Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Business Week. I'm Karl Masser and I'm
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Quick Takes Tim Stanovk. We're here every day bringing
Speaker 1: you the latest news from the world to business and finance,
Speaker 1: plus technology, politics, economics, all purtnising the power of Business
Speaker 1: Week reporters and editors, not to mention our journalists and
Speaker 1: analysts in more than one twenty countries. You can download
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Business Week and iTunes, SoundCloud, or Bloomberg dot Com.
Speaker 1: You can also listen to our radio show at two
Speaker 1: pm Eastern Time on Bloomberg Radio, or watch us on
Speaker 1: YouTube search Bloomberg Global News. The big news is President
Speaker 1: Joe Biden nominating Judge Katanji Brown Jackson to be the
Speaker 1: first black woman on the Supreme Court, a historic selection
Speaker 1: that would add certainly a fresh liberal voice when it
Speaker 1: comes to the nation's highest court. Let's get to June Grasso.
Speaker 1: She's Bloomberg News Legal Analyst, host of Bloomberg Law. You
Speaker 1: can catch that, recognize that ten pm Wall Street time
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg Radio. She's here in her interactive broker studio.
Speaker 1: This is significant. It's a historic day, of course it is.
Speaker 1: And his choice of katangi Brown Jackson. Judge Jackson was
Speaker 1: expected in a way. I mean, you could never be
Speaker 1: sure until they actually say the name. But she has
Speaker 1: been a star. She's a top contender for this position.
Speaker 1: Barack Obama even interviewed her at the time he had
Speaker 1: an opening on the court and gave it to Merrick Garland.
Speaker 1: So she has just been a rising star on the bench,
Speaker 1: and she has everything. She has the kind of background
Speaker 1: that Ivy League background that they always have on the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. She's sort of fits in the mold of
Speaker 1: Justice Bryer, who she clerked for. She you know, went
Speaker 1: to Harvard College and she graduated from Harvard Law School.
Speaker 1: But what she has that other Supreme Court justices don't
Speaker 1: have right now is she served as a federal public defender,
Speaker 1: so she represented indigent defendants. And at the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: the last time there was a justice who had significant
Speaker 1: experience representing criminal defenses defendants, it was the famous Thurgood
Speaker 1: mare Scholl, who was the legendary civil right sler. You
Speaker 1: heard President Biden mentioned Justice Marshall in his comments, and
Speaker 1: so no one on the court right now has that
Speaker 1: kind of experience, and Biden has been trying to put
Speaker 1: people on the bench at every level that have different
Speaker 1: kinds of backgrounds. Not prosecutors, but a lot of public defenders.
Speaker 1: She's also a sentencing expert. She sat on the Sentencing uh,
Speaker 1: the Sentencing Commission, So she's got a lot going for her. Okay,
Speaker 1: So a nomination is one thing, but what about that
Speaker 1: path to confirmation? June? She was nominated last summer to
Speaker 1: be the federal for the Federal Appeals Court and Washington,
Speaker 1: d C. She was confirmed to that position. Some Republicans
Speaker 1: voted for her. Does that set her up for success
Speaker 1: this time around? Well, you can't guarantee that. I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't know. It's a different A Supreme Court confirmation
Speaker 1: hearing is different from a confirmation hearing, even for the
Speaker 1: DC Appellate Court, which is which is considered a feeder court.
Speaker 1: I believe about um at the last fourteen justices, five
Speaker 1: of them sat on the d C Circuit Court. So
Speaker 1: it's a springboard and she basically sailed through that nomination process.
Speaker 1: But that doesn't mean that she's going to get those
Speaker 1: same three Republican votes when she is. You know, when
Speaker 1: the nomination comes up. I don't expect and most people
Speaker 1: don't expect there to be anything because she's been you know,
Speaker 1: she's been vetted just recently, and also the Republicans really
Speaker 1: don't have a sort of aligned to attack her. They
Speaker 1: don't have a coherent narrative against her. What they did
Speaker 1: during those hearings was there were some wonky questions about sentencing,
Speaker 1: and um, there was. The only real attack was that
Speaker 1: she represented when she was a public defender, she represented
Speaker 1: a Guantanamo inmate. That's not really much of an attack.
Speaker 1: So I don't know what they could possibly hit her way,
Speaker 1: But that doesn't mean that she'll get those same three votes. Um.
Speaker 1: It's interesting just watching the Twitter universe and somebody's saying,
Speaker 1: what a great way to wrap up Black History Month?
Speaker 1: Um was interest things I do wonder if she indeed
Speaker 1: goes through the confirmation process and is confirmed, how will
Speaker 1: she play against the existing Supreme Court justices. What I
Speaker 1: think is really interesting is that, of course she's not
Speaker 1: going to change the outlook of the court. There are
Speaker 1: still gonna be six conservatives and three liberals, but the
Speaker 1: three liberals the basics, that's certainly slanted towards the concerned side,
Speaker 1: but the three liberals are going to be three women
Speaker 1: three and a diverse three women, the Hispanic, Jewish and
Speaker 1: now Black. And they are going to be dynamic. They're
Speaker 1: going to be in the in the descent a lot,
Speaker 1: but you're going to hear a lot from them. I
Speaker 1: mean even now, Justice Sodo Mayor is really strong in
Speaker 1: the comments that she makes. Justice Kagan is fluent and
Speaker 1: elegant in the way she talks and writes. So I
Speaker 1: think it's going to be, you know, really dynamic. And
Speaker 1: also you're going to have a perspective a black woman.
