WEBVTT - Sallie Krawcheck Says We're 100 Years From Gender Pay Parity

0:00:00.120 --> 0:00:02.920
<v Speaker 1>Brought you by Bank of America, Mary Lynch. Investing in

0:00:03.000 --> 0:00:07.840
<v Speaker 1>local communities, economies and a sustainable future. That's a power

0:00:08.080 --> 0:00:12.360
<v Speaker 1>of global connections, Mary Lynch, Pierce Fenner and Smith Incorporated

0:00:12.760 --> 0:00:27.400
<v Speaker 1>Member s I p C. Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast.

0:00:27.840 --> 0:00:31.520
<v Speaker 1>I'm Tom Keene with David Gura. Daily we bring you

0:00:31.560 --> 0:00:36.600
<v Speaker 1>insight from the best in economics, finance, investment, and international relations.

0:00:37.040 --> 0:00:41.600
<v Speaker 1>Find Bloomberg Surveillance on iTunes, SoundCloud, Bloomberg dot Com, and

0:00:41.680 --> 0:00:49.680
<v Speaker 1>of course on the Bloomberg Sally craw Chuck is with us,

0:00:49.680 --> 0:00:52.160
<v Speaker 1>and she is of course an historic place on Wall

0:00:52.200 --> 0:00:56.280
<v Speaker 1>Street delivering first order securities analysis for Sanford Bernstein where

0:00:56.280 --> 0:00:59.320
<v Speaker 1>she broke original ground, and then her executive work in

0:00:59.440 --> 0:01:03.560
<v Speaker 1>financial management and now running Elvis is on. The book

0:01:04.160 --> 0:01:07.080
<v Speaker 1>is own it and it's not another touchy feely g

0:01:07.280 --> 0:01:11.000
<v Speaker 1>Gali book here. This is the real thing and it's

0:01:11.040 --> 0:01:13.960
<v Speaker 1>hard hitting. Let's start with diversity councils. You go right

0:01:14.040 --> 0:01:17.440
<v Speaker 1>after diversity councils say no, no, no, help me here. Well,

0:01:17.480 --> 0:01:19.280
<v Speaker 1>here's what I would say, Tom is and I think

0:01:19.319 --> 0:01:24.200
<v Speaker 1>we've seen it in diversity has stalled gender progress. We

0:01:24.240 --> 0:01:27.440
<v Speaker 1>certainly have seen it in politics, but in business as well.

0:01:27.520 --> 0:01:31.040
<v Speaker 1>For all the discussion and debate about the power of diversity,

0:01:31.200 --> 0:01:33.280
<v Speaker 1>it's stalled in on Wall Street. You know, it's gone

0:01:33.280 --> 0:01:35.679
<v Speaker 1>backwards over the past acts going backwards. And what is

0:01:35.720 --> 0:01:38.560
<v Speaker 1>your prescription to get away from the happy talk of

0:01:38.600 --> 0:01:42.000
<v Speaker 1>the recent decade. Well, for CEOs, start to just do

0:01:42.040 --> 0:01:46.000
<v Speaker 1>it because the impact of not doing it has been theoretical.

0:01:46.080 --> 0:01:48.720
<v Speaker 1>You won't get the higher return return on equities, you

0:01:48.760 --> 0:01:51.560
<v Speaker 1>won't get the greater innovation. But at some point it's

0:01:51.560 --> 0:01:54.280
<v Speaker 1>going to become actual because the number one reason millennial

0:01:54.360 --> 0:01:57.040
<v Speaker 1>women leave their jobs today is to make more money.

0:01:57.040 --> 0:01:58.640
<v Speaker 1>Can you look at a guy like Mark Benoff who

0:01:58.680 --> 0:02:02.000
<v Speaker 1>we interviewed Davos and he goes back starting with three

0:02:02.040 --> 0:02:04.280
<v Speaker 1>guys in an apartment and he's, I guess made a

0:02:04.360 --> 0:02:07.240
<v Speaker 1>success of himself. And Benoff says, come on, if you

0:02:07.280 --> 0:02:11.000
<v Speaker 1>actually do this livid day to day, it's not that hard.

0:02:11.440 --> 0:02:15.280
<v Speaker 1>What's holding up the rest of corporate America. Well, it's

0:02:15.520 --> 0:02:18.000
<v Speaker 1>because they think it is that hard. It is so

0:02:18.080 --> 0:02:21.960
<v Speaker 1>much easier to bring in diverse individuals and treat them

0:02:21.960 --> 0:02:26.160
<v Speaker 1>like middle aged white guys. Be confident, make your case,

0:02:26.400 --> 0:02:29.880
<v Speaker 1>raise your hand for the P and L responsibility as

0:02:29.919 --> 0:02:32.840
<v Speaker 1>supposed to really pulling out of everybody the different things

0:02:32.880 --> 0:02:37.240
<v Speaker 1>they bring to work to drive the power of diversity, right,

0:02:37.240 --> 0:02:40.040
<v Speaker 1>Sally do We just need more transparency. More transparency in

0:02:40.040 --> 0:02:42.760
<v Speaker 1>the workforce means that you know how much everyone is paid,

0:02:42.800 --> 0:02:45.519
<v Speaker 1>you know how many people are employed. And it's certainly

0:02:45.560 --> 0:02:48.520
<v Speaker 1>through transparency that people can actually fight for diversity. I

0:02:48.520 --> 0:02:51.480
<v Speaker 1>can want to fight for diversity, but it's very difficult

0:02:51.480 --> 0:02:54.160
<v Speaker 1>for me to see where I should be fighting. For example. Well,

0:02:54.320 --> 0:02:57.840
<v Speaker 1>I think that's a great point. And on today's trajectory,

0:02:58.000 --> 0:03:01.200
<v Speaker 1>we are either a hundred years, fifty years, a hundred

0:03:01.200 --> 0:03:04.320
<v Speaker 1>eighty years away from gender pay parity longer if you're

0:03:04.320 --> 0:03:07.079
<v Speaker 1>a woman of color, so way away. But all of

0:03:07.120 --> 0:03:10.760
<v Speaker 1>a sudden, they're these resources such as paste get get

0:03:10.840 --> 0:03:15.200
<v Speaker 1>raised comparably hired, where we can go in and see

0:03:15.320 --> 0:03:17.440
<v Speaker 1>about how much we should be paying. So back in

0:03:17.520 --> 0:03:20.480
<v Speaker 1>my day, a couple of years ago, when I would

0:03:20.480 --> 0:03:22.000
<v Speaker 1>go in for a raise, it was please give me

0:03:22.040 --> 0:03:24.919
<v Speaker 1>a raise. Today it's this is how much I should

0:03:24.919 --> 0:03:27.320
<v Speaker 1>be making, and I can see it, and so I'd

0:03:27.320 --> 0:03:30.880
<v Speaker 1>like that raise. The power is shifting, right, What is

0:03:30.880 --> 0:03:33.600
<v Speaker 1>the one thing, what is the one common misconception on

0:03:33.680 --> 0:03:37.120
<v Speaker 1>boards on how to treat diversity and actually how to

0:03:37.160 --> 0:03:40.320
<v Speaker 1>be more inclusive. Well, look, I think boards just haven't

0:03:40.360 --> 0:03:42.600
<v Speaker 1>really taken the bull by the horns. I mean, everybody

0:03:42.640 --> 0:03:45.520
<v Speaker 1>says this is an important to do, but when your

0:03:45.560 --> 0:03:48.360
<v Speaker 1>CEO shows up and says, yeah, I know, and I

0:03:48.360 --> 0:03:52.040
<v Speaker 1>would love to put Susie in that role, but Jim,

0:03:52.160 --> 0:03:54.640
<v Speaker 1>Jim is such as Jim, and gosh, she reminds me

0:03:54.720 --> 0:03:57.280
<v Speaker 1>so much of me. The board finds it difficult to

0:03:57.320 --> 0:04:01.600
<v Speaker 1>reach into the company and question those individuals decisions despite

0:04:01.600 --> 0:04:04.320
<v Speaker 1>what the research indicates. Okay, let's look here at the video.

0:04:04.640 --> 0:04:07.880
<v Speaker 1>We did a research project. Sally's gagging here this morning,

0:04:07.880 --> 0:04:10.640
<v Speaker 1>off the level, off the lousy savannas. Go bring up

0:04:10.640 --> 0:04:13.240
<v Speaker 1>the video this weekend. And this is extraordinary. But I

0:04:13.240 --> 0:04:15.360
<v Speaker 1>want to tie this into own it as well. You've

0:04:15.400 --> 0:04:18.280
<v Speaker 1>got four million women marching. I get it, it's a

0:04:18.360 --> 0:04:22.240
<v Speaker 1>huge deal, but how many of those women took triggonometry.

0:04:22.279 --> 0:04:24.680
<v Speaker 1>You go right to it on page one thirty two

0:04:24.720 --> 0:04:27.279
<v Speaker 1>of your book and you say, this carnard that women

0:04:27.360 --> 0:04:31.800
<v Speaker 1>can't do math is just belogning. And what people don't know, folks,

0:04:31.880 --> 0:04:34.960
<v Speaker 1>is Crawchuck invented this on Wall Street with your work

0:04:34.960 --> 0:04:38.880
<v Speaker 1>at Sanford Bernstein, are you seeing more women say screw

0:04:38.960 --> 0:04:42.760
<v Speaker 1>the stereotype. I'm doing trigg Well I did. I didn't

0:04:42.760 --> 0:04:46.000
<v Speaker 1>invent trigonometry, though I do appreciate the compliment. But here's

0:04:46.000 --> 0:04:48.000
<v Speaker 1>what I would say. We're now starting to talk about

0:04:48.000 --> 0:04:50.960
<v Speaker 1>the gender money gaps and women. There are several gender

0:04:50.960 --> 0:04:53.440
<v Speaker 1>money gaps we have which cost us millions over the

0:04:53.440 --> 0:04:56.000
<v Speaker 1>course of our lives. Women can go to the elivest

0:04:56.040 --> 0:04:58.080
<v Speaker 1>website and they can see we put together a whole

0:04:58.120 --> 0:05:01.120
<v Speaker 1>guide book on this. The one I'm very focused on

0:05:01.200 --> 0:05:04.479
<v Speaker 1>with eLabs is a gender investing gap which costs women

0:05:04.560 --> 0:05:08.040
<v Speaker 1>hundreds of thousands or millions, and we still buy the

0:05:08.080 --> 0:05:12.600
<v Speaker 1>Ozzie and Harriet math is for guys. Guys are better

0:05:12.640 --> 0:05:16.480
<v Speaker 1>investors than women. That is, neither of those things are true.

0:05:16.600 --> 0:05:19.000
<v Speaker 1>I'm trying to think of the percentage of our audience

0:05:19.000 --> 0:05:21.560
<v Speaker 1>that don't know who Azzi Harried is. They don't even

0:05:21.600 --> 0:05:24.919
<v Speaker 1>know that Rick Nelson went to a garden party and

0:05:24.960 --> 0:05:29.640
<v Speaker 1>Harriet it's way back Gillian's Island family. How do we

0:05:29.720 --> 0:05:32.600
<v Speaker 1>get away from the stereotype of Ginger and Tina whatever

0:05:32.600 --> 0:05:34.840
<v Speaker 1>her name was, Well, why not? We need to actively

0:05:34.880 --> 0:05:37.520
<v Speaker 1>move away but this is the place the stereotypes there,

0:05:37.760 --> 0:05:40.560
<v Speaker 1>here's one that drives me nuts. Women need more financial

0:05:40.680 --> 0:05:43.760
<v Speaker 1>education to invest, and we women, because we love getting

0:05:43.760 --> 0:05:46.800
<v Speaker 1>our eyes are like, you're right, I need more financial education,

0:05:47.200 --> 0:05:51.000
<v Speaker 1>except the guys need more to but we invest anyway,

0:05:51.120 --> 0:05:53.640
<v Speaker 1>they invest anyway. So here's the here's the final point

0:05:54.040 --> 0:05:57.360
<v Speaker 1>industry symbol, a bull. Not a lot of women are

0:05:57.400 --> 0:06:00.120
<v Speaker 1>looking at that and saying that's for me. So in

0:06:00.120 --> 0:06:02.760
<v Speaker 1>Sally project now she joins us here in the studio.

