 --> 0:29:45.480
<v Speaker 1>them in the percentiles, respectively. Tactical Growth Fund returning on

0:29:45.520 --> 0:29:49.200
<v Speaker 1>average annually according to our data. Dividends Sector plus fund

0:29:49.200 --> 0:29:52.200
<v Speaker 1>returning on average annually. That's not too shabby. Thank you,

0:29:52.480 --> 0:29:56.520
<v Speaker 1>You're welcome. So okay, so what is your um? What

0:29:56.720 --> 0:29:58.720
<v Speaker 1>is it showing you now that are you putting money

0:29:58.760 --> 0:30:00.560
<v Speaker 1>to work or you're not? You still? Are you still

0:30:00.560 --> 0:30:02.640
<v Speaker 1>pulling money? We don't ever buck buck the h C

0:30:02.720 --> 0:30:04.440
<v Speaker 1>on bottling it's negative. We're gonna sit on our hands

0:30:04.440 --> 0:30:06.120
<v Speaker 1>and sit in cash period and tell it. Tell it

0:30:06.160 --> 0:30:08.040
<v Speaker 1>gives us a firm signal to go along again. But

0:30:08.120 --> 0:30:10.760
<v Speaker 1>could that cash position grow? You could, Yes, if the

0:30:10.760 --> 0:30:12.920
<v Speaker 1>bottlene continues to get more negative, it would grow. And

0:30:13.000 --> 0:30:14.640
<v Speaker 1>we have been as much as a hund percent in cash,

0:30:14.680 --> 0:30:17.080
<v Speaker 1>like I said earlier, were cash in two thousand and eight,

0:30:17.520 --> 0:30:20.040
<v Speaker 1>but during the pandemic we were only sixty percent in cash.

0:30:20.400 --> 0:30:22.120
<v Speaker 1>But it felt pretty good. The day the doll was

0:30:22.160 --> 0:30:24.440
<v Speaker 1>down I think twelve and we were down three, So

0:30:24.560 --> 0:30:28.240
<v Speaker 1>that was a pretty good feeling. Okay, let's talk you

0:30:28.320 --> 0:30:30.719
<v Speaker 1>had something. No, I just I'm trying to figure out.

0:30:30.800 --> 0:30:33.200
<v Speaker 1>So you're watching, so you're in cash, you could go

0:30:33.600 --> 0:30:35.360
<v Speaker 1>into more cash, which is why when we talk about

0:30:35.360 --> 0:30:37.240
<v Speaker 1>dead cat bounds. You know, we've had a lot of

0:30:37.400 --> 0:30:39.360
<v Speaker 1>questions and not questions, but a lot of debate about

0:30:39.720 --> 0:30:42.800
<v Speaker 1>is this how we hit the bottom? Uh? And hard

0:30:42.840 --> 0:30:45.880
<v Speaker 1>to say. Did anything change in terms of your metrics

0:30:46.480 --> 0:30:49.800
<v Speaker 1>or your indicator off of the FED meeting? No? No,

0:30:50.080 --> 0:30:52.160
<v Speaker 1>the trainer was clearly down, still down. I would still

0:30:52.160 --> 0:30:54.160
<v Speaker 1>be sitting in thirty percent cash. It had no effect

0:30:54.160 --> 0:30:55.640
<v Speaker 1>other than the fact we're getting a rally, which I'm

0:30:55.680 --> 0:30:57.280
<v Speaker 1>glad to have. Well, this two day rally. I mean,

0:30:57.320 --> 0:30:59.080
<v Speaker 1>does it make you say I want to put some

0:30:59.160 --> 0:31:01.160
<v Speaker 1>money to work. No, not until the HC on bioline.

0:31:01.160 --> 0:31:03.040
<v Speaker 1>That's part of being disciplined, and the discipline is the

0:31:03.080 --> 0:31:05.000
<v Speaker 1>key to winning in this game. If you're not disciplined,

0:31:05.040 --> 0:31:08.960
<v Speaker 1>you look, you're flying, you're an instrument rated, you don't

0:31:09.040 --> 0:31:10.440
<v Speaker 1>care what you see in front of you. It's just

0:31:10.560 --> 0:31:13.320
<v Speaker 1>what it says, is the HC M byline? Is it

0:31:13.520 --> 0:31:16.760
<v Speaker 1>binary like negative or positive, or their different degrees of

0:31:16.840 --> 0:31:19.080
<v Speaker 1>it and different degrees. And that's a good point. We

0:31:19.160 --> 0:31:21.760
<v Speaker 1>do have three different stages and one, so we tear out.

0:31:22.040 --> 0:31:23.600
<v Speaker 1>We don't play the all or none game. The only

0:31:23.640 --> 0:31:25.240
<v Speaker 1>time we've been a hunter percent in cash with two

0:31:25.240 --> 0:31:27.520
<v Speaker 1>thousand and eight, and that's when when that is a quantitative,

0:31:27.720 --> 0:31:31.120
<v Speaker 1>it's not more it's more fundamental. When the banks are imploding,

0:31:31.200 --> 0:31:34.280
<v Speaker 1>we're We're out. We're just out. We're not anywhere near that. Now.