Speaker 1: Right now, there is one black on the court, Clarence Thomas.
Speaker 1: But for example, an affirmative action, they're gonna be affirmative
Speaker 1: action cases coming up next term. Justice Thomas doesn't believe
Speaker 1: in affirmative action, so now we'll have another viewpoint of
Speaker 1: someone in that position of black person. So I think
Speaker 1: it's going to be really valuable. I can't wait to
Speaker 1: hear the first oral arguments because you sort of get
Speaker 1: a feeling for how they're going to interact, at least
Speaker 1: at the beginning of Some justices sort of hang back
Speaker 1: at the beginning, but then you had like Justice Course
Speaker 1: that who went right full on and corrected the Chief
Speaker 1: Justice on something he said about where the tenth circuit
Speaker 1: was and then had to backtrack and apologize because he'd
Speaker 1: made a mistake and the Chief was right. I mean,
Speaker 1: so you have this real dynamic. It will be interesting
Speaker 1: to see how she plays in that. That's just about
Speaker 1: using the right forks right at this, that's more than that. Well,
Speaker 1: also she does have now to open the door when
Speaker 1: they have conferences. The most junior justice has to open
Speaker 1: the door and take the notes. Justice Bryce said, I
Speaker 1: think he was like the longest he was decades doing that.
Speaker 1: And also Justice Kagan said that you're you're in charge
Speaker 1: of the dining room, so you get nothing, but it
Speaker 1: is and if you put in a yogurt machine, she said,
Speaker 1: you're golden sky. All right. But again, you know, this
Speaker 1: is not something that happens. It certainly has happened relatively
Speaker 1: frequently over the last few years. But for people who
Speaker 1: don't recall, um, what's the process like and what's a
Speaker 1: realistic timeline that we can expect at least some sort
Speaker 1: of confirmation process to get kicked off. Well, Dick Durban,
Speaker 1: who's in charge of this, he's the head of the
Speaker 1: Judiciary Committee, says he wants this done by Easter time.
Speaker 1: The first thing that will happen is, I mean, they're
Speaker 1: going to have to go through the background checks and
Speaker 1: she has to, you know, file different papers. She'll meet
Speaker 1: with different senators you know, and and have discussions with them.
Speaker 1: Those are usually very cordial. And then you have the
Speaker 1: first here in which will be the Judiciary Committee hearing,
Speaker 1: and that will be a hearing where you know, the
Speaker 1: senators on the Judiciary Committee talked, ask her questions, and
Speaker 1: then you're going to have a full um you know,
Speaker 1: a full vote by the Senate, vote by the Judiciary Committee,
Speaker 1: and then a vote by the Senate, the full Senate.
Speaker 1: And he helped to have that done by um by
Speaker 1: Easter time. So that's a pretty fast time. It's not
Speaker 1: as fast as it's been because any Coney Barrett I
Speaker 1: think was thirty days from from beginning to end of
Speaker 1: the process. So it can be done, and I think
Speaker 1: it will be done, and I think she will sail through.
Speaker 1: I think this process with any Republican votes are just
Speaker 1: Democrats question. I don't know. I hope that there will
Speaker 1: be a few. I hope that at least Senator Collins
Speaker 1: and Murkowski, who voted for her below and women's senators.
Speaker 1: I hope that they will vote for her, and but
Speaker 1: we'll see. I mean, there couldn't even be more. I
Speaker 1: mean she is really a star. She sounds super far
Speaker 1: exactly super just based on the you know, looking at
Speaker 1: her background, right, I can't find I don't haven't found
Speaker 1: anything wrong that you could that you could point to that.
Speaker 1: Oh well there was this one thing. It just hasn't
Speaker 1: come up. All right, good stuff, Um, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Joom Grasso from Bright News Legal Alice. Anything pops up legally,
Speaker 1: ease in the news room, like June, I'll be here,
Speaker 1: He'll be here, I'll run it. Help me. What does
Speaker 1: this mean? Host of Bloomberg Law catch her weeknights Attempi
Speaker 1: in Wall Street Time. Right here on Bloomberg Radio, you're
Speaker 1: listening to Bloomberg Business Week with Carol Messer and Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Quick Takes Tim Stinovic on Bloomberg Radio. Bloomberg has been
Speaker 1: reporting a swath of major American businesses, from major banks
Speaker 1: to utility companies, preparing for possible cyber attacks against their
Speaker 1: computer networks as Russia has threatened consequences for nations that
Speaker 1: interfere with its invasion of Ukraine and Tim, you know,
Speaker 1: we've already been reporting on and talking about the cyber
Speaker 1: attacks on systems inside Ukraine to essentially undermine the security
Speaker 1: of the country. Citizen. Yeah, certainly an important voice to
Speaker 1: speak on this is Hitesh Chef, the president and CEO
Speaker 1: of vector AI. It's a privately held organization that helps
Speaker 1: government agencies, corporations as well keep their networks sitting in
Speaker 1: buildings and on the cloud. Hit Tesh, it's great to
Speaker 1: have you with us. You're joining us from San Jose, California.
