WEBVTT - Tesla Shareholder Gerber Pursues Board Seat

0:00:01.320 --> 0:00:05.680
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg business Week Inside from the reporters and

0:00:05.840 --> 0:00:09.400
<v Speaker 1>editors who bring you America's most trusted business magazine, plus

0:00:09.480 --> 0:00:13.640
<v Speaker 1>global business, finance and tech news. The Bloomberg Business Week

0:00:13.680 --> 0:00:18.600
<v Speaker 1>Podcast with Carol Masser and Tim Stinebec from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:19.360 --> 0:00:22.279
<v Speaker 1>Well you like Paul. Last week, Ross Gerber, a vocal

0:00:22.520 --> 0:00:26.360
<v Speaker 1>Tesla shareholder, Tesla car owner, frequent guests on our air,

0:00:26.400 --> 0:00:28.480
<v Speaker 1>saying he will pursue a board seat on the electric

0:00:28.560 --> 0:00:31.360
<v Speaker 1>vehicle maker's board well at the time, also saying that

0:00:31.400 --> 0:00:34.280
<v Speaker 1>it's time for Tesla to grow up. Gerber's firm holding

0:00:34.320 --> 0:00:37.200
<v Speaker 1>about four forty shares as of the end of last

0:00:37.240 --> 0:00:40.400
<v Speaker 1>year of Tesla. That's according to our data. Ross's co

0:00:40.479 --> 0:00:43.839
<v Speaker 1>founder president CEO Gerber Kawasaki Wealth and Investment Management. He

0:00:43.960 --> 0:00:48.560
<v Speaker 1>joins us lucky for us via zoom from Santa Monica, California. Hey, Ross,

0:00:48.560 --> 0:00:50.440
<v Speaker 1>good to have you here. Your fund. By the way,

0:00:50.479 --> 0:00:52.560
<v Speaker 1>your e t F is that more than fourteen percent

0:00:52.640 --> 0:00:55.040
<v Speaker 1>year to date, Tesla's your biggest shareholder, at least according

0:00:55.040 --> 0:00:59.680
<v Speaker 1>to our data. UM talk to us about pursuing a

0:00:59.760 --> 0:01:02.279
<v Speaker 1>board seat on Tesla. Why do you want to do

0:01:02.320 --> 0:01:05.720
<v Speaker 1>it and what progress have you made? Towards that end. Well,

0:01:05.760 --> 0:01:08.600
<v Speaker 1>I think mostly it's because I feel like it's time

0:01:08.680 --> 0:01:12.240
<v Speaker 1>for Tesla's board to sort of take a more active

0:01:12.360 --> 0:01:16.560
<v Speaker 1>role in some of the main issues that involve Tesla,

0:01:16.640 --> 0:01:19.680
<v Speaker 1>which seemed to be i don't know, sort of ignored.

0:01:19.720 --> 0:01:23.360
<v Speaker 1>And a lot of founder led companies, you know, grow

0:01:23.520 --> 0:01:26.600
<v Speaker 1>to be very, very successful, um, and then they reach

0:01:26.640 --> 0:01:29.760
<v Speaker 1>a point like where Tesla has, where certain things just

0:01:29.800 --> 0:01:31.960
<v Speaker 1>need to change. And and I don't think these are

0:01:32.240 --> 0:01:34.920
<v Speaker 1>you know, bad things. I think it's a good thing,

0:01:35.480 --> 0:01:38.320
<v Speaker 1>um for Tesla to focus on, you know, really three

0:01:38.360 --> 0:01:41.039
<v Speaker 1>main things that you know, I'm most concerned about, which is,

0:01:41.240 --> 0:01:44.800
<v Speaker 1>you know, public relations, marketing, and lobbying so that things

0:01:44.840 --> 0:01:48.640
<v Speaker 1>like full self driving you know, are you know appropriately

0:01:48.720 --> 0:01:53.400
<v Speaker 1>understood by the public UM and the risks and rewards UM. Secondly,

0:01:53.440 --> 0:01:56.680
<v Speaker 1>I'd love to see Tesla focus on the customer. The

0:01:57.320 --> 0:02:01.120
<v Speaker 1>consumer is constantly having bad experience is with Tesla service

0:02:01.160 --> 0:02:03.840
<v Speaker 1>and and and I just think somebody needs to really

0:02:03.840 --> 0:02:07.160
<v Speaker 1>be focused on the customer over at Tesla. And then thirdly,

0:02:07.200 --> 0:02:11.239
<v Speaker 1>a secession plan. Um. Ellen is clearly running Twitter here

0:02:11.280 --> 0:02:14.040
<v Speaker 1>and that's his priority, which is fine, But if something

0:02:14.360 --> 0:02:16.840
<v Speaker 1>ever happened in Eilani I mean, he is working, you know,

0:02:16.880 --> 0:02:19.800
<v Speaker 1>like twenty hours a day, you know, you know, what's

0:02:19.880 --> 0:02:23.000
<v Speaker 1>what's the plan for Tesla. So these things don't seem

0:02:23.000 --> 0:02:26.160
<v Speaker 1>to be answered from Tesla. And and so now I'm

0:02:26.200 --> 0:02:28.960
<v Speaker 1>pushing for board seat because I think it's time for

0:02:29.040 --> 0:02:31.519
<v Speaker 1>there to be some accountability to these issues. So, Ross,

0:02:31.600 --> 0:02:35.200
<v Speaker 1>you mentioned the PR situation when it comes to Tesla.

0:02:35.280 --> 0:02:39.400
<v Speaker 1>To what extent are you concerned about Elon's impact on

0:02:39.600 --> 0:02:42.960
<v Speaker 1>the company's PR. Well, I think that you know, for

0:02:43.000 --> 0:02:45.280
<v Speaker 1>a long time, we got a lot of free advertising

0:02:45.280 --> 0:02:47.520
<v Speaker 1>out of Ellen, and there was a perception of Ellen

0:02:47.960 --> 0:02:51.560
<v Speaker 1>that was much more positive today now that Ellen runs

0:02:51.560 --> 0:02:54.880
<v Speaker 1>Twitter and has taken many political positions, and I think

0:02:55.240 --> 0:02:58.640
<v Speaker 1>it's his right to do that. But it's certainly unfortunate

0:02:58.760 --> 0:03:02.840
<v Speaker 1>how many customers and shareholders here at least that I know,

0:03:03.040 --> 0:03:07.120
<v Speaker 1>and which are a lot that really have now taken

0:03:07.120 --> 0:03:09.760
<v Speaker 1>a negative you towards Ellen. And it's really kind of

0:03:09.800 --> 0:03:12.680
<v Speaker 1>sad to me. And the bottom line is it's time

0:03:12.680 --> 0:03:15.680
<v Speaker 1>for Tesla to build its brand around Tesla and about

0:03:15.880 --> 0:03:18.800
<v Speaker 1>you know, the values that Tesla really stands for and

0:03:18.960 --> 0:03:21.799
<v Speaker 1>versus what Elon's values are. And and so I don't

0:03:21.840 --> 0:03:24.960
<v Speaker 1>really have any issue with his per se values. But

0:03:25.360 --> 0:03:28.160
<v Speaker 1>we're in the selling car business, and you know, I

0:03:28.200 --> 0:03:30.280
<v Speaker 1>don't know if that's what he's thinking every day when

0:03:30.280 --> 0:03:32.280
<v Speaker 1>he gets up and tweets. So I think Tesla can

0:03:32.320 --> 0:03:36.360
<v Speaker 1>take an active role in shaping the public perception of

0:03:36.480 --> 0:03:39.640
<v Speaker 1>its wonderful products and services. Hey listen, are reporting via

0:03:39.800 --> 0:03:43.080
<v Speaker 1>Ed Ludlow and Caroline Hyde. Um noted how you have

0:03:43.120 --> 0:03:46.119
<v Speaker 1>a good relationship with UM. Some of the biggest shareholders

0:03:46.120 --> 0:03:48.360
<v Speaker 1>in Tesla, someone who I've talked to a lot, Kathy

0:03:48.480 --> 0:03:52.080
<v Speaker 1>would have our investment, and also Baily Gifford. Have you

0:03:52.200 --> 0:03:54.000
<v Speaker 1>have they said that they would support you in your

0:03:54.000 --> 0:03:56.680
<v Speaker 1>pursuit of a seat. Well, I haven't talked to any

0:03:56.720 --> 0:03:59.560
<v Speaker 1>of the institutions yet because I haven't you know, I'm

0:03:59.600 --> 0:04:03.160
<v Speaker 1>still officially got to send out my letter and get

0:04:03.160 --> 0:04:06.080
<v Speaker 1>this going, which you will do that right now. Yeah,

0:04:06.080 --> 0:04:09.040
<v Speaker 1>I will definitely be doing that, and and we're certainly

0:04:09.160 --> 0:04:11.000
<v Speaker 1>and that's one of the reasons I'm running is just

0:04:11.240 --> 0:04:14.040
<v Speaker 1>so that there is an option for people. I'm not

0:04:14.120 --> 0:04:16.960
<v Speaker 1>like doing this for any like personal gain. Let me

0:04:17.000 --> 0:04:19.960
<v Speaker 1>tell you, it's a very time absuming process and and

0:04:20.040 --> 0:04:22.960
<v Speaker 1>most of my clients and and friends you know, are

0:04:22.960 --> 0:04:24.599
<v Speaker 1>sort of like, we want you focusing on our money,

0:04:24.720 --> 0:04:28.200
<v Speaker 1>not running Tesla or dealing with Tesla. And that said,

0:04:28.600 --> 0:04:31.599
<v Speaker 1>you know, I just feel compelled that there needs to

0:04:31.640 --> 0:04:35.440
<v Speaker 1>be a choice for investors, individual investors, so that they

0:04:35.480 --> 0:04:37.200
<v Speaker 1>actually even know somebody on the board. You know, a

0:04:37.240 --> 0:04:39.560
<v Speaker 1>lot of people are like, oh, we support Tesla's board currently.

