Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Markets Podcast. I'm Paul Sweeney alongside
Speaker 1: my co host Matt Miller. Every business day, we bring
Speaker 1: you interviews from CEOs, market pros, and Bloomberg experts, along
Speaker 1: with essential market moving news. Find the Bloomberg Markets Podcast
Speaker 1: called Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to podcasts, and
Speaker 1: at Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. Pretty Miserable, Managing Director,
Speaker 1: Global head of Race Strategy of TV Securities, joins us,
Speaker 1: and I know she doesn't want to talk about power
Speaker 1: trains on the four f one fifty truck. We want
Speaker 1: to talk to you pre about what your fetter reserve
Speaker 1: is gonna do here. I mean, we had a pretty strong,
Speaker 1: solid payroll number on Friday, but boy, there's a lot
Speaker 1: of inflation out there. How do you think your feederal
Speaker 1: reserve is gonna react in the weeks and months going forward.
Speaker 1: I mean, I guess one analogy to your power truck
Speaker 1: talk before is I think the Fed has to be aggressive.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, policy is very accommodative given the
Speaker 1: economic outclook right now, and so I think they are
Speaker 1: signaling that they want to get to neutral fast. I
Speaker 1: think the big debate in the market is do they
Speaker 1: have to go above neutral? How much above neutral? Can
Speaker 1: the engineer a soft landing, or will they force economy
Speaker 1: into a recession to try and get inflation credibility? But
Speaker 1: the one clear message we're getting is they want to
Speaker 1: normalize at least to whatever neutral is. And you know,
Speaker 1: neutral for the funds rate, I would say is in
Speaker 1: the two and a half percent funds rate. So we
Speaker 1: are expecting the fret to high fifty basis points in
Speaker 1: May June, then continue with twenty until they get to
Speaker 1: that neutral point. We also expect them to start QT
Speaker 1: very soon in in May. You know our part of normalization.
Speaker 1: Our question of the day on the m Live blog
Speaker 1: was where is our star? What is it? What is
Speaker 1: the neutral rate right now? And I guess, first it
Speaker 1: depends if you're talking about real or nominal, But um,
Speaker 1: how do you get to that number? Right And there's
Speaker 1: a lot of research done on this. It tends to
Speaker 1: come to the our star, so the real equilibrium rate
Speaker 1: being somewhere between zero and fifty basis points. But there's
Speaker 1: a very wide range of estimates around this, uh, this
Speaker 1: median estimate. You know, there are those that argued its negative.
Speaker 1: I'm going to throw another point in here that when
Speaker 1: the FED is letting the balance sheet run off, I
Speaker 1: think our star, even the real number is probably lower
Speaker 1: than it would be if the FED was not letting
Speaker 1: the balance sheet run off. So when we run these
Speaker 1: historical metrics, you know, the balance sheets totally run off
Speaker 1: once before, and I would argue that the FED did
Speaker 1: overdo it last time when they took the funds rate
Speaker 1: to two and a half. So I would say, is
Speaker 1: it closer to zero is what we would call neutral?
Speaker 1: But you know, the FED is humble and we're all
Speaker 1: humble as we're figuring out what neutral is. I think
Speaker 1: that's why the FED might want to maybe speed it
Speaker 1: up in the near term. That's why we've got the
Speaker 1: two back to back fifties, and then slowly get to
Speaker 1: that neutral, because then the economy should show signs that
Speaker 1: we're nearing our star, even if we don't have a
Speaker 1: great sense of what it is. You know, beforehand, we
Speaker 1: should see the consumer start to slow down and corporate
Speaker 1: start to slow down, and that'll be a sign that
Speaker 1: we're getting close to neutral. The fight should start to
Speaker 1: get you know, slow down, then become more cautious. There
Speaker 1: was a great tweet I think it was over the
Speaker 1: weekend by UM Roberto ap Peary, who worked at Piper
Speaker 1: works at Piper Sandler UM. He shows a chart his
Speaker 1: his estimated nominal neutral rate is charted along with the
Speaker 1: FEDS funds rate since nineteen sixty one. And every time
Speaker 1: UM it seems the FED funds rate touches or gets
Speaker 1: beyond the nominal neutral rate, it drives us into a recession.