0:06:02.800 --> 0:06:04.719
<v Speaker 1>She's the author of a new book, own It, The

0:06:04.720 --> 0:06:06.480
<v Speaker 1>Power of Women at Work, of course, former CEO of

0:06:06.560 --> 0:06:09.120
<v Speaker 1>Smith Barney, now the c and co founder of Elvis.

0:06:09.120 --> 0:06:11.720
<v Speaker 1>Great to have you with us. Let's start at the

0:06:11.760 --> 0:06:14.520
<v Speaker 1>beginning of your book. A great first line here, Well

0:06:14.560 --> 0:06:16.360
<v Speaker 1>here we are you right, but the view looks a

0:06:16.360 --> 0:06:19.520
<v Speaker 1>little different than we expected. Were There a lot of

0:06:19.560 --> 0:06:22.120
<v Speaker 1>revisions here between between the events of November the eighth

0:06:22.160 --> 0:06:27.680
<v Speaker 1>and where we are today. Remarkably few, actually, because diversity

0:06:27.839 --> 0:06:30.960
<v Speaker 1>has stalled in corporate America and for those of your

0:06:31.000 --> 0:06:33.560
<v Speaker 1>listeners on Wall Street has gone backwards on Wall Street

0:06:33.800 --> 0:06:38.640
<v Speaker 1>before the shocking too many election results. So yes, three

0:06:38.720 --> 0:06:40.720
<v Speaker 1>days after the election, I did wake up and call

0:06:40.800 --> 0:06:42.800
<v Speaker 1>my public say, oh my gosh, well, you know, let's

0:06:42.920 --> 0:06:45.520
<v Speaker 1>can I change the first couple of lines, but remarkably

0:06:45.560 --> 0:06:48.480
<v Speaker 1>little because the stalling. There was a piece in Bloomberg

0:06:48.520 --> 0:06:51.400
<v Speaker 1>Business Week about all that Hillary Clinton promised to do

0:06:51.440 --> 0:06:53.200
<v Speaker 1>if she were to be elected for women who work

0:06:53.240 --> 0:06:55.960
<v Speaker 1>in government, particularly at the mid level, and there was

0:06:56.480 --> 0:06:58.799
<v Speaker 1>great despair in Washington that that was going to change

0:06:58.800 --> 0:07:01.080
<v Speaker 1>with the with the President Trump. Your background is in

0:07:01.120 --> 0:07:03.720
<v Speaker 1>Wall Street, not in government. But there are ramifications from

0:07:03.720 --> 0:07:05.600
<v Speaker 1>from the way the election turned out for women in business.

0:07:05.680 --> 0:07:08.840
<v Speaker 1>Absolutely there are Um you know, I was personally hoping

0:07:08.920 --> 0:07:11.760
<v Speaker 1>for mandated parental leave. We're the only developed country in

0:07:11.760 --> 0:07:14.679
<v Speaker 1>the world that doesn't have it, and there's new research

0:07:14.720 --> 0:07:16.800
<v Speaker 1>that shows it pays for itself in the first year

0:07:17.320 --> 0:07:19.640
<v Speaker 1>because women are more likely to come back if they

0:07:19.680 --> 0:07:22.160
<v Speaker 1>have maternal leave and you don't have to replace them

0:07:22.160 --> 0:07:25.160
<v Speaker 1>and train their replacement regardless. One of the points of

0:07:25.160 --> 0:07:29.520
<v Speaker 1>the book before the election is, hey, guys, you know,

0:07:29.920 --> 0:07:32.720
<v Speaker 1>what we've been doing has gotten us so far, but

0:07:32.840 --> 0:07:35.360
<v Speaker 1>no farther. So what are what's going to happen now?

0:07:35.680 --> 0:07:37.480
<v Speaker 1>And the points on the book is, first of all,

0:07:37.960 --> 0:07:41.200
<v Speaker 1>you know, there's so much freaking advice out there that

0:07:41.280 --> 0:07:43.960
<v Speaker 1>tells us to act like men, when in fact, we

0:07:44.000 --> 0:07:46.520
<v Speaker 1>bring so many great qualities to the workforce that are

0:07:46.520 --> 0:07:51.480
<v Speaker 1>becoming more important, such as risk awareness, such as relationship orientation,

0:07:51.920 --> 0:07:54.440
<v Speaker 1>such as long term perspective. I mean, things that are

0:07:54.480 --> 0:07:58.000
<v Speaker 1>important and are becoming more important and drive great results

0:07:58.000 --> 0:08:00.720
<v Speaker 1>in business. The issue is four. If there wasn't a

0:08:00.720 --> 0:08:02.760
<v Speaker 1>lot we could do about it, if company didn't appreciate it,

0:08:02.760 --> 0:08:05.200
<v Speaker 1>we could go work at another company. Now we have

0:08:05.560 --> 0:08:08.080
<v Speaker 1>much more information, we can figure out we can go

0:08:08.080 --> 0:08:10.440
<v Speaker 1>to websites to figure out our gender pay gap, and

0:08:10.480 --> 0:08:13.280
<v Speaker 1>we can go started on fraggan businesses. All of a sudden,

0:08:13.320 --> 0:08:15.320
<v Speaker 1>you know, the technology is changing things in a way.

0:08:15.320 --> 0:08:18.320
<v Speaker 1>We have so much more power. I'm so interesting that

0:08:18.320 --> 0:08:19.800
<v Speaker 1>you read about that in the book, that the role

0:08:19.840 --> 0:08:22.040
<v Speaker 1>of technology is playing here. Explain that a little bit more,

0:08:22.120 --> 0:08:24.760
<v Speaker 1>that the doors that changing technology is opening for women

0:08:24.760 --> 0:08:27.760
<v Speaker 1>in business. And it's not perfect, right. Venture capitalists don't

0:08:27.760 --> 0:08:29.960
<v Speaker 1>get it, But you know what do we get like

0:08:30.680 --> 0:08:33.520
<v Speaker 1>three or six or seven percent of venture capital dollars.

0:08:33.520 --> 0:08:37.240
<v Speaker 1>But most businesses are not venture capital funded. And today

0:08:37.360 --> 0:08:39.440
<v Speaker 1>the cost of technology is coming down. You don't have

0:08:39.520 --> 0:08:41.880
<v Speaker 1>to buy servers, you you rent space in the cloud.

0:08:42.280 --> 0:08:45.440
<v Speaker 1>But it's not just technology that's taking down the cost

0:08:45.480 --> 0:08:48.319
<v Speaker 1>of starting businesses. It's we works as opposed to long

0:08:48.440 --> 0:08:51.360
<v Speaker 1>term releases. It's benefits as opposed to an HR department.

0:08:51.840 --> 0:08:55.360
<v Speaker 1>You know, it's it's video conference as opposed to business travel.

0:08:55.840 --> 0:08:58.440
<v Speaker 1>That you're able now to start businesses to a degree

0:08:58.440 --> 0:09:00.920
<v Speaker 1>you couldn't before. And there's so many more role models.

0:09:00.960 --> 0:09:03.880
<v Speaker 1>I go through a hunking list of them there of

0:09:03.920 --> 0:09:06.480
<v Speaker 1>women who were starting their own businesses and in part,

0:09:07.400 --> 0:09:09.560
<v Speaker 1>in part, actually, the number one reason women get for

0:09:09.559 --> 0:09:11.800
<v Speaker 1>starting their own businesses is because they want to build

0:09:11.800 --> 0:09:14.400
<v Speaker 1>the business at which they want to work, and corporate

0:09:14.400 --> 0:09:17.160
<v Speaker 1>America isn't working for so many of them. So for

0:09:17.240 --> 0:09:20.480
<v Speaker 1>big companies that don't get it, there wasn't much penalty before,

0:09:21.200 --> 0:09:24.400
<v Speaker 1>I believe going forward as women recognize that these places

0:09:24.440 --> 0:09:27.000
<v Speaker 1>can be hollowed out. Talking with Sally Crotchick, the author

0:09:27.000 --> 0:09:30.439
<v Speaker 1>of Own It, The Power of Women at Work, picking

0:09:30.480 --> 0:09:32.360
<v Speaker 1>up on what you were just saying, how has mentorship

0:09:32.480 --> 0:09:34.880
<v Speaker 1>changed The notion of mentorship changed here since you've got

0:09:34.880 --> 0:09:38.080
<v Speaker 1>into the business. Well, mentorship it's it's very nice, it's

0:09:38.200 --> 0:09:40.439
<v Speaker 1>very good stuff. It's Hey, I have a question for you, Hey,

0:09:40.440 --> 0:09:42.960
<v Speaker 1>I've an answer for you. Women have and I'm gonna

0:09:42.960 --> 0:09:45.280
<v Speaker 1>get these numbers wrong, but three times as many mentors

0:09:45.280 --> 0:09:47.520
<v Speaker 1>as men, but we have about a third as many

0:09:47.559 --> 0:09:50.959
<v Speaker 1>sponsors as men. What's a sponsor? This person in the

0:09:51.080 --> 0:09:54.520
<v Speaker 1>room who says promote her or promote him or I'm

0:09:54.520 --> 0:09:56.800
<v Speaker 1>going to put my political capital on the line for

0:09:56.960 --> 0:10:00.520
<v Speaker 1>him or her and really pull you along, And we

0:10:00.600 --> 0:10:02.920
<v Speaker 1>just don't have as many of them. In fact, even

0:10:02.960 --> 0:10:04.679
<v Speaker 1>we think we have more than we do, and then

0:10:04.720 --> 0:10:07.079
<v Speaker 1>when we question about it, we're like, no, no, don't

0:10:07.120 --> 0:10:10.080
<v Speaker 1>have them. UM, So that's an important in fact what

0:10:10.120 --> 0:10:12.280
<v Speaker 1>I would say. You know, we talked about the book

0:10:12.320 --> 0:10:15.840
<v Speaker 1>in a geeky way, but there's a lot of action

0:10:16.040 --> 0:10:20.720
<v Speaker 1>oriented advice based on my almost thirty years in the

0:10:20.800 --> 0:10:24.400
<v Speaker 1>business UM as well as a lot of Wall Street anecdotes,

0:10:24.440 --> 0:10:25.880
<v Speaker 1>some of which I think, you know, you're gonna be

0:10:25.920 --> 0:10:29.280
<v Speaker 1>like what happened? I can't believe it? And I figure

0:10:29.280 --> 0:10:31.120
<v Speaker 1>if I can sort of give the advice on how

0:10:31.160 --> 0:10:34.760
<v Speaker 1>I navigated through this most mail of businesses, it should

0:10:34.760 --> 0:10:37.760
<v Speaker 1>be relevant for for other businesses as well. You write

0:10:37.760 --> 0:10:41.000
<v Speaker 1>about group think on Wall Street, especially among the executive ranks,

0:10:41.400 --> 0:10:43.760
<v Speaker 1>talk a bit about navigating that and how much that

0:10:43.760 --> 0:10:47.000
<v Speaker 1>continues to persist today. Well, I got fired because of it. Essentially,

0:10:47.200 --> 0:10:52.040
<v Speaker 1>so um Wall Street, the business I love, went into

0:10:52.120 --> 0:10:54.559
<v Speaker 1>the downturn white mail and middle aged, and it came

0:10:54.559 --> 0:10:57.280
<v Speaker 1>out whier mailer and middle aged her, which is really

0:10:57.280 --> 0:11:00.240
<v Speaker 1>sort of surprising. And one of the points I make

0:11:00.320 --> 0:11:02.240
<v Speaker 1>is that while we talk about greed as a driver

0:11:02.400 --> 0:11:07.160
<v Speaker 1>the downturn, okay, leverage, absolutely, but one thing we don't

0:11:07.200 --> 0:11:10.800
<v Speaker 1>talk about a group thinking. What I saw were individuals

0:11:10.800 --> 0:11:13.079
<v Speaker 1>who had the same types of backgrounds, the same type

0:11:13.080 --> 0:11:17.520
<v Speaker 1>of training, same training programs, all friends who fought the

0:11:17.600 --> 0:11:20.319
<v Speaker 1>same way. And so as we went into the downturn,

0:11:20.360 --> 0:11:23.000
<v Speaker 1>there was a it's going to be okay, remember we

0:11:23.040 --> 0:11:25.520
<v Speaker 1>saw this, Oh yeah, I remember the last time we

0:11:25.720 --> 0:11:27.880
<v Speaker 1>Oh remember that one felt and I'm like, what are

0:11:27.880 --> 0:11:31.640
<v Speaker 1>we talking about? You're finishing each other's sentences, And so

0:11:31.720 --> 0:11:35.520
<v Speaker 1>there wasn't that outside. Hey, guys, I have a vastly

0:11:35.559 --> 0:11:41.280
<v Speaker 1>different background, perspective, orientation, way of approaching problems. How about this?

