Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Penl podcast. I'm Paul swing you.
Speaker 1: Along with my co host Lisa Brahma wits. Each day
Speaker 1: we bring you the most noteworthy and useful interviews for
Speaker 1: you and your money, whether at the grocery store or
Speaker 1: the trading floor. Find a Bloomberg Penl podcast on Apple
Speaker 1: podcast or wherever you listen to podcasts, as well as
Speaker 1: at Bloomberg dot com. Well, Chinese markets are open for
Speaker 1: trading once against Shanghai, which hadn't traded since the holidays
Speaker 1: began in January, UH tumbled seven point seven percent, the
Speaker 1: most since two thousand and fifteen, as the economy virtually
Speaker 1: is shut down because of the coronavirus. To give us
Speaker 1: a sense of kind of how to navigate UH those waters,
Speaker 1: we welcome Brendan A. Hearn, chief investment officer for Crane
Speaker 1: Scharity's based in New York City. Brandan, thanks so much
Speaker 1: for joining us. What do you tell clients here as
Speaker 1: it relates to China to Asia in terms of allocating
Speaker 1: capital there? We saw again a virus, a violent turned
Speaker 1: down in the Asian markets today, certainly for long term investors,
Speaker 1: we believe obviously the coronavirus is having a very tragic
Speaker 1: toll from our human on claiming lives. Um. It's going
Speaker 1: to have a economic impact. UM. That could be in
Speaker 1: the know over the next quarter or so. But but
Speaker 1: we believe it is an opportunity UM that for long
Speaker 1: term investors, there is an opportunity today. I think they
Speaker 1: need to be a little careful and where they allocate
Speaker 1: those investments. But again I think it is an opportunity
Speaker 1: for those long run investors. All right, So it's an
Speaker 1: opportunity for long run investors. Is this a bed on
Speaker 1: central bank stimulus by the PBOC? No, I mean, I
Speaker 1: mean certainly the you know, like as we saw during
Speaker 1: the trade war, Uh, China policymakers are going to do
Speaker 1: whatever they can to support the economy. Increasingly, China's economy
Speaker 1: is a um, a consumer driven economy. So I think,
Speaker 1: as we saw last year around the trade war, we're
Speaker 1: going to see a lot of stimulus to help that
Speaker 1: that side of the economy during this this kind of
Speaker 1: economic shutdown due to the coronavirus so Brendan, we had
Speaker 1: some news today on that front. Chinese officials are hoping
Speaker 1: that the US will agree to some flexibility on pledges
Speaker 1: in their Phase one trade deal. Does that suggest to
Speaker 1: you that the virus may be worse than maybe currently
Speaker 1: being discussed by the government. I think you know, certainly, UM,
Speaker 1: the the virus, I mean, I mean people are scared.
Speaker 1: I mean from talking to brokers and and even colleagues
Speaker 1: in both China and Hong Kong, people are are very scared,
Speaker 1: UM and and so there there there is going to
Speaker 1: be an impact. You're just going to limit you know,
Speaker 1: say you know, we saw it, you know leading up
Speaker 1: to the Chinese New Year around tourism. You know that
Speaker 1: big big sites or even movie theaters, you know, if
Speaker 1: it's Disneyland in Shanghai, you know, people don't want to
Speaker 1: congregate in big groups. And and that that is going
Speaker 1: to have a downstream effects because of the China's role
Speaker 1: in in in the global supply chain. Brendan I asked
Speaker 1: this question of Damian Sasaur earlier. There is suspicion that
Speaker 1: the UH, the the government of China basically encouraged national
Speaker 1: investors UH, particularly those that are beholden to their wishes
Speaker 1: UM to go in and buy stocks to perhaps save
Speaker 1: some of the declines that we saw on the initial
Speaker 1: day of trading. After reopening, uh, in the wake of
Speaker 1: a closure due to the coronavirus? Is that true? How
Speaker 1: much state sponsored encouraged buying was there? It's difficult to know,
Speaker 1: you know, you know, the the Chinese regulator takes almost
Speaker 1: a paternalistic role in the mainland market due to the
Speaker 1: high participation rate from individual investors. UM. I do think
Speaker 1: there was activity uh from the quote unquote national team.
