Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane. Along
Speaker 1: with Jonathan Ferrell and Lisa Brownwitz Jay Ley, we bring
Speaker 1: you insight from the best and economics, finance, investment, and
Speaker 1: international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple, podcast, SoundCloud, Bloomberg
Speaker 1: dot com, and of course on the Bloomberg terminal. Let's
Speaker 1: bring an entry, Schaps and welcol standing the chief process
Speaker 1: at Strategist, Andrew. Let's start with your quotes. Quote, investors
Speaker 1: face early cycle timing, increasing the mid cycle conditions and
Speaker 1: late cycle valuations. Andrew, what does that mean? Yeah, thanks,
Speaker 1: good morning, It's nice to be here. So, you know,
Speaker 1: if you think about where we are just a little
Speaker 1: over the year, a year from the lows of activity
Speaker 1: belows of markets, you know, usually that would be a
Speaker 1: pretty safely early cycle position. If we think about the
Speaker 1: last three or four cycles, they've been you know, seven, eight,
Speaker 1: nine year events, and so being one year out is
Speaker 1: still create still safely early in that process. But if
Speaker 1: you think about the conditions that we have that that
Speaker 1: very strong recovery and consumer spending, rising inflation, our economists
Speaker 1: think you'll see a lot more capex spending start to
Speaker 1: come through the system. Those are much more mid cycle dynamics.
Speaker 1: Um you could throw in a peek and p M
Speaker 1: I s to that as well. And then valuations on
Speaker 1: many asset classes look more late cycle. There they're they're
Speaker 1: relatively expensive. That obviously varies. So this is a pretty
Speaker 1: complex picture for investors, and and kind of deviates from
Speaker 1: maybe a year ago or six months ago when those
Speaker 1: early cycle signals were much more consistent. I gotta congratulate
Speaker 1: Andrew and having a midyear review published on May sixteenth.
Speaker 1: I just think that's that's the way they do it
Speaker 1: at Morgan Stanley. Andrew, you've got a grid showing a
Speaker 1: real biased to international bias to European equities as well.
Speaker 1: Is pricing power and international concept or is that really
Speaker 1: be a concept for the American market? Well, like, I
Speaker 1: think it matters, you know, I think it matters everywhere.
Speaker 1: I think it will matter more in the US. I
Speaker 1: think it's a you know, that quality theme is a
Speaker 1: more important theme for for Mike Wilson in our US
Speaker 1: equity call. I think where Europe and some of the
Speaker 1: international developed markets have an advantages, you know, I think
Speaker 1: we know that the next six to twelve months are
Speaker 1: going to be a real debate between good data, but
Speaker 1: this question of is that good data too good? Is
Speaker 1: it going to lead to higher inflation? Is it gonna
Speaker 1: lead to a central bank policy response? I think that
Speaker 1: is going to drive a lot of the market debate
Speaker 1: over the next six months. And in Europe and to
Speaker 1: a lesser extent, Japan are just in a very different
Speaker 1: part of that debate. You know they are. They are
Speaker 1: not as expensive, their inflationary pressures are not as significant.
Speaker 1: I think their central banks will be much slower to
Speaker 1: respond to any rise in inflationary data. So I think
Speaker 1: that gives them a big advantage. And you you just
Speaker 1: mentioned on your program, Secretary Yelling will be talking about
Speaker 1: tax increases again, that's that's a story that that might
Speaker 1: impact the US market, but isn't currently on the table
Speaker 1: in Europe or Japan. And one thing that you're talking
Speaker 1: about is higher inflation and why that leads to your
Speaker 1: call to downgrade credit to neutral from overweight. And I'm
Speaker 1: trying to understand what the bigger risk is to markets
Speaker 1: based on valuations currently higher than expected inflation or lower
Speaker 1: than expected growth, right, I mean, these are two concerns,
Speaker 1: and this is basically is what people are pitting themselves
Speaker 1: against when they talk about the FED and being perhaps
Speaker 1: countered to their view. Where do you stand on that, well,
Speaker 1: I think for markets broadly, I think weaker growth would
Speaker 1: be the bigger risk. I think we saw that, you know,
Speaker 1: throughout the last and I think that was a defining
Speaker 1: feature of the last cycle, the post GFC period. It
Speaker 1: was all about risk to the downside. Now, you know,
Speaker 1: as much as we're all talking about inflation, I think
Speaker 1: we all need to acknowledge that, you know, growth improving,
Speaker 1: inflation picking up in central banks eventually raising rates is
Speaker 1: a incredibly normal pattern of behavior. That's that's happened time
Speaker 1: and time and time again. So that's a very normal
Speaker 1: thing to happen as things improve, and it doesn't I think,
Speaker 1: preempt the idea that we're still in a bull market
Speaker 1: things will still be better. Where I think credit starts
Speaker 1: to get into a challenge though, is that if we're
Speaker 1: talking about a hotter cycle, if we're talking about central
Speaker 1: banks having greater willingness to to run a higher pressure economy,
Speaker 1: as our economists say, then you know that's an environment
Speaker 1: where credit investors they don't benefit. If if growth is better,
Speaker 1: but they are still exposed. If that kind of hotter
Speaker 1: growth means that the next downturn is closer than it
Speaker 1: would otherwise be, Andrews got to leave it there on that.