0:11:41.880 --> 0:11:44.760
<v Speaker 1>And without more, without more of that, we drove straight

0:11:44.800 --> 0:11:47.200
<v Speaker 1>over the cliff. You had this career on Wall Street,

0:11:47.240 --> 0:11:49.720
<v Speaker 1>you leave to start this company. Are the regrets that

0:11:49.720 --> 0:11:51.480
<v Speaker 1>you didn't do that sooner. As women are weighing whether

0:11:51.559 --> 0:11:53.680
<v Speaker 1>or not to state the firms they're at or start

0:11:53.720 --> 0:11:56.720
<v Speaker 1>thrown businesses, what would you say about timing well, you know,

0:11:56.880 --> 0:12:01.720
<v Speaker 1>for l Vest, which is a digital investment platform for women. UM,

0:12:01.760 --> 0:12:03.760
<v Speaker 1>I'm not sure I could have started any sooner because

0:12:03.760 --> 0:12:06.520
<v Speaker 1>the technology had to catch up with the idea. I mean,

0:12:06.520 --> 0:12:10.640
<v Speaker 1>we're providing a to my mind, really sophisticated offering for women.

0:12:10.679 --> 0:12:13.920
<v Speaker 1>It's true goals based investing. It's not about beating the

0:12:13.960 --> 0:12:17.600
<v Speaker 1>market when the euro this versus the end, but investing

0:12:17.720 --> 0:12:21.920
<v Speaker 1>highly customized investment portfolios to reach your goals by house,

0:12:21.960 --> 0:12:25.000
<v Speaker 1>have a baby, start a business, retire well. Um. And

0:12:25.040 --> 0:12:28.840
<v Speaker 1>the technology UM had to come pretty far for for

0:12:28.920 --> 0:12:31.800
<v Speaker 1>it to be feasible for us to build the business.

0:12:31.840 --> 0:12:35.200
<v Speaker 1>So do I wish I'd skipped a few chapters. Oh yeah,

0:12:35.200 --> 0:12:37.480
<v Speaker 1>oh yeah, you know that that getting re orged out

0:12:37.480 --> 0:12:39.000
<v Speaker 1>of Bank of America. I could have actually had a

0:12:39.080 --> 0:12:42.120
<v Speaker 1>dream last week, Brian Mornahan wants to see you. I'm like,

0:12:42.200 --> 0:12:45.199
<v Speaker 1>not again. I'm gonna get re orged out again, even

0:12:45.240 --> 0:12:47.480
<v Speaker 1>though my results are better than you know, even though

0:12:47.480 --> 0:12:50.000
<v Speaker 1>we're beating Black No, and in my dream, I thought,

0:12:50.040 --> 0:12:52.600
<v Speaker 1>if I just escaped from the office, maybe they won't

0:12:52.600 --> 0:12:57.440
<v Speaker 1>find me. Yeah, But then I woke up. You equival

0:12:57.559 --> 0:12:59.599
<v Speaker 1>with you take issue with the term empowerment? What is

0:12:59.640 --> 0:13:01.400
<v Speaker 1>it about that, that word that you don't like? I've

0:13:01.600 --> 0:13:04.360
<v Speaker 1>always hated it, and I thought it was because it

0:13:04.400 --> 0:13:07.720
<v Speaker 1>was trite, and you know, let me. I've always hated

0:13:07.720 --> 0:13:11.240
<v Speaker 1>it because I thought it was overused. Um. I then

0:13:11.440 --> 0:13:14.680
<v Speaker 1>finally finally looked it up in the dictionary and empowerment

0:13:14.720 --> 0:13:19.160
<v Speaker 1>means to be given power. Wait a minute, we women

0:13:19.200 --> 0:13:22.840
<v Speaker 1>have got loads of power. We control five trillion dollars

0:13:22.840 --> 0:13:25.560
<v Speaker 1>of investable assets we jointly control with our partners another

0:13:25.720 --> 0:13:29.680
<v Speaker 1>six we direct of consumer spending. We're more than half

0:13:29.679 --> 0:13:33.840
<v Speaker 1>the workforce. That's power. We haven't had the means to

0:13:34.000 --> 0:13:37.000
<v Speaker 1>use it before. How would you know which company to

0:13:37.040 --> 0:13:39.000
<v Speaker 1>buy from? Well, all of a sudden, their startups that

0:13:39.040 --> 0:13:40.920
<v Speaker 1>will tell you, you know, when you go to the

0:13:40.920 --> 0:13:43.200
<v Speaker 1>grocery store, buy up index will tell you the gender

0:13:43.240 --> 0:13:46.280
<v Speaker 1>makeup the senior leadership team of the company you're buying from.

0:13:46.320 --> 0:13:48.640
<v Speaker 1>So all of us or you know we've done good,

0:13:48.640 --> 0:13:51.400
<v Speaker 1>will tell you about how companies are treating the environment.

0:13:51.800 --> 0:13:54.680
<v Speaker 1>So all of a sudden, we have, whether it's who

0:13:54.720 --> 0:13:58.040
<v Speaker 1>we buy from, who we invest in, asking for the raise.

0:13:58.360 --> 0:14:00.360
<v Speaker 1>Never knew how much to ask for before, but they're

0:14:00.400 --> 0:14:02.400
<v Speaker 1>all these sites that tell you how much money should

0:14:02.400 --> 0:14:07.280
<v Speaker 1>be making now, um pay scale, get raised, etcetera. So

0:14:07.320 --> 0:14:10.920
<v Speaker 1>we have this power and now we're beginning to have

0:14:11.040 --> 0:14:13.240
<v Speaker 1>the means to use it. So I think it's changing,

0:14:13.240 --> 0:14:15.160
<v Speaker 1>and I think it can change pretty rapidly. And I

0:14:15.200 --> 0:14:19.000
<v Speaker 1>think the timing is so fascinating. As we have women

0:14:19.040 --> 0:14:21.800
<v Speaker 1>take to the streets in Washington and New York and

0:14:21.960 --> 0:14:25.520
<v Speaker 1>all over the world. What we're hearing from women again

0:14:25.560 --> 0:14:28.400
<v Speaker 1>and again is I want to take some action. What

0:14:28.440 --> 0:14:31.760
<v Speaker 1>we were doing before stalled out. We need to do

0:14:31.840 --> 0:14:34.520
<v Speaker 1>something different. Sally, thank you very much for coming into

0:14:34.520 --> 0:14:36.360
<v Speaker 1>short a time to hope we can have you back again,

0:14:36.360 --> 0:14:38.840
<v Speaker 1>maybe during March madness. I don't know more fervent U

0:14:38.920 --> 0:14:41.520
<v Speaker 1>n c A fan than I here we have feltorio

0:14:41.600 --> 0:14:45.080
<v Speaker 1>any day Sally Project series this year. She's the CEO

0:14:45.080 --> 0:14:47.360
<v Speaker 1>and co founder LS, the author of Owned The Power

0:14:47.520 --> 0:15:02.080
<v Speaker 1>of Women. Edward David Garraty and New York Tom Keene

0:15:02.120 --> 0:15:04.000
<v Speaker 1>is off today. Kevin Logan joins US now. He's the

0:15:04.040 --> 0:15:07.080
<v Speaker 1>chief US Economists at HS at BC. Like many of us,

0:15:07.120 --> 0:15:08.560
<v Speaker 1>he lent an ear to what the president, like the

0:15:08.600 --> 0:15:11.080
<v Speaker 1>then president elect, had to say on Friday. And let's

0:15:11.080 --> 0:15:14.120
<v Speaker 1>start there, Kevin. We focus with an arcual address on

0:15:14.160 --> 0:15:17.360
<v Speaker 1>the sweeping rhetoric. It was sixteen minutes worth of that.

0:15:17.960 --> 0:15:21.120
<v Speaker 1>Did you expect much granular detail to be sprinkled over?

0:15:21.240 --> 0:15:23.080
<v Speaker 1>What did you hear when the president spoke, especially when

0:15:23.080 --> 0:15:26.680
<v Speaker 1>it came to trade. Well, he he had two main themes,

0:15:26.760 --> 0:15:30.280
<v Speaker 1>populism and protectionism. He talked about the people. He was

0:15:30.320 --> 0:15:33.640
<v Speaker 1>anti establishment. He says, there's a new sheriff in town.

0:15:33.720 --> 0:15:35.400
<v Speaker 1>Things are going to change. We're not going to do

0:15:35.560 --> 0:15:38.720
<v Speaker 1>things the way they were done before, and particularly on trade.

0:15:39.480 --> 0:15:43.520
<v Speaker 1>Previous administrations had been focused on multilateral deals, the rule

0:15:43.600 --> 0:15:46.080
<v Speaker 1>of law. Everyone abide him by the same agreement. And

0:15:46.240 --> 0:15:49.280
<v Speaker 1>Mr Trump has a completely different approach. He's going to

0:15:50.120 --> 0:15:53.640
<v Speaker 1>approach things on a unilateral basis, one on one trade

0:15:53.720 --> 0:15:57.000
<v Speaker 1>deals and as he put it, America first, not a

0:15:57.160 --> 0:16:00.560
<v Speaker 1>multilateral deal in which many countries benefit and there's even take,

0:16:00.880 --> 0:16:04.960
<v Speaker 1>but rather now things that clearly benefit in his view, UH,

0:16:05.080 --> 0:16:07.080
<v Speaker 1>deals that will benefit the United States. So that is

0:16:07.120 --> 0:16:09.720
<v Speaker 1>a complete break with the past, and it's a new direction.

0:16:10.000 --> 0:16:12.440
<v Speaker 1>What's your sense of the the effectiveness of the meetings

0:16:12.760 --> 0:16:14.760
<v Speaker 1>he has been holding at the White House thus far.

0:16:14.800 --> 0:16:17.120
<v Speaker 1>He's going to meet with auto executives this morning. Yesterday

0:16:17.160 --> 0:16:20.560
<v Speaker 1>he met with UH leaders of industrial companies, among others.

0:16:20.760 --> 0:16:24.240
<v Speaker 1>Elon Musk was there from Tesla and Solar City. UM.