Speaker 1: How are you good? Good? And thanks for having me, No,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining us. There's this is
Speaker 1: a perfect time to be talking about this because I
Speaker 1: think there is this elevated sense of perhaps there could
Speaker 1: be cyber attacks with especially you know, Russia and China
Speaker 1: being among the countries that are so good at attacking
Speaker 1: cyber networks. Help us understand how risk is right now?
Speaker 1: Is it elevated as a result of the invasion of Ukraine.
Speaker 1: I think the risk is is very elevated. And and
Speaker 1: and the reason I say that is that, you know,
Speaker 1: I think we can all logically assume that the invasion
Speaker 1: of Ukraine was a planned event. It's not as though
Speaker 1: the government in Russia woke up on the twenty and
Speaker 1: said we're gonna invade next day in the morning. They've
Speaker 1: been doing this. They've been taking about this for a
Speaker 1: very long time, likely toward twenty four months. And in
Speaker 1: that timeframe, Uh, they've I'm sure done scenario scenario planning
Speaker 1: with Hey, if we did this, these are likely ramifications globally,
Speaker 1: sanctions being one of them. And you know, and this
Speaker 1: is where they're going to originate from. And so therefore,
Speaker 1: what are the preemptive things we can do to to
Speaker 1: do with those events? And one of the preemptive things
Speaker 1: I'm sure they've done is is gone and stealthily, you know,
Speaker 1: launch cyber attacks already on a lot of the infrastructure
Speaker 1: we've got you in the country. Um, you know, key institutions,
Speaker 1: and and there is malvery that is sitting there. Um,
Speaker 1: they're ready to get activated, right and you know it's
Speaker 1: it's you know, as as tough as it is, it's
Speaker 1: a matter of pushing buttons. Now this is where we are.
Speaker 1: So I am curious to tash how strategic is Russia
Speaker 1: thinking about this? Well, first of all, Russia, we know
Speaker 1: along with Iran, China US among the world's leading practitioners
Speaker 1: of cyber warfare. It's not what warfare, It's not just Russia.
Speaker 1: I mean, we do it the United States. But I'm
Speaker 1: curious how much in terms of of planning their military
Speaker 1: strategy into Ukraine, how much are they being strategic in
Speaker 1: terms of the targets they hit because they to some
Speaker 1: extent want to keep the cyber world up and running
Speaker 1: because it can be very productive in their own goal
Speaker 1: and mission. Yeah, but they will look at what they
Speaker 1: just did, right they They were I think very e
Speaker 1: stategic about this right there. You know, three things have occurred.
Speaker 1: In the first and foremost at the highest level, you know,
Speaker 1: the first time in human history we're seeing cyber attacks
Speaker 1: becoming a weapon of first choice. Now we have a
Speaker 1: long theorized, especially those of us who live in in
Speaker 1: in uh in cybersecurity, that this is gonna this event
Speaker 1: is going to come to pass at some point, um,
Speaker 1: you know, and and obviously we're all hoping that we
Speaker 1: would not have to see it. But but here we are.
Speaker 1: And so they were, they were, I think we're very
Speaker 1: very thoughtful about how this got integrated into their overall
Speaker 1: attack framework. Number one. Number two, Um, you know at
Speaker 1: least a mini moment wasn't reported out there, right, you know,
Speaker 1: they went after financial institutions, a very logical target if
Speaker 1: you are thinking about how to disrupt uh, you know,
Speaker 1: the general population. The second thing they did is go
Speaker 1: off to social media, right, I mean, I think we
Speaker 1: we revolts in the news on Twitter and and again
Speaker 1: you know, if you the reason to go off for
Speaker 1: social media is you know, when when democracies are either
Speaker 1: getting formed or the threat, right, it's a it's a
Speaker 1: very effective way to either spread misinformation and or cut
Speaker 1: off you know, news getting shared, not just in the
Speaker 1: in the country you're targeting in this case, Ukraine, but
Speaker 1: even within Russia itself. And so I think though, I
Speaker 1: think they were very thoughtful about how they than the
Speaker 1: utilize several attacks in this campaign of theirs. And let's
Speaker 1: not forget there's a headline earlier that I know across
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Russia saying will limit access to Facebook from February,
Speaker 1: so right till they are looking at the role of
Speaker 1: social media in it. Yeah, wondering what lessons there are
Speaker 1: for just normal folks who don't necessarily run organizations. But
Speaker 1: how we can keep our information safe. I think of
Speaker 1: a tweet that I saw earlier today from Josh Wolf,
Speaker 1: he's a venture capitalist at Lux Capital. Uh, I've interviewed
Speaker 1: him before. He says that there's some advice that he
Speaker 1: has have calms, backup plans now, not just for your firm,
Speaker 1: but for your family. Yeah. Look, I mean I think
Speaker 1: you know, uh, the normal advice of one would give
Speaker 1: to somebody's sitting in the house, right, which is if
Speaker 1: you're dealing with ransomware direct. Now we're talking about attacks
Speaker 1: on social media, right, It's always good to have you know,
Speaker 1: your data backed up. Just something as basic as that
Speaker 1: is critical, not not just for enterprises and small businesses,
Speaker 1: but for people in the home. Backup your data, right.