Speaker 1: Do you expect a recession? So we don't expect a
Speaker 1: recession because we don't expect to fit to go much
Speaker 1: above neutral. So it's, you know, the two we have.
Speaker 1: You should be consistent for those who argue that the
Speaker 1: Fed's going to go to three and a half for
Speaker 1: above three percent on the funds rate, and the market
Speaker 1: is now pricing in three point one as the end
Speaker 1: point of the hiking cycle, I think then it's very
Speaker 1: reasonable that the economy slows down significantly and the Fed
Speaker 1: may have to cut right after that. And that's why
Speaker 1: you look at the yield curve or just just uh,
Speaker 1: you know, forwards pricing in almost three rate cuts, UM,
Speaker 1: you know, after terminal rate has reached, because we have
Speaker 1: the FED slowing down as they approach neutral and not
Speaker 1: going much above neutral. We're sort of expecting that the
Speaker 1: FED will engineer the soft landing and they don't. We
Speaker 1: don't have a recession, they don't need to cut. But
Speaker 1: there are these two possibilities. There is a case where
Speaker 1: inflation forces them to go above neutral, and then I
Speaker 1: think the economy slows down, perhaps goes into recession. I'm
Speaker 1: somewhat sympathetic to the idea that if the unemployment rate
Speaker 1: rises a little bit, hard to prevent that from just
Speaker 1: rising a little bit, and that's when you do, you know,
Speaker 1: the Psalm rule kicks in and you actually go into
Speaker 1: a recession. So that's a reasonable, uh, you know, possible
Speaker 1: outcome right now. All right, Priya, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for joining us. Really appreciate getting your thoughts and perspective
Speaker 1: here as our freder Reserve UH continues on its rate
Speaker 1: hike UH plan. Here Priamra Managing director and Global head
Speaker 1: of Rate Strategy at t D Securities. You know, Matt
Speaker 1: Sin's the beginning of this pandemic thing. We've been leaning
Speaker 1: on this dude name Sam Fizzelli. And who is this guy,
Speaker 1: Sam Fizzelli. He's been on Bloomberg News. He writes stuff.
Speaker 1: He's on TV's on radio. Why Sam Fizzelli, Well, here's
Speaker 1: his day job. He's ahead of the European research, all
Speaker 1: of research for Bloomberg Intelligence in Europe. So he's got
Speaker 1: like fifty seventy five people reporting to him. So he's
Speaker 1: in theory a manager but that's debatable. But his big
Speaker 1: call to famous, he's a Paul likes to dump on managers.
Speaker 1: Just f y I exactly. But his claim to famous,
Speaker 1: he's really really made his chops. He's one of the
Speaker 1: top pharmaceutical medical medical analysts in the city of London
Speaker 1: and occasionally he comes to New York to share his expertise. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he's crazy. He does a wine thing. He's a wine
Speaker 1: o two so we've got that going from. But he's
Speaker 1: actually in the Bloomberg Interactive Broker studio today, Sam, thanks
Speaker 1: what for joining us. For me? The pandemics in the
Speaker 1: rear view mirror am a little bit. I've been seeing
Speaker 1: that for months. Yeah, I think that was Paul's wish
Speaker 1: every morning or every evening before going to bed in
Speaker 1: Neil Place bed and did this. But first of one,
Speaker 1: kind of just say how nice it is to be
Speaker 1: here together with you in the flesh, so that already
Speaker 1: and there are a lot of people in the office today,
Speaker 1: and that gives And it's a Monday, right, suppose three
Speaker 1: Mondays and Fridays should be light. But that to a
Speaker 1: degree place to your comment in that I felt comfortable
Speaker 1: enough to get on the plane to come here. I
Speaker 1: looked at case counts here. Okay, they may be going
Speaker 1: up a little bit, but nothing like what we had before.
Speaker 1: I thought, this is my opportunity. Hopefully will never go
Speaker 1: back to what it was before. I don't think the
Speaker 1: virus has quite finished with us, but still we're in
Speaker 1: a period where we are able to manage all this pressure.
Speaker 1: With the vaccines that we've all had and the drugs
Speaker 1: that we've got. We certainly see well, it feels like
Speaker 1: the mutations are less deadly. Um since delta right? Um?