Speaker 1: I'm pulled a note in the credit market. Morgan Stanley,
Speaker 1: chief cross assets strategist right now on foreign exchange, we
Speaker 1: have anticipated this because he has been more brilliant than
Speaker 1: anyone I know. I'm saying week dollar, week dollar, when's
Speaker 1: it gonna happen? We're not sure. Martin McCormick is with
Speaker 1: t d S Curities Mark. The dollar finally breaks down,
Speaker 1: is it enough of a break for you to switch
Speaker 1: to a bit of a week dollar? Well, yeah, I
Speaker 1: think we still like the medium term dollar down story.
Speaker 1: I think there's an interesting element where the global economy
Speaker 1: is doing pretty good. It's catching up with the United States.
Speaker 1: We do see absolute growth levels that are favoring the US,
Speaker 1: but the delta of growth, which matters for currencies, is
Speaker 1: moving in a week or dollar direction. The most important
Speaker 1: factor is really again, the FED is allowing the weakness
Speaker 1: in the dollar essentially because what they're trying to do
Speaker 1: is run the economy hot let inforlation run higher, and
Speaker 1: they're experimenting with what feels like an MMT type narrative.
Speaker 1: So you add those things together and a dollar still
Speaker 1: overvalued and we're still seeing again the global story is
Speaker 1: is moving the right direction. So those are ingredients for
Speaker 1: a medium term dollar move lower. But I think the
Speaker 1: more interesting action is really on the kind of the
Speaker 1: month to month, the three month, the quarterly basis, which
Speaker 1: is really giving us really interesting pivot points to make
Speaker 1: tactical decisions whether or not you want to overweight or
Speaker 1: underway currencies against the dollar in that time line. So, Monk,
Speaker 1: we're trying to resolve a tug of wall at tension,
Speaker 1: as you've pointed out, between global reflation, a global synchronized recovery,
Speaker 1: US exceptionalism between that tug of wall. Right now, Mam,
Speaker 1: what you think wins out? Yeah? I think right now
Speaker 1: we kind of have to downgrade global reflation a little bit.
Speaker 1: It's not really about US exceptionalism. But I think what
Speaker 1: we had is obviously week n FP print and really
Speaker 1: strong inflation numbers. I think what we've learned from a
Speaker 1: lot of conversations with clients is people are completely mixed.
Speaker 1: It's one or the other, it's binary. Either the FED
Speaker 1: is making a huge mistake and they're gonna have to
Speaker 1: you know, they're gonna have to really work to make
Speaker 1: things better or they fall on our side, which is basically,
Speaker 1: they're not gonna taper anytime soon and they're not gonna
Speaker 1: hike rates until about But there's definitely a debate that
Speaker 1: is very lively that the Fed could taper or start
Speaker 1: talking about tapering in June, July, or even at Jackson
Speaker 1: Hole in August. So that's live and I think in
Speaker 1: that environment, what we're seeing is reflation is starting to
Speaker 1: move a little bit lower. Based on the mobility that
Speaker 1: we track on a daily basis, volatier it should be higher,
Speaker 1: inflation break even should be a little bit lower, and
Speaker 1: real rate should be a little bit higher. So in
Speaker 1: that backdrop, that's a little bit more positive for the
Speaker 1: dollar um at least on a tactical basis versus kind
Speaker 1: of the medium term outlook we just outline. So let's
Speaker 1: push this through euro dollar right now hi the year
Speaker 1: on euro dollar nine in to day high back on
Speaker 1: January six, What are you looking to push this through?