Speaker 1: Just make sure you are not trusting you know, random emails.
Speaker 1: You know, don't don't get don't fall for fishing attacks. Um,
Speaker 1: make sure you've got basically protection software is sitting on
Speaker 1: your on your laptops and funds, right, keep your software
Speaker 1: up data. I mean, these are basic hygiene things that
Speaker 1: the average consumers should do um to protect themselves. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, and then you know, beyond that, the companies themselves,
Speaker 1: like people like Twitter have irresponsibility. Social media companies themselves
Speaker 1: have responsible to make sure that while they cannot control
Speaker 1: whether Russia is going to cut off Facebook, they have
Speaker 1: they definitely can have a set amount of control or
Speaker 1: making sure that the right information is getting out there, right.
Speaker 1: You know, these these platforms are have been used as
Speaker 1: a as as a weapon to spread misinformation, and I
Speaker 1: think they have a unique responsibility to get ahead of
Speaker 1: that and not just hide behind the veil off. We're
Speaker 1: just a platform and we just put out things there
Speaker 1: and we really don't control when the truth is absolutely
Speaker 1: control what's getting put out there. So when we think
Speaker 1: about sanctions, you know, you get to think about their
Speaker 1: recyber sanctions as well. We could talk about that with
Speaker 1: the former Ukrainian finance minister who's going to join us
Speaker 1: a little bit later on TESH. Thank you so much
Speaker 1: at test Chef president and chief executive officer of Victor
Speaker 1: AI joining us on the phone from San Jose, California.
Speaker 1: I mean, that is a reminder that we're living in
Speaker 1: different times. Make a good point to Carol, it's not
Speaker 1: just China and Russia that are the ones who are
Speaker 1: doing the cyber attacks. This is Bloomberg Business Week with
Speaker 1: Carol Masser and Bloomberg Quick Takes. Tim Stinovic on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: We have an incredible guest with us, UM Natalie Drusco,
Speaker 1: former Ukrainian Minister of Finance from twenty sixteen during the
Speaker 1: initial Russian invasion occupation of Ukraine. Tim also the executive
Speaker 1: director of the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico.
Speaker 1: She's been helping that area with their financial problems. She
Speaker 1: was also the subject of a Bloomberg Business Week story
Speaker 1: back in twenty fifteen. It was entitled The American Woman
Speaker 1: who stands between Putin and Ukraine. She joins us on
Speaker 1: the phone from San Juan, Puerto Rico. Um, Natalie, so
Speaker 1: nice to have you here. I know you did a
Speaker 1: really smart interview with our surveillance team earlier on Bloomberg TV,
Speaker 1: and you told our Tom Keene Um about what you're
Speaker 1: hearing from you brain. What's the latest on that. Well,
Speaker 1: we're going into the evening into the nighttime, so people
Speaker 1: are retiring and going into the bunkers and the bomb shelters.
Speaker 1: So the you know, the casing now is massive, waiting
Speaker 1: to see what happens next. Um. Obviously there's fear but
Speaker 1: you know, Ukrainians are stepping up in a way that
Speaker 1: you know, every nation should be proud to act as
Speaker 1: brave as they are. They're they're volunteering in any way
Speaker 1: they can. They're volunteering, whether it's to give blood, whether
Speaker 1: they're volunteering for the civil defense and picking up guns
Speaker 1: to fight UM. But they are, they are acting UH
Speaker 1: with you know, full intense to keep their homeland. Natalie.
Speaker 1: We just spoke a few minutes ago to Angela Stent,
Speaker 1: senior adviser to the Center for Eurasian, Russian and East
Speaker 1: European Studies. She shared with us her assessment that she
Speaker 1: really thinks things are going in the direction of Putin
Speaker 1: being able to overtake KIEVU and indeed install a Putin
Speaker 1: friendly governing official there. And at this point that's really inevitable.