Speaker 1: Is that the case for viruses? Do they mutate in
Speaker 1: less and less deadly forms? Or is it possible that
Speaker 1: what some mutation comes along that is again, um, severe
Speaker 1: in terms of the disease it causes. Yeah, man, I
Speaker 1: think we looked out there a little bit. We've got it.
Speaker 1: We've got a variant that was much more transmissible and
Speaker 1: through that it also changed the way that infected us,
Speaker 1: so we ended up getting upper respiratory tracts, so called infections,
Speaker 1: rather than deep lung, which is where the trouble starts.
Speaker 1: So but I have to say, in an unvaccinated person,
Speaker 1: this is not an easy infection, right. We're just lucky
Speaker 1: that we all have Most of us have been vaccinated
Speaker 1: or prior infected, so there is no rhyme or reason
Speaker 1: the virus. Once it's infected you and infected the next person,
Speaker 1: it doesn't care what happens to you. I mean, not
Speaker 1: that it's but we are kind of holding to the
Speaker 1: same schedule as the Spanish flu. I know that's a
Speaker 1: misnomer now, and my wife who's from Spain hates it
Speaker 1: when she's like, it's the Kansas flu. We called it
Speaker 1: the Spanish that's hung around for like two years. Right.
Speaker 1: It was deadly at first and then got less and
Speaker 1: less deadly, and now it's the flu that we all
Speaker 1: you'll get. But it's immunity, that's that's the difference. Over
Speaker 1: those two or three years. You build up immunity either
Speaker 1: through an infection, which is not the ideal way, or
Speaker 1: through the vaccines that they give us, which was great.
Speaker 1: So that's what the difference is, and I think we
Speaker 1: have we can't separate the two from each other. Is
Speaker 1: it possible that another variant turns up that's back to
Speaker 1: the high virulence of the previous Delta variant and more transmissible. Yes,
Speaker 1: I mean it's all random as far as the virus
Speaker 1: is concerned. Once you're infected and it's had the opportunity
Speaker 1: to jump to the next victim. Whatever, it doesn't care
Speaker 1: what happens to you. You can go and die whatever.
Speaker 1: It makes no difference, right, that's the critical part here
Speaker 1: that can happen by accident. Hopefully it won't. Hopefully our
Speaker 1: immune system gets us controlled Delta. I mean, if you
Speaker 1: look at everyone says o Acron's less virulent or less problematic,
Speaker 1: look at Delta. The death rate per case for Delta
Speaker 1: was already pretty low. So it's the vaccines. So are
Speaker 1: we back? Are we back to? Are we back down
Speaker 1: to a level that is more like the traditional flu
Speaker 1: in terms of case fatality? Not really, because it all
Speaker 1: depends on which country you look at and what age
Speaker 1: group you look at. That there are age groups where
Speaker 1: the number of deaths are still high and perhaps would
Speaker 1: benefit from a fourth shot, which sure is the next
Speaker 1: thing you gonna ask exactly? I mean they present. Biden
Speaker 1: came out recently said that those over fifty in this country,
Speaker 1: I think I might be a to check my license.
Speaker 1: I might be above fifty. You can get a fourth booster,
Speaker 1: get a fourth shot, another booster? Do I need that?
Speaker 1: I'm I'm getting in line, by the way, when they
Speaker 1: start offering it, I'll be the first in line. You
Speaker 1: can go get it now, dude, can one's checking your
Speaker 1: ID at CVS? Okay, you just walk in and get
Speaker 1: a shot. All right, we'll do that. Yeah. No. So,
Speaker 1: so the thing is, do you want to play wackam
Speaker 1: all with this forever? If we talking about preventing severe disease,
Speaker 1: you not getting bad disease below the age of seventy.
Speaker 1: I don't see the data. There's no There seems to
Speaker 1: be no difference if you had a fourth or a
Speaker 1: third shot based on current data. Remember that's been an
Speaker 1: important thing for us to remember every time we talk
Speaker 1: about this. The data evolves because it's you know, we're
Speaker 1: literally building the ship as we're trying to say it.
Speaker 1: Um so below the age of seventy, I haven't seen
Speaker 1: data that convinces me a fourth shot makes a difference
Speaker 1: to severe disease. If you want to have three or
Speaker 1: four months of cover not to catch it, you probably
Speaker 1: could do with that, and you get this boost in
Speaker 1: antibodies that will contract again, so that whack a mole game?