Speaker 1: And when three right now twenty three, what are you
Speaker 1: looking for on euro dollar? I think these are good
Speaker 1: fade levels. So if you're to take our right, yeah,
Speaker 1: I think yeah, if you're to take our year head forecast,
Speaker 1: we're in a one eight team camp. So even at
Speaker 1: the end of the year, I think we're gonna see
Speaker 1: a little bit more of a stronger dollar verse the Euro. Again,
Speaker 1: I think most of the action effects is really gonna
Speaker 1: come down to factors that aren't really related or big
Speaker 1: driver of the Euro, which is really commodity exposure, value,
Speaker 1: relative economic growth, and even the equity store. I think
Speaker 1: the upside for the Euro that people aren't expecting isn't
Speaker 1: going to be a central bank trade. It's going to
Speaker 1: be an equity story. So if European equity start to
Speaker 1: outperform like they have in or at least on the
Speaker 1: daily tracking of bt F flows, that's where I think
Speaker 1: people can be surprised by the euro. But based on
Speaker 1: the growth to carry, the value and the relative central
Speaker 1: bank policy. To me, Euro still a sell at two
Speaker 1: and you buy it back around seventeen. So what could
Speaker 1: be the trigger for what you're saying for for for
Speaker 1: the money flooding into European equities and driving euro higher?
Speaker 1: What data points are you looking at? I think it
Speaker 1: comes down to the growth in the vaccine catch up story.
Speaker 1: That is a big narrative now that I think is important.
Speaker 1: But I think the problem is that there isn't enough
Speaker 1: on the other side to say there's a bunch of
Speaker 1: factors we want to buy the Euro one. But if
Speaker 1: the vaccine story and the growth delta are important, but
Speaker 1: we don't see the valuation story there. We don't see
Speaker 1: the carry argument, we don't see the yield curves deepness um.
Speaker 1: So there's a couple of elements there, and obviously commodities
Speaker 1: is not a big driver of the Euro, and that's
Speaker 1: why you kind of want to look elsewhere. You're again
Speaker 1: like the Norwegian crone, you've got a hawker central bank,
Speaker 1: you've got commodity, you've got global connections. So I think
Speaker 1: with the Euro, what you would kind of need to
Speaker 1: see it is it's already there in the price. Most
Speaker 1: of our models say the Euro is a little bit overdone,
Speaker 1: and that's why I'm little wary of chasing it, because
Speaker 1: you don't have a value story along with a very
Speaker 1: stellar growth story. You have a pickup story, which is
Speaker 1: is interesting, but it's really well known by the market.
Speaker 1: So again I think for the equity story to work
Speaker 1: out is we really need to see what happens with
Speaker 1: the German elections later this year if we do get
Speaker 1: a pivot to a green lead movement kind of center left.
Speaker 1: I think MMT narrative is much better for Europe because
Speaker 1: it brings capital back into Europe, no more recycling in
Speaker 1: the current account surplus, and that would be beneficial for
Speaker 1: the Europe for the euro versus the MMT narrative is
Speaker 1: not as great for the U S because you're taxing.
Speaker 1: You know where the marginal driver of innovation comes in
Speaker 1: the U S, which is the equity market, which is
Speaker 1: what the dollar needs. This site, Okay, just to pass
Speaker 1: through some from this and dig into a lot of
Speaker 1: what you're saying, and this is going back to the
Speaker 1: question of is fiscal spending good or bad for a currency,
Speaker 1: And you're saying that fiscal spending in Europe could be good,
Speaker 1: whereas fiscal spending in the U S could be bad
Speaker 1: for the dollar with respect to its strength because of
Speaker 1: the taxation, it's likely to accompany it. Am I getting
Speaker 1: that correctly? Absolutely? I think it's very critical. One of
Speaker 1: the things that is most heavily missed and I'd say that,
Speaker 1: even especially the last five years, the relative equity story
Speaker 1: is absolutely critical. If you think about why the dollar
Speaker 1: was able to rally during the Trump years, a lot
Speaker 1: of it had to do as US equities outperformed the
Speaker 1: rest of the world, and the US yield curve was
Speaker 1: steepening while the rest of the yield the rest of
Speaker 1: the world yield curve was flattening. For the dollar to
Speaker 1: really kind of make up what is I think a
Speaker 1: weak dollar policy from the Fed, it is going to
Speaker 1: need equity flows. So in a broad balance of payments context,
Speaker 1: you're gonna have a twin deficit. What does need an offset?
Speaker 1: The twin deficit during the Trump years was offset by
Speaker 1: equity inflows and the growth story. So I think a
Speaker 1: big side of it here is if the Europe If
Speaker 1: European policymakers deliver more positive growth shocks, especially again with
Speaker 1: the German elections, maybe leading to more fiscal stimulus, that's
Speaker 1: an important to elopment because that gives people a reason
Speaker 1: to bring capital floats back into Europe where they've been
Speaker 1: recycling them out of Europe for the past ten years.
Speaker 1: So that's where I do think it's critical. And if
Speaker 1: the us were to tax equity markets and tax the
Speaker 1: wealth and innovation that comes from the equity markets, that's
Speaker 1: a that's a negative for the dollar in the context
Speaker 1: of where the Fed's going and the global economy is.
Speaker 1: That's why again we like it lower over the medium term.