0:16:24.760 --> 0:16:26.600
<v Speaker 1>How effective can a meeting like that be when he

0:16:26.680 --> 0:16:28.800
<v Speaker 1>tries to pursue this this new kind of trade policy,

0:16:28.800 --> 0:16:31.720
<v Speaker 1>I suppose well. I think image is very very important

0:16:31.880 --> 0:16:34.960
<v Speaker 1>for Trump, and it's very important for any administration. When

0:16:35.040 --> 0:16:38.600
<v Speaker 1>it first comes in. Everyone understands the auto industry. Everyone

0:16:38.680 --> 0:16:40.720
<v Speaker 1>knows that a lot of jobs have moved to Mexico,

0:16:40.800 --> 0:16:45.080
<v Speaker 1>for example, where a lot of parts are manufactured and

0:16:45.120 --> 0:16:47.440
<v Speaker 1>then ship back to the United States. And so going

0:16:47.600 --> 0:16:51.640
<v Speaker 1>straight to the automobile industry has a great optical appeal

0:16:51.800 --> 0:16:55.440
<v Speaker 1>to people throughout the country. And he may get some victories,

0:16:55.480 --> 0:16:58.320
<v Speaker 1>their small victories, some more production in the US, and

0:16:58.360 --> 0:17:01.400
<v Speaker 1>it might involve a few thousand jobs. More importantly, I think,

0:17:01.720 --> 0:17:03.440
<v Speaker 1>is what is the grand plan? What is the big

0:17:03.520 --> 0:17:07.159
<v Speaker 1>plan that's going to change incentives for US manufacturers or

0:17:07.520 --> 0:17:10.399
<v Speaker 1>any company UH to produce more in the United States

0:17:10.880 --> 0:17:15.679
<v Speaker 1>and to reverse the outflow of UH production. That's been

0:17:15.720 --> 0:17:18.040
<v Speaker 1>going on for several decades. The U S tax system

0:17:18.680 --> 0:17:22.879
<v Speaker 1>UH basically encourages UH firms to move production out of

0:17:22.880 --> 0:17:25.280
<v Speaker 1>the US. Not that it's just the U. S tax system,

0:17:25.640 --> 0:17:29.399
<v Speaker 1>it's also the tax system compared with other countries. If

0:17:29.480 --> 0:17:33.119
<v Speaker 1>other countries have value added tax system v a T

0:17:33.400 --> 0:17:37.760
<v Speaker 1>system that taxes consumption but not so much production, whereas

0:17:37.760 --> 0:17:41.359
<v Speaker 1>the US has a system of taxes production and not consumption, well,

0:17:41.400 --> 0:17:43.159
<v Speaker 1>of course production is going to move where is more

0:17:43.240 --> 0:17:45.600
<v Speaker 1>likely taxed, and that's been going on for some time.

0:17:45.920 --> 0:17:48.200
<v Speaker 1>The question now is what will the Trump administration do

0:17:48.800 --> 0:17:53.360
<v Speaker 1>to provide new incentives for corporations to locate their production

0:17:53.440 --> 0:17:55.840
<v Speaker 1>in the US rather than in other countries. That's what

0:17:55.960 --> 0:17:58.159
<v Speaker 1>we'll be watching for in coming months. There was a

0:17:58.240 --> 0:18:00.720
<v Speaker 1>moment of the press briefing yesterday Sean Spicer was talking

0:18:00.760 --> 0:18:03.360
<v Speaker 1>with reporters. One asked about the unemployment rate. She said,

0:18:03.359 --> 0:18:05.040
<v Speaker 1>what is the unemployment rate? And there was some hemming

0:18:05.040 --> 0:18:07.480
<v Speaker 1>and hawing about what he in the administration things it

0:18:07.600 --> 0:18:10.200
<v Speaker 1>is UH, and a line after that stood out to me.

0:18:10.280 --> 0:18:12.960
<v Speaker 1>He said that we've been focusing too much on statistics

0:18:13.000 --> 0:18:14.560
<v Speaker 1>and I want to just draw that more broadly to

0:18:14.600 --> 0:18:18.000
<v Speaker 1>talk about trade. You have the President signing an executive

0:18:18.080 --> 0:18:21.719
<v Speaker 1>order yesterday rejecting the TPP, the Transpacific Partnership. By all reports,

0:18:21.760 --> 0:18:23.240
<v Speaker 1>he's going to do the same thing with NAFTA. He's

0:18:23.240 --> 0:18:25.280
<v Speaker 1>going to call for a rewrite of that later in

0:18:25.320 --> 0:18:28.120
<v Speaker 1>the week. Are you convinced that there is enough attention

0:18:28.200 --> 0:18:31.080
<v Speaker 1>being paid to the economic case for for reevaluating these

0:18:31.119 --> 0:18:33.800
<v Speaker 1>trade deals or is this uh, you know, sort of

0:18:33.800 --> 0:18:37.880
<v Speaker 1>statistics be damned. We're looking at at policy exclusive of that. Well, yes,

0:18:38.280 --> 0:18:43.080
<v Speaker 1>it's not only statistics be damned, but conventional economic theory down. Uh.

0:18:43.400 --> 0:18:45.880
<v Speaker 1>Most trade theorist would say they are great benefits from trade.

0:18:45.920 --> 0:18:48.560
<v Speaker 1>Look at all the inexpensive goods that are important into

0:18:48.560 --> 0:18:52.000
<v Speaker 1>the United States. Its benefits everyone, It increases people's standard

0:18:52.040 --> 0:18:54.639
<v Speaker 1>of living. But that's not what the Trump administration is about.

0:18:54.880 --> 0:18:58.280
<v Speaker 1>So those general gains are dwarfed in their minds by

0:18:58.359 --> 0:19:00.920
<v Speaker 1>low losses that have occurred for people who are in

0:19:01.040 --> 0:19:04.960
<v Speaker 1>those sectors which a lost employment, lost production because of trade,

0:19:05.119 --> 0:19:07.800
<v Speaker 1>and that's what they want to reverse. So the overall

0:19:08.000 --> 0:19:11.560
<v Speaker 1>theory of their overall statistics, Yes, those statistics and theories

0:19:11.600 --> 0:19:14.840
<v Speaker 1>can be damned. Because the people who supported Donald Trump

0:19:14.960 --> 0:19:18.320
<v Speaker 1>to a large degree see themselves as being disadvantaged in

0:19:18.480 --> 0:19:21.879
<v Speaker 1>the by conventional trade theory, and that there should be

0:19:22.280 --> 0:19:25.119
<v Speaker 1>a reversal of that. So that's why we're headed in

0:19:25.200 --> 0:19:28.040
<v Speaker 1>this new direction. Let me ask you lastly here about

0:19:28.040 --> 0:19:30.399
<v Speaker 1>a different topic entirely. Steven Manuch in the pick T B.

0:19:30.440 --> 0:19:32.840
<v Speaker 1>Treasury Secretary, was testified Capital Hill, and he talked about

0:19:33.520 --> 0:19:36.320
<v Speaker 1>the strength of the dollar. The president tweeted about the

0:19:36.320 --> 0:19:39.040
<v Speaker 1>strength of the dollar, saying he hoped it would be weaker.

0:19:39.600 --> 0:19:42.359
<v Speaker 1>This is unprecedented to have a president doing that. Are

0:19:42.440 --> 0:19:44.359
<v Speaker 1>we seeing the end of the strong dollar policy? Was

0:19:44.440 --> 0:19:45.960
<v Speaker 1>that was that the pivot was at the turn there

0:19:46.000 --> 0:19:48.560
<v Speaker 1>When that tweet came out, it certainly sounded as if

0:19:48.600 --> 0:19:52.320
<v Speaker 1>it was a pivot and change. Back in the nineties

0:19:52.400 --> 0:19:55.879
<v Speaker 1>when Bill Clinton was president, the strong dollar policy was

0:19:55.880 --> 0:19:58.800
<v Speaker 1>adopted because there was concerned about capital flows into the

0:19:58.920 --> 0:20:02.120
<v Speaker 1>United States. Interest rates were higher. There was a concerned

0:20:02.119 --> 0:20:06.639
<v Speaker 1>that foreign investors were discouraged by the progress of the

0:20:06.680 --> 0:20:10.120
<v Speaker 1>American economy and if the capital wasn't invested in the US,

0:20:10.400 --> 0:20:12.879
<v Speaker 1>interest rates would remain high. It would be difficult for

0:20:13.720 --> 0:20:16.760
<v Speaker 1>uh the U S economy to grow. Adopting a strong

0:20:17.359 --> 0:20:20.800
<v Speaker 1>dollar policy sort of put a safety net underneath the

0:20:20.920 --> 0:20:24.840
<v Speaker 1>value of uh U S assets for foreign investors. By

0:20:24.880 --> 0:20:26.640
<v Speaker 1>the time we got to the end of that decade,

0:20:26.640 --> 0:20:29.000
<v Speaker 1>the economy was strong, the U S deficit was shrinking,

0:20:29.600 --> 0:20:33.000
<v Speaker 1>moved into a surplus. The rationale for a strong dollar

0:20:33.119 --> 0:20:36.720
<v Speaker 1>policy had gone, but the policy had its own inertia

0:20:36.760 --> 0:20:39.800
<v Speaker 1>and just continued not anymore. I think that's new era

0:20:40.280 --> 0:20:43.080
<v Speaker 1>and a new approach to the dollars that we're about

0:20:43.119 --> 0:20:44.760
<v Speaker 1>to see. Kevin Love and always right to speaking in

0:20:44.760 --> 0:20:46.920
<v Speaker 1>the chief us Ecnoms of HSBC, join us here in

0:20:46.960 --> 0:20:58.040
<v Speaker 1>New York. This is Bloomberg Surveillance on Bloomberg Radio, brought

0:20:58.080 --> 0:21:01.719
<v Speaker 1>you by Bank of America, Maryland and dedicated to bringing

0:21:01.760 --> 0:21:05.440
<v Speaker 1>our clients insights and solutions to meet the challenges of

0:21:05.520 --> 0:21:10.000
<v Speaker 1>a transforming world. That's the power of global connections. Marylynch,

0:21:10.160 --> 0:21:18.960
<v Speaker 1>Pierce federin Smith Incorporated, Member s I PC, David Gura

0:21:19.040 --> 0:21:21.320
<v Speaker 1>in New York. Tom Keene off Today's Scarlett Food joining

0:21:21.359 --> 0:21:23.639
<v Speaker 1>me in the studio Brunnan Hawk and he's an analyst

0:21:23.680 --> 0:21:26.480
<v Speaker 1>with UBS. We're here at the end of earning season,

0:21:26.520 --> 0:21:28.280
<v Speaker 1>of the fourth quarter earning season for the big banks,

0:21:28.320 --> 0:21:30.840
<v Speaker 1>the Big six banks. Brennan Hawkin, Great to have you

0:21:30.960 --> 0:21:33.280
<v Speaker 1>with us, and let's start, if we could, with this

0:21:33.440 --> 0:21:36.600
<v Speaker 1>prospect for regulatory change. We heard from Steve mcnut in

0:21:36.680 --> 0:21:38.760
<v Speaker 1>last week on Capitol Hill test to protestifying before the

0:21:38.800 --> 0:21:41.160
<v Speaker 1>Senate Finance Comming to He was asked about what could

0:21:41.240 --> 0:21:43.239
<v Speaker 1>change when it comes to regulation. How do you how

0:21:43.240 --> 0:21:45.480
<v Speaker 1>don analysts like you begin to process what that could

0:21:45.560 --> 0:21:49.160
<v Speaker 1>mean for banks bottom lines changes to the regulatory framework. Yeah,

0:21:49.280 --> 0:21:52.240
<v Speaker 1>hi David, thanks for having me on. UM. The great

0:21:52.320 --> 0:21:55.560
<v Speaker 1>question and probably the one that's most difficult to try

0:21:55.600 --> 0:21:58.159
<v Speaker 1>to figure out. Uh. It's something we've been wrestling with

0:21:59.359 --> 0:22:03.280
<v Speaker 1>ever since early November, right, Uh and UM. Of course

0:22:03.359 --> 0:22:06.359
<v Speaker 1>regulatory change is one factor. There's also the potential for

0:22:06.680 --> 0:22:10.560
<v Speaker 1>for tax reform uh and everything like that. But I'll

0:22:10.560 --> 0:22:13.719
<v Speaker 1>stick to the spirit of your question. UM and UM,

0:22:13.960 --> 0:22:16.720
<v Speaker 1>you know, the regulatory adjustments and how to think about it.

0:22:17.160 --> 0:22:20.520
<v Speaker 1>We have done some analysis looking at Goldman as an example,

0:22:20.640 --> 0:22:25.440
<v Speaker 1>because really they're probably the most likely to benefit and

0:22:25.560 --> 0:22:28.239
<v Speaker 1>we can we can get into why if you like. UM.