0:04:39.680 --> 0:04:41.240
<v Speaker 1>I'm like, do you even know who's on the board?

0:04:41.240 --> 0:04:43.719
<v Speaker 1>And they're like no, And would you like, would you

0:04:43.760 --> 0:04:46.520
<v Speaker 1>like to see there's another person. Ellen's obviously on the board,

0:04:46.560 --> 0:04:48.719
<v Speaker 1>but Kimball Lusk is also on the board. Would you

0:04:48.760 --> 0:04:50.719
<v Speaker 1>like to do Do you think it is just a

0:04:50.760 --> 0:04:55.920
<v Speaker 1>board of people who really like Elon? And there do I?

0:04:55.920 --> 0:04:58.839
<v Speaker 1>I do? And granted I really like Elon too, so

0:04:59.040 --> 0:05:01.680
<v Speaker 1>it's you know, I'm not uh, I'm not a negative

0:05:01.720 --> 0:05:04.679
<v Speaker 1>person here, and this is a friendly activist. I'm trying

0:05:04.680 --> 0:05:08.080
<v Speaker 1>to help Tesla in a way that they're not good at. Okay,

0:05:08.160 --> 0:05:11.640
<v Speaker 1>So there, you know. I'm a marketing pr kind of guru.

0:05:11.720 --> 0:05:13.560
<v Speaker 1>That's kind of my thing, and and I think I

0:05:13.560 --> 0:05:16.000
<v Speaker 1>could help the company dramatically, and I've been doing it

0:05:16.040 --> 0:05:17.520
<v Speaker 1>for a long time behind the scenes, and a lot

0:05:17.560 --> 0:05:20.040
<v Speaker 1>of people don't realize that that behind the scenes I've

0:05:20.040 --> 0:05:22.400
<v Speaker 1>been you know, advising them for years and years and

0:05:22.480 --> 0:05:25.520
<v Speaker 1>years about the way they handle many different elements of

0:05:25.560 --> 0:05:28.480
<v Speaker 1>their marketing and PR. And that said, they've implemented a

0:05:28.520 --> 0:05:30.080
<v Speaker 1>lot of these things over the years and it's been

0:05:30.160 --> 0:05:32.919
<v Speaker 1>very successful. But I think at this point, you know,

0:05:33.080 --> 0:05:36.719
<v Speaker 1>Tesla is now a six billion dollar company and and

0:05:36.839 --> 0:05:39.800
<v Speaker 1>things like. You know, there was an anti Tesla ad

0:05:40.000 --> 0:05:41.839
<v Speaker 1>that was run during the Super Bowl and how this

0:05:41.960 --> 0:05:44.600
<v Speaker 1>even happened is mind blowing to me. And then there

0:05:44.680 --> 0:05:47.240
<v Speaker 1>was no counter to that, and if you look at

0:05:47.240 --> 0:05:49.560
<v Speaker 1>the headlines, they're just very misleading and it and it

0:05:49.640 --> 0:05:52.360
<v Speaker 1>becomes very tiring. Well, Ross, I know you mentioned that

0:05:52.400 --> 0:05:54.720
<v Speaker 1>you are a fan of Tesla, of course, but you

0:05:54.720 --> 0:05:57.440
<v Speaker 1>would be referred to as a dissident shareholder if this

0:05:57.520 --> 0:05:59.760
<v Speaker 1>went through and management did not support your efforts, which

0:05:59.800 --> 0:06:02.560
<v Speaker 1>is interesting here. Um, I wonder have you spoken to

0:06:02.640 --> 0:06:06.440
<v Speaker 1>Ellen No. Last time he spoke was on a Twitter

0:06:06.480 --> 0:06:10.320
<v Speaker 1>spaces in December where I addressed many of the issues

0:06:10.360 --> 0:06:12.479
<v Speaker 1>that I had and he addressed them back in a

0:06:12.520 --> 0:06:15.520
<v Speaker 1>way that I was pretty happy with. But you know,

0:06:15.600 --> 0:06:17.800
<v Speaker 1>we still don't have a CEO of Twitter, and that

0:06:17.880 --> 0:06:20.160
<v Speaker 1>was one of the things, you know, I was hoping

0:06:20.200 --> 0:06:23.440
<v Speaker 1>for you know that he would, you know, refocus on

0:06:23.440 --> 0:06:26.240
<v Speaker 1>Tesla and find a CEO of Twitter and and and

0:06:26.279 --> 0:06:29.560
<v Speaker 1>maybe even work a little bit less on creating you know,

0:06:29.600 --> 0:06:33.520
<v Speaker 1>political comments that creates so much dissonance among so many

0:06:33.680 --> 0:06:36.920
<v Speaker 1>Tesla owners. Um. But you know, I don't expect him

0:06:36.960 --> 0:06:39.280
<v Speaker 1>to change his opinion or what he wants to say

0:06:39.320 --> 0:06:41.960
<v Speaker 1>on Twitter. But I do think his focus. I mean,

0:06:41.960 --> 0:06:44.760
<v Speaker 1>he's working three jobs. He's admitted to himself, he's exhausted,

0:06:44.760 --> 0:06:47.719
<v Speaker 1>he's working seven. But in that Twitter space that you mentioned,

0:06:47.800 --> 0:06:50.200
<v Speaker 1>Ross Musk did tell you that Twitter is about ten

0:06:50.279 --> 0:06:52.960
<v Speaker 1>percent of the complexity of Tesla. Did you believe him

0:06:52.960 --> 0:06:55.919
<v Speaker 1>when he told you that. I I think that I

0:06:55.960 --> 0:06:58.640
<v Speaker 1>think he meant that after he's done dealing with what

0:06:58.680 --> 0:07:01.279
<v Speaker 1>he's dealing with. But I don't think he's right. I

0:07:01.320 --> 0:07:04.840
<v Speaker 1>think Twitter is a beast. It's super difficult to manage,

0:07:04.839 --> 0:07:08.159
<v Speaker 1>and we're coming into an election cycle very soon, and

0:07:08.160 --> 0:07:11.160
<v Speaker 1>and boy, it's a hard thing to be Twitter during

0:07:11.160 --> 0:07:14.680
<v Speaker 1>an election, clearly, And so I just think this is

0:07:14.720 --> 0:07:17.800
<v Speaker 1>a very big task that he's taken on. And and

0:07:17.960 --> 0:07:20.040
<v Speaker 1>you know, once again, I I hope he said he

0:07:20.040 --> 0:07:23.240
<v Speaker 1>would get a CEO for Twitter, and and I think

0:07:23.480 --> 0:07:25.160
<v Speaker 1>that's one of the things I'm pushing for. The sooner

0:07:25.200 --> 0:07:28.080
<v Speaker 1>the better he can have more help and leadership at Twitter,

0:07:28.160 --> 0:07:29.960
<v Speaker 1>the more he can refocus on what's important to me,

0:07:30.000 --> 0:07:33.280
<v Speaker 1>which is getting the cybertruck out and scaling production. And

0:07:33.760 --> 0:07:37.680
<v Speaker 1>we've got battery production scaling so in Mega pac So

0:07:37.720 --> 0:07:40.560
<v Speaker 1>it's a very important time for Tesla, and and and

0:07:40.600 --> 0:07:42.520
<v Speaker 1>I just think he's a human being. And at some

0:07:42.600 --> 0:07:44.800
<v Speaker 1>point you can't work seven days a week, twenty hours

0:07:44.800 --> 0:07:47.040
<v Speaker 1>a day. UM. A couple of quick questions, because we've

0:07:47.080 --> 0:07:49.480
<v Speaker 1>only got a couple of minutes left. Um. Tesla shares

0:07:49.480 --> 0:07:51.720
<v Speaker 1>are up about sixty year to date, they're still down

0:07:51.760 --> 0:07:56.120
<v Speaker 1>more than from that high back in early November. Ross.

0:07:56.160 --> 0:07:58.280
<v Speaker 1>First of all, have you been buying at all this

0:07:58.360 --> 0:08:02.120
<v Speaker 1>year and adding to your position? Yeah? Within my fund,

0:08:02.200 --> 0:08:04.560
<v Speaker 1>we've added to our position, so we were able to

0:08:04.600 --> 0:08:08.480
<v Speaker 1>buy Tesla shares cheaper to add to our position. Um

0:08:08.520 --> 0:08:11.960
<v Speaker 1>when it went down. UM. So you know last year,

0:08:12.120 --> 0:08:15.000
<v Speaker 1>this year, last year, this year, and and at the

0:08:15.080 --> 0:08:18.119
<v Speaker 1>end of last year and early this year. UM. So

0:08:18.280 --> 0:08:20.600
<v Speaker 1>you know, I can only really comment about my public

0:08:20.600 --> 0:08:23.240
<v Speaker 1>fund because what happens in my firm, you know, varies

0:08:23.280 --> 0:08:26.559
<v Speaker 1>by client and risk and all these other factors um

0:08:26.600 --> 0:08:29.160
<v Speaker 1>but within my fund we've added to Tesla, it is

0:08:29.200 --> 0:08:31.640
<v Speaker 1>a ten percent waiting currently, a littless than ten percent

0:08:31.680 --> 0:08:34.760
<v Speaker 1>waiting currently, which is the highest waiting that we have

0:08:35.280 --> 0:08:38.560
<v Speaker 1>for a position. So Tesla's are number one stock. I

0:08:38.600 --> 0:08:40.480
<v Speaker 1>love the company. I think it has a wonderful future,

0:08:40.800 --> 0:08:43.360
<v Speaker 1>but I would like to see some changes in the

0:08:43.400 --> 0:08:47.360
<v Speaker 1>way that they're running the business. Final quick question for you.