Speaker 1: Malco smile gonna say and Mot mcoll made the have
Speaker 1: tat Cecity is the global head of strategy. We're thrilled
Speaker 1: to bring you truly the great synergy here. Synergy, I
Speaker 1: say Craig and Michael Nathanson as we look at so
Speaker 1: much of the distribution and content creation of our media business. Gentlemen,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for being with us this morning.
Speaker 1: Michael Nathans and very simple hearing Craig dive in on
Speaker 1: this as well. Get and here is adamant that the
Speaker 1: Roberts family in Philadelphia. You must respond, what would you
Speaker 1: suggest Comcast will do after we see Amazon MGM, after
Speaker 1: we see Warner Discovery. Michael, Well, well, Tom, you're gonna
Speaker 1: like this. I'm gonna have heard to Craig today because
Speaker 1: you always say I take his question, So let me
Speaker 1: go to Craig first. That okay, because I don't want
Speaker 1: to s Yeah, thanks for having US back um. UM.
Speaker 1: You know, look, my guess is that while everybody wants
Speaker 1: Comcast to do something right away, uh and and they
Speaker 1: are clearly subscale in the streaming wars with Peacock today. UM,
Speaker 1: I don't really think there's anything for them to do
Speaker 1: right now. I think they missed an opportunity with with
Speaker 1: Warner Media, that the fit with Warmer Warner Media would
Speaker 1: have been frankly, probably better than than between Warner Media
Speaker 1: Discovery and UM and and better than anything else. Why
Speaker 1: can't they top tick that even with a seven hundred
Speaker 1: million dollar break. Let's see, because because there really are
Speaker 1: any trust concerns number one um uh and and also
Speaker 1: um the challenges. You know, there are some overlap issues
Speaker 1: like CNN and MSNBC that that clearly couldn't be together.
Speaker 1: Um and then you have this problem of they probably
Speaker 1: don't want the cable networks UM, T, n T and TBS,
Speaker 1: so you start to sort of piece part the thing
Speaker 1: into the pieces that you that you really want, especially HBO,
Speaker 1: Max and and frankly, I don't think that's going to
Speaker 1: appeal to the A T and T board and A
Speaker 1: T and T. So my guess is they probably let
Speaker 1: this pitch go by with some frustration of having missed it, UM,
Speaker 1: and that they sort of bide their time because as
Speaker 1: much as everybody would like to say the last dance
Speaker 1: partners have been chosen in the game is almost over,
Speaker 1: the reality is Peacock is not even relevant yet. And
Speaker 1: if they can build Peacock into at least a relevant service,
Speaker 1: and they've got the Olympics to help them do that,
Speaker 1: down the road, it may be that the right dance
Speaker 1: partner is actually Amazon UM and that Amazon uh prime
Speaker 1: if whether they do MGM or not, UM could end
Speaker 1: up being a potential suitor for for Comcast Media Business
Speaker 1: or or somebody else. I don't think this burning urgency
Speaker 1: to say we've got to do something today or tomorrow
Speaker 1: is actually right, all right? Michael concerned, Michael, It kind
Speaker 1: of feels like here we're getting into those really last
Speaker 1: innings where people are really trying to make sure they're
Speaker 1: not the last one standing. So Amazon MGM, that goes
Speaker 1: to one of the kin of the subscale content players
Speaker 1: out there and MGM and make a lot of sense
Speaker 1: for Amazon or for some others. But how about VICOM,
Speaker 1: CBS as well. UM, What do they do? UM? Because
Speaker 1: It just makes a question that even emerged Viacom CBS, Uh,
Speaker 1: it doesn't have quite the scale. No, it doesn't, Paul,
Speaker 1: they can't do very much. Right, what's left are you know,
Speaker 1: ponds on the chessboard? Right? You can go after lions
Speaker 1: Gate and can go after an AMC networks. They're not big,
Speaker 1: they're not scaled internationally. You know, this was so Creig's right.
Speaker 1: Comcast can take your time, but this was the last
Speaker 1: big global play to be had, right and after this
Speaker 1: they're mostly domestic stories. So I think Vacom CBS is
Speaker 1: really stuck, and I think for the time being, you know,
Speaker 1: Comcast will sit on their hands. As Crect said, but
Speaker 1: there's really not a lot you can do with what
Speaker 1: with the pieces on the board. It just isn't enough
Speaker 1: scale out there. Do you with all the work you
Speaker 1: guys have done, if you're just joining US worldwide? Craig
Speaker 1: mofat Michael Nathanson with us Nathanson and this historic week
Speaker 1: for media to the two of you, and I go
Speaker 1: to Michael Mobison's classic essay at credit Suites a good
Speaker 1: twelve thirteen years ago that there's only one or two
Speaker 1: in each category. Do we need a number three streaming
Speaker 1: person or number four streaming person or is can it
Speaker 1: be just Netflix and Disney win? Well, Tom, you know
Speaker 1: we've talked too this for wire. I don't even know
Speaker 1: if streaming is a great business, right, Like, we haven't
Speaker 1: seen the proof points that streaming is a great business.