Speaker 1: Or do you want to prevent severe disease? How about
Speaker 1: our friends in China. I don't see that ending while there.
Speaker 1: I mean, they've had such a zero tolerance policy which
Speaker 1: arguably worked for them in terms of the disease. Maybe
Speaker 1: not so much further economy and the global economy, but
Speaker 1: certainly for them and the disease. But Armicrons seems like
Speaker 1: it doesn't really care about that. What what changed for
Speaker 1: them was Omicron. They did everything right. They had a
Speaker 1: great I mean, they had a fantastic track record in
Speaker 1: terms of a number of people who died compared to
Speaker 1: us or in the UK. But what changed was Omicron.
Speaker 1: I mean, they did everything right in terms of keeping
Speaker 1: people alive. You mean, right, right, right? Oh, no, probably sucked.
Speaker 1: Mental health is a totally different conversation for us to
Speaker 1: have the impact under healthcare in other areas. But now
Speaker 1: Omicron is not playing by the by the right by
Speaker 1: the right room. But fortunately not. I was gonna say
Speaker 1: not as deadly, but you met. You pointed out for
Speaker 1: for vaccinated people, how many people they are vaccinated. So
Speaker 1: the numbers I'm hearing is that only thirty or of
Speaker 1: people that are in the risk group of more aged
Speaker 1: older people are only ever arm right, right, So what
Speaker 1: they need, which is what we argued in a piece
Speaker 1: we wrote with the Economist team, is to get an
Speaker 1: m modern a shot into those arms or something equivalent
Speaker 1: in terms of is that going to happen? You think, well,
Speaker 1: I've just seen news over the weekend that they're starting
Speaker 1: excuse me, two trials with different The modern dy vaccine
Speaker 1: is homegrown. But why do that rather than going somewhere
Speaker 1: where there's an enormous body of data that tells you
Speaker 1: exactly what to expect if you gave them a biolome
Speaker 1: when love to go in there and put jobs in
Speaker 1: a couple of billion people, why not? But also, Biotics
Speaker 1: already got a partner in China. They already filed the
Speaker 1: data in China to my estimation, at least six months
Speaker 1: ago plus with corporate espionage, they probably have all the
Speaker 1: data anyway, right they look but at the end of
Speaker 1: the day, go with the vaccine that you know does
Speaker 1: what I tell you. We complain about these big farmer
Speaker 1: companies gouging us on drugs, but boy, they came through
Speaker 1: here in this pandemic. I mean they really did, in
Speaker 1: my opinion. I mean they one year, these guys came
Speaker 1: out with this stuff and they got it into people's arms.
Speaker 1: And hopefully we can do it in some of these
Speaker 1: developing countries as well. Sam Fazelli, thanks so much for
Speaker 1: joining us live, Yes live in our Bloomberg Interactor Broker
Speaker 1: studio comes to us live from London, usually on the phone,
Speaker 1: but we got him here in New York. I guess
Speaker 1: I gotta buy him dinner tonight. He's had a European
Speaker 1: research for Bloomberg Intelligence, big time farmer analysts over there
Speaker 1: in the city London. He's a real hot shot, but
Speaker 1: we got him in our studios. I think Elon Musk
Speaker 1: has some restrictions on actually being on Twitter tweeting, but
Speaker 1: doesn't stop him from buying Twitter. I have to admit
Speaker 1: it doesn't stop him from tweeting either. Yeah, he didn't
Speaker 1: care about silly sec but I'll say I did not
Speaker 1: see this news. This morning him taking a steak in Twitter.
Speaker 1: Maybe somebody smarter than us did see this, Hey, Dan
Speaker 1: dan Ives, Managing Director Senior Equity Alice at web Bush Securities,
Speaker 1: and a proud Penn stater or joins us day before
Speaker 1: we get to that. Actually, Dan, I was thinking about
Speaker 1: you this weekend. I went back to my mom's garage
Speaker 1: and Graham Bell, Ohio to pick up an older classic
Speaker 1: Duccatti Monster S four R S sure, and I drove
Speaker 1: it back here to New York as I was, I don't.
Speaker 1: I thought it would be fun, and it actually wasn't.