0:08:47.640 --> 0:08:49.439
<v Speaker 1>A lot of retail investors, as you know, have a

0:08:49.840 --> 0:08:51.880
<v Speaker 1>p of their funds in Tesla. Where do you see

0:08:51.880 --> 0:08:55.240
<v Speaker 1>the biggest upside for them? Well, right now, I think

0:08:55.360 --> 0:08:59.400
<v Speaker 1>the biggest upside for Tesla is number one, successfully scaling

0:08:59.440 --> 0:09:02.240
<v Speaker 1>their product in Berlin and Austin of the model why,

0:09:02.679 --> 0:09:06.240
<v Speaker 1>number two getting the cybertruck out this year at some point.

0:09:06.480 --> 0:09:09.720
<v Speaker 1>And number three it's clearly you know, mega pac production.

0:09:09.800 --> 0:09:12.359
<v Speaker 1>You know, energy storage is going to be a phenomenal

0:09:12.400 --> 0:09:15.280
<v Speaker 1>business for Tesla over time, and and now they're ramping

0:09:15.320 --> 0:09:18.199
<v Speaker 1>this business, so trucks and mega packs. It was really

0:09:18.600 --> 0:09:22.080
<v Speaker 1>the next level for Tesla, and and so you know,

0:09:22.160 --> 0:09:24.800
<v Speaker 1>we're on the verge of a very good growth stage

0:09:24.840 --> 0:09:26.880
<v Speaker 1>for Tesla over the next several years. But I'd love

0:09:26.920 --> 0:09:29.880
<v Speaker 1>to see them really focused on their image in the public.

0:09:30.000 --> 0:09:33.000
<v Speaker 1>Ross too quick questions Twitter. If he wasn't pursuing Twitter,

0:09:33.000 --> 0:09:34.160
<v Speaker 1>do you think you and I would be having this

0:09:34.240 --> 0:09:37.400
<v Speaker 1>question very quickly? No, if he wasn't involved with Twitter,

0:09:37.600 --> 0:09:39.959
<v Speaker 1>I don't think we'll be having this conversation at all.

0:09:40.040 --> 0:09:44.360
<v Speaker 1>And you still want Ellen running this company? Yeah? Absolutely, pcent.

0:09:44.400 --> 0:09:47.640
<v Speaker 1>I mean what I really wanted him refocus back on Tesla. Listen,

0:09:47.920 --> 0:09:51.600
<v Speaker 1>so appreciate your time, great conversation, Ross, and looking forward

0:09:51.640 --> 0:09:54.560
<v Speaker 1>to seeing what comes next. Um Ross Gerber, President, chief

0:09:54.600 --> 0:09:58.640
<v Speaker 1>executive officer at Gerber Kawasaki Wealth and Investment Management, investor

0:09:58.720 --> 0:10:00.719
<v Speaker 1>in Tesla. It is his top hole. We heard him say,

0:10:00.760 --> 0:10:03.960
<v Speaker 1>tempercent waiting in that fund of his and also an

0:10:04.000 --> 0:10:07.239
<v Speaker 1>owner of the cars. Joining us via zoom from Santa Monica, California,

0:10:07.840 --> 0:10:11.360
<v Speaker 1>you're listening to the Bloomberg Business Week podcast. Catch us

0:10:11.440 --> 0:10:14.080
<v Speaker 1>live week days from two to five pm Easter on

0:10:14.160 --> 0:10:17.920
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Radio, the Bloomberg Business Band. You too. You can

0:10:17.960 --> 0:10:21.240
<v Speaker 1>also listen live to our flagship New York station, Just

0:10:21.360 --> 0:10:27.240
<v Speaker 1>Say Alexa Play Bloomberg e Love and Didi Promising and

0:10:27.320 --> 0:10:30.280
<v Speaker 1>watching Blomberg Business Week. On this Tuesday, Carol Master along

0:10:30.280 --> 0:10:33.360
<v Speaker 1>with Madison Mills. So as technology seeks into every walk

0:10:33.400 --> 0:10:36.560
<v Speaker 1>of life, an increasing proportion of Supreme Court decisions require

0:10:36.559 --> 0:10:39.400
<v Speaker 1>at least a basic literacy and subjects that may not

0:10:39.520 --> 0:10:42.640
<v Speaker 1>come naturally to the aging members. Not my words, they

0:10:42.679 --> 0:10:45.040
<v Speaker 1>are the words of Bloomberg's Gregg Store, who writes about it.

0:10:45.320 --> 0:10:47.599
<v Speaker 1>The upcoming new issue of Bloomberg Business Week out on

0:10:47.640 --> 0:10:50.360
<v Speaker 1>newstands later this week, already on the Bloomberg and at

0:10:50.360 --> 0:10:52.560
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg dot com slash business Week. Greg as you know,

0:10:52.640 --> 0:10:55.320
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court reporter here at Bloomberg. He joins us from

0:10:55.360 --> 0:10:57.520
<v Speaker 1>our nine and nine one studio in Washington, d C.

0:10:58.040 --> 0:11:00.360
<v Speaker 1>Also with us, the editor of Bloomberg Business Week to Webber,

0:11:00.440 --> 0:11:03.400
<v Speaker 1>he's in our Bloomberg Interactive Brokers studio. I've often thought

0:11:03.440 --> 0:11:05.440
<v Speaker 1>about this, and we talked about this with lawmakers, like

0:11:05.480 --> 0:11:07.800
<v Speaker 1>do they understand kind of all the high tech stuff

0:11:07.800 --> 0:11:11.760
<v Speaker 1>that they're legislating. Well, that's what Greg came to us

0:11:11.800 --> 0:11:13.920
<v Speaker 1>with UM, and this is just one of those ones

0:11:13.960 --> 0:11:16.960
<v Speaker 1>where he really picked up the phone. He was very excited.

0:11:17.000 --> 0:11:18.360
<v Speaker 1>He was like, Joel Children, I got to talk to

0:11:18.400 --> 0:11:22.679
<v Speaker 1>you about this idea and and it turns out that, um,

0:11:22.720 --> 0:11:25.640
<v Speaker 1>this is not a totally new idea, But it's really

0:11:25.679 --> 0:11:28.040
<v Speaker 1>relevant right now because of the case they're gonna here

0:11:28.120 --> 0:11:32.319
<v Speaker 1>next year, which we will basically focus on section to

0:11:32.559 --> 0:11:36.319
<v Speaker 1>thirty and what that means for the future of the Internet. Um,

0:11:36.360 --> 0:11:38.800
<v Speaker 1>so rewind the clock a little bit for us, Greg

0:11:38.920 --> 0:11:42.640
<v Speaker 1>What what happens when Elena Kagan and Stephen Bryer sit

0:11:42.679 --> 0:11:45.760
<v Speaker 1>down and play Grand Theft Auto like they did about

0:11:45.760 --> 0:11:50.280
<v Speaker 1>a decade ago. We just soak in that moment for her. Yeah,

0:11:50.320 --> 0:11:51.640
<v Speaker 1>I wish I could have been a fly on the

0:11:51.640 --> 0:11:54.079
<v Speaker 1>wall for that that one. Yeah, this is a case

0:11:54.120 --> 0:11:57.520
<v Speaker 1>about a decade ago. It was a California law that

0:11:57.600 --> 0:12:00.280
<v Speaker 1>banned the sale of violent video games to my ears,

0:12:00.679 --> 0:12:04.520
<v Speaker 1>and so Justice brier who was then in his early seventies,

0:12:04.640 --> 0:12:07.080
<v Speaker 1>and Justice Kagan decided, we don't know a whole lot

0:12:07.120 --> 0:12:09.360
<v Speaker 1>about violent video games, so we're going to check them out.

0:12:09.440 --> 0:12:12.200
<v Speaker 1>And so, uh, they had it set up in Justice

0:12:12.200 --> 0:12:16.559
<v Speaker 1>Briar's chambers and went down there and played Grand Theft

0:12:16.600 --> 0:12:19.040
<v Speaker 1>Auto to try to learn a little bit about it.

0:12:19.080 --> 0:12:21.960
<v Speaker 1>And as it turns out, according to Justice Kagan, she

0:12:22.040 --> 0:12:23.960
<v Speaker 1>was a lot more enthusiastic about it than he was.