Speaker 1: It requires tons of capital, constant refresh as you know,
Speaker 1: it's not Google, it's not Microsoft, is on Apple. Um, yeah,
Speaker 1: this may be a category when it's all said and
Speaker 1: done that you know, you know, the winners get get majority,
Speaker 1: but the majority is not enough to make this a
Speaker 1: category of high R o I C. Right, And we
Speaker 1: don't know how it ends up, but I think Craig
Speaker 1: and I both feel that we were coming from the media,
Speaker 1: it's going to be a worse R o I C trade.
Speaker 1: That's what we're moving towards. Fascinating And you know, Paul Swey,
Speaker 1: what's so important here? And acts had a great bar chart.
Speaker 1: I'm sure they still from Craig Moffatt and Michael Nason,
Speaker 1: but it's amazing Netflix is essentially one tenth the market cap.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, forget scaling here. That kind of brace me
Speaker 1: to My question for for for both of you, is
Speaker 1: is we see the news today of Apple taking a
Speaker 1: look at MGM okay nine billion dollars, But why is
Speaker 1: Amazon not looking at Viacom CBS. Why are they not
Speaker 1: looking at a much, much bigger asset out there because Netflix? Uh?
Speaker 1: And I hate when I do it, because you're gonna say,
Speaker 1: Craig need more time. So, Craig, I was gonna say,
Speaker 1: because Netflix has proven you don't need to own traditional
Speaker 1: assets to build a global company, right, you don't need
Speaker 1: to buy other people's problems to scale this business. I
Speaker 1: gotta have one more question, and it's got to go
Speaker 1: to Craig Moffatt because he's been silent. Why Nathans and
Speaker 1: blathers on Craig, you you have been I went back
Speaker 1: and looked at Mr Stevenson the day of the dreable
Speaker 1: TV speech. I mean, what does a T and T
Speaker 1: actually do? What do they say to their employees, what
Speaker 1: do they say to the board? What's what's the ninety
Speaker 1: day prescription for a T and T? After this mother
Speaker 1: of all failures? You know, I may surprise you with
Speaker 1: this because I've been, as you say, very critical of
Speaker 1: of this strategy. And I actually give some credit to
Speaker 1: John Stanky Um for for being able to acknowledge that
Speaker 1: this was a mistake. You know, you rarely see businesses
Speaker 1: particularly this quickly. This is only a couple of years
Speaker 1: after they bought it. Um. You rarely see businesses where
Speaker 1: the management team that put a deal together is willing
Speaker 1: to acknowledge that it was a mistake and unwinded. Now
Speaker 1: they to be fair, they didn't have a choice. They
Speaker 1: were trying to fight three wars and they didn't have
Speaker 1: the money. But what did they do just because how
Speaker 1: do they compete with a juggernaut known as T Mobile. Look,
Speaker 1: it's a real problem. There's what This deal was the
Speaker 1: right thing for the company to do, But it doesn't
Speaker 1: make a T and T and attractive asset because it
Speaker 1: doesn't fix the problem. The problem was that or what
Speaker 1: The problem they're left with is that by virtue of
Speaker 1: having spent all the money on media and and burdened
Speaker 1: their balance sheet, they've underspent in the wireless business. And
Speaker 1: now I don't see any future where they aren't a
Speaker 1: third place out of three wireless work. And so they've
Speaker 1: still got a ton of wid job. You guys have
Speaker 1: been wonderful the last couple of days. They do want
Speaker 1: to mention, folks, We've had tons of inquiries. We protect
Speaker 1: the copyright of all of our guests, including Craig Moffatt.
Speaker 1: We don't protect the copyright of Michael Nathanson because he's
Speaker 1: a content guy. But gentlemen, thank you, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Right now, in exceptionally important conversation with one of the
Speaker 1: candidates for that June twenty two primary in New York City,
Speaker 1: Eric Adams joins us with just an absolutely remarkable biography. Eric,
Speaker 1: you're lining up the indorsements, you are on a dash
Speaker 1: to June twenty second. What is the endorsement? What does
Speaker 1: the support you most covet right now? Really everyday people,
Speaker 1: I like to say, those blue collar rookies, not only
Speaker 1: those employees, employees who are doing uh the construction and
Speaker 1: other jobs, but even on my accountants, my doctors. Uh.