Speaker 1: But it was one thing that was cool was I
Speaker 1: did stop in State College in Happy Valley and I
Speaker 1: thought about Dan dan Ives. Uh, Dan, what do you
Speaker 1: make of this? What's Elon doing here? Look? I think
Speaker 1: this is really the start of what's going to be
Speaker 1: a shake up at Twitter. I mean, Musk doesn't just
Speaker 1: do a passive nine percent stake for fun, So I
Speaker 1: think this is ultimately the start of a broader role
Speaker 1: at Twitter. And you know, this is really ultimately Musk
Speaker 1: expanding the ecosystem. That's why the streets reading this as
Speaker 1: basically this is the start of something much bigger that
Speaker 1: Musk is leading. But so we were taking passive as
Speaker 1: meaning he won't take a board seat or you know,
Speaker 1: tell um the C suite what to do. But does
Speaker 1: passive means something else? Yeah? I mean, look, there's a
Speaker 1: better chance to meet playing Augusta this weekend in must keeping,
Speaker 1: but then must keeping just a passive steak. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is going to go active above the ten percent.
Speaker 1: It's a matter of their conversations with the board and
Speaker 1: do they ultimately play ball. But I think that's really
Speaker 1: the view. Is that especially Twitter, which has been the
Speaker 1: right lane, I mean where others have passed him in
Speaker 1: the left lane the social media from a monization perspective,
Speaker 1: it's been disappointing. And of course Musk is is there's
Speaker 1: not no secret in terms of his criticism of Twitter.
Speaker 1: So it's a look, if if the bank has your house,
Speaker 1: then you can just buy the bank. And I think
Speaker 1: he's going down that path. We got to see which
Speaker 1: direction it goes. But obviously for Twitter it's bullish because
Speaker 1: clearly that he's going to shake things up. Dan, what
Speaker 1: do you think he could do here or should do here?
Speaker 1: What I think he could do is at least board
Speaker 1: seats get more active, a new suite of directors and
Speaker 1: then ultimately will to either change some of the policies,
Speaker 1: you know, by being on the board, and then eventually,
Speaker 1: depending on how it all shakes out, I mean, this
Speaker 1: could ultimately lead to a sale. You know, obviously private
Speaker 1: A quickly get involved. And I think that's that's the
Speaker 1: view here, is that this soap opera, this is just
Speaker 1: a start of what's going to happen with Musk and Twitter.
Speaker 1: And because as we all know, I mean, Musk is
Speaker 1: not someone that just puts one tone the water, right,
Speaker 1: and I think he's gonna be a lot more aggressive,
Speaker 1: you know, I think in the coming months and year,
Speaker 1: especially as it comes to Twitter. What does he want
Speaker 1: to change a Twitter? What has he been unhappy about? Well, clearly,
Speaker 1: I mean that there's a lot of criticism that that
Speaker 1: he's talked about in terms of freedom of speech and
Speaker 1: others on Twitter. I think it's led to you know,
Speaker 1: his view that he was really gonna try to create
Speaker 1: his own social media platform, which is we all know
Speaker 1: that's extremely difficult. And obviously you know, he looked at
Speaker 1: and his advisers looked to the situation, but doors he'd
Speaker 1: go into the background, you know, with a lot of
Speaker 1: sort of passive steaks in Twitter, I think there was
Speaker 1: an opportunity and he recognized it was now or never
Speaker 1: to to really go after Twitter. And I think this
Speaker 1: is the start, right in terms of a passive ownership stake,
Speaker 1: which likely goes to active and now it's a matter
Speaker 1: of what the next step is. Danny, you followed Elon
Speaker 1: Muskin and Ted Tesla and his career for a long time.
Speaker 1: What do you think is this from a portfolio perspective,
Speaker 1: his personal portfolio of assets. You know, some people are
Speaker 1: suggesting this is the beginning of him trying to diversify
Speaker 1: a little bit. You expect him to be spreading more
Speaker 1: of his wealth out into other companies, other industries. How
Speaker 1: do you think about that? Yeah, And remember he's not
Speaker 1: an activist like in the sense like an icon or others.
Speaker 1: He doesn't view it like that. Just getting into his mind, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, the way must us this is that just
Speaker 1: like he did on EVS, just like he did with Space,
Speaker 1: He's like he looks at social media like something's wrong here.