Speaker 1: These are you know, big social security pension plans. The
Speaker 1: end reality is when the last time we saw the
Speaker 1: national field basically come come into the market was in
Speaker 1: the summer of when when everything everyone was selling, they
Speaker 1: bought and that ended up being a very profitable trade.
Speaker 1: And I think, you know, I don't know. I don't
Speaker 1: think it's gonna happen tomorrow or in a week, but
Speaker 1: in the it could be in the next month or
Speaker 1: the next quarter. I think those purchases done today and
Speaker 1: we'll probably see it again tomorrow. I think there's a
Speaker 1: very profitable trade. This is you know, bylow cell high
Speaker 1: so Brendan what you know, what do you think the
Speaker 1: impact the coronavirus will be on GDP for China this
Speaker 1: year and maybe even into next How does this how
Speaker 1: do you think this will play out. So Hobey providence
Speaker 1: plays a very minor role. Uh but but China is
Speaker 1: is taking a very very serious approach. So so it
Speaker 1: is going to affect it. You know, the cell side
Speaker 1: analysts are going to start dialing down expectations. It's it's
Speaker 1: even hard for them because we don't know when the
Speaker 1: coronavirus will take it, when things will start to peter out.
Speaker 1: You know. You know, the markets tended to come back
Speaker 1: during stars uh once once the number of people infected stopped. Um,
Speaker 1: And we're not there yet, so so it's hard to know.
Speaker 1: You know, I think things stay in a lockdown mode
Speaker 1: until we see the virus contain and as that becomes
Speaker 1: stays become potentially weeks, the feasibility of that being months.
Speaker 1: It's going to have an economic impact, without question, Brendan,
Speaker 1: Does it worry you at all that we're seeing the
Speaker 1: U N lose value versus the dollar now exceeding seven
Speaker 1: u N per dollar? No? Not not. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: the U one you know, post trade deal came down
Speaker 1: from six twenty down into the six eighties. So um,
Speaker 1: you know, I think you know, certainly to me, I
Speaker 1: personally believe uh interest rate differentials as well as economic
Speaker 1: conditions determined effects rates. Um. You know, certainly Chinese bond market,
Speaker 1: what a rally yet that had overnight, I mean mass
Speaker 1: effensive as much as equities were down huge rally in
Speaker 1: the onshore bond market. And then then combine that with
Speaker 1: we're gonna have a weakening in the short run in
Speaker 1: China's common That explains the weaker you on. Thank you
Speaker 1: so much being with us Brendan and her and chief
Speaker 1: investment officer of Crane Shares in New York. Well, there
Speaker 1: is increasing focus on Amazon dot Com as the dominant
Speaker 1: commerce site, and there's a question about their crackdown or
Speaker 1: lack thereof on counterfeit items. Joining us now, as Ronnie
Speaker 1: I said Home, managing partner at sat Home Law Group
Speaker 1: in our Interactive Broker Studios, Ronnie, let's just talk first
Speaker 1: about why you decided to look at this in particular,
Speaker 1: how big of a problem is it for counterfeit goods
Speaker 1: to be sold on the Amazon dot com platform. First
Speaker 1: of all, thank you for having me here. I'm looking
Speaker 1: at it because it's an endemic issue on Amazon dot
Speaker 1: Com and it's sometimes it's quite subtle because the the
Speaker 1: dollar amount that you're paying for this counterfeit merchandise is
Speaker 1: similar by maybe five to what you would pay for
Speaker 1: the genuine merchandise. Other times it's not so subtle, but
Speaker 1: either way, most people are being duped. So is this
Speaker 1: all products on online market places or is it primarily
Speaker 1: luxury the high price luxury items. What kind of products
Speaker 1: are typically susceptible to counterfeiting? Well, I'm very sorry to
Speaker 1: have to announce this on the radio, but it's all
Speaker 1: products at all price points, from toothpaste to rames items.