Speaker 1: It's the symbol of blue collar collarism. I like to say,
Speaker 1: heart working people in the city of New York. And
Speaker 1: they really have endorsed my campaign because they know I
Speaker 1: protected the city for twenty two years um and public
Speaker 1: safeties to prerequisite the prosperity. And that's the symbol I'm
Speaker 1: going to brain and it's the way you got to
Speaker 1: that twenty two year career. We're not gonna go into
Speaker 1: it right now because of time, but you add a
Speaker 1: most original path to serving with the nyp D. Tell
Speaker 1: us right now how the NYPD can change with Mayor Adams,
Speaker 1: It's about rebuilding trust. I state I would state this
Speaker 1: we over again, and many of my colleagues that are
Speaker 1: running for office don't want to talk about this. We
Speaker 1: have to rebuild the trust, change the ecosystem of public safety,
Speaker 1: define the role of police, but most importantly, we need
Speaker 1: each other. Let me tell you something. The streets of
Speaker 1: our country in general, but specifically in New York, those
Speaker 1: streets are going to be controlled by the good guys
Speaker 1: or the bad guys. And I'll be done if I'm
Speaker 1: going to let the bad guys take us back to
Speaker 1: the days when we were having two thousand homicides a year.
Speaker 1: I'm going to rebuild trust with law enforcement and communities
Speaker 1: in this city. Eric. This is an incredibly important message
Speaker 1: at a time when shootings we're up a hundred and
Speaker 1: sixty six percent year over year in April and New
Speaker 1: York City, when people are wondering, how do you accomplish
Speaker 1: what you're looking for? Which is safer streets and preventing
Speaker 1: some of these shootings and other violent crimes from getting
Speaker 1: out of control. What's your recommendation As a twenty two
Speaker 1: year veteran of the New York Police Department, do you
Speaker 1: recommend putting plain clothes police officers in subways? What measures
Speaker 1: specifically are needed? Well, they are number of things we
Speaker 1: must look at, and dealing with this crime problem is
Speaker 1: both prevention and intervention. Prevention that consists of the long
Speaker 1: term things we must do, but intervention is right now.
Speaker 1: We have three year old shot at Times Square. We
Speaker 1: had a number of homicides and shootings in the last
Speaker 1: few days. So it's about reinstituting a anti gun unit
Speaker 1: that is better trained, will have officers that are using
Speaker 1: their cameras properly, and we'll do what's called precision policing.
Speaker 1: We must go after the gangs and the over proliferation
Speaker 1: of guns in our city. If we don't, we are
Speaker 1: not going to have the economic recovery. We won't have
Speaker 1: the tourism, the business travelers, or get our offices back
Speaker 1: up in operating. Eric, this is what a lot of
Speaker 1: people are saying. But if you don't have safe streets,
Speaker 1: you can't get businesses that already are thinking of leaving
Speaker 1: to stay in this city. What other measures are you
Speaker 1: going to take to keep them here, especially given the
Speaker 1: fact that the bill for all of these services and
Speaker 1: all of these measures are racking up. And there's a
Speaker 1: deficit that we need to address as well. Yes, and
Speaker 1: there's also a great opportunity. Number one, thanks to our
Speaker 1: Senate and congressional delegation, we're going to have over ten
Speaker 1: billion dollars and similars come into our city. But the
Speaker 1: real question is are we going to squander this opportunity.
Speaker 1: We have to end the inequalities that we see in
Speaker 1: this city. And it's it's really because all of our
Speaker 1: cities in America are just really dysfunctional. Cities are made
Speaker 1: up of agencies. If those agencies are not aligned, you're
Speaker 1: not going to get the results that you're looking for.
Speaker 1: So we must attract new businesses here, become the center
Speaker 1: of cybersecurity, of technology or self driving cars. We are
Speaker 1: too expensive to buire, acractic, and too difficult to do
Speaker 1: business in this city. And I'm going to turn that around.
Speaker 1: Air Canadas. I am really upset about your endorsement from
Speaker 1: Doc Gooden. I don't know how I can do that.
Speaker 1: I need you to get in a horseman from Ellis
Speaker 1: Burke's the Boston Red Sox. Let's get on that today.
Speaker 1: How are you gonna bring together in New York? Everybody's polarized.
Speaker 1: There's like, well, I think there's foreigner candidates, Lisa, But
Speaker 1: but Mayor Adams? How are you gonna bring New York together?
Speaker 1: The fancy people the less fancy people? How do you
Speaker 1: do that? Day one? Well, first of all, we're going
Speaker 1: to send out the right message. And listen, sixty five
Speaker 1: thousand New Yorkers are paying fifty one of our income taxes.