Speaker 1: From his viewpoint, this needs to be changed, and I'm
Speaker 1: going to change it. And I'm the rich personal world
Speaker 1: and I'm going to start that, and I think that's
Speaker 1: that's what he's really going down with Twitter. Now. The
Speaker 1: conversation is like, what's the next step. Can you change
Speaker 1: monization of the platform, algorithms advertising? Right? These are all
Speaker 1: things from an investor perspective, it's not just the whole
Speaker 1: you know, chronic Freemer's speech issue. So I think that's
Speaker 1: really going to be the focus going forward to what
Speaker 1: the next steps are. But you know, this is one
Speaker 1: where I think for Twitter from an investor perspective, they
Speaker 1: obviously welcome this because there's very few that could rock
Speaker 1: the boat like this, and Musk is obviously one interesting stuff.
Speaker 1: I don't know what. I just don't know what this
Speaker 1: guy's gonna do with this thing. It's it's it's really
Speaker 1: amazing and uh I didn't see this coming at all.
Speaker 1: But anyway, exciting though, right, good stuff. Yeah, it's great
Speaker 1: for Monday. Hey, Dan, thanks so much for joining us.
Speaker 1: You always appreciate getting your perspective. Dan ives he's a
Speaker 1: managing director, he's a senior equity analyst, covers all this
Speaker 1: tech stuff, all the Internet. I think Elon Musk has
Speaker 1: some restrictions on actually being on Twitter tweeting, but doesn't
Speaker 1: stop him from buying Twitter. I have to admit it
Speaker 1: doesn't stop him from tweeting either. Yeah, he didn't care
Speaker 1: about silly sec But I'll say I did not see
Speaker 1: this news this morning, him taking a steak in Twitter.
Speaker 1: Maybe somebody smarter than us did see this. Hey, Dan
Speaker 1: dan Ives, managing director of Senior Equity anlyse At web
Speaker 1: Bush Securities, and a proud Penn State or joins us
Speaker 1: day before we get to that. Actually, Dan, I was
Speaker 1: thinking about you this weekend. I went back to my
Speaker 1: mom's garage and Graham Bell, Ohio to pick up an
Speaker 1: older classic Duccatti Monster S four r S and I
Speaker 1: drove it back here to New York as I was
Speaker 1: I don't I thought it would be fun, and it
Speaker 1: actually wasn't. But it was one thing that was cool
Speaker 1: was I did stop in State College in Happy Valley
Speaker 1: and I thought about Dan dan Ives? Uh, Dan, what
Speaker 1: do you make of this? What's Elon doing here? Look?
Speaker 1: I think this is really the start of what's going
Speaker 1: to be a shake up at Twitter. I mean, Musk
Speaker 1: doesn't just do a passive nine percent stake for fun,
Speaker 1: So I think this is ultimately the start of a
Speaker 1: broader role at Twitter. And you know this is really
Speaker 1: ultimately Musk expanding the equosystem. That's why the streets reading
Speaker 1: this as basically, this is the start of something much
Speaker 1: bigger that Musk is leading. But so we were taking
Speaker 1: passive as meaning he won't take a board seat or
Speaker 1: you know, tell um the c suite what to do.
Speaker 1: But does passive means something else? Yeah? I mean, look,
Speaker 1: there's a better chance to meet playing in Augusta this
Speaker 1: weekend and must keeping, but then must keeping just a
Speaker 1: passive steak. I mean, this is going to go active
Speaker 1: above the ten percent. It's a matter of their conversations
Speaker 1: with the board and do they ultimately play ball. But
Speaker 1: I think that's really the view. Is that especially Twitter,
Speaker 1: which has been the right lane, I mean where others
Speaker 1: have passed him in the left lane? There's social media
Speaker 1: from a monization perspective, it's been disappointing, and of course
Speaker 1: Musk is is you know, there's not no secret in
Speaker 1: terms of his criticism of Twitter. So it's a look,
Speaker 1: if if the bank has your house, then you can
Speaker 1: just buy the bank. And I think he's going down
Speaker 1: that path. We got to see which direction it goes.
Speaker 1: But obviously for Twitter it's bullish because clearly that he's
Speaker 1: going to shake things up, Dan, what do you think
Speaker 1: he could do here or should do here? Where I
Speaker 1: think he could do is at least board seats, get
Speaker 1: more active, a new suite of directors, and then ultimately
Speaker 1: will to either change some of the policies, you know,
Speaker 1: by being on the board, and then eventually depending on
Speaker 1: how it all shakes out, I mean, this could ultimately
Speaker 1: lead to a sale. You know, obviously private acquickly get involved.