Speaker 1: What's Amazon dot COM's role in policing this, because ultimately,
Speaker 1: is it their responsibility? Is it the perpetrators responsibility On
Speaker 1: the other side, I think that's a great, great question.
Speaker 1: If you buy something that ends up being counterfeit from Sacks,
Speaker 1: Fifth Avenue or CBS, you can go back into that
Speaker 1: store and return it and have a conversation with someone
Speaker 1: who may be able to assess the product um when
Speaker 1: you return it and give you a refund. Here, no
Speaker 1: one is really there to help you, and some sellers
Speaker 1: do not allow you to return items. But in fairness,
Speaker 1: Amazon dot Com is not trying to be a curator
Speaker 1: of retail items. They're trying to be or they aspire.
Speaker 1: The sense that I get is they aspire to be
Speaker 1: UH an online marketplace for many different retailers and sort
Speaker 1: of a common h a common area. So does that
Speaker 1: change their role? Kind of? Does it make it not
Speaker 1: a good analogy necessarily to say sex with having no
Speaker 1: I don't think it really changes my position because if
Speaker 1: you're in a mall, we have them all right, we
Speaker 1: have them all on Hudson Yards, we have them on
Speaker 1: Manhattan Mall's great and New Jersey too. There are malls everywhere.
Speaker 1: But by analogy, when you want to rent space to
Speaker 1: sell your merchandise, there's some kind of vetting process. Provide
Speaker 1: me with your p n L. Let me see if
Speaker 1: you're incorporated. Someone is caring about who that merchant is.
Speaker 1: Online it's very anonymous. I have no idea who you are.
Speaker 1: Sometimes I can't tell where things are being shipped from
Speaker 1: where they're being manufactured. And Amazon is extremely convenient. You
Speaker 1: just sit or stand, press a button, and voila. Your
Speaker 1: item is here within a day, sometimes even less. Okay,
Speaker 1: so I'm a consumer. I realized that the package that
Speaker 1: was just delivered to me is a counterfeit. What are
Speaker 1: my legal rights. Amazon doesn't have a program that allows
Speaker 1: you to return merchandise, but sometimes those refunds don't come
Speaker 1: for a very long time. Sometimes people get lazy. I mean,
Speaker 1: if you're buying lipstick for twelve dollars, you may not,
Speaker 1: you know, make an attempt to return it. You'll say, oh,
Speaker 1: it's not worth it. And that happens all the time.
Speaker 1: So Amazon, though, they will if you say it's a
Speaker 1: counterfeit and they agree with you, they will refund your money, right.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's not like Amazon's out there to to
Speaker 1: screw their users, are they. I mean, I can't speak
Speaker 1: for Jeff Bezos. However, I can tell you that their
Speaker 1: algorithm that uses Amazon's Choice does lead consumers to buy
Speaker 1: counterfeit goods. Try it at home today, type in I
Speaker 1: don't know, uh luxury iPhone case and see what pops up.
Speaker 1: There's a sort of a bigger question underlying a lot
Speaker 1: of what you're saying, which is what is the role
Speaker 1: of Amazon dot Com and are they absconding it in
Speaker 1: terms of being responsible stewards of the modern marketplace? And
Speaker 1: this has been an issue with respect to how they
Speaker 1: do their own product placement versus others their algorithm that way,
Speaker 1: it's been an issue in terms of how they have
Speaker 1: pushed some competitors out of the market. How does this
Speaker 1: piece fit into that larger debate. I think it's all
Speaker 1: part and parcel, uh the same. Amazon is trying to
Speaker 1: maximize its profits. No one can blame them for that.
Speaker 1: That's the purpose of a for profit company. However, there
Speaker 1: are many ways you can do so, and one way
Speaker 1: is educating the consumer. There is consumer loyalty. People may
Speaker 1: think it's disappeared, but it's there. Amazon is a great,
Speaker 1: you know, example of that. I want to go shopping.