0:22:28.359 --> 0:22:31.280
<v Speaker 1>We took a look at what happened in in two

0:22:31.320 --> 0:22:34.440
<v Speaker 1>thousand and nine, UM, which was the last time we

0:22:34.560 --> 0:22:38.200
<v Speaker 1>had a nice solid growth of the fix revenue pool,

0:22:38.640 --> 0:22:41.440
<v Speaker 1>which is fixed income, currency and commodity trading amongst the

0:22:41.560 --> 0:22:45.600
<v Speaker 1>large bullish bracket investment banks, and Goldman took a ton

0:22:45.680 --> 0:22:52.159
<v Speaker 1>of share. Uh. They captured about of that revenue opportunity. UM,

0:22:52.480 --> 0:22:54.800
<v Speaker 1>there are a great franchise. They were able to be

0:22:54.920 --> 0:22:58.720
<v Speaker 1>committed to UM putting capital at work in the market,

0:22:58.840 --> 0:23:02.199
<v Speaker 1>and they hadn't fired rebody off of their trading desks

0:23:02.480 --> 0:23:04.760
<v Speaker 1>the way so many of their competitors had, which is

0:23:04.880 --> 0:23:09.639
<v Speaker 1>remarkably similar to today UM, when other firms have restructured

0:23:09.680 --> 0:23:13.280
<v Speaker 1>their thick business. It's it's been a really problematic line

0:23:13.320 --> 0:23:15.560
<v Speaker 1>of business for a lot of the bullish brackets UM,

0:23:15.720 --> 0:23:17.720
<v Speaker 1>but Goldman has stuck to it, and so we think

0:23:17.800 --> 0:23:19.920
<v Speaker 1>that they are in a very very good position to

0:23:20.040 --> 0:23:23.879
<v Speaker 1>benefit from thick expansion. If we just get back to uh,

0:23:24.000 --> 0:23:28.879
<v Speaker 1>you know the average for FICK, you know, we'd be

0:23:28.960 --> 0:23:33.119
<v Speaker 1>adding about fifteen billion to the global revenue pool. Is

0:23:33.160 --> 0:23:36.680
<v Speaker 1>this a case of Golden stealing share from his competitors

0:23:37.320 --> 0:23:40.399
<v Speaker 1>or is it growing? Is the market growing or starting

0:23:40.440 --> 0:23:45.399
<v Speaker 1>to grow again? So a little bit of both, probably Scarlett. UM.

0:23:45.600 --> 0:23:49.840
<v Speaker 1>What I would say is, Um, the Goldman has seeded

0:23:50.600 --> 0:23:54.800
<v Speaker 1>or have had market share stolen in your Partlan's Um

0:23:55.359 --> 0:23:59.880
<v Speaker 1>over the last three years in fick Um and that's

0:24:00.000 --> 0:24:04.480
<v Speaker 1>mostly because the macro businesses f X rates are not

0:24:04.960 --> 0:24:10.119
<v Speaker 1>really big strong as strong markets for Goldman as the

0:24:10.200 --> 0:24:14.320
<v Speaker 1>commercial banks. Commercial banks have huge stock piles of treasuries,

0:24:14.760 --> 0:24:18.280
<v Speaker 1>they deal in in currencies, uh, you know, gold Boy

0:24:18.359 --> 0:24:21.879
<v Speaker 1>through a banking footprint, and so they have competitive advantages

0:24:21.960 --> 0:24:27.680
<v Speaker 1>over a firm like Goldman Um and so they're Goldman

0:24:27.760 --> 0:24:30.119
<v Speaker 1>through its business bix alone is going to appear to

0:24:30.240 --> 0:24:34.040
<v Speaker 1>seed share in a time when macro businesses do much

0:24:34.080 --> 0:24:36.400
<v Speaker 1>better within sick Garlett Food and I talking with Brennan Hawk,

0:24:36.400 --> 0:24:39.600
<v Speaker 1>an analyst with UBS, just on the subject of Goldman

0:24:39.680 --> 0:24:41.400
<v Speaker 1>quickly if I could hear Brennan, we see so many

0:24:41.440 --> 0:24:45.000
<v Speaker 1>alumni of Goldman Sacks going into government here Goldman Sacks

0:24:45.040 --> 0:24:47.240
<v Speaker 1>once again being foisted into the spotlight as a result

0:24:47.280 --> 0:24:49.280
<v Speaker 1>of that. Is that something that's worrying to you as

0:24:49.320 --> 0:24:52.280
<v Speaker 1>an analyst. Does that bring new scrutiny to the bank,

0:24:52.280 --> 0:24:54.520
<v Speaker 1>maybe not new scrutiny, but renewed scrutiny to the bank,

0:24:54.560 --> 0:24:56.720
<v Speaker 1>And is that something that could affect how the bank

0:24:56.800 --> 0:25:01.040
<v Speaker 1>performs It certainly will bring a tension from the press.

0:25:01.280 --> 0:25:05.040
<v Speaker 1>I think that that's to be expected. Um, I'm not

0:25:05.160 --> 0:25:09.680
<v Speaker 1>so sure. I usually don't think that that has a

0:25:09.720 --> 0:25:12.960
<v Speaker 1>big impact. Normally, when someone goes into uh, you know,

0:25:13.119 --> 0:25:16.840
<v Speaker 1>public service after they've um, you know, done what they

0:25:16.880 --> 0:25:18.960
<v Speaker 1>want to do and made a good deal of wealth

0:25:19.040 --> 0:25:22.560
<v Speaker 1>in private sector, they usually do it because they feel

0:25:22.600 --> 0:25:25.000
<v Speaker 1>like they can have an impact. Now, what I think

0:25:25.160 --> 0:25:28.240
<v Speaker 1>is important and interesting is that, but you know, folks

0:25:28.520 --> 0:25:31.199
<v Speaker 1>like Gary Cohen and the like who go into um

0:25:31.400 --> 0:25:34.320
<v Speaker 1>Minuchan who you referenced before, David, They when they go

0:25:34.440 --> 0:25:39.160
<v Speaker 1>into public service, they tend to be more um understanding

0:25:39.400 --> 0:25:43.000
<v Speaker 1>of commercial interests, pro market understanding the benefits that market

0:25:43.080 --> 0:25:48.080
<v Speaker 1>can bring, whereas some of the previous folks in regulatory

0:25:48.240 --> 0:25:51.680
<v Speaker 1>and senior Washington positions, you know, folks like Dance while

0:25:51.720 --> 0:25:54.159
<v Speaker 1>he currently still is but we'll see how for how

0:25:54.240 --> 0:25:58.160
<v Speaker 1>long that Dance Rulo who comes out of academia and law.

0:25:58.600 --> 0:26:03.479
<v Speaker 1>They just have a different print approach, an understanding of um,

0:26:03.680 --> 0:26:06.240
<v Speaker 1>you know, the need to generate sufficient returns in the market,

0:26:06.560 --> 0:26:09.760
<v Speaker 1>the benefit that markets can provide to companies and allowing

0:26:09.800 --> 0:26:12.639
<v Speaker 1>for access to capital, the importance of aquidity. And so

0:26:13.240 --> 0:26:17.119
<v Speaker 1>to me, this is really we stumbled onto a key point.

0:26:17.359 --> 0:26:19.440
<v Speaker 1>And and you know maybe if Tom were here, I'd

0:26:19.480 --> 0:26:21.719
<v Speaker 1>get a rip up the script comments or something out

0:26:21.760 --> 0:26:25.280
<v Speaker 1>of him. Right, but uh, you know, to me, this

0:26:25.560 --> 0:26:28.119
<v Speaker 1>is where the rubber will hit the road, and we

0:26:28.320 --> 0:26:35.359
<v Speaker 1>can actually see regulatory tone change, right the idea that

0:26:35.880 --> 0:26:38.639
<v Speaker 1>you know, those on top are saying, listen, we we

0:26:38.760 --> 0:26:40.879
<v Speaker 1>need to have better functioning capital markets. We need to

0:26:40.920 --> 0:26:43.320
<v Speaker 1>have greater liquidity in some of these bond markets and

0:26:43.359 --> 0:26:45.480
<v Speaker 1>the like. And the best way to do it is

0:26:45.520 --> 0:26:48.160
<v Speaker 1>to not, you know, continue to apply pressure to these

0:26:48.200 --> 0:26:51.080
<v Speaker 1>businesses when they're really just trying to service customers. So

0:26:51.200 --> 0:26:54.400
<v Speaker 1>that being the case, what would Gary Cohne do as

0:26:54.520 --> 0:26:56.800
<v Speaker 1>his first initiative or what would he be pushing for

0:26:57.400 --> 0:27:01.720
<v Speaker 1>in his first initiative? The supporting president? Yeah, and and

0:27:02.600 --> 0:27:05.320
<v Speaker 1>we we we started on Gary, but but I I strayed,

0:27:05.480 --> 0:27:08.560
<v Speaker 1>of course, more more broadly than that, UM, I think

0:27:09.160 --> 0:27:11.760
<v Speaker 1>UM Gary is in a position where he would be

0:27:11.840 --> 0:27:16.680
<v Speaker 1>advising right on the Economic Council, which is more of

0:27:17.080 --> 0:27:21.320
<v Speaker 1>UM a tonal impact, right, UH, an adjustment to approach

0:27:21.680 --> 0:27:25.280
<v Speaker 1>perhaps if he can put input into UM assignments, UH

0:27:25.400 --> 0:27:29.000
<v Speaker 1>in key regulatory positions. To me, the key regulatory positions

0:27:29.160 --> 0:27:32.000
<v Speaker 1>are what are really important here. And so we took

0:27:32.080 --> 0:27:35.720
<v Speaker 1>I mentioned before about the TRUA role within the fed UM.

0:27:36.400 --> 0:27:38.520
<v Speaker 1>There is also the idea we're going to have a

0:27:38.560 --> 0:27:43.200
<v Speaker 1>new sec UH chairperson uh J Clayton here soon who

0:27:43.560 --> 0:27:47.199
<v Speaker 1>clearly has h an understanding and appreciation for commercial interests

0:27:47.760 --> 0:27:50.680
<v Speaker 1>in the markets. We've also got UM the potential for

0:27:50.720 --> 0:27:54.040
<v Speaker 1>a new head of cftc UM, which is going to

0:27:54.080 --> 0:27:55.800
<v Speaker 1>have a very very big impact on some of these

0:27:55.840 --> 0:27:59.119
<v Speaker 1>trading markets. Volker has had a huge impact on the

0:27:59.200 --> 0:28:03.920
<v Speaker 1>thick markets, mostly UM, because there's so much scrutiny of

0:28:04.040 --> 0:28:08.240
<v Speaker 1>any kind of principal transaction and the need to be

0:28:09.000 --> 0:28:14.119
<v Speaker 1>so cautious and so concerned about these entities trading on

0:28:14.200 --> 0:28:18.240
<v Speaker 1>their own account, whereas in reality they might just be facilitating,

0:28:18.680 --> 0:28:21.040
<v Speaker 1>you know, customer trade. So is it a matter of

0:28:21.200 --> 0:28:24.840
<v Speaker 1>perhaps not enforcing everything that's in the vocal rule and

0:28:25.160 --> 0:28:27.680
<v Speaker 1>everything that's in regulation right now as opposed to rewriting

0:28:27.680 --> 0:28:33.200
<v Speaker 1>it completely to me UM, the idea that we would

0:28:33.240 --> 0:28:36.520
<v Speaker 1>have repeal um of laws actually on the books is

0:28:36.560 --> 0:28:40.320
<v Speaker 1>a lot more difficult. UM. Bulker is an extremely subjective rule,

0:28:40.920 --> 0:28:44.880
<v Speaker 1>and if you have a regulatory approach that is hostile

0:28:44.960 --> 0:28:47.520
<v Speaker 1>in its tone, then you're there's going to be an

0:28:47.640 --> 0:28:52.840
<v Speaker 1>enthusiasm and a UM an approach that will limit the

0:28:52.920 --> 0:28:55.640
<v Speaker 1>ability of a lot of these firms to provide liquidity

0:28:55.680 --> 0:28:59.480
<v Speaker 1>the market, whereas if the approach is more pro market,