Speaker 1: And I'm monitoring if you share that assessment. Well, I
Speaker 1: will never say that that's inevitable. Now, I do know
Speaker 1: that that is the objective of Putin. His objective is
Speaker 1: to decapitate UH, the government, to suffitcate the economy, to
Speaker 1: deny Ukraine It's freedom, deny Ukrainians their existence. But I
Speaker 1: also know the strength of the Ukrainian people and the
Speaker 1: desire of people to maintain their peace, their freedom in
Speaker 1: their own country. And so Ukrainians will resist and are
Speaker 1: resisting and have given the Russians a little bit of
Speaker 1: a surprise in terms of the incredible morale and training
Speaker 1: of the armed forces of Ukraine. So there is a
Speaker 1: great deal of hope against hope. But I will say that,
Speaker 1: you know, Ukrainians would have greater hope if are the
Speaker 1: Western partners, the United States and Europe could deliver much
Speaker 1: more massive UH sanctions, economic, financial and much more massive
Speaker 1: military support for them to defend themselves, right, Because that
Speaker 1: what I'm wondering is, you know, is there an outcome
Speaker 1: where Ukraine remains neutral, independent without greater support, whether it's
Speaker 1: military or tougher sanctions um from the West. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's a really lot packed in there for so independent
Speaker 1: and neutral or not to to to the same thing,
Speaker 1: Ukraine's independent constitution has MADEO has an objective, a goal.
Speaker 1: It doesn't mean as a timeline, doesn't mean that they're
Speaker 1: there yet, But that is up to the Ukrainian people
Speaker 1: and they have chosen their direction in terms of what
Speaker 1: Ukraine will do without for their Western support. I think
Speaker 1: it's unfair to say that. I think the West has
Speaker 1: to look at this as a singular set of defining
Speaker 1: days to isolate the pariah states, to isolate Russia. And
Speaker 1: the reason this is in the United States, in the
Speaker 1: reason this is an every single American's interest, every single
Speaker 1: bridge interest, is because Ukraine right now is standing between
Speaker 1: the world as we know it, a world of rules
Speaker 1: and rules based society, a rule uh a world of
Speaker 1: peace and freedom that we created and developed and built
Speaker 1: since World War Two. It is standing between that life
Speaker 1: that we love and a world of of chaos and
Speaker 1: conflicts or power and autocrats and tyrants move borders at
Speaker 1: their own will. That is not a world that is
Speaker 1: good for the U S. Stock market. It is not
Speaker 1: a world that is good for the US investor. It's
Speaker 1: not a world that's good for the U. S. Worker.
Speaker 1: It's not a world that's good for the United States
Speaker 1: or for other freedom loving countries. So, Natalie, if you
Speaker 1: were advising the United States government or perhaps European governments
Speaker 1: right now, what sanctions would you advise them to put
Speaker 1: in place? So uh, full and in mediate sanctions on
Speaker 1: the financial sector in Russia, meaning starting with the Central
Speaker 1: Bank of Russia, which has not yet been sanctioned. Moving
Speaker 1: on to all the state banks in Russia, some have,
Speaker 1: some have not closed the circle, cut them all off,
Speaker 1: cutting Russia off from Swift, UM and UM, putting restrictions
Speaker 1: on ruble clearing. I would go even further to encourage
Speaker 1: all asset managers to divest of all Russian investments. In fact,
Speaker 1: I would ask the marketplace to look at this as
Speaker 1: we did growing up and giving away my age UH
Speaker 1: and discouraged the businesses from investing in South Africa because
Speaker 1: of apartheid. There is a moral equivalent here, UH, in
Speaker 1: the sense that we should not be investing in a
Speaker 1: country that in a government, in businesses from a government
Speaker 1: that are knowingly clearly trying to create another genocide. UM.
Speaker 1: Above and beyond financial restrictions, I think there's a great
Speaker 1: deal we can do UM in terms of trade restrictions,
Speaker 1: export controls can be increased. I think we should stop
Speaker 1: allowing Russian airlines to fly in our airspace. UH. You know,
Speaker 1: Ukraine has unfortunately had its sports closed and its airport's
Speaker 1: closed as they try to suffocate the economy. There's no
Speaker 1: reason we should allow Russian plane airlines air flux to
Speaker 1: fly in our space. I think sanctioning the entire leadership,
Speaker 1: sanctioning everyone from President Tooting, which the news is reporting
Speaker 1: the United States is considering all the way through the
Speaker 1: members of the Duma, the members of the National Security Council,
Speaker 1: the members of the cabinet, ministers and all their families.
Speaker 1: Why should any of them have access to our to visas,
Speaker 1: to our to our universities, to our bank accounts. If
Speaker 1: they want to enjoy peace and freedom in the United
Speaker 1: States and Europe, then they ought to allow Ukraines to
Speaker 1: enjoy peace and freedom. So I think there's just they're
Speaker 1: just numerous things that can be done. So what's the
Speaker 1: world afraid of? What's the United States afraid of? What
Speaker 1: are the European allies? And one of the conversations we've
Speaker 1: had certainly is that for Europe, where it's much closer
Speaker 1: to home physically, geographically, you know, they are concerned about,
Speaker 1: you know, access to energy, I mean their economies. But
Speaker 1: what is everybody afraid of in terms of pushing back harder? Yeah,
Speaker 1: you hear this with regard to energy sanctions. Um even
Speaker 1: in President Biden speaches where he talks about trying to
Speaker 1: ensure that the unit that American consumers don't see an
Speaker 1: increase in gasoline prices at the pump. So, yeah, there
Speaker 1: are economic costs to implementing some of these sanctions, but
Speaker 1: I assure you that the costs are much greater if
Speaker 1: the world becomes an unsafe place for rule of law.