Speaker 1: I think of Amazon consumer loyalty. Get more of it.
Speaker 1: Educate your consumers. Tell them this is the usual m
Speaker 1: s r P of your item. So if you're paying,
Speaker 1: we'll just go back to you know, cosmetics. If you
Speaker 1: know that that Armani lipstick is supposed to be thirty
Speaker 1: eight dollars, don't buy it for twenty dollars here it
Speaker 1: may not be real. If you want to buy it,
Speaker 1: then you may, but you should at least know what
Speaker 1: you're getting into when you're purchasing the product. Also tell
Speaker 1: us has this color been discontinued? Perhaps that's why it's
Speaker 1: on sale. I don't know if it would get to twenty.
Speaker 1: It might actually go up to However, educate consumers. Not
Speaker 1: everybody knows how much every single item is supposed to cost.
Speaker 1: Ronnie has set Home, Thanks so much for joining us.
Speaker 1: We really appreciate your thoughts there. Ronnie is a managing
Speaker 1: partner set Home Law Group, joining us here in our
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Interactive Broker studio giving us something. It's about buying onlines,
Speaker 1: not just Amazon dot Com buying a line in general.
Speaker 1: Time to check in with Bloomberg Opinion. We're joined by
Speaker 1: opinion columnist Noah Feldman was a professor of law at
Speaker 1: Harvard University and also a Bloomberg Opinion columnists based in Boston.
Speaker 1: No thanks so much for joining us. You know, it
Speaker 1: looks like again, as Lisa was suggesting earlier, that this thing,
Speaker 1: this impeaching trial, is pretty much done and dusted. Here,
Speaker 1: let's take the step back and take a thirty thousand
Speaker 1: foot view. What do you think are some of the
Speaker 1: bigger picture takeaways from this whole process. There's a kind
Speaker 1: of glass half full, glass half empty, set of ways
Speaker 1: of looking at it. You know, the glass half full
Speaker 1: side is that the president engaged in conduct that's certainly
Speaker 1: the majority of Democrats in the House of Representatives thought
Speaker 1: rose to the the level of impeachment, and they did what
Speaker 1: they were supposed to do. They exercised their constitutional already,
Speaker 1: they impeached him. So that's the good news. The system
Speaker 1: worked in that in that way. The glass have full side, though,
Speaker 1: is a little bit outweighed at the moment by the
Speaker 1: glass half empty perception, which is that many Republicans in
Speaker 1: the Senate seemed to be taking the view that even
Speaker 1: if Trump did these things, it nevertheless doesn't count as
Speaker 1: impeachable under the Constitution. And you know, it's hard to
Speaker 1: say if they really believe that or if they're just
Speaker 1: saying that to cover up their desire to, you know,
Speaker 1: not to do anything politically bad to Trump. But either way,
Speaker 1: it's not a great thing for them to be saying,
Speaker 1: because it implies that this kind of conduct, you know,
Speaker 1: cheating in an election, is just okay under our constitutional system,
Speaker 1: and that's not going to bode well for the future.
Speaker 1: Professor Veldman, given your work at Harvard when you are
Speaker 1: clerking for a Supreme Court Justice David's suitor, and beyond
Speaker 1: how much of a precedent, does this said for future
Speaker 1: proceedings in terms of what is or in this case
Speaker 1: is not a truly impeachable offense. There's two kinds of president.