0:12:24.000 --> 0:12:26.480
<v Speaker 1>He thought it was really awful and disgusting and she

0:12:26.679 --> 0:12:30.960
<v Speaker 1>was like, next round, next round. Uh, you know, we

0:12:31.000 --> 0:12:33.480
<v Speaker 1>have more, we have more reporting to do on Kagan's

0:12:33.559 --> 0:12:36.080
<v Speaker 1>video game obsession, if it, if it became that, you know,

0:12:36.120 --> 0:12:38.520
<v Speaker 1>including maybe what console she's in do But to keep

0:12:38.520 --> 0:12:40.920
<v Speaker 1>it back on the Supreme Court. Um, you know, we're

0:12:41.320 --> 0:12:44.880
<v Speaker 1>obviously Briar's not going to be on the bench when

0:12:45.080 --> 0:12:47.760
<v Speaker 1>they hear this case next week. But what what do

0:12:47.800 --> 0:12:50.040
<v Speaker 1>they have to do in order to get ready for

0:12:50.200 --> 0:12:52.079
<v Speaker 1>a big case like the one they're going to hear

0:12:52.120 --> 0:12:55.760
<v Speaker 1>when maybe they don't have as much expertise as people

0:12:55.760 --> 0:12:59.120
<v Speaker 1>in the industry might. Well, the short answer is they

0:12:59.200 --> 0:13:01.040
<v Speaker 1>do a lot of res with a lot of help

0:13:01.080 --> 0:13:03.160
<v Speaker 1>from people around the court. You know, all of them

0:13:03.280 --> 0:13:07.120
<v Speaker 1>have four twenty something are generally twenty something law clerks

0:13:07.200 --> 0:13:09.040
<v Speaker 1>who can help him out. They've also got a whole

0:13:09.160 --> 0:13:12.240
<v Speaker 1>courthouse full of people. So there's a case back in

0:13:12.240 --> 0:13:16.560
<v Speaker 1>the late nineteen nineties having to do with restrictions on

0:13:16.720 --> 0:13:19.360
<v Speaker 1>posting adult oriented material in the way that children might

0:13:19.360 --> 0:13:22.880
<v Speaker 1>see them. And so i was back before the court

0:13:22.960 --> 0:13:25.640
<v Speaker 1>was really connected to the internet. And so they set

0:13:25.679 --> 0:13:27.640
<v Speaker 1>up a computer in the library where justices and their

0:13:27.679 --> 0:13:30.680
<v Speaker 1>clerks would go there and and uh, you know, put

0:13:30.679 --> 0:13:33.000
<v Speaker 1>in searches to see if you know, pornography popped up

0:13:33.080 --> 0:13:36.280
<v Speaker 1>or something like that. UH. In a more recent case,

0:13:36.320 --> 0:13:39.440
<v Speaker 1>I actually talked to Justice Bryer interviewed him last week,

0:13:39.480 --> 0:13:42.960
<v Speaker 1>and he said, this is a copyright case involving Google

0:13:43.000 --> 0:13:44.880
<v Speaker 1>and Oracle, and he said he just spent a lot

0:13:44.920 --> 0:13:48.200
<v Speaker 1>of time trying to understand the Java programming language and

0:13:48.240 --> 0:13:51.600
<v Speaker 1>how it worked, because that was central to the case

0:13:51.600 --> 0:13:57.199
<v Speaker 1>whether Google infringed Oracles copyright and UH spent a lot

0:13:57.200 --> 0:13:59.440
<v Speaker 1>of time. He has a very lengthy explanation in his

0:13:59.480 --> 0:14:02.840
<v Speaker 1>opinion siding with Google. UH that for the most part,

0:14:02.880 --> 0:14:05.559
<v Speaker 1>was pretty well received in terms of understanding the technology

0:14:05.559 --> 0:14:07.440
<v Speaker 1>at issue in the case. I would love to be

0:14:07.480 --> 0:14:09.080
<v Speaker 1>on the fly, a fly on the wall when they

0:14:09.080 --> 0:14:11.800
<v Speaker 1>try to teach lawmakers about TikTok and the importance of

0:14:11.840 --> 0:14:15.920
<v Speaker 1>that moving forward. You got to open it and spent

0:14:16.000 --> 0:14:19.400
<v Speaker 1>about five hours a day on it. But in all seriousness, Greg,

0:14:19.680 --> 0:14:21.560
<v Speaker 1>you know, to be fair to scout this. This is

0:14:21.600 --> 0:14:24.520
<v Speaker 1>an issue that plagues a lot of lawmakers. We always

0:14:24.520 --> 0:14:26.960
<v Speaker 1>hear these funny sound bites from members of Congress too,

0:14:27.080 --> 0:14:29.160
<v Speaker 1>when they're you know, in a social media hearing or

0:14:29.160 --> 0:14:32.640
<v Speaker 1>crypto hearing for example, we remember dog Coin from the

0:14:32.720 --> 0:14:35.720
<v Speaker 1>ft X hearing the Internet runs on tubes most yes,

0:14:35.800 --> 0:14:38.600
<v Speaker 1>exactly exactly. So how how does Scout is compared to

0:14:38.640 --> 0:14:42.240
<v Speaker 1>Congress when it comes to understanding the Internet. Yes, it's

0:14:42.240 --> 0:14:45.040
<v Speaker 1>a good question, Madison. There there are certainly some examples

0:14:45.080 --> 0:14:48.000
<v Speaker 1>of the Supreme Court saying similar type things. Maybe not

0:14:48.080 --> 0:14:49.920
<v Speaker 1>quite as bad as you know, the Internet being a

0:14:50.520 --> 0:14:53.080
<v Speaker 1>collection of tubes. But you know, over the years, the

0:14:53.120 --> 0:14:56.720
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court is asked some questions during arguments that suggests, yeah,

0:14:56.760 --> 0:15:00.240
<v Speaker 1>they may not understand the technology. But I think there

0:15:00.240 --> 0:15:02.840
<v Speaker 1>are a couple of important points. One, the Court has

0:15:02.840 --> 0:15:07.359
<v Speaker 1>gotten younger, so you have more justices who are uh,

0:15:07.400 --> 0:15:09.480
<v Speaker 1>you know, in their fifties rather than in their seventies

0:15:09.520 --> 0:15:12.160
<v Speaker 1>and eighties, or maybe understand the technology a little better.

0:15:12.480 --> 0:15:16.120
<v Speaker 1>Uh they have kids as well. And secondly, regardless of

0:15:16.120 --> 0:15:18.160
<v Speaker 1>the age of the justices, for the most part, when

0:15:18.200 --> 0:15:20.880
<v Speaker 1>I talk to people, actually almost entirely when I talk

0:15:20.920 --> 0:15:26.359
<v Speaker 1>to people, they said, despite some occasionally uh confused sounding questions,

0:15:26.560 --> 0:15:28.680
<v Speaker 1>the Court generally does a pretty good job by the

0:15:28.760 --> 0:15:30.160
<v Speaker 1>end of the day when it puts out the really

0:15:30.160 --> 0:15:33.760
<v Speaker 1>important thing, which are its opinions, And no doubt that

0:15:33.760 --> 0:15:35.560
<v Speaker 1>does get some help from the law clerks who maybe

0:15:35.640 --> 0:15:39.520
<v Speaker 1>understand the technology better. Uh. But but for the most part,

0:15:39.600 --> 0:15:41.520
<v Speaker 1>the court based on the people I talked to them,

0:15:41.520 --> 0:15:44.440
<v Speaker 1>My reporting gets better grades than than a lot of

0:15:44.480 --> 0:15:48.360
<v Speaker 1>members of Congress do. Greg. So, what's at stake with

0:15:48.440 --> 0:15:50.920
<v Speaker 1>the case that they're going to hear next week and

0:15:51.200 --> 0:15:53.840
<v Speaker 1>what exactly is it? What are they gonna hear? Yeah,

0:15:54.040 --> 0:15:56.400
<v Speaker 1>so this is as you said, this is an argument

0:15:56.440 --> 0:16:00.640
<v Speaker 1>they're going to have on a Tuesday of next week Tuesday,

0:16:00.640 --> 0:16:04.520
<v Speaker 1>and a somewhat less important case case on on Wednesday.

0:16:04.840 --> 0:16:07.200
<v Speaker 1>The Tuesday case is all about the saying called Section

0:16:07.240 --> 0:16:10.960
<v Speaker 1>to thirty, which has been around sin It basically shields

0:16:11.000 --> 0:16:15.760
<v Speaker 1>social media companies other Internet companies from liability because of

0:16:15.840 --> 0:16:19.200
<v Speaker 1>posts put up by their users by third parties. And

0:16:19.240 --> 0:16:21.760
<v Speaker 1>that has basically served as a very broad shield for

0:16:21.880 --> 0:16:25.160
<v Speaker 1>Internet companies. And this is the case involving a lawsuit

0:16:25.240 --> 0:16:31.720
<v Speaker 1>by the victim, the family of a terrorism victim, saying Google,

0:16:31.840 --> 0:16:37.280
<v Speaker 1>through its YouTube service, UH, basically recommended terrorists content, terrorists

0:16:37.360 --> 0:16:41.920
<v Speaker 1>videos and provided support to ISIS. And the question is

0:16:41.960 --> 0:16:45.400
<v Speaker 1>whether that lawsuit can can even get in the door.

0:16:45.480 --> 0:16:47.440
<v Speaker 1>If the Supreme Court says yes, it can get in

0:16:47.440 --> 0:16:49.480
<v Speaker 1>the door. We're carving out a bit of a bit

0:16:49.520 --> 0:16:53.520
<v Speaker 1>of an exception to section to thirty. Computer companies social

0:16:53.520 --> 0:16:56.400
<v Speaker 1>media companies say, we are really worried that there will

0:16:56.400 --> 0:16:58.880
<v Speaker 1>be no stopping that and and that that will force

0:16:58.960 --> 0:17:02.080
<v Speaker 1>us to be a lot more restrictive about the content

0:17:02.280 --> 0:17:04.879
<v Speaker 1>that our members are users can put up on the

0:17:04.880 --> 0:17:07.879
<v Speaker 1>Internet because we're worried about being sued over it. Okay,

0:17:07.920 --> 0:17:10.840
<v Speaker 1>so what does industry have to say about this? And

0:17:10.960 --> 0:17:15.520
<v Speaker 1>this won't be the only two thirty case that they hear, right, well, so,

0:17:15.520 --> 0:17:17.840
<v Speaker 1>so they have a two thirty case on Tuesday, as

0:17:17.840 --> 0:17:20.520
<v Speaker 1>they said, there's a second case on Wednesday involving Twitter,

0:17:20.560 --> 0:17:23.760
<v Speaker 1>and it's actually kind of a related question about whether

0:17:25.000 --> 0:17:27.280
<v Speaker 1>the family of a terrorist victim can sue under this

0:17:27.359 --> 0:17:30.919
<v Speaker 1>law that's it's called the Anti Terrorism Act. Uh. You know,

0:17:31.000 --> 0:17:34.400
<v Speaker 1>the industry is basically saying this case has the potential

0:17:34.560 --> 0:17:38.200
<v Speaker 1>to really transform the Internet, and not in a good way.