0:28:59.640 --> 0:29:03.680
<v Speaker 1>more more commercially oriented, UM, than we could easily see

0:29:03.760 --> 0:29:06.040
<v Speaker 1>a greater amount of liquidity provided. But in the time

0:29:06.040 --> 0:29:07.240
<v Speaker 1>that we have left, let me bring it back to

0:29:07.360 --> 0:29:09.600
<v Speaker 1>to the last earning season. UH. It was a fourth

0:29:09.680 --> 0:29:12.000
<v Speaker 1>quarter earning season. We saw a beat like we don't

0:29:12.080 --> 0:29:14.840
<v Speaker 1>usually see in the fourth quarter. Speak to the uniqueness

0:29:14.920 --> 0:29:16.880
<v Speaker 1>of of of what we saw there. We've mentioned that

0:29:16.960 --> 0:29:18.640
<v Speaker 1>it was a fixed story for a lot of these

0:29:19.080 --> 0:29:21.720
<v Speaker 1>big banks. Are there signs that's going to continue into

0:29:21.720 --> 0:29:24.080
<v Speaker 1>the next quarter or was this something really uniquely tied

0:29:24.120 --> 0:29:27.360
<v Speaker 1>to the president's victory? UM, So it was a probably

0:29:27.400 --> 0:29:30.840
<v Speaker 1>a mix of both. UM. There was the victory was

0:29:30.960 --> 0:29:36.080
<v Speaker 1>definitely very helpful in UM providing a catalyst for markets

0:29:36.160 --> 0:29:39.960
<v Speaker 1>and providing volumes. We saw a similar thing when bregsit occurred,

0:29:40.400 --> 0:29:42.640
<v Speaker 1>you know in the third quarter. UH, there was a

0:29:42.680 --> 0:29:45.160
<v Speaker 1>benefit Actually there's some degree to the second but also

0:29:45.240 --> 0:29:48.800
<v Speaker 1>to the third quarter from that event. UM. The election

0:29:48.920 --> 0:29:51.920
<v Speaker 1>also provided a great deal of reason to UH for

0:29:52.080 --> 0:29:55.040
<v Speaker 1>customers to trade in the fourth quarter. Fourth quarters normally

0:29:55.040 --> 0:29:57.800
<v Speaker 1>are not all that great because of the holidays and

0:29:57.880 --> 0:30:00.280
<v Speaker 1>the and the lower amount of trading volume into total.

0:30:00.520 --> 0:30:03.120
<v Speaker 1>One queue is typically where a great deal of money

0:30:03.200 --> 0:30:05.520
<v Speaker 1>is made, especially in fix. We're off to a very

0:30:05.600 --> 0:30:08.720
<v Speaker 1>very good start. There's been a very busy underwriting calendar

0:30:09.200 --> 0:30:11.080
<v Speaker 1>for a lot of these debt markets, which tends to

0:30:11.120 --> 0:30:15.040
<v Speaker 1>bode very very well for thick revenues. Comps are quite easy,

0:30:15.440 --> 0:30:17.720
<v Speaker 1>so I think we're going to see another really strong

0:30:17.920 --> 0:30:21.120
<v Speaker 1>revenue growth quarter here this quarter. And that's even before

0:30:21.680 --> 0:30:24.360
<v Speaker 1>a lot of these adjustments to the regulatory enforcement that

0:30:24.480 --> 0:30:26.840
<v Speaker 1>I've made reference to before to start to actually have

0:30:26.880 --> 0:30:30.000
<v Speaker 1>an impact. So to me, we're just getting started, all right, friend,

0:30:30.040 --> 0:30:31.239
<v Speaker 1>we'll have to have you back after some of those

0:30:31.240 --> 0:30:33.320
<v Speaker 1>adjustments starts to happen. Brennon Hawk in the analyst with

0:30:33.400 --> 0:30:47.360
<v Speaker 1>Ubs joining us. Michael Gapan joins us now he's chief

0:30:47.400 --> 0:30:49.920
<v Speaker 1>US economist by at Barclays. Join us here in the studio.

0:30:50.240 --> 0:30:52.520
<v Speaker 1>Let me start with a definitional question. Sure, there was

0:30:52.560 --> 0:30:54.720
<v Speaker 1>a lot of talk about tariffs during the campaign and

0:30:54.800 --> 0:30:57.520
<v Speaker 1>the transition. Now the talk seems to have shifted to

0:30:57.840 --> 0:31:02.120
<v Speaker 1>conversation about the border adjustment tax. Right, are they the

0:31:02.160 --> 0:31:03.959
<v Speaker 1>same thing. What what do you what do you make

0:31:04.000 --> 0:31:05.719
<v Speaker 1>of the rhetoric we've heard about that here? The way

0:31:05.760 --> 0:31:08.280
<v Speaker 1>the President speaks about it, it is a tariff. So

0:31:08.400 --> 0:31:10.800
<v Speaker 1>he says, if if you're a company and you relocate

0:31:10.920 --> 0:31:13.640
<v Speaker 1>overseas and you try and export back into the US,

0:31:14.240 --> 0:31:17.120
<v Speaker 1>you will face a thirty tax. Right, that's the simplified

0:31:17.200 --> 0:31:20.240
<v Speaker 1>version of what he said. That's a tariff. The way

0:31:20.760 --> 0:31:23.640
<v Speaker 1>how Speaker Ryan and some of the Senate plans talk

0:31:23.720 --> 0:31:27.600
<v Speaker 1>about the border adjustment tax is it's couched in broad

0:31:27.720 --> 0:31:31.560
<v Speaker 1>based corporate tax reform, so it's a tax on all imports,

0:31:31.600 --> 0:31:34.600
<v Speaker 1>and it's a reorientation of the tax code. So right now,

0:31:35.320 --> 0:31:37.760
<v Speaker 1>it's a point of origin system, so if you're a

0:31:37.840 --> 0:31:41.920
<v Speaker 1>US corporation, doesn't matter where the sale takes place, it's

0:31:41.920 --> 0:31:44.760
<v Speaker 1>subject to federal taxes. So if you export that sell

0:31:44.800 --> 0:31:48.240
<v Speaker 1>it abroad, your subject to federal taxes in the US.

0:31:48.560 --> 0:31:51.080
<v Speaker 1>You pay it when it's repatriated. That's why we have

0:31:51.160 --> 0:31:55.920
<v Speaker 1>the repatriation issue. But if you reorient the system in

0:31:56.040 --> 0:32:00.120
<v Speaker 1>tax all imports, you're refundamentally reshaping the full core pro

0:32:00.200 --> 0:32:02.760
<v Speaker 1>tax code. So I would say it depends on which

0:32:02.840 --> 0:32:05.680
<v Speaker 1>border tax you're you're talking about if it's House Ryan,

0:32:05.960 --> 0:32:10.040
<v Speaker 1>House Speaker Ryan's plan, it's comprehensive, couched and comprehensive tax reform.

0:32:10.120 --> 0:32:12.680
<v Speaker 1>It's part of a very broad based fiscal stimulus plan.

0:32:13.280 --> 0:32:15.280
<v Speaker 1>If you're looking out at the way President Trump is

0:32:15.320 --> 0:32:19.520
<v Speaker 1>talking about it, it's more bilateral tariffs against specific trading partners.

0:32:19.880 --> 0:32:22.360
<v Speaker 1>Is everyone trying to simplify this a little bit too much?

0:32:22.400 --> 0:32:24.800
<v Speaker 1>I mean, should there be the same tax, whether it's

0:32:24.840 --> 0:32:28.320
<v Speaker 1>border tax or a tariff on all industry, all types

0:32:28.360 --> 0:32:31.040
<v Speaker 1>of companies. But I think that there's probably a legal

0:32:31.120 --> 0:32:32.960
<v Speaker 1>issue on whether you can put this tax on an

0:32:33.000 --> 0:32:35.800
<v Speaker 1>individual firm, right, So I think if you know, he's

0:32:35.840 --> 0:32:39.040
<v Speaker 1>called out specific company correct. So I'm not a legal

0:32:39.120 --> 0:32:42.280
<v Speaker 1>scholar on this, but my my guess is where it

0:32:42.320 --> 0:32:45.000
<v Speaker 1>would go as you'd have to consider then tariffs on

0:32:45.080 --> 0:32:49.840
<v Speaker 1>a specific industry or an entire country. Um. So if

0:32:49.880 --> 0:32:52.240
<v Speaker 1>you go back to say, when um, when Reagan was

0:32:52.320 --> 0:32:55.520
<v Speaker 1>in was in office, we put a tariff on semiconductors.

0:32:55.560 --> 0:32:58.080
<v Speaker 1>You look at what President Obama did on steel imports

0:32:58.160 --> 0:32:59.760
<v Speaker 1>from from China. So I think you would have to

0:32:59.840 --> 0:33:04.000
<v Speaker 1>lead treat an entire segment and industry segment the same way.

0:33:04.200 --> 0:33:08.080
<v Speaker 1>Does that work? Better. Uh, not necessarily. I think it

0:33:08.360 --> 0:33:10.880
<v Speaker 1>depends on what what the goal is ultimately, and in

0:33:10.960 --> 0:33:12.800
<v Speaker 1>this case, what the President is trying to do is

0:33:12.880 --> 0:33:16.160
<v Speaker 1>reorient activity to the domestic economy. And in principle, if

0:33:16.200 --> 0:33:18.480
<v Speaker 1>you want to get less of something, in this case trade,

0:33:18.600 --> 0:33:21.600
<v Speaker 1>you have to make it more expensive or prohibited. So

0:33:21.720 --> 0:33:23.640
<v Speaker 1>I think what what the President would be saying is

0:33:23.880 --> 0:33:28.960
<v Speaker 1>there are specific bilateral trading partners that are not behaving well,

0:33:29.640 --> 0:33:33.640
<v Speaker 1>and we could perhaps remedy that that through tariff policy.

0:33:34.200 --> 0:33:36.440
<v Speaker 1>The House and Senate plans are more about we don't

0:33:36.480 --> 0:33:38.760
<v Speaker 1>like the way the corporate tax code is set up.

0:33:38.880 --> 0:33:42.040
<v Speaker 1>We think it creates too many distortions. UM, we'd like

0:33:42.160 --> 0:33:44.320
<v Speaker 1>to lower the rate, broaden the base, and in the

0:33:44.560 --> 0:33:47.520
<v Speaker 1>border adjustment tax provides a way to do that. So

0:33:47.640 --> 0:33:51.560
<v Speaker 1>one's about trade policy, the other one is about corporate taxation.

0:33:51.880 --> 0:33:54.160
<v Speaker 1>Make it more expensive. We're prohibited, you say, And I

0:33:54.280 --> 0:33:56.760
<v Speaker 1>wonder if you if you've modeled that out sort of

0:33:56.840 --> 0:33:58.520
<v Speaker 1>what that means, and if you think that the politicians

0:33:58.520 --> 0:34:00.959
<v Speaker 1>who are proposing these changes have reck with that as well,

0:34:01.000 --> 0:34:02.719
<v Speaker 1>what it could mean for the U. S economy. Well,

0:34:02.760 --> 0:34:06.120
<v Speaker 1>I think that so in the political political economy sense,

0:34:06.200 --> 0:34:08.400
<v Speaker 1>you I think you asked the question, did we just

0:34:08.680 --> 0:34:12.759
<v Speaker 1>vote as as a country to say we're comfortable with

0:34:12.960 --> 0:34:15.799
<v Speaker 1>paying a little more to get a little less if

0:34:15.880 --> 0:34:17.719
<v Speaker 1>that means we get to keep more jobs at home.

0:34:17.960 --> 0:34:21.239
<v Speaker 1>That's the kind of the anti globalization trade off. So

0:34:21.320 --> 0:34:24.600
<v Speaker 1>if you put tariffs on on products, you will get

0:34:24.680 --> 0:34:27.400
<v Speaker 1>less trade, that's true, but it will also mean what

0:34:27.520 --> 0:34:29.359
<v Speaker 1>you and I buy every day is generally a little

0:34:29.400 --> 0:34:32.839
<v Speaker 1>more expensive, so your dollar won't go as far. That's

0:34:32.840 --> 0:34:35.319
<v Speaker 1>a political economy trade off. We're in the short run.