Speaker 1: When you talk about impeachment. There's not a court that
Speaker 1: can be bound by an earlier decision. So when we
Speaker 1: talk about president, we're talking about two things. One, we're
Speaker 1: talking about the kinds of legal arguments that will be
Speaker 1: made in any future impeachment proceeding. And for sure, if
Speaker 1: Trump is cleared, whoever's defending a president in future impeachment
Speaker 1: proceedings will say, look, the Trump impeachment stands for the
Speaker 1: idea that you can't impeach someone unless there's some kind
Speaker 1: of an actual statutory crime. And then other people who
Speaker 1: will be able to say, well, says you, but that's
Speaker 1: not really what happened. The other kind of president is
Speaker 1: will any future House of Representatives even bother to impeach
Speaker 1: a president who's done something that really breaks the constitutional
Speaker 1: system but doesn't count as a statutory crime. That's the
Speaker 1: kind of real world political calculus type of precedent. And
Speaker 1: there it's you know, it's too soon to say, but
Speaker 1: I certainly think that any future House of representatives is
Speaker 1: going to be very, very very cautious about entering into
Speaker 1: an impeachment under those conditions unless they're prepared to lose,
Speaker 1: which I suppose the Democrats were in this case. So
Speaker 1: were you surprised at all of that at the Republicans
Speaker 1: stood so uniformally behind the president or it was this
Speaker 1: like many people were concerned, kind of preordained. I'm sorry
Speaker 1: to say that I'm not surprised by it. Um that said,
Speaker 1: I am surprised to see senators saying that this conduct
Speaker 1: just doesn't rise to the the level of impeachment. That seems
Speaker 1: to me to be one of the more doubtful things
Speaker 1: that they're saying. I actually expected them to say, well,
Speaker 1: on the evidence, you know, maybe we just can't prove this,
Speaker 1: and anyway, the president denies that. I expected a more
Speaker 1: fact based defense. Even even again, even if it was hypocritical,
Speaker 1: that just sounded more plausible to me than saying, well,
Speaker 1: it doesn't rise the level of impeachment. And it also,
Speaker 1: you know, the saying that it doesn't rise to the
Speaker 1: level of impeachment has a much worse effect in the
Speaker 1: long run, because it implies that they think this kind
Speaker 1: of conduct is fine. Can you de grade Justice roberts
Speaker 1: performance in this I think he did excellently. Um. You know,
Speaker 1: his predecessor, Chief Justice Rank Whist, who actually, interestingly Roberts
Speaker 1: also was a law clerk for many years ago, famously
Speaker 1: said after the Continent impeachment trial, I did nothing in particular,
Speaker 1: and I did it very well. And I think that's
Speaker 1: what Roberts was aiming for. And I would give him
Speaker 1: an a for doing nothing in particular and doing it
Speaker 1: very well. So very well. Um. So the Constitution as
Speaker 1: it relates to impeachment, has that been kind of neutered
Speaker 1: it to some extent? I would say yes, you know,
Speaker 1: I mean I think if the vote goes the way
Speaker 1: we expected to, that really weakens the idea that the
Speaker 1: impeachment is there to help protect us against the president
Speaker 1: who does things to cheat in an election that don't
Speaker 1: necessarily count a statutory crimes. And I would expect that
Speaker 1: future presidents are likely to be willing to take that risk.
Speaker 1: I mean, I hope it's not that way. I hope
Speaker 1: future presidents say, well, you know, look, I mean Donald
Speaker 1: Trump got impeached and that goes on his historical record,
Speaker 1: and it looked bad and a lot of that, to
Speaker 1: be blunt, is going to depend on what happens in
Speaker 1: the next election. If Trump is re elected, people I
Speaker 1: think will feel very few qualms in the future about
Speaker 1: and what he did. If he's not re elected, there
Speaker 1: might be some second thoughts. Professor Feldman, thank you so
Speaker 1: much for being with us. Noah Feldman, Professor of Law
Speaker 1: at Harvard University, also a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. Uh tons
Speaker 1: of experience both in the legal and beyond worlds, having
Speaker 1: clerked for Justice suitor joining us from Boston, Massachusetts. Well
Speaker 1: coming into if you can rewind all the way back
Speaker 1: to January nine, it was going to be the year
Speaker 1: of the Big Unicorn I p O lift Uber we
Speaker 1: work it didn't quite turn out that successfully for public
Speaker 1: equity investors. To get a sense of kind of what
Speaker 1: we should be learning from some of those lessons, we
Speaker 1: welcome Vincent w R. He has a global macro strategist
Speaker 1: for I N T l F C Stone based in
Speaker 1: San Francisco, but joining us here on a Bloomberg and
Speaker 1: Director Brooker Studio. So Vincent, thanks so much for joining
Speaker 1: us again. As we think back, put our rear view mirror,
Speaker 1: take look at the rear view mirror. We see uber,
Speaker 1: we see lift, we see smile direct. A lot of
Speaker 1: these companies raised a lot of money at a certain valuation.