Speaker 1: And I think that's that's the view here, is that
Speaker 1: this soap opera, this is just a start of what's
Speaker 1: going to happen with Musk and Twitter. And because as
Speaker 1: we all know, I mean, Musk is not someone that
Speaker 1: just puts one tone in the water, right and I
Speaker 1: think he's gonna be a lot more aggressive, you know,
Speaker 1: I think in the coming months and year, especially as
Speaker 1: it comes Twitter. What does he want to change a Twitter?
Speaker 1: What has he been unhappy about? Well, clearly, I mean
Speaker 1: that there's a lot of criticism that that he's talked
Speaker 1: about in terms of freedom of speech and others on Twitter.
Speaker 1: I think it's led to you know, his view that
Speaker 1: he was really gonna try to create his own social
Speaker 1: media platform, which is we all know that's extremely difficult.
Speaker 1: And obviously, you know, he looked at and his advisers
Speaker 1: look to the situation, but doors he'd go into the background,
Speaker 1: you know, with a lot of sort of passive steaks
Speaker 1: in Twitter. I think there was an opportunity and he
Speaker 1: recognized it was now or never to to really go
Speaker 1: after Twitter. And I think this is the start, right
Speaker 1: in terms of a passive ownership stake, which likely goes
Speaker 1: to active and now it's a matter of what the
Speaker 1: next step is. Danny, you followed Elon Muskin and Ted
Speaker 1: Tesla and his career for a long time. Do what
Speaker 1: do you think? Is this that from a portfolio perspective,
Speaker 1: his personal portfolio of assets. You know, some people are
Speaker 1: suggesting this is the beginning of him trying to diversify
Speaker 1: a little bit. You expect him to be spreading more
Speaker 1: of his wealth out into other companies, other industries. How
Speaker 1: do you think about that? Yeah, and remember he's not
Speaker 1: an activist, like in the sense like an icon or others.
Speaker 1: He doesn't view it like that. Just getting into his mind, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, the way must us this is that just
Speaker 1: like he did on EVS, just like he did with Space.
Speaker 1: He's like, he looks at social media like something's wrong here.
Speaker 1: From his viewpoint, this needs to be changed, and I'm
Speaker 1: going to change it. And I'm the rich personal world
Speaker 1: and I'm going to start that. And I think that's
Speaker 1: that's what he's really going down with Twitter. Now. The
Speaker 1: conversation is like, what's the next step. Can you change
Speaker 1: monization of the platform, algorithms advertising? Right? These are all
Speaker 1: things from an investor perspective, it's not just the whole
Speaker 1: you know, chron quote Freemer's speech issue. So I think
Speaker 1: that's really going to be the focus going forward to
Speaker 1: what the next steps are. But you know, this is
Speaker 1: one where I think for Twitter from an investor perspective,
Speaker 1: they obviously welcome this because there's very few that could
Speaker 1: rock the boat like this, and Musk is obviously one
Speaker 1: interesting stuff. I don't know what. I just don't know
Speaker 1: what this guy is gonna do with this thing. It's
Speaker 1: it's it's really amazing and uh, I didn't see this
Speaker 1: coming at all. But anyway, exciting though, right, good stuff. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's great for Monday. Hey Dan, thanks so much for
Speaker 1: joining us. We always appreciate getting your perspective. Dan ives
Speaker 1: he's a managing director, he's a senior echoity analyst, covers
Speaker 1: all this tech stuff, all the Internet. Uh. And he's been,
Speaker 1: you know, really bullish on Tesla and really right on Tesla.
Speaker 1: And now we've got Elon Musk again taking a nine
Speaker 1: point two percent steak in a Twitter. Some exciting news
Speaker 1: for a Monday morning. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Markets podcast. You can subscribe and listen to interviews with
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts or whatever podcast platform you prefer. I'm Matt Miller.
Speaker 1: I'm on Twitter at Matt Miller three. Put on fall
Speaker 1: Sweeney I'm on Twitter at pt Sweeney before the podcast.
Speaker 1: You can always catch us worldwide at Bloomberg Radio