0:34:35.840 --> 0:34:38.640
<v Speaker 1>It would likely hurt activity a bit and cause a

0:34:38.680 --> 0:34:41.399
<v Speaker 1>little more inflation, So you have to trade a short

0:34:41.560 --> 0:34:45.520
<v Speaker 1>term loss for an unknown medium term gain. Normally that's

0:34:45.560 --> 0:34:48.399
<v Speaker 1>not a good political trade off, but that's what we're

0:34:48.440 --> 0:34:50.759
<v Speaker 1>looking at. We're on chartered territory at the same time.

0:34:51.000 --> 0:34:53.879
<v Speaker 1>That's right. We don't have a tremendous amount of experience

0:34:54.000 --> 0:34:57.719
<v Speaker 1>with the imposition of very large tariffs. Um, you have

0:34:57.840 --> 0:35:01.200
<v Speaker 1>to go back many decades to do that. Generally, it's

0:35:01.280 --> 0:35:04.640
<v Speaker 1>not positive for activity in the short run. Yeah. I

0:35:04.719 --> 0:35:07.600
<v Speaker 1>heard Stephen Moore interviewed this morning of the Heritage Foundation,

0:35:07.680 --> 0:35:10.160
<v Speaker 1>former advisor to Donald Trump when he was running for president,

0:35:10.239 --> 0:35:12.240
<v Speaker 1>and one thing he acknowledged. Is you have the president

0:35:12.280 --> 0:35:15.839
<v Speaker 1>calling out, as Scarlett said, some of these companies by name. Uh,

0:35:16.239 --> 0:35:18.120
<v Speaker 1>this could all fall apart, The strategy could all fall

0:35:18.160 --> 0:35:20.000
<v Speaker 1>apart if one of them decided it makes more sense

0:35:20.040 --> 0:35:21.960
<v Speaker 1>to move overseas despite the fact that these terrorists are

0:35:22.160 --> 0:35:23.920
<v Speaker 1>in place. Do you agree with that that this is

0:35:24.000 --> 0:35:27.239
<v Speaker 1>a sort of a a loosely constructed house. Well, that's

0:35:27.280 --> 0:35:29.600
<v Speaker 1>when I would say push comes to shove and you

0:35:29.680 --> 0:35:31.880
<v Speaker 1>have to decide what you what you want to do.

0:35:32.280 --> 0:35:35.680
<v Speaker 1>In in our baseline, we do assume protectionist policies are

0:35:35.760 --> 0:35:38.520
<v Speaker 1>put into place. We felt like the main theme of

0:35:38.600 --> 0:35:43.560
<v Speaker 1>the Trump campaign was reorienting activity domestically, backing away from

0:35:43.640 --> 0:35:47.680
<v Speaker 1>globalized economy. So I do think you will get protectionist policy.

0:35:47.760 --> 0:35:49.840
<v Speaker 1>So yes, right now the messages don't do it. But

0:35:49.960 --> 0:35:52.719
<v Speaker 1>if somebody does it, then you've drawn a line, the

0:35:52.800 --> 0:35:55.279
<v Speaker 1>so called redline. And what what does the administration do

0:35:55.360 --> 0:35:57.560
<v Speaker 1>in response? And we think you will get some terroffs.

0:35:57.880 --> 0:36:00.160
<v Speaker 1>So what is the argument or the best argument the

0:36:00.200 --> 0:36:02.359
<v Speaker 1>heads of GM Ford and FIAT christ Or can make

0:36:02.400 --> 0:36:05.160
<v Speaker 1>when they go and speak with President Trump today when

0:36:05.239 --> 0:36:08.920
<v Speaker 1>it comes to how best to preserve their growth prospects,

0:36:08.960 --> 0:36:12.080
<v Speaker 1>but also protect US jobs. The auto market is a

0:36:12.120 --> 0:36:16.359
<v Speaker 1>global market. Are Detroit makes autos that they ship into

0:36:16.440 --> 0:36:20.040
<v Speaker 1>China as well, So growth for these companies is largely

0:36:20.239 --> 0:36:23.480
<v Speaker 1>outside the US. They also make products for sale here.

0:36:23.640 --> 0:36:27.200
<v Speaker 1>They have a global factory production process. Some of it

0:36:27.320 --> 0:36:29.680
<v Speaker 1>they source and produce domestically, some of it they source

0:36:29.719 --> 0:36:34.200
<v Speaker 1>and produce globally. They've allocated their capital in a way

0:36:34.320 --> 0:36:37.360
<v Speaker 1>that maximizes their efficiency under the current system. If you

0:36:37.520 --> 0:36:39.319
<v Speaker 1>change all that around, there's going to be a lot

0:36:39.400 --> 0:36:42.480
<v Speaker 1>of upheaval. Ask you how this factors into your GDP

0:36:42.600 --> 0:36:44.520
<v Speaker 1>forecast right now when you look at how the country

0:36:44.640 --> 0:36:48.040
<v Speaker 1>might the country's economy might grow, I imagine the trade

0:36:48.040 --> 0:36:49.759
<v Speaker 1>is still looming large is a variable that you really

0:36:49.800 --> 0:36:51.680
<v Speaker 1>don't have a handle on. Yeah, that of us have

0:36:51.719 --> 0:36:54.719
<v Speaker 1>a handle on on yet that's how how are you calculating?

0:36:55.320 --> 0:36:58.399
<v Speaker 1>What we're assuming is is that you get say seven

0:36:58.480 --> 0:37:02.399
<v Speaker 1>percent tariffs on imports from Mexico and on imports from China.

0:37:02.560 --> 0:37:06.120
<v Speaker 1>That covers about a third of all imports. So if

0:37:06.239 --> 0:37:09.439
<v Speaker 1>if that's correct, it would tend to reduce your growth

0:37:09.560 --> 0:37:12.279
<v Speaker 1>rate by about a half percent, and it would tend

0:37:12.320 --> 0:37:15.280
<v Speaker 1>to boost rates of inflation, say two to three tents,

0:37:15.440 --> 0:37:18.600
<v Speaker 1>so it wouldn't be a major drag, but it would

0:37:18.600 --> 0:37:21.520
<v Speaker 1>also depend on what these countries do in response, and

0:37:21.560 --> 0:37:24.520
<v Speaker 1>it would depend on what other trading partners do, And

0:37:24.640 --> 0:37:28.280
<v Speaker 1>it's important to consider do you get complementary fiscal stimulus

0:37:28.360 --> 0:37:31.120
<v Speaker 1>alongside that. So this is why I think you need

0:37:31.239 --> 0:37:34.239
<v Speaker 1>if if if I'm a say, a political operative, and

0:37:34.560 --> 0:37:37.880
<v Speaker 1>I want to do anti trade policies, I better do

0:37:38.040 --> 0:37:41.840
<v Speaker 1>those expansionary fiscal policies at the same time or close

0:37:41.920 --> 0:37:45.680
<v Speaker 1>to the same time, so the one would outweigh the other.

0:37:45.840 --> 0:37:48.640
<v Speaker 1>So if it's say modest anti trade, it's something that

0:37:48.719 --> 0:37:52.320
<v Speaker 1>I think a fiscal stimulus bill could over outweigh and

0:37:52.680 --> 0:37:54.480
<v Speaker 1>keep the economy on say a two to two and

0:37:54.480 --> 0:37:57.719
<v Speaker 1>a half percent growth path, and everything looks fine. If

0:37:57.800 --> 0:38:02.399
<v Speaker 1>it's if it's import tariffs on all imports and our

0:38:02.480 --> 0:38:05.520
<v Speaker 1>trading partners do the same, it's a very different story.

0:38:05.680 --> 0:38:07.480
<v Speaker 1>So I think it does depend on the reach of

0:38:07.560 --> 0:38:10.680
<v Speaker 1>those anti trade policies and whether you get expansion or

0:38:10.760 --> 0:38:14.480
<v Speaker 1>fiscal policy alongside. So as we await details of the

0:38:14.840 --> 0:38:17.719
<v Speaker 1>new administration's trade policy, and as they sort out how

0:38:17.760 --> 0:38:21.080
<v Speaker 1>they're going to approach infrastructure spending and other parts of

0:38:21.120 --> 0:38:24.799
<v Speaker 1>their fiscal stimulus. What kind of cost does that uncertainty

0:38:24.880 --> 0:38:30.040
<v Speaker 1>have on business activity? I think historically it would say

0:38:30.120 --> 0:38:33.040
<v Speaker 1>that investment waits, and we're going to get the advanced

0:38:33.120 --> 0:38:35.440
<v Speaker 1>estimate of Q four GDP on on Friday, and I

0:38:35.480 --> 0:38:39.240
<v Speaker 1>would expect within that business spending will be quite soft.

0:38:39.719 --> 0:38:42.680
<v Speaker 1>That whether it's spending on equipment and software or intellectual

0:38:42.760 --> 0:38:45.279
<v Speaker 1>property or structure as we expect those rates of growth

0:38:45.360 --> 0:38:47.480
<v Speaker 1>to be quite modest. So until you know the details,

0:38:47.960 --> 0:38:51.480
<v Speaker 1>the answer is typically you wait. So at least, let's say,

0:38:51.520 --> 0:38:53.960
<v Speaker 1>through the first half of the year, we would be

0:38:54.160 --> 0:38:58.360
<v Speaker 1>very surprised if businesses front run any policy decision or

0:38:58.400 --> 0:39:01.560
<v Speaker 1>consumers front run any any tax cut. I think until

0:39:01.600 --> 0:39:03.600
<v Speaker 1>you know the details were in a holding pattern. Let

0:39:03.640 --> 0:39:05.040
<v Speaker 1>me ask you about a moment in the press conference

0:39:05.080 --> 0:39:07.520
<v Speaker 1>yesterday with Spice to the White House press sectory question

0:39:07.719 --> 0:39:10.120
<v Speaker 1>was what's the unemployment rate? Is this going to be

0:39:10.200 --> 0:39:12.080
<v Speaker 1>something that's pretty hotly debated here in the new year.

0:39:12.120 --> 0:39:15.400
<v Speaker 1>What what unemployment actually is? I think it's it's about

0:39:16.239 --> 0:39:19.680
<v Speaker 1>facts and how you claim victory. And so if you

0:39:19.920 --> 0:39:23.279
<v Speaker 1>don't settle on a definition of what unemployment is, then

0:39:23.360 --> 0:39:26.280
<v Speaker 1>you can always claim that your policies are are benefiting

0:39:26.440 --> 0:39:29.880
<v Speaker 1>labor markets. There's an accepted unemployment rate. That's let's call

0:39:29.920 --> 0:39:32.000
<v Speaker 1>it mid to high force right now, because it's it's

0:39:32.040 --> 0:39:35.480
<v Speaker 1>oscillating around for seven, for eight, for nine, but we're

0:39:35.480 --> 0:39:39.399
<v Speaker 1>below five, and most of us in the economist world

0:39:39.440 --> 0:39:42.399
<v Speaker 1>have settled on Yeah, that's a reasonable measure of where

0:39:42.480 --> 0:39:45.360
<v Speaker 1>labor markets are, and by that measure, we're at full employment.