Speaker 1: I assure you that our businesses will not do better
Speaker 1: if they cannot assure themselves that their investments are free
Speaker 1: of the kind of political risk that major US investors
Speaker 1: are now seeing in Ukraine today because of the Russian invasion.
Speaker 1: So I think that we're looking at short term costs
Speaker 1: um to to apply these sanctions to achieve a result
Speaker 1: that I think is critical for the way we wish
Speaker 1: our markets and our lives to be. And so those
Speaker 1: short term economic costs, whether they're in you know, I
Speaker 1: heard something today about Italy wanting to exclude its luxury
Speaker 1: product makers from from training. Thanks. Really, it's just it's
Speaker 1: somewhat ridiculous. People are dying, Hundreds of people are dying
Speaker 1: every hour, and we're discussing whether or not the kindergartens
Speaker 1: that got blown up by the Kremlin, whether the orphanage
Speaker 1: that got blown up by the by the by the
Speaker 1: Kremlin today is worth more or less than those trade sanctions.
Speaker 1: That is unbelievable. The last time we did that in
Speaker 1: World War Two, we all regretted it. We all regretted
Speaker 1: not stepping in sooner. We can't allow this to happen again. Natalie, Uh,
Speaker 1: very again, just very powerful comments from you. I'm wondering
Speaker 1: how nuclear weapons, how they complicate the situation here. It
Speaker 1: was something that Angela Stent just referred to that you
Speaker 1: Western nations, they know that that Russia has nuclear weapons.
Speaker 1: We know that Russia has We work with Russia on
Speaker 1: their nuclear weapons. Uh. What's at stake there? And that
Speaker 1: how does that hold back the United States and in Europe?
Speaker 1: Now there are three elements on nukes. UM One is
Speaker 1: Ukraine agreed voluntarily to give up its nuclear weapons. It
Speaker 1: had the third largest UH supplied nuclear weapons and they
Speaker 1: did it in return for security guarantees from both United
Speaker 1: States and Russia, amongst others. And so number one, if
Speaker 1: we want to talk about nukes, will go all the
Speaker 1: way back to in the fact of the matter is
Speaker 1: we have security assurances from from both the aggressors as
Speaker 1: well as the United States. And so let's start with that.
Speaker 1: But yes, I'm not suggesting that NATO stepped in or
Speaker 1: the U s boots be put on the ground. I
Speaker 1: actually believe that instead the United States and the Western
Speaker 1: partners ought to be providing all the military support possible
Speaker 1: for Ukraine used to defend themselves, massive urgent air air defense,
Speaker 1: logistical armament, things needed for you know, the stingers, the drones,
Speaker 1: to even the even the field. Ukraines are willing to
Speaker 1: fight themselves where they're not asking for American boots on
Speaker 1: the ground. And I'm not suggesting any but the third
Speaker 1: element on the nukes is clear. If we believe that
Speaker 1: they are a dangerous nuclear power, and I do believe that,
Speaker 1: then be aware that this is not likely to end
Speaker 1: in Ukraine. If Ukraine is not able to maintain its freedom,
Speaker 1: they will move on. They have already described how they
Speaker 1: don't believe that the Baltic extinct should be part of NATO.
Speaker 1: He's putting has said that out loud. It's not in
Speaker 1: my imagination or or a theory. So if we want
Speaker 1: to stop him, we should stop him now before it
Speaker 1: gets to the point where NATO has to defend We
Speaker 1: just have about a minute or so left here what
Speaker 1: do we need to understand you? You have been front
Speaker 1: and center at this situation for years, as he said,
Speaker 1: you know, Minister of financing, that initial invasion and occupation.
Speaker 1: What is it that we need to as a world
Speaker 1: understand about Vladimir Putin? He warned us, He warned us,
Speaker 1: and we never listened. He warned us when he invaded Georgia,
Speaker 1: then in two thousand and eight, then he invaded Ukraine
Speaker 1: in two thousand and fourteen. He lookedally did in Syria
Speaker 1: to the people of Syria. He killed his opposition with
Speaker 1: polonium on the streets of London. He's murdered his opposition
Speaker 1: on the streets of Berlin. He's interfered in our elections,
Speaker 1: He's interfered in other elections. What more do we need
Speaker 1: to know? That he is trying to destroy the democratic principles,
Speaker 1: the liberal world order that we live in. I don't
Speaker 1: think we need another warning, and we shouldn't let anyone
Speaker 1: else die. Twenty seconds left here China thoughts on that,
Speaker 1: and they're all very quickly. I think they're looking carefully.
Speaker 1: I think they're watching that. Maybe the single most interested
Speaker 1: capital to see how the United States and our allies
Speaker 1: react and then they'll be able to gauge what their
Speaker 1: what their next moves are with regard to Taiwan and elsewhere. Natalie,
Speaker 1: thank you so much, and we hear A Bloomberg really
Speaker 1: appreciate the time that you have been carving out for
Speaker 1: all of our platforms in your insight. UM, incredibly valuable.