0:31:34.360 --> 0:31:36.200
<v Speaker 1>This is just a garden variety of correction, and it

0:31:36.280 --> 0:31:37.840
<v Speaker 1>may be turned into a bear market. It may just

0:31:37.920 --> 0:31:40.640
<v Speaker 1>be a nasty little correction. I'm just not that worried

0:31:40.640 --> 0:31:42.479
<v Speaker 1>about it. By the way, we had three great years, right,

0:31:42.720 --> 0:31:46.760
<v Speaker 1>So here's you know, I Tim and I talk a

0:31:46.800 --> 0:31:48.480
<v Speaker 1>lot off air because I know you're not supposed to

0:31:48.600 --> 0:31:50.960
<v Speaker 1>time the market, but I mean, after a year like

0:31:51.080 --> 0:31:54.520
<v Speaker 1>we had last year, like I feel like, yes, you

0:31:54.600 --> 0:31:56.760
<v Speaker 1>could kind of time the market and pull money out,

0:31:56.800 --> 0:31:59.400
<v Speaker 1>because even if you just had a great year, why

0:31:59.520 --> 0:32:03.080
<v Speaker 1>not take a breather and see where this goes. Are

0:32:03.120 --> 0:32:05.440
<v Speaker 1>you saying yes or now I'm saying that, I'm saying

0:32:05.480 --> 0:32:07.320
<v Speaker 1>that that I don't. I'm saying I follow the h

0:32:07.360 --> 0:32:10.080
<v Speaker 1>C on byline. If it was still positive, i'd in

0:32:10.200 --> 0:32:11.800
<v Speaker 1>right now, you would be yeah, But it's not, so

0:32:11.880 --> 0:32:14.880
<v Speaker 1>I'm negative. But it's creating a vast amount of great bias, Carol.

0:32:14.960 --> 0:32:16.560
<v Speaker 1>I mean, I'm sitting in thirty percent of cash and

0:32:16.600 --> 0:32:20.200
<v Speaker 1>some of these stocks are off. Think of my gunpowder

0:32:20.280 --> 0:32:23.280
<v Speaker 1>coming back here. Well, does your indicator play for individual stocks?

0:32:23.320 --> 0:32:26.880
<v Speaker 1>And absolutely sectors mainly? Okay, so might you put money

0:32:26.920 --> 0:32:29.320
<v Speaker 1>to work in some sectors? Yes? I would any sectors

0:32:29.360 --> 0:32:31.640
<v Speaker 1>you want to share with us? Tech tech, what kind

0:32:31.640 --> 0:32:34.880
<v Speaker 1>of tech? And and and and the and the semiconductor index.

0:32:35.000 --> 0:32:36.640
<v Speaker 1>We can look at all these tech stock look at

0:32:36.840 --> 0:32:39.360
<v Speaker 1>you know, I would consider Salesforce Tech Company. They're I mean,

0:32:39.400 --> 0:32:42.160
<v Speaker 1>they're beaten to death. Paypals looking great. Microsoft is a

0:32:42.520 --> 0:32:48.280
<v Speaker 1>screen once it turns rough from its high. But don't

0:32:48.320 --> 0:32:51.400
<v Speaker 1>buy until the bioline is positive, because don't find the positive. No,

0:32:51.840 --> 0:32:54.560
<v Speaker 1>it's negative. It's it's negative, negative, negative. As long as

0:32:54.600 --> 0:32:57.200
<v Speaker 1>the overall bioline is positive, we won't buy. Now. Once

0:32:57.240 --> 0:32:59.080
<v Speaker 1>we do have a bi signal, then we can start

0:32:59.120 --> 0:33:01.400
<v Speaker 1>to pick out what we're gonna Has the byeline ever

0:33:01.440 --> 0:33:04.760
<v Speaker 1>been wrong? Of course? And then you can say exactly

0:33:04.840 --> 0:33:08.320
<v Speaker 1>what it is. The boeling is wrong about the time,

0:33:08.360 --> 0:33:10.440
<v Speaker 1>it's right about seventy percent of the time. I can

0:33:10.480 --> 0:33:12.360
<v Speaker 1>tell you what your odds are of winning. When the

0:33:12.440 --> 0:33:14.920
<v Speaker 1>by lines positive, your odds are seventy three percent of

0:33:14.960 --> 0:33:18.000
<v Speaker 1>it going higher cent that it's not. When the by

0:33:18.160 --> 0:33:20.840
<v Speaker 1>line is negative, your odds of it going down to

0:33:20.960 --> 0:33:23.680
<v Speaker 1>negative or seventy in your odds or for reverse to

0:33:24.160 --> 0:33:25.800
<v Speaker 1>So I'm not gonna take a trade when the odds

0:33:25.880 --> 0:33:28.160
<v Speaker 1>on scent that is going to move higher. Because the

0:33:28.240 --> 0:33:30.400
<v Speaker 1>trend of the market moves four out of five stocks

0:33:30.440 --> 0:33:32.760
<v Speaker 1>the direction of the trend alright, So come back. Let

0:33:32.840 --> 0:33:35.520
<v Speaker 1>us know when it goes either positive or more negative.

0:33:35.640 --> 0:33:37.080
<v Speaker 1>Let me share it with you. Let me share it

0:33:37.120 --> 0:33:39.320
<v Speaker 1>with you. Look forward to it travels back home. Vance Howard,

0:33:39.360 --> 0:33:43.400
<v Speaker 1>Portfolio Manager CEO at Howard Capital Management, joining us. Thanks

0:33:43.440 --> 0:33:47.280
<v Speaker 1>for listening to Bloomberg Business Week. Download the podcast on iTunes, SoundCloud,

0:33:47.400 --> 0:33:49.560
<v Speaker 1>or Bloomberg dot com, and you can also listen to

0:33:49.600 --> 0:33:52.160
<v Speaker 1>our radio show at two pm Eastern on Bloomberg Radio

0:33:52.320 --> 0:33:55.000
<v Speaker 1>or watch us on YouTube. Search to Bloomberg Global News