0:17:38.359 --> 0:17:40.719
<v Speaker 1>It will force us to be it could force us

0:17:40.720 --> 0:17:44.360
<v Speaker 1>to be censors to a large degree, it could restrict

0:17:44.400 --> 0:17:48.200
<v Speaker 1>speech on the Internet. And they are arguing that there's

0:17:48.200 --> 0:17:50.480
<v Speaker 1>going to be a carve out in section to thirty.

0:17:50.560 --> 0:17:52.600
<v Speaker 1>This is really something that Congress ought to be able

0:17:52.640 --> 0:17:55.080
<v Speaker 1>to do, because it can be a lot more precise

0:17:55.560 --> 0:17:57.440
<v Speaker 1>rather than the kind of the blunt instrument of a

0:17:57.480 --> 0:18:00.520
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court opinion. Let's just hope they haven't playing video

0:18:00.520 --> 0:18:05.080
<v Speaker 1>games exactly. Oh my god, that image. Um Gregg Store,

0:18:05.119 --> 0:18:07.320
<v Speaker 1>thank you so much. He is, of course, Supreme Court reporter.

0:18:07.359 --> 0:18:09.000
<v Speaker 1>Here at Bloomberg News from our not and I One

0:18:09.040 --> 0:18:11.720
<v Speaker 1>studio in Washington, DC, are thanks to Joel Weber, the

0:18:11.880 --> 0:18:14.040
<v Speaker 1>editor of Bloomberg business Week. This story, as we mentioned

0:18:14.080 --> 0:18:16.240
<v Speaker 1>in the upcoming new issue of Business Week, out on

0:18:16.320 --> 0:18:20.720
<v Speaker 1>newsstands already on the Bloomberg and Bloomberg dot Com. You're

0:18:20.760 --> 0:18:24.359
<v Speaker 1>listening to the Bloomberg Business Week Podcast. Catch us live

0:18:24.440 --> 0:18:27.800
<v Speaker 1>week days from two to five pm Easter on Bloomberg Radio,

0:18:27.960 --> 0:18:30.880
<v Speaker 1>the Bloomberg Business app band you too. You can also

0:18:30.960 --> 0:18:34.879
<v Speaker 1>listen live to our flagship New York station, Just Say Alexa,

0:18:35.080 --> 0:18:40.320
<v Speaker 1>Play Bloomberg, e Love and Verdi. We mentioned higher price

0:18:40.359 --> 0:18:43.240
<v Speaker 1>as we mentioned inflation. So this is a perfect segue

0:18:43.400 --> 0:18:45.240
<v Speaker 1>to our next story, which is a most read on

0:18:45.280 --> 0:18:47.800
<v Speaker 1>the Bloomberg. It's the Bloomberg Big Take. It's about car

0:18:47.880 --> 0:18:50.520
<v Speaker 1>prices in the US hitting a record. I want to

0:18:50.560 --> 0:18:52.800
<v Speaker 1>get right to it because Bloomberg Detroit. Your chief David

0:18:52.840 --> 0:18:56.119
<v Speaker 1>Welch joins us via zoom from Detroit. David, good to

0:18:56.119 --> 0:18:58.680
<v Speaker 1>have you here with Maddie and myself. So tell me

0:18:58.960 --> 0:19:01.040
<v Speaker 1>what's going on. Although it's not a surprise because my

0:19:01.119 --> 0:19:03.080
<v Speaker 1>husband I were looking at car prices and we were like,

0:19:03.119 --> 0:19:08.560
<v Speaker 1>oh god, oh my god, everything's expensive. Yeah. Look, it's

0:19:08.720 --> 0:19:13.040
<v Speaker 1>it's started with the pandemic because you had production constrained. Obviously,

0:19:13.359 --> 0:19:16.560
<v Speaker 1>factories shut down and got worse with the semiconductor shortage,

0:19:16.800 --> 0:19:19.200
<v Speaker 1>and now you've got high interest rates. So car payments

0:19:19.200 --> 0:19:22.040
<v Speaker 1>are at a record seven seventy a month for new

0:19:22.080 --> 0:19:26.159
<v Speaker 1>cars and about five fifty for use cars, which is

0:19:26.240 --> 0:19:30.160
<v Speaker 1>quite a lot um. So what has happened up there's

0:19:30.200 --> 0:19:34.000
<v Speaker 1>because of the semi conductor shortage. Production was slashed at factories.

0:19:34.400 --> 0:19:37.280
<v Speaker 1>Dealers had shortages. They're often selling vehicles right off the

0:19:37.280 --> 0:19:39.480
<v Speaker 1>trucks as they came in, prepping them and handing them

0:19:39.480 --> 0:19:42.360
<v Speaker 1>over the consumers who paid for them weeks before, and

0:19:42.400 --> 0:19:46.480
<v Speaker 1>so dealers were charging above sticker. Automakers were getting maximum price.

0:19:46.520 --> 0:19:50.439
<v Speaker 1>There was no rebating, no zero percent financing deals, and

0:19:50.480 --> 0:19:55.159
<v Speaker 1>they were also raising prices over the base. You know,

0:19:55.200 --> 0:19:58.720
<v Speaker 1>the M S R. P has gone up about over

0:19:59.119 --> 0:20:01.960
<v Speaker 1>for a lot of vehicles over the past to three years.

0:20:02.000 --> 0:20:05.840
<v Speaker 1>So it's all very expensive and it could come down

0:20:05.920 --> 0:20:10.040
<v Speaker 1>and probably will soften up as uh sending conductor production

0:20:10.040 --> 0:20:12.560
<v Speaker 1>gets back and it is coming back. But in order

0:20:12.600 --> 0:20:14.960
<v Speaker 1>for vehicles to get as affordable as they were three

0:20:15.040 --> 0:20:20.080
<v Speaker 1>years ago, vehicle prices will have to basically crater, and

0:20:20.240 --> 0:20:22.720
<v Speaker 1>I just don't see that happening. I think they will

0:20:22.760 --> 0:20:24.360
<v Speaker 1>come down a bit, but I think it's gonna be

0:20:24.480 --> 0:20:26.320
<v Speaker 1>We're gonna be paying more for a while, and a

0:20:26.320 --> 0:20:30.520
<v Speaker 1>lot of middle class people cannot sensibly afford these new cars.

0:20:30.680 --> 0:20:32.960
<v Speaker 1>It's like you said, the average monthly payment of seven

0:20:33.000 --> 0:20:36.040
<v Speaker 1>hundred and seventy seven dollars is insane. Another stat that

0:20:36.119 --> 0:20:39.120
<v Speaker 1>was jaw dropping to me of the market for these

0:20:39.160 --> 0:20:43.119
<v Speaker 1>cars is of people who make a d fifty thou

0:20:43.520 --> 0:20:45.560
<v Speaker 1>a year. Is that right? Am I saying that statistic? Right?

0:20:45.600 --> 0:20:49.400
<v Speaker 1>That is crazy to me. I wonder people are paying

0:20:49.400 --> 0:20:51.640
<v Speaker 1>a thousand dollars a month a third of the new

0:20:51.680 --> 0:20:55.399
<v Speaker 1>car buyers. That's that's just it's so it's wild, wild

0:20:55.480 --> 0:20:58.800
<v Speaker 1>numbers here. I wonder just outside the norm these numbers are, though,

0:20:58.840 --> 0:21:02.480
<v Speaker 1>Could you put it into contact for US. So for

0:21:02.600 --> 0:21:05.440
<v Speaker 1>most of the past decade, the average new car monthly

0:21:05.480 --> 0:21:09.439
<v Speaker 1>payment was bouncing around four ten a month, and and

0:21:09.480 --> 0:21:13.400
<v Speaker 1>there's a reason for that that the economist and Cocks,

0:21:13.400 --> 0:21:16.920
<v Speaker 1>by their measurements, about four hundred a month is what

0:21:17.640 --> 0:21:21.439
<v Speaker 1>middle income households should be paying for a new car payment,

0:21:22.280 --> 0:21:25.240
<v Speaker 1>so that they can responsibly put some money away, safer

0:21:25.280 --> 0:21:29.760
<v Speaker 1>college education, you know, pay their mortgage, healthcare bills, the

0:21:29.800 --> 0:21:31.879
<v Speaker 1>rest of it. That that's sort of a responsible payment,

0:21:32.480 --> 0:21:35.400
<v Speaker 1>and for the longest time, it was where consumers would

0:21:35.440 --> 0:21:38.840
<v Speaker 1>give pushback above. So those payments stayed around at that

0:21:39.040 --> 0:21:42.280
<v Speaker 1>level for at least ten years. In fact, they were

0:21:42.320 --> 0:21:44.840
<v Speaker 1>lower than that for a long time, and that's why

0:21:44.880 --> 0:21:47.919
<v Speaker 1>you saw four or five dollar rebates and financing deals

0:21:47.920 --> 0:21:50.840
<v Speaker 1>and a lot of leasing. Leasing is another thing that's

0:21:50.920 --> 0:21:53.760
<v Speaker 1>that's been on the decline. Once car companies had a

0:21:53.840 --> 0:21:56.880
<v Speaker 1>shortage and they didn't have to discount, they realized, hey,

0:21:56.960 --> 0:21:59.359
<v Speaker 1>we make a lot of money selling fewer cars at