Speaker 1: Natalie Arrasco, former Ukraine Minister of Finance from sixteen UM,
Speaker 1: really giving us so much there. Really appreciate that. Natalie Roam, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'll bet you let me drive. Oh no, no, no no, non, please,
Speaker 1: I'll go. I want to drive. It's a good question,
Speaker 1: good driven. This is the Drive to the Clothes on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Radio. All right, what a wild week, and we've
Speaker 1: just got a few minutes left in the trading day,
Speaker 1: about ten minutes to wrap off the holiday short and
Speaker 1: trading week. But it feels like it was almost a
Speaker 1: month because of some of the volatility, understandably. So let's
Speaker 1: get to it with Victoria Green, Chi's chief investment officer
Speaker 1: at G squared Private Wealth. They've got five hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty million in US it's under management. And she joins
Speaker 1: us on the phone from College Station, Texas. Victoria, nice
Speaker 1: to have you here with Tim and myself. Who to
Speaker 1: thunk considering where we were, certainly early yesterday in terms
Speaker 1: of the equity markets, just the financial markets over all,
Speaker 1: that we'd actually see some gains heading into a weekend.
Speaker 1: It's crazy, right, and it's funny. It really has it
Speaker 1: felt like a month this week and it's it's forgot.
Speaker 1: It was a holiday week too long. It's been forgot
Speaker 1: we were off on Monday. Um. But I think that
Speaker 1: just kind of reinforces uh. And I'm not trying to
Speaker 1: downplay the humanitarian crisis from the tragedy this is, but
Speaker 1: Marcus really tends to ignore conflict or at least bounce
Speaker 1: back quickly historically, and you kind of saw that play
Speaker 1: out a little bit when neither NATO or the U
Speaker 1: S seemed to want to put boots on the ground
Speaker 1: and we're going to focus more on sanctions. I think
Speaker 1: that the Marcus kind of breathed the side of relief
Speaker 1: that this conflict isn't going to potentially get bigger, uh,
Speaker 1: And that really helped help find some footing there. I mean,
Speaker 1: the NOZAC moved what eight h our basis points based
Speaker 1: Sally from from Tropope. Yeah, that was really wild, especially
Speaker 1: what happened yesterday with the NAZCAC one hundred Victoria. I'm wondering,
Speaker 1: though I understand what you're saying, but I also wonder.
Speaker 1: You know, we've talked a lot about Ukraine over the
Speaker 1: last two days and over the last few weeks on
Speaker 1: this program. Uh, I wonder if it means that Putin
Speaker 1: is going to keep going and if the markets not
Speaker 1: pricing that in and that's something that we you know,
Speaker 1: that's something that we heard about from the former Ukraine
Speaker 1: finance minister Natalie Duresco just a little bit earlier. Yeah,
Speaker 1: how far he goes? I think it's it's interesting, um,
Speaker 1: And you know, obviously Latvia's getting a little nervous. Poland
Speaker 1: and some of your old old foes are feeling that
Speaker 1: the pressures like this is the nineteen fifties and sixties again.
Speaker 1: And I think when you have to look around, one
Speaker 1: of the questions is was he expecting his own country
Speaker 1: to kind of rise up a little bit? You know,
Speaker 1: in his own country does not seem a hundred percent
Speaker 1: behind this war. And then it's a lot harder to
Speaker 1: hold a hostile country than it is to to welcome
Speaker 1: a rebel held area like he did in Georgia and
Speaker 1: Crimeal So could he move further? Yes? But is he
Speaker 1: finding it harder to do this than maybe he anticipated.
Speaker 1: Possibly he's meeting stiff resistance from the Ukrainians and it's
Speaker 1: a lot harder. We saw that in Afghanistan. If you
Speaker 1: conquered hostile territory, holding it and ruling it is extremely
Speaker 1: difficult and costly. So where do you go from here?
Speaker 1: Are are you potentially in a little bit of a
Speaker 1: holding pattern? We've got a job's report right a week
Speaker 1: from today. But more importantly, I feel like I keep
Speaker 1: pulling out the f O m C function on the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg terminal, you know, counting my meetings. Jim Buller came
Speaker 1: out and he's looking for a hundred basis points by July.
Speaker 1: That's four meetings from now. So do we though, are
Speaker 1: we in a little bit of a holding pattern to
Speaker 1: the March sixteenth meeting, which is just a few weeks away,
Speaker 1: to kind of get a better idea of what the
Speaker 1: FED is thinking and to see if they ultimately do
Speaker 1: something at that meeting. I think they We're still going
Speaker 1: to move and I think you saw that reaffirmation today.
Speaker 1: Um I think also the market was hoping potentially those
Speaker 1: conflicts which slow the FED. I don't. I think the
Speaker 1: Fed has to me they have to move their late
Speaker 1: again and they need to do something about inflation. Fifty
Speaker 1: basis points seems probably off the table. Becauld they move
Speaker 1: once a meeting for the next four meetings. Absolutely, Uh,
Speaker 1: we're still pricing in. If you look at the market
Speaker 1: implied rate, it's right a little over six right now.