0:39:46.120 --> 0:39:48.200
<v Speaker 1>We are here with Michael Gabon, he is the chief

0:39:48.280 --> 0:39:50.960
<v Speaker 1>US economist at Barkleys and Michael, we were talking about

0:39:51.400 --> 0:39:54.959
<v Speaker 1>how to define unemployment in this new administration. The thorough

0:39:55.000 --> 0:39:57.640
<v Speaker 1>Reserve may have the opportunity to do just that because

0:39:57.719 --> 0:40:01.080
<v Speaker 1>next week we have the next f O MC meeting Wednesday. UM,

0:40:01.560 --> 0:40:03.520
<v Speaker 1>people are not expecting a rate increase. It's not a

0:40:03.600 --> 0:40:06.000
<v Speaker 1>live meeting. In fact, if you look at w I

0:40:06.120 --> 0:40:09.839
<v Speaker 1>r P on the Bloomberg, only a chance of rate

0:40:10.000 --> 0:40:13.239
<v Speaker 1>hike on February one. Yet we are likely to get

0:40:13.320 --> 0:40:16.600
<v Speaker 1>some language regarding where we are in the FEDS duty

0:40:16.719 --> 0:40:20.520
<v Speaker 1>to fulfill its two mandates of full employment and inflation

0:40:20.600 --> 0:40:24.560
<v Speaker 1>controlling inflation. That's right. So last week when Cherry Ellen spoke,

0:40:24.760 --> 0:40:27.440
<v Speaker 1>you've got a very clear message on the labor market,

0:40:27.960 --> 0:40:30.200
<v Speaker 1>the unemployment rate, the U three measure is near its

0:40:30.280 --> 0:40:34.640
<v Speaker 1>long term UM level, the underemployment rate has the U

0:40:34.760 --> 0:40:38.239
<v Speaker 1>six measure has fully retraced. All your cyclical components of

0:40:38.320 --> 0:40:42.520
<v Speaker 1>participation in the employment of population ratio have have been removed,

0:40:42.560 --> 0:40:46.360
<v Speaker 1>and it would be risky and unwise to pursue a

0:40:46.440 --> 0:40:50.319
<v Speaker 1>hot economy. And she concluded, I think we're basically there

0:40:50.920 --> 0:40:53.880
<v Speaker 1>on the employment side of of our dual mandate. So

0:40:53.920 --> 0:40:56.480
<v Speaker 1>I think that's the message you'll see in the statement.

0:40:56.520 --> 0:40:59.200
<v Speaker 1>There will be the normal discussion on the incoming data,

0:40:59.560 --> 0:41:02.520
<v Speaker 1>but I think you'll you'll see that conclusion that at

0:41:02.600 --> 0:41:06.200
<v Speaker 1>least as as it pertains to labor markets, under utilization

0:41:06.680 --> 0:41:09.080
<v Speaker 1>has been removed, and that will be an important signal

0:41:09.200 --> 0:41:13.480
<v Speaker 1>for markets because looking ahead it means further progress will

0:41:13.520 --> 0:41:16.280
<v Speaker 1>generate rate hikes. It's an important signal for the markets.

0:41:16.280 --> 0:41:18.640
<v Speaker 1>What kind of signal does it send to the Trump administration?

0:41:18.960 --> 0:41:20.799
<v Speaker 1>That's right. So I think that the FED is has

0:41:20.840 --> 0:41:25.360
<v Speaker 1>a statutory mandate, meaning Congress has given it um specific goals,

0:41:25.760 --> 0:41:28.960
<v Speaker 1>and the FED interprets its maximum employment goal through a

0:41:29.280 --> 0:41:32.279
<v Speaker 1>variety of measures, but the main one is the unemployment rate.

0:41:32.800 --> 0:41:35.640
<v Speaker 1>So the marker there from a political point of view

0:41:35.920 --> 0:41:38.719
<v Speaker 1>is that, well, we have to raise rates because we're

0:41:38.800 --> 0:41:41.239
<v Speaker 1>pretty close to our dual mandate. We're a little off

0:41:41.280 --> 0:41:44.520
<v Speaker 1>on inflation, but we're basically they're on unemployment. So further

0:41:44.600 --> 0:41:46.920
<v Speaker 1>progress means rate hikes. So it's a signal on a

0:41:47.000 --> 0:41:50.920
<v Speaker 1>political front that we're doing this because we're there, not

0:41:51.160 --> 0:41:53.879
<v Speaker 1>because we don't like the policies that that are coming.

0:41:53.960 --> 0:41:56.799
<v Speaker 1>But if you don't accept that unemployment rate, um, you're

0:41:57.400 --> 0:41:59.520
<v Speaker 1>from the other side, you're still likely to generate some

0:41:59.640 --> 0:42:02.560
<v Speaker 1>political goal criticism. We'll listen to the political argument that's

0:42:02.600 --> 0:42:05.200
<v Speaker 1>taking place on Capitol Hill about a more rules based approach.

0:42:05.400 --> 0:42:08.560
<v Speaker 1>The FILS should take a more rules based approach, Uh,

0:42:09.040 --> 0:42:11.200
<v Speaker 1>if one were in place, how that effect defends thinking

0:42:11.280 --> 0:42:14.319
<v Speaker 1>right now? Well, the rules based approach would would say

0:42:14.480 --> 0:42:17.560
<v Speaker 1>if if you assume the U three unemployment rate is

0:42:17.680 --> 0:42:21.000
<v Speaker 1>part of of of that rule, then yes, that rule

0:42:21.080 --> 0:42:24.680
<v Speaker 1>would say you should be normalizing policy um. Yelling went

0:42:24.760 --> 0:42:29.000
<v Speaker 1>through several different variations of the policy rule. All of

0:42:29.080 --> 0:42:32.120
<v Speaker 1>them suggested that rates should should go higher, some faster

0:42:32.280 --> 0:42:35.560
<v Speaker 1>than than others. But the critical decision would be, well,

0:42:35.640 --> 0:42:38.680
<v Speaker 1>what do you assume then, is the goal for maximum

0:42:39.160 --> 0:42:42.719
<v Speaker 1>employment and the inflation side is obviously easier to to

0:42:42.880 --> 0:42:46.520
<v Speaker 1>pin down UM. But from a rules based approach that says,

0:42:46.840 --> 0:42:49.560
<v Speaker 1>either some combination of U three and even U six

0:42:49.719 --> 0:42:53.960
<v Speaker 1>were there by by those measures, and moderate increases in

0:42:54.160 --> 0:42:57.040
<v Speaker 1>in front end rates are are in store. Does the

0:42:57.080 --> 0:43:00.960
<v Speaker 1>f that matter as much in this environment? Uh? While,

0:43:01.000 --> 0:43:03.120
<v Speaker 1>Since we talk about the FED as having an actual

0:43:03.400 --> 0:43:06.839
<v Speaker 1>impact on how companies decide what to do, that's right.

0:43:06.920 --> 0:43:09.840
<v Speaker 1>So I think the big shift in November was that

0:43:09.960 --> 0:43:12.040
<v Speaker 1>the FEDS no longer the only game in tone and

0:43:12.200 --> 0:43:15.120
<v Speaker 1>for for years our discussions have always been around what's

0:43:15.160 --> 0:43:18.440
<v Speaker 1>the central bank going to going to do? And and

0:43:18.560 --> 0:43:20.960
<v Speaker 1>now we're getting a little more balanced and the FED

0:43:21.080 --> 0:43:24.640
<v Speaker 1>will be following. So it depends on what fiscal policy.

0:43:24.680 --> 0:43:26.880
<v Speaker 1>Does you get a lot of anti anti trade, not

0:43:26.960 --> 0:43:29.560
<v Speaker 1>a lot of fiscal stimulus. The FED will be ignoring

0:43:29.640 --> 0:43:32.680
<v Speaker 1>that inflation impulse, looking where activity goes, and you make

0:43:32.719 --> 0:43:34.840
<v Speaker 1>it easy in that world. If you get a lot

0:43:34.920 --> 0:43:38.160
<v Speaker 1>of fiscal stimulus at a time when the FED sees

0:43:38.200 --> 0:43:40.880
<v Speaker 1>the economy as as being at full employment, and we

0:43:40.920 --> 0:43:43.200
<v Speaker 1>would agree with that, then you're going to get some offsets.

0:43:43.239 --> 0:43:45.680
<v Speaker 1>So they're important in the sense that they will be

0:43:45.800 --> 0:43:48.680
<v Speaker 1>pushing rates higher. The dollar will likely respond to that,

0:43:48.880 --> 0:43:52.880
<v Speaker 1>so you'll get a tightening and financial conditions alongside fiscal stimulus,

0:43:52.920 --> 0:43:55.000
<v Speaker 1>so there'll be some crowding out effects. Help us with

0:43:55.120 --> 0:43:58.239
<v Speaker 1>the potential seismic shift here in terms of personnel on

0:43:58.280 --> 0:44:00.800
<v Speaker 1>the FED Reserve. How big good deal is is that

0:44:00.840 --> 0:44:02.200
<v Speaker 1>going to be? We hear the report this week that

0:44:02.239 --> 0:44:04.520
<v Speaker 1>maybe a community banker might join the ranks of the

0:44:04.560 --> 0:44:07.680
<v Speaker 1>FIT Reserve Board. How big a shift is this going

0:44:07.719 --> 0:44:10.600
<v Speaker 1>to be? I think in the next by seen you'll

0:44:10.680 --> 0:44:12.600
<v Speaker 1>probably turn over a third and a half of the

0:44:12.840 --> 0:44:15.759
<v Speaker 1>entire FMC, at least from the board's point of view.

0:44:16.239 --> 0:44:20.920
<v Speaker 1>It's likely the chair and the vice chair Um Daniel Tarullo,

0:44:21.520 --> 0:44:25.920
<v Speaker 1>if not one or two more UM may maybe. So

0:44:26.000 --> 0:44:29.240
<v Speaker 1>you got the two new faces and then perhaps three changes.

0:44:29.320 --> 0:44:30.880
<v Speaker 1>So that's help us with the new faces? I mean,

0:44:30.880 --> 0:44:32.160
<v Speaker 1>do you haven't do you have a sense of who

0:44:32.320 --> 0:44:35.040
<v Speaker 1>this administration might put forward? Well, there's been as you mentioned,

0:44:35.120 --> 0:44:38.480
<v Speaker 1>there's the name of the community bankers that were put

0:44:38.560 --> 0:44:41.279
<v Speaker 1>out yesterday. I would say, we don't have a tremendous

0:44:41.280 --> 0:44:44.040
<v Speaker 1>amount of information. What I would say is I would

0:44:44.040 --> 0:44:49.000
<v Speaker 1>expect them to be more practitioners, actual bankers or those

0:44:49.040 --> 0:44:53.080
<v Speaker 1>who have worked in markets and generated good performance. Um So,

0:44:53.280 --> 0:44:55.600
<v Speaker 1>Kevin Walsh would be an example. If you reach back

0:44:55.920 --> 0:44:59.279
<v Speaker 1>and look at a previous board governor from a Republican administration,

0:44:59.360 --> 0:45:03.040
<v Speaker 1>little more more could practitioner oriented much less see pure

0:45:03.080 --> 0:45:06.240
<v Speaker 1>academic oriented. That's kind of the shift I would expect.

0:45:06.600 --> 0:45:09.279
<v Speaker 1>What it means for monetary policy, it's hard to say

0:45:09.360 --> 0:45:11.640
<v Speaker 1>until we know who the chair is. All right, Michael Gaban,

0:45:11.640 --> 0:45:13.520
<v Speaker 1>thank you very much as always for joining us. Michael Gaban,

0:45:13.560 --> 0:45:15.400
<v Speaker 1>Chief u S Ecconomist at Barclay's joining us here in

0:45:15.480 --> 0:45:26.239
<v Speaker 1>New York. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast.

0:45:26.600 --> 0:45:31.680
<v Speaker 1>Subscribe and listen to interviews on iTunes, SoundCloud, or whichever

0:45:31.880 --> 0:45:36.279
<v Speaker 1>podcast platform you prefer. I'm out on Twitter at Tom Keene.

0:45:36.360 --> 0:45:40.120
<v Speaker 1>David Gura is at David Gura. Before the podcast, you

0:45:40.200 --> 0:45:56.400
<v Speaker 1>can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio, brought you

0:45:56.560 --> 0:46:00.160
<v Speaker 1>by Bank of America Mary Lynch. Dedicated to bringing our

0:46:00.280 --> 0:46:03.800
<v Speaker 1>client's insights and solutions to meet the challenges of a

0:46:03.880 --> 0:46:08.720
<v Speaker 1>transforming world. That's the power of global connections. Mary Lynch, Pierce,

0:46:08.840 --> 0:46:12.719
<v Speaker 1>Fenner and Smith Incorporated Member s I p C