0:21:59.440 --> 0:22:02.840
<v Speaker 1>much bigger David, going to stick to that, David, I

0:22:02.840 --> 0:22:05.119
<v Speaker 1>feel like everybody took an economics one on one class,

0:22:05.119 --> 0:22:08.040
<v Speaker 1>like supply demand, right, so you know, reduce the supply,

0:22:08.840 --> 0:22:10.720
<v Speaker 1>there's going to be greater demand and you can keep

0:22:10.800 --> 0:22:13.320
<v Speaker 1>up the prices. I almost feel like it's the airline model,

0:22:13.400 --> 0:22:17.320
<v Speaker 1>like taking out capacity to some extent. Is it going

0:22:17.359 --> 0:22:20.159
<v Speaker 1>to be a different model going forward in terms of

0:22:20.200 --> 0:22:22.960
<v Speaker 1>the auto industry, And is some of it also going

0:22:23.000 --> 0:22:25.760
<v Speaker 1>after those higher margins to help pay for the transition

0:22:25.840 --> 0:22:30.679
<v Speaker 1>to renewable fuels and alternative energy vehicles. I'll take your

0:22:30.760 --> 0:22:34.280
<v Speaker 1>last question first. It is car companies need to generate

0:22:34.320 --> 0:22:38.160
<v Speaker 1>a lot of cash to pay for battery plants and

0:22:39.680 --> 0:22:43.040
<v Speaker 1>electric vehicle platforms and motors and all of that stuff.

0:22:43.080 --> 0:22:47.760
<v Speaker 1>It's a very expensive transition, and they're ironically paying forward

0:22:47.840 --> 0:22:50.520
<v Speaker 1>with the expensive pickup trucks that get very bad feel

0:22:50.600 --> 0:22:54.760
<v Speaker 1>kind of. UM. So that that's absolutely true. They need

0:22:54.800 --> 0:22:57.200
<v Speaker 1>to generate as much cash as they can. Whether or

0:22:57.240 --> 0:22:58.960
<v Speaker 1>not they will stick to this model is sort of

0:22:59.000 --> 0:23:02.240
<v Speaker 1>the That's like the six hundred and sixty billion dollar question.

0:23:02.920 --> 0:23:05.600
<v Speaker 1>And I picked that number all because that's the revenue

0:23:05.600 --> 0:23:08.520
<v Speaker 1>they got to, which was greater than the year before

0:23:08.560 --> 0:23:12.760
<v Speaker 1>while selling a fewer vehicles. UM actually brought grew revenue

0:23:12.760 --> 0:23:17.200
<v Speaker 1>while selling fewer cars. UM. They're going to try. It

0:23:17.480 --> 0:23:20.040
<v Speaker 1>only takes one or two competitors to break ranks. And

0:23:20.080 --> 0:23:22.760
<v Speaker 1>start discounting. So here here's what I think will happen.

0:23:23.520 --> 0:23:26.880
<v Speaker 1>UM car companies used to carry on average eighty days

0:23:26.880 --> 0:23:30.240
<v Speaker 1>worth the vehicles on de Ro Watson in the pipeline,

0:23:30.520 --> 0:23:32.480
<v Speaker 1>and that's when they were in the habit of discounting

0:23:32.480 --> 0:23:34.480
<v Speaker 1>like crazy. They ran their factories as hot as they

0:23:34.520 --> 0:23:37.640
<v Speaker 1>could build tons of inventory, discounted it to sell it.

0:23:38.240 --> 0:23:40.720
<v Speaker 1>They want to keep like fifty or sixty days or

0:23:40.760 --> 0:23:44.119
<v Speaker 1>maybe forty or fifty days. That way, they're not discounting

0:23:44.119 --> 0:23:46.040
<v Speaker 1>as much to move it. They can get better pricing,

0:23:46.119 --> 0:23:48.920
<v Speaker 1>but they do have better choice for consumers, and people

0:23:48.960 --> 0:23:51.560
<v Speaker 1>aren't going away frustrated. So I do think we're at

0:23:51.560 --> 0:23:53.840
<v Speaker 1>a peak for praising right now. It will soften up

0:23:53.880 --> 0:23:56.520
<v Speaker 1>and come down. I don't think it's going to come

0:23:56.560 --> 0:23:59.679
<v Speaker 1>crashing down to the point where we're seeing four a

0:23:59.680 --> 0:24:02.040
<v Speaker 1>month average payments. Again, I think affordability is going to

0:24:02.080 --> 0:24:05.439
<v Speaker 1>be an issue going forward, unless there's we do go

0:24:05.480 --> 0:24:08.000
<v Speaker 1>into a recession and things have to go back to

0:24:08.040 --> 0:24:12.199
<v Speaker 1>normal just to move vehicles. Uh So, if we do

0:24:12.240 --> 0:24:14.880
<v Speaker 1>stay out of recession, and you know, employment levels are

0:24:14.880 --> 0:24:18.760
<v Speaker 1>great right now, everybody's working, I think we're gonna have

0:24:18.840 --> 0:24:22.920
<v Speaker 1>a tough time getting back to those normal price levels.

0:24:23.760 --> 0:24:26.120
<v Speaker 1>One other reason to Toyota and GM only think we're

0:24:26.119 --> 0:24:28.959
<v Speaker 1>gonna have enough semi conductor chips to make about fifteen

0:24:28.960 --> 0:24:31.920
<v Speaker 1>million vehicles for the US this year, and those normal

0:24:32.000 --> 0:24:35.560
<v Speaker 1>days with four month price payments, we're making seventeen seventeen

0:24:35.560 --> 0:24:37.800
<v Speaker 1>and a half million vehicles a year, So we're still

0:24:38.119 --> 0:24:40.800
<v Speaker 1>all the way out of the chip graces. Yeah, and

0:24:40.840 --> 0:24:44.280
<v Speaker 1>that's another critical factor. Does market share come into play here?

0:24:44.320 --> 0:24:46.399
<v Speaker 1>This is always what I cling to when I'm hoping

0:24:46.440 --> 0:24:49.960
<v Speaker 1>that I'll get to see some more friendly prices for consumers.

0:24:50.200 --> 0:24:54.720
<v Speaker 1>You know, if every single automaker is gonna raise prices,

0:24:55.280 --> 0:24:57.439
<v Speaker 1>is there not an opportunity for someone to come in

0:24:57.480 --> 0:24:59.840
<v Speaker 1>and gain some more market share with a cheaper option.

0:25:01.080 --> 0:25:02.760
<v Speaker 1>There is, And that's why I do think we're going

0:25:02.840 --> 0:25:07.560
<v Speaker 1>to see prices come down. That the trouble is, the

0:25:07.840 --> 0:25:10.919
<v Speaker 1>story is. And look, I've got plenty of critics online saying, oh,

0:25:10.960 --> 0:25:13.000
<v Speaker 1>the car companies are gonna go back to their old habits.

0:25:13.240 --> 0:25:15.119
<v Speaker 1>And they might, but I think it will take a

0:25:15.119 --> 0:25:17.240
<v Speaker 1>while because we're not out of the woods on semiconductors,

0:25:17.240 --> 0:25:19.760
<v Speaker 1>and I do think they're going to try really hard

0:25:20.160 --> 0:25:24.800
<v Speaker 1>to maintain pricing and you will get in this. They're

0:25:24.840 --> 0:25:26.600
<v Speaker 1>going to look for a sweet spot where they can

0:25:26.800 --> 0:25:29.960
<v Speaker 1>get a good get better volumes than they have in

0:25:29.960 --> 0:25:33.560
<v Speaker 1>the last two years, but also better pricing and and

0:25:33.600 --> 0:25:35.840
<v Speaker 1>they probably know what that sweets, but is in fact,

0:25:35.960 --> 0:25:38.560
<v Speaker 1>I think it probably is around fifteen million vehicles a

0:25:38.640 --> 0:25:41.360
<v Speaker 1>year um. At some point they may have to get

0:25:41.400 --> 0:25:42.840
<v Speaker 1>in because we also we don't have a lot of

0:25:43.000 --> 0:25:45.919
<v Speaker 1>used cars coming back. The other side of this is

0:25:46.560 --> 0:25:49.560
<v Speaker 1>this year will have six hundred thousand fewer used vehicles

0:25:49.600 --> 0:25:51.600
<v Speaker 1>coming off of least because for the last couple of

0:25:51.680 --> 0:25:55.280
<v Speaker 1>years of buyers at least, and it was traditionally thirty

0:25:55.720 --> 0:25:58.920
<v Speaker 1>so you've got a big drop in leasing. And leasing

0:25:58.960 --> 0:26:01.200
<v Speaker 1>has always brought three four year old vehicles that were

0:26:01.200 --> 0:26:03.200
<v Speaker 1>still in pretty good shape a little miles coming back

0:26:03.240 --> 0:26:06.199
<v Speaker 1>into the used market. So there's there's going to be

0:26:06.240 --> 0:26:09.800
<v Speaker 1>a bit of a shortage from those off police vehicles

0:26:09.800 --> 0:26:12.520
<v Speaker 1>that will even though use car prices are also softening,

0:26:12.560 --> 0:26:14.800
<v Speaker 1>but they're sort of it puts a little bit of

0:26:14.800 --> 0:26:18.399
<v Speaker 1>a floor under it. So again all these factors I

0:26:18.400 --> 0:26:21.320
<v Speaker 1>look at, Yeah, vehicle prices will come down, it's not

0:26:21.359 --> 0:26:26.040
<v Speaker 1>going to be crazy sellers market forever, but they have

0:26:26.119 --> 0:26:28.000
<v Speaker 1>to come crashing down, and I don't think they will