Speaker 1: They are they are only two percent of our income
Speaker 1: tax filers. I don't join the chorus that states, so
Speaker 1: what do they leave? No? We need them here. How
Speaker 1: are you gonna keep them here? How are you? What's
Speaker 1: your policy going to be to keep the upper one
Speaker 1: percent happy in New York City so they don't move
Speaker 1: down to watch the Florida Marlins. Well, one thing is
Speaker 1: for sure, let me tell you, I hear from them
Speaker 1: all the time. Eric. We don't feel safe every We
Speaker 1: don't believe we can walk our streets and our community.
Speaker 1: We can't use our transit system in a safe way.
Speaker 1: All New York is no matter if you are a
Speaker 1: cab driver or a person that's in the back of
Speaker 1: a limousine. You want a safe city. And that is
Speaker 1: something I know far too well of what an unsafe
Speaker 1: city can do to the economic, economic environment and the
Speaker 1: stability of the city. And I'm going to make this
Speaker 1: city a safe place to raise healthy children and families. Erica.
Speaker 1: Just before we let you go, this is a delicate issue.
Speaker 1: The New York Times had a story that I want
Speaker 1: to give you a chance to address where they were
Speaker 1: talking about some contributions that you've taken from businesses, uh
Speaker 1: that the city has influence on, and you have influence
Speaker 1: on as borough president. You've called money the enemy of
Speaker 1: politics before. Do you have a response to the story. Yes,
Speaker 1: And it's not a delicate issue for me, No delicate,
Speaker 1: No issues delicate for me because I am extremely transplant parent.
Speaker 1: I'm wanted a few elected officials in the country that
Speaker 1: has a for pyramid, or i should say, a compliance
Speaker 1: officer that's on board with me. This story has been
Speaker 1: vetted so many times. I was surprised to see The
Speaker 1: New York Times placed this on their first page above
Speaker 1: the foe to give the appearance that any UH improprieties
Speaker 1: took place. This has been vetted. We are clear compliance
Speaker 1: with all the rules, and I was really disappointed by
Speaker 1: the headline that gave the appearance of any any wrongdoings.
Speaker 1: We have not received any type of infractions based on
Speaker 1: how we handle our procedures at Borrow Hall. I am
Speaker 1: not impacted by money and politics. I'm impacted by what's
Speaker 1: needed for everyday New Yorkers in Brooklyn Knights, and I
Speaker 1: have done that for over thirty five years. Eric Adams,
Speaker 1: thank you so much. She's a mayoral candidate the June
Speaker 1: primary vote here in New York City. Right now, Well,
Speaker 1: it is in that say that gets your attention. Let's
Speaker 1: get right to it. He has been our most direct
Speaker 1: and assertive guests here on the pandemic. I'm Asha Dolge
Speaker 1: are writing in the Hill, and I'll tell you, folks,
Speaker 1: it's real, straightforward and it gives pause as UH as well.
Speaker 1: Let me bring that up right now. I have characterized
Speaker 1: testing as the original sin of COVID pandemic. There are
Speaker 1: very few reasons to test asymptomatic individuals beyond facilitating the
Speaker 1: COVID exposed unvaccinated ending quarantine early, or the unvaccinated international
Speaker 1: travel fully vaccinated persons as the CDC guidance state should
Speaker 1: not be tested unless symptomatic. Dr Adlga joins us. Right now,
Speaker 1: what's the next step? Dr Adlga, that's quite a statement here,
Speaker 1: So then what is the best policy for America? The
Speaker 1: best policy is to really focus on testing symptomatic individuals
Speaker 1: and people who are exposed and unvaccinated who need to
Speaker 1: end Corny Team early, because right now we're in a
Speaker 1: position where we are getting false positives, because the prevalence
Speaker 1: of infection is falling in. We're in a place in
Speaker 1: this pandemic that we haven't been over. People above the
Speaker 1: age of sixty five have been fully vaccinated. Those were
Speaker 1: the people that gave us this public health emergency. Those
Speaker 1: are the ones that we're getting hospitalized. We've increasingly removed
Speaker 1: the ability of this virus to threaten our hospitals, So
Speaker 1: now we've kind of gotten to a point where this
Speaker 1: is like other respiratory viruses and we have to start
Speaker 1: thinking about it. Like other respiratory viruses, we don't test
Speaker 1: people asymptomatically for influenza. So I think we probably need
Speaker 1: to start ratcheting back a lot on this asymptomatic testing
Speaker 1: and focus on vaccinating people and testing people who are symptomatic, uh,
Speaker 1: either if they vaccinated or not vaccinated. Because I think
Speaker 1: we're in a good point, in a good trajectory. Speak
Speaker 1: to schools right now, it's May. We got to get
Speaker 1: to August and ramp up to September school start. Are
Speaker 1: you saying COVID and influenza that there's little distinction, that
Speaker 1: there's little difference when it comes to younger children. What
Speaker 1: we find is that COVID nineteen and influenza probably are
Speaker 1: about comparable risks. They are both, they both they both
Speaker 1: have the same burden of illness in children. Actually, arguably
Speaker 1: you could say influenza as a higher burden in children.