Speaker 1: They come to the public markets, they don't get that valuation.
Speaker 1: What are some of the takeaways that that that you've
Speaker 1: seen in your work? Well, I mean it's almost a
Speaker 1: mirror opposite of what happened in two thousand when you
Speaker 1: know you had these exuberant public markets. Today it seems
Speaker 1: to me that the the exuberances on the private markets
Speaker 1: and the public markets are bringing some form of discipline.
Speaker 1: I mean, I was reading about Gasper trying to ip
Speaker 1: you and a lot of these companies cannot get the
Speaker 1: valuations that they got in in private markets. And the
Speaker 1: effect that this has had is that, um, there's no exit. Um.
Speaker 1: So now you you have this backlog of unicorns that
Speaker 1: are burning gachet of the high rates, and the big exit,
Speaker 1: whether it's you know, a big stuff bank cash infusion
Speaker 1: or a big I p O is is no longer
Speaker 1: going going to happen. So you have this idea that
Speaker 1: actually the bust of these unicorns, the myth of the unicorns,
Speaker 1: is going to be reflationary. Can you explain the connection there,
Speaker 1: especially on a day what I should just know, we
Speaker 1: just gotta headline on the w t I prices fell
Speaker 1: below fifty barrel UH for the first time in more
Speaker 1: than a year, so we have that kind of pressure
Speaker 1: as well, right, Um, So I think first we need
Speaker 1: to understand how it was deflationary in the first place.
Speaker 1: I mean, following the away crisis you had, this UH
Speaker 1: two thousand was a genuinely deflationary shock yelks flattened rates
Speaker 1: when negative or the world. And what it did is
Speaker 1: that it directed a flood of money into venture capital
Speaker 1: and private equity, which certainly became seen as a silver
Speaker 1: bullet that would allow endowment institutions to achieve the return targets.
Speaker 1: And it was a very small asset class with not
Speaker 1: that many great ideas, but the money got invested with
Speaker 1: the mandate to achieve growth at any cost, kind of
Speaker 1: the Amazon model. Right. Amazon never turned the profit in
Speaker 1: the first nine years of its existence. So the way
Speaker 1: most of these many of these companies did that was
Speaker 1: by by sending your dollar for ninety cents um and
Speaker 1: a lot of the consumer oriented unicorns were built on
Speaker 1: that model. Let me achieve scale and then I'll worry
Speaker 1: about profits later. So effectively, all these companies were subsidizing customers.
Speaker 1: That's the example, of course, is we work lift uber
Speaker 1: and UM. The more they grew, the more money they lost.
Speaker 1: UM and as long as the money kept going in
Speaker 1: the loop would keep going. But without this constant in
Speaker 1: flats of money, I mean, you will have to raise prices.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you've taken an uber lately, but
Speaker 1: you'll notice that the prices have gone up significantly from
Speaker 1: last year. And you've seen certainly a lot of a
Speaker 1: lot of these unicorns come back and say, well it
Speaker 1: will be profitable at will be profitable, while how A
Speaker 1: You're going to achieve that by raising prices. So the
Speaker 1: reflation trade, which is one of the trades we certainly
Speaker 1: heard about when people strategies are talking about opportunities and
Speaker 1: emerging markets, reflation trade small caps, we're obviously we're not
Speaker 1: saying Lisa mentioned you know you've got oil uh w
Speaker 1: t I dip below fifty dollars or barrel just a
Speaker 1: few minutes ago. First time in a year, we've got
Speaker 1: an inverted yield curve. What do you think are the
Speaker 1: conditions that need to develop for that reflation trade to
Speaker 1: really start to develop. What I think it was trying
Speaker 1: to happen between you know, November December, you had a
Speaker 1: good strength and copper prices you so value do well
Speaker 1: emerging markets. It was all the trade, he hoped. I
Speaker 1: think we had this perfect setup for it, and then
Speaker 1: of course the coronavirus has thrown a big wrench into it.