0:26:28.040 --> 0:26:30.520
<v Speaker 1>in the next you know, eighteen months or so. All right,

0:26:30.560 --> 0:26:31.840
<v Speaker 1>so I'm going to put off buying a car for

0:26:31.920 --> 0:26:35.080
<v Speaker 1>eighteen months at least, grateful to take the subway, which

0:26:35.359 --> 0:26:38.160
<v Speaker 1>is not something I feel that often. So in that way,

0:26:38.200 --> 0:26:43.040
<v Speaker 1>I'm really like thankful for this story. I lived in

0:26:43.040 --> 0:26:44.720
<v Speaker 1>New Jersey when I worked in you know that the

0:26:44.760 --> 0:26:49.199
<v Speaker 1>headquarters at Bloomberg New Jersey transit in the subway. It

0:26:49.280 --> 0:26:51.639
<v Speaker 1>made me to love sitting on the GW bridge and

0:26:51.760 --> 0:26:53.719
<v Speaker 1>like many trying to get across to I think I'm

0:26:53.720 --> 0:26:56.440
<v Speaker 1>talking to working it so bad. Yeah, um, David, thank

0:26:56.440 --> 0:26:59.440
<v Speaker 1>you so much Bloomberg to Tripio chief David Welch. As

0:26:59.440 --> 0:27:02.320
<v Speaker 1>we said, it is the big take on the Bloomberg

0:27:02.840 --> 0:27:06.000
<v Speaker 1>and you can certainly catch the Bloomberg Big Take on

0:27:06.240 --> 0:27:10.240
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Radio every evening at eleven pm Wall Street Time.

0:27:10.480 --> 0:27:12.880
<v Speaker 1>Aren't you listening in watching Bloomberg Business Week Carol Master

0:27:12.960 --> 0:27:17.919
<v Speaker 1>along with Madison Mills, And this is Bloomberg. This is

0:27:18.040 --> 0:27:22.160
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Business Week inside from the reporters and editors who

0:27:22.200 --> 0:27:26.200
<v Speaker 1>bring you America's most trusted business magazine, plus blomal Business

0:27:26.240 --> 0:27:30.440
<v Speaker 1>finance and tech news. The Bloomberg Business Week Podcast with

0:27:30.520 --> 0:27:41.440
<v Speaker 1>Carol Masser and Tim Stinebec from Bloomberg Radio Roomercael the

0:27:41.640 --> 0:27:44.959
<v Speaker 1>Journal Now, but you let me drive? Oh no, no,

0:27:44.960 --> 0:27:50.480
<v Speaker 1>no, no no, who's going home? Please? I'll do the riding revels.

0:27:50.880 --> 0:27:59.320
<v Speaker 1>I want to drive. It's good question. This is the

0:27:59.440 --> 0:28:06.640
<v Speaker 1>Drive to Clue Radio. All right, everybody, Just about seventeen

0:28:06.640 --> 0:28:09.359
<v Speaker 1>minutes left in today's trading session. Carol Master along with

0:28:09.400 --> 0:28:12.520
<v Speaker 1>Madison Mills, live in our Bloomberg Interactive Broker's studio, streaming

0:28:12.520 --> 0:28:15.080
<v Speaker 1>on Bloomberg Originals and of course on YouTube. Let's get

0:28:15.160 --> 0:28:17.560
<v Speaker 1>right to it. You heard Charlie breaking down the numbers.

0:28:17.560 --> 0:28:19.440
<v Speaker 1>But let's get to our Drive to the Close. Guest,

0:28:19.680 --> 0:28:21.800
<v Speaker 1>Doug Sioca is back with us. He see you, and

0:28:21.840 --> 0:28:24.960
<v Speaker 1>partner at our Capital Partners. They've got roughly a billion

0:28:25.000 --> 0:28:27.560
<v Speaker 1>dollars over a billion dollars in assets under management. And

0:28:27.640 --> 0:28:30.399
<v Speaker 1>Doug is based in Leewood, Kansas, and that's where we

0:28:30.440 --> 0:28:33.680
<v Speaker 1>find him via zoom. And I am completely disappointed because

0:28:33.720 --> 0:28:36.360
<v Speaker 1>I don't see any of the red and yellow on you.

0:28:36.520 --> 0:28:41.160
<v Speaker 1>Come on the Chiefs one, the Chiefs one. The town's

0:28:41.200 --> 0:28:44.520
<v Speaker 1>in an incredibly celebratory mood. We got clients and friends

0:28:44.520 --> 0:28:47.920
<v Speaker 1>in Philly, so we wanted to keep a pretty neutral posture.

0:28:47.960 --> 0:28:50.080
<v Speaker 1>But I'll tell you what it's it's a great time

0:28:50.120 --> 0:28:52.360
<v Speaker 1>to be in Kansas City. We absolutely love this team.

0:28:52.480 --> 0:28:54.440
<v Speaker 1>It was I don't blame you. It was a great

0:28:54.480 --> 0:28:58.280
<v Speaker 1>game and they are an incredible team. Um, incredible market.

0:28:58.360 --> 0:29:01.560
<v Speaker 1>How do you describe it, Doug? Yeah, I mean the

0:29:01.600 --> 0:29:04.640
<v Speaker 1>mark has been very resilient and undeniably and you know,

0:29:04.680 --> 0:29:09.360
<v Speaker 1>I think it's it's interesting because, um, it's almost pollyannish

0:29:09.520 --> 0:29:14.160
<v Speaker 1>to suggest that a soft landing is possible. It's not

0:29:14.280 --> 0:29:17.959
<v Speaker 1>very popular opinion, right, But when you take strong employment

0:29:18.000 --> 0:29:21.400
<v Speaker 1>combined with moderate wage growth comblined combined with a shrinking

0:29:21.400 --> 0:29:26.400
<v Speaker 1>balance sheet, declining product inflation, improving non housing services inflation,

0:29:26.840 --> 0:29:31.200
<v Speaker 1>and pretty resilient profitability, resilient profit reporting coming out of

0:29:31.640 --> 0:29:33.640
<v Speaker 1>the fourth quarter, I don't know. I think you can

0:29:33.720 --> 0:29:35.600
<v Speaker 1>make the case, and I think the market's reflecting such.

0:29:35.720 --> 0:29:37.760
<v Speaker 1>Can I just say, Ken Rogoff, I've been obsessed with

0:29:37.760 --> 0:29:40.480
<v Speaker 1>this interview he did on Surveillance earlier and he said, thanks,

0:29:40.520 --> 0:29:42.959
<v Speaker 1>soft landing without the landing, I mean, and this is

0:29:42.960 --> 0:29:45.680
<v Speaker 1>that kind of whether it's the rolling recession idea or

0:29:46.000 --> 0:29:48.320
<v Speaker 1>lack there of a recession like this whole idea that

0:29:48.400 --> 0:29:52.680
<v Speaker 1>everybody is kind of confused, UG that we are seeing

0:29:53.280 --> 0:29:56.160
<v Speaker 1>still that strong labor market, that maybe we won't ultimately

0:29:56.200 --> 0:29:59.760
<v Speaker 1>see growth come undone um despite the FED continuing to

0:29:59.800 --> 0:30:02.840
<v Speaker 1>raise rates. Yeah. I actually saw an interview this morning

0:30:02.880 --> 0:30:07.480
<v Speaker 1>and it followed one by the Richmond Fed President's Top Barkin,

0:30:08.320 --> 0:30:11.120
<v Speaker 1>and he made a good a couple of great comments

0:30:11.120 --> 0:30:13.920
<v Speaker 1>in their carol. But the two actually wrote down one was,

0:30:14.560 --> 0:30:16.760
<v Speaker 1>you know, managing markets as a fool's errand, and I

0:30:16.800 --> 0:30:20.000
<v Speaker 1>feel like the FED governing body feels like that is

0:30:20.000 --> 0:30:24.440
<v Speaker 1>a responsibility of theirs to assess their commentary on interday

0:30:24.480 --> 0:30:27.320
<v Speaker 1>activity in both the VIX and the SMP hundred, I

0:30:27.320 --> 0:30:29.720
<v Speaker 1>don't know that that's a wise allocation of their time

0:30:29.760 --> 0:30:32.560
<v Speaker 1>and effort. But the other the comment that that the

0:30:32.640 --> 0:30:36.520
<v Speaker 1>President Barkin made was make policy in the economy you

0:30:36.520 --> 0:30:39.000
<v Speaker 1>are given, not in the one you wish you have.

0:30:39.840 --> 0:30:41.960
<v Speaker 1>And I think that just so critical if you're going

0:30:42.000 --> 0:30:47.200
<v Speaker 1>to retain that that that UM emphasis on being data dependent,

0:30:47.360 --> 0:30:50.719
<v Speaker 1>and I think having that flexibility is inherit in crafting

0:30:50.760 --> 0:30:53.880
<v Speaker 1>good monetary policy. So, Doug, if it is a fool's

0:30:53.960 --> 0:30:55.720
<v Speaker 1>erron to try and get the market to kind of

0:30:55.760 --> 0:30:59.520
<v Speaker 1>align with the Fed. Is there anything the Fed could

0:30:59.520 --> 0:31:02.760
<v Speaker 1>do to kind of shake the equities market and get

0:31:02.880 --> 0:31:05.920
<v Speaker 1>get equities on its side on this kind of like

0:31:05.960 --> 0:31:10.960
<v Speaker 1>hawkish anti inflationary path. Well, I think, Maddie rate the

0:31:10.960 --> 0:31:14.040
<v Speaker 1>market is a leading indicator. So it is really interesting

0:31:14.040 --> 0:31:16.280
<v Speaker 1>to remember because they raised rates for the first time

0:31:16.320 --> 0:31:19.440
<v Speaker 1>thirteen months ago, and and then and I guess it's

0:31:19.440 --> 0:31:22.600
<v Speaker 1>probably maybe fifteen months ago. They're not quite us said

0:31:22.600 --> 0:31:25.320
<v Speaker 1>the other way eleven months ago. Uh FED President Bullard

0:31:25.360 --> 0:31:28.080
<v Speaker 1>came out and he said something that absolutely shook the

0:31:28.080 --> 0:31:30.760
<v Speaker 1>market to its core back in March April last year,

0:31:30.760 --> 0:31:33.600
<v Speaker 1>and he said, hey, look we're nowhere near to being done.