Speaker 1: It's certainly come down a little bit from those eight
Speaker 1: or nine hikes who are having thrown around there for
Speaker 1: a little but it's still going to be a rate
Speaker 1: hiking environment. I don't think this is going to put
Speaker 1: the stock on it sort of absolute catastrophe. I don't
Speaker 1: think the feed is gonna be derailed. So what does
Speaker 1: that mean for tech stocks? I think a little bit.
Speaker 1: I don't want to say dead cat bounce, but I
Speaker 1: think that they may be bought into that theory that
Speaker 1: that rates aren't going to move as aggressively. And still look,
Speaker 1: if we only do four hikes this year or five
Speaker 1: hikes this year, that's technically dubbish from where they we
Speaker 1: are right now. Right you know, if we're considering six
Speaker 1: or seven to be baseline and they come in with
Speaker 1: three to four or five, then then that is a
Speaker 1: little bit more dubbish. But I think tech stocks still
Speaker 1: have some hurdles. I think you're really seeing the no
Speaker 1: earnings tech stocks still struggle. I think everything got dragged
Speaker 1: down a little bit in that sector. You had well
Speaker 1: run stocks that do you produce cash flows and earnings
Speaker 1: that didn't probably deserve to sell off as hard as
Speaker 1: some of them did. If you look at like Navideo
Speaker 1: or some of the chip stops that that really took
Speaker 1: a beating, but are very quality companies that generate good,
Speaker 1: solid cash flows, I think they have the potential to
Speaker 1: bounce a little bit faster than the speculative arms. I
Speaker 1: think the speculative arms are still When I say speculative arms,
Speaker 1: I mean speculative stocks that really aren't generating cash flows.
Speaker 1: You're buying them for the potential feature that they may provide.
Speaker 1: They may struggle more because they really will be hit
Speaker 1: harder by rate. That's so interesting that you say that,
Speaker 1: I'm looking at our innovation E t F A r
Speaker 1: k K hit a fifty two weeks you know, earlier
Speaker 1: this year, just a few days ago, but it rose
Speaker 1: seven point eight percent yesterday, it's higher more than three
Speaker 1: percent right now, Carol, Right, so you know this is
Speaker 1: something great point, Tim, And I was like this perspective, Victoria.
Speaker 1: There's a point where and we talked about this yesterday,
Speaker 1: that investors like understanding the situation in terms of the
Speaker 1: Russian invasion in Ukraine. But so then starting to say fundamentally, wow,
Speaker 1: you know we've seen what official correction you know on
Speaker 1: the S and P. We're looking at some of these
Speaker 1: corrections and say, wait, I still believe in this company.
Speaker 1: There's gonna be earnings, there's revenue growth, maybe not as
Speaker 1: fast as we thought, but that's a buying opportunity. Yeah,
Speaker 1: if you like Amazon at four thousand, why don't you
Speaker 1: like Amazon at three thousands? You know, unless you think
Speaker 1: Amazon's going away? Right, if they go away, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: cry so bad. That's gonna ruin my life that they
Speaker 1: can't go away. They we need to like declare them
Speaker 1: utility at this point almost they're systematically important to United States. Absolutely.
Speaker 1: Maybe there's some regulators who want to regulate them, Like
Speaker 1: I was just gonna say, if they want to regulate
Speaker 1: some of the rates there, No, but I know what
Speaker 1: you say that it's a part of our economy, like
Speaker 1: were there's many of us who are so in trench.
Speaker 1: Not everybody, but a lot of people. Yeah, and they
Speaker 1: look they race trime and I said, sure, take my money,
Speaker 1: Like I'm not about the cancel prime over what they
Speaker 1: raised it. Um, But I think you honestly have to
Speaker 1: look at that. We got very spoiled in every time
Speaker 1: we hit that five percent pullback, it was like clockwork right,
Speaker 1: we bounced right off of it and came back. We
Speaker 1: we actually saw a correction, which is a very normal,
Speaker 1: healthy market thing to do. And so we look at
Speaker 1: this and it's a very rare corrections turn into bear markets,
Speaker 1: especially not during recession. So honestly, unless you say, hey,
Speaker 1: we're going recession here on the next six to twelve months,
Speaker 1: which which I don't see. But if if that's your
Speaker 1: your barrish case, then potentially you're not a buyer's exist.
Speaker 1: But short of recession, it's very unlikely this turns into
Speaker 1: a bear market. And we don't think I would say
Speaker 1: is that the FED it's often tricky when they start
Speaker 1: to raise hikes in terms of getting it right, and
Speaker 1: that we often can turn into a recession as a result.
Speaker 1: VI Terry Green, thank you so much. Really enjoyed it,
Speaker 1: Chief investment Officer at G Squared Private Wealth, joining us
Speaker 1: on the phone from College Station, Texas. Thanks for listening
Speaker 1: to Bloomberg Business Week. Download the podcast on iTunes, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: or Bloomberg dot com, and you can also listen to
Speaker 1: our radio show at two pm Eastern on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: Watch us on YouTube search Bloomberg Global News. Mmmmmmmm