Speaker 1: So what schools do for influenza, that should be what
Speaker 1: they're doing for COVID nineteen. And I think it's even
Speaker 1: it's even more the case because the vaccine for COVID nineteen,
Speaker 1: which is which students twelve years and up are eligible before,
Speaker 1: is much more effective than the flu the flu vaccine.
Speaker 1: So I think we're in an okay place when it
Speaker 1: comes to schooling. I don't think the pool testing or
Speaker 1: asymptomatic testing is something that we should do in schools
Speaker 1: because you're going to get a lot of false positives,
Speaker 1: You're going to have a lot of disruption. I think
Speaker 1: that we can continue the other mitigation measures of masks,
Speaker 1: trying to vaccinate the population, social distancing, but school should
Speaker 1: be open now, and I don't think testing should be
Speaker 1: a barrier uh for for opening for opening school? Dr Delta,
Speaker 1: can you square the discrepancy between what you're saying, which
Speaker 1: is essentially we're moving into a new phase of the
Speaker 1: pandemic where it's no longer the pandemic, but it's just
Speaker 1: another illness us that we need to deal with on
Speaker 1: a regular basis. Whereas we have Singapore locking down after
Speaker 1: a handful of cases that have been detected in the community.
Speaker 1: What is the potential approach that you see as the
Speaker 1: correct one internationally, especially as we see the cases surge
Speaker 1: in places like India. So I think if you've got
Speaker 1: a highly vaccinated population, you have a whole different menu
Speaker 1: of options that are there. If you're a country that's
Speaker 1: not highly vaccinated, like India, then your only options are
Speaker 1: those same what we call non pharmaceutical interventions. Where you
Speaker 1: have social distancing and you have advising people to stay
Speaker 1: at home. All of that is something that you don't
Speaker 1: have to do if your population is highly protected with
Speaker 1: the vaccine, especially those high risk individuals. So I don't
Speaker 1: think what Singapore is doing is correct. I think right
Speaker 1: now the US is on the right policy for the
Speaker 1: first time, probably during the pandemic, the US actually has
Speaker 1: the correct policy where we've decoupled cases from severe severe disease,
Speaker 1: hospitalizations and death, which is exactly what the vaccine was
Speaker 1: designed to do. So I think that that's the policy now,
Speaker 1: is to vaccinate your population as much as possible. In
Speaker 1: the only reason that you should be pushing these non
Speaker 1: pharmaceutical interventions is if you have not vaccinated enough of
Speaker 1: your high risk populations and you're worried about your hospitals
Speaker 1: going into crisis. We've removed that ability in the United
Speaker 1: States by vaccinating those high risk individuals. Dr. Dodger. We
Speaker 1: also are looking at strains and other variants, and people
Speaker 1: sometimes point to that to say, look, we need to
Speaker 1: still remain vigilant and still remain cautious with respect to
Speaker 1: tracking the virus and making sure that you take social
Speaker 1: distancings precautions, and do you think that's fearmongering. Do you
Speaker 1: think that that's sort of unnecessary given the fact that
Speaker 1: a lot of the the vaccines have shown to be
Speaker 1: proved effective against some of these strains. Definitely, when when
Speaker 1: you have a fully vaccinated population, a high percentage of
Speaker 1: your population fully vaccinated, those variants, even the more problematic
Speaker 1: variants like one three one from South Africa, they are
Speaker 1: still unable to cause serious disease, hospitalization in debt. Certainly,
Speaker 1: if you're an unvaccinated person, those variants do pose a
Speaker 1: risk to you, and if you're a unvaccinated country, it
Speaker 1: can be a real problem, as we've seen in places
Speaker 1: like India. But I think that the variants are something
Speaker 1: that are vack scenes are very robust against. So the
Speaker 1: solution to the variants is to get vaccinated into vaccinate
Speaker 1: as much of your of your population as possible. Door down.
Speaker 1: You always gonna hate from me, sir as, always come
Speaker 1: back soon, dtr MESSI down to Dow Jones, Health consense
Speaker 1: to house security, Sania Scalta. This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening. Join us live weekdays from seven to
Speaker 1: ten am Eastern on Bloomberg Radio and on Bloomberg Television
Speaker 1: each day from six to nine am for insight from
Speaker 1: the best in economics, finance, investment, and international relations. And
Speaker 1: subscribe to the Surveillance podcast on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, Bloomberg
Speaker 1: dot com, and of course, on the terminal. I'm Tom Keene,
Speaker 1: and this is Bloomberg