0:31:33.600 --> 0:31:36.520
<v Speaker 1>We're actually just getting started, and we may raise rates

0:31:36.600 --> 0:31:39.160
<v Speaker 1>in bunches. In fact, we may raise rates by seventy

0:31:39.480 --> 0:31:42.120
<v Speaker 1>basis points or so at a meeting, because this is

0:31:42.160 --> 0:31:45.719
<v Speaker 1>a direct quote. We did that n and the world

0:31:45.800 --> 0:31:48.960
<v Speaker 1>didn't end. If you remember that, well, they didn't go once.

0:31:49.040 --> 0:31:51.840
<v Speaker 1>Last year. They raised rates by seventy basis points four

0:31:51.920 --> 0:31:54.560
<v Speaker 1>times and the world didn't end. But it was a

0:31:54.680 --> 0:31:57.000
<v Speaker 1>very invisible year for equities. So I think the equities

0:31:57.040 --> 0:32:01.080
<v Speaker 1>were anticipating just how core being shaken as you mentioned

0:32:01.120 --> 0:32:04.640
<v Speaker 1>that it could actually be experienced by some of that

0:32:04.880 --> 0:32:07.880
<v Speaker 1>fed rhetoric in implementation. So it got out to a

0:32:07.960 --> 0:32:10.000
<v Speaker 1>large part. But go back to like this whole idea

0:32:10.040 --> 0:32:12.920
<v Speaker 1>that typically in a higher rate environment, right, that you

0:32:12.960 --> 0:32:15.400
<v Speaker 1>don't see the tech names or the NASDAC do well.

0:32:15.440 --> 0:32:17.560
<v Speaker 1>And yet it has been and so that seems a

0:32:17.600 --> 0:32:20.560
<v Speaker 1>little confusing. But going back to what Rogoff said, you know,

0:32:20.720 --> 0:32:22.920
<v Speaker 1>and just like you were talking about, you know, we're

0:32:22.960 --> 0:32:25.960
<v Speaker 1>seeing resiliency when it comes to the economy. We're seeing

0:32:26.000 --> 0:32:28.000
<v Speaker 1>it when it comes to some of the numbers that

0:32:28.000 --> 0:32:31.640
<v Speaker 1>we've got in terms of corporate profits. Surprisingly so, and

0:32:31.720 --> 0:32:35.160
<v Speaker 1>so does that provide a floor when it comes to equities.

0:32:35.160 --> 0:32:37.360
<v Speaker 1>Maybe we don't see it a really strong rally for

0:32:37.400 --> 0:32:40.760
<v Speaker 1>a while, but maybe we've created a floor. Could be

0:32:40.800 --> 0:32:43.040
<v Speaker 1>care It's a great point, I think obviously, as quickly

0:32:43.080 --> 0:32:44.680
<v Speaker 1>as the NAZAC has gotten out of the gate, it

0:32:44.720 --> 0:32:47.000
<v Speaker 1>could be the underwind of some shortcovery that took place,

0:32:47.080 --> 0:32:51.560
<v Speaker 1>combined with than expected proper reports, combined with and this

0:32:51.640 --> 0:32:54.200
<v Speaker 1>is a really important point, right, the cresting that we've

0:32:54.200 --> 0:32:56.880
<v Speaker 1>seen in the dollar going back to November of last year,

0:32:57.120 --> 0:32:59.560
<v Speaker 1>because so many of these big tech companies are multi

0:32:59.640 --> 0:33:03.320
<v Speaker 1>nash will in scope. If you have highly efficient business

0:33:03.320 --> 0:33:05.440
<v Speaker 1>models that are doing what they can't control costs because

0:33:05.440 --> 0:33:06.880
<v Speaker 1>they're the ones that are on the forefront of all

0:33:06.880 --> 0:33:10.440
<v Speaker 1>the layoffs that we've seen. Now you're repatriating profits in

0:33:10.560 --> 0:33:13.760
<v Speaker 1>weaker dollar terms, which is gonna enhance and preserve those

0:33:13.800 --> 0:33:16.800
<v Speaker 1>margins that are right now under assault and high introspection.

0:33:17.160 --> 0:33:19.840
<v Speaker 1>So it could just create this floor because they ober

0:33:19.920 --> 0:33:22.400
<v Speaker 1>discounted them to death, and the reality is for the

0:33:22.440 --> 0:33:24.560
<v Speaker 1>economy to move along at all, even if not in

0:33:24.560 --> 0:33:26.680
<v Speaker 1>a vibert fashion, they're going to need that contribution from

0:33:26.720 --> 0:33:31.040
<v Speaker 1>high technology companies. Does wage disinflation give you hope that

0:33:31.080 --> 0:33:33.960
<v Speaker 1>the FED can pause or pivot at any point in

0:33:34.000 --> 0:33:37.440
<v Speaker 1>the near future, Doug, it does, Manny. I think what

0:33:37.520 --> 0:33:40.120
<v Speaker 1>we saw yesterday that kind of catalyzed the big one

0:33:40.120 --> 0:33:41.760
<v Speaker 1>and a half percent move we saw in the SMP

0:33:42.240 --> 0:33:45.320
<v Speaker 1>where you had that household Income survey pointed a wage

0:33:45.440 --> 0:33:48.760
<v Speaker 1>disinflation expectations, the single largest one month drop in the

0:33:48.800 --> 0:33:51.720
<v Speaker 1>nearly ten year history of that series. That was really

0:33:51.720 --> 0:33:54.720
<v Speaker 1>really powerful and for those who have been predicting this

0:33:54.880 --> 0:33:57.960
<v Speaker 1>wage quite spiral to really catalyze that next leg of

0:33:58.000 --> 0:34:01.160
<v Speaker 1>holatility and market drop. It hasn't happened yet. You mentioned

0:34:01.160 --> 0:34:05.280
<v Speaker 1>the dollar Dollar index down almost ten percent since late September. Hey,

0:34:05.400 --> 0:34:08.040
<v Speaker 1>real quickly, uh, Doug thirty seconds. Got some money to

0:34:08.040 --> 0:34:10.399
<v Speaker 1>put to work? Where do I put it right now? Yeah?

0:34:10.440 --> 0:34:13.200
<v Speaker 1>Two places within kroll, I mean one in fixed income right,

0:34:13.239 --> 0:34:15.680
<v Speaker 1>just playing somewhat on the mean reversion trade. Worst year

0:34:15.680 --> 0:34:17.839
<v Speaker 1>in the history of the bondmarket last year. I think

0:34:17.880 --> 0:34:21.279
<v Speaker 1>good having having good cloud diversification is going to give

0:34:21.320 --> 0:34:23.839
<v Speaker 1>you sustainable task equivalent to you'ld pick up. And then

0:34:23.880 --> 0:34:27.359
<v Speaker 1>also look internationally, right, international investments, if you just look

0:34:27.360 --> 0:34:30.040
<v Speaker 1>at the IFA over the past fifteen years, is actually

0:34:30.040 --> 0:34:33.759
<v Speaker 1>trailed the SMP by two hundred and fourteen percent. You've

0:34:33.760 --> 0:34:36.120
<v Speaker 1>got a trailing multiple of twelve times versus seventeen or

0:34:36.120 --> 0:34:38.560
<v Speaker 1>eighteen for the SMP. You have a lot more value

0:34:38.560 --> 0:34:41.160
<v Speaker 1>than growth in the international season. Lastly, typically they pay

0:34:41.239 --> 0:34:43.399
<v Speaker 1>two times the dividend of the domestic company. Open up. Yeah,

0:34:43.400 --> 0:34:45.560
<v Speaker 1>I feel like there's been a pig pile among investment

0:34:45.560 --> 0:34:48.560
<v Speaker 1>managers when it comes to emerging markets, in particular looking

0:34:48.560 --> 0:34:51.520
<v Speaker 1>outside the U S. Doug Cioca, congratulations on the chiefs.

0:34:51.560 --> 0:34:56.200
<v Speaker 1>I know you are being very fair, but nonetheless great

0:34:56.200 --> 0:34:58.800
<v Speaker 1>to check in with you again. Doug Ciocca, chief executive

0:34:58.800 --> 0:35:01.520
<v Speaker 1>Officer to partner Cavar Little Partners over a billion in

0:35:01.560 --> 0:35:05.320
<v Speaker 1>assets under management joining us. This is the Bloomberg Business

0:35:05.320 --> 0:35:09.360
<v Speaker 1>Week podcast, available on Apple, Spotify, and anywhere else you

0:35:09.440 --> 0:35:13.040
<v Speaker 1>get your podcast. Listen live each weekday starting at two

0:35:13.120 --> 0:35:16.240
<v Speaker 1>pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot com, the I Heart Radio

0:35:16.320 --> 0:35:19.040
<v Speaker 1>app tune In, and the Bloomberg Business App. You can

0:35:19.080 --> 0:35:22.680
<v Speaker 1>also watch us live every weekday on YouTube and always

0:35:22.719 --> 0:35:23.920
<v Speaker 1>on the Bloomberg terminal