Speaker 1: But again, obviously I'm not a I can't really talking
Speaker 1: too intently about the coronavirus. But maybe let's let's step
Speaker 1: back a little bit and think of what it means.
Speaker 1: I mean, either if it's really I think if if
Speaker 1: it turns off, we'll go back to where we were before,
Speaker 1: where you know, kind of global synchronized, we cover trade peace.
Speaker 1: And if it's bad, I mean, you end up basically,
Speaker 1: you know, shutting down the factory of the world. I mean,
Speaker 1: to me down the line, that will be an inflationary event. Uh.
Speaker 1: And and the last part I would say that people
Speaker 1: probably should think about is how is that going to
Speaker 1: change a policy response in China. In part of the
Speaker 1: issue with the reflasion trade was a lack of Chinese stimulus.
Speaker 1: Well maybe that is in a weird way that that
Speaker 1: would be the trigger for that. You know, there there's
Speaker 1: a question is it going to be reflationary in a
Speaker 1: positive sense where you end up with more growth that
Speaker 1: defend has been trying for and failing to get. Or
Speaker 1: is it going to be stagflationary with prices being raised
Speaker 1: at the time when higher bond prices might mean a
Speaker 1: collapse in the stock market, etcetera, etcetera. Play out your
Speaker 1: worst case scenario. So which is it could be more likely? Well,
Speaker 1: I think I think at the beginning of the market
Speaker 1: would obviously welcome some inflation, especially in the regions like
Speaker 1: Europe in Japan, But eventually my thesis was a lot
Speaker 1: of the things that we treated we mistook, and uh,
Speaker 1: there is no productivity improvement in the uniquorn segment of
Speaker 1: the world. So that would be more actually inflation story
Speaker 1: stack flation ry than it would be a positive shock
Speaker 1: over the long term. One of the interesting things just
Speaker 1: coming out of Davos was the I don't know, listen,
Speaker 1: who was the person that the boom bust cycle is over?
Speaker 1: Bob Princes, Yeah, Bridge Water, I know you brought up
Speaker 1: many times. It's interesting do you think that has values?
Speaker 1: Has the FED taken that dynamic out of the marketplace.
Speaker 1: Do you think again, as long as you don't have
Speaker 1: inflation and the bab Princes comment makes sense, right. I
Speaker 1: mean if the FED is, if central banks are freed
Speaker 1: from their price stability mandate, they can pursue other mandates
Speaker 1: like you know, rising asset prices or the ripple market
Speaker 1: that suddenly their hands become free to do anything, any
Speaker 1: anything that they want. If you get inflasion back, which
Speaker 1: is my case, then know the boom bust cycle. It's
Speaker 1: not over, it's just been postponed. Vincent Louire, thank you
Speaker 1: so much for being with us, global macro strategist of
Speaker 1: I N T L F C Stone based in San Francisco,
Speaker 1: but joining us here in our interactive broker studios. We
Speaker 1: really appreciate you being with us. Thanks for listening to
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg P and L podcast. You can subscribe and
Speaker 1: listen to interviews at Apple Podcasts or whatever podcast platform
Speaker 1: you prefer. I'm Paul Sweeney, I'm on Twitter at pt Sweeney.
Speaker 1: I'm Lisa abram Woyds. I'm on Twitter at Lisa abramo
Speaker 1: wits one. Before the podcast, you can always catch us worldwide.
Speaker 1: I'm Bloomberg Radio,