Speaker 1: Yea. Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane.
Speaker 1: Daily we bring you insight from the best in economics, finance, investment,
Speaker 1: and international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot Com, and of course on the Bloomberg Wolis.
Speaker 1: Julia Cornado, we want to pause here before we get
Speaker 1: the g d P and the guestimates of it, with
Speaker 1: the photo of the week last week for me and frankly,
Speaker 1: is the photo of International Women's Day. If you just
Speaker 1: assume that all of accomplishment of men and women is
Speaker 1: about ability and smarts. What a wonderful photo of chair Yelling,
Speaker 1: Catherine Man, Julia Cornado and others assembled. I believe Ellen
Speaker 1: Zentner up I saw there from Morgan Stanley as well.
Speaker 1: Tell us about the energy in the room, and tell
Speaker 1: us what this meeting of the smartest minds of women economics,
Speaker 1: what it meant for the young kids that were invited there. Yeah, yeah, well,
Speaker 1: I mean it was it was a celebration of Janet
Speaker 1: Yellen and her accomplishments. We wanted to say thank you
Speaker 1: to her, and I think for everybody in that room.
Speaker 1: She has been such a powerful figure for us, a
Speaker 1: powerful inspiration. Uh and it was a really warm, warm environment.
Speaker 1: Lots of lots of love in that room. Tell us
Speaker 1: where we're going to be in five years or ten years.
Speaker 1: The loneliness of Cherry Yellen, the loneliness of Kathy Man
Speaker 1: at m I t a million years ago, Ellen Zetner
Speaker 1: all by herself at Namura on our way to the
Speaker 1: excellence at Morgan Stanley. And you've accomplished with particularly with
Speaker 1: your analysis of g d P. It was lonely. It's
Speaker 1: less lonely now where lonely? I mean, I I hope
Speaker 1: we're I hope it's even less lonely. I hope it's
Speaker 1: not a It doesn't make you unique to be a
Speaker 1: woman chief economist in ten years, I certainly hope that
Speaker 1: to be true. Um And I think that there's a
Speaker 1: lot of people, both men and women, who are focused
Speaker 1: on changing uh so so so I'm optimistic for that
Speaker 1: path breaking here we forget it. And it's someone that
Speaker 1: everyone in economics knows was the absolute courage of Joan
Speaker 1: Robinson in London and in England, hugely contentious economics debates
Speaker 1: coming out of World War Two. I think there's also
Speaker 1: just a real awareness from a business perspective that actually
Speaker 1: it brings huge amounts of benefits to have diversity. I
Speaker 1: can share you an anecdote. I can't name the names,
Speaker 1: but I know an individual that was an executive at
Speaker 1: a large apparel brand here in the United States, and
Speaker 1: the board were worried about female upper ourselves. And guess
Speaker 1: what the board was made up of, all males. They
Speaker 1: couldn't relate to women. And it's a problem the retailers
Speaker 1: have had that the board is so dominated by say,
Speaker 1: white males, they can't relate to most of the people
Speaker 1: that are actually selling product too, and therefore the company
Speaker 1: very quickly becomes stale. And Julia, that's the point I
Speaker 1: think is more important. Absolutely absolutely awareness that the benefits
Speaker 1: not about the stake of having numbers numbers fairness. It's
Speaker 1: about getting things right. And that is true in the
Speaker 1: retail industry, and that's also true in the finance industry.
Speaker 1: Are you going to get the world right? In economics?
Speaker 1: Are you going to forecast the world right if you
Speaker 1: don't have half of the population represented, and and and
Speaker 1: so representation matters not just a fairness but to getting things.
Speaker 1: Let's get it right right now? Does President Trump have
Speaker 1: it right that we can sustain make America great again GDP.
Speaker 1: I don't think that we can sustain three percent GDP.
Speaker 1: I think that we are going to have a very
Speaker 1: good year. I think that we are going to grow
Speaker 1: above trend. But I think that, you know, at least
Speaker 1: the way we economists would look at things, when you
Speaker 1: do fiscal stimulus at full employment, what happens do we
Speaker 1: even have the workers to push GDP um Where we
Speaker 1: saw in the basebook yesterday, the labor market's very tight.
Speaker 1: It's very hard to find the workers to generate additional growth,
Speaker 1: even to sustain the strong growth that we have. So
Speaker 1: what happens is, and we've seen this in Q one
Speaker 1: GDP numbers the trade. We start sourcing that growth abroad.
Speaker 1: Imports are rising. The trade deficit is actually, quite ironically
Speaker 1: right into the tariff debate today, which is if there's
Speaker 1: a dearth of exports. The other side of that, as
Speaker 1: you correctly state, as we're sourcing imports, right, we're sourcing imports.
Speaker 1: We're sourcing and you know when you do capex, actually
Speaker 1: a lot of the capex inputs are coming from abroad.
Speaker 1: Uh So we're gonna trade is going to subtract maybe
Speaker 1: even up to a percentage point off Q one GDP
Speaker 1: because we are seeing strong demand and we have to
Speaker 1: source it abroad. Uh And and what will the tariffs
Speaker 1: due to all of this, um well, that has the
Speaker 1: potential to crowd things out a bit, create a bit
Speaker 1: of inflation, crowd out some of the investment. Are we
Speaker 1: going to sustain a one percent decline in GDP looking
Speaker 1: at exports and imports, that's a that's a loaded question. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, trade is very volatile, and and Q
Speaker 1: one is that's one of the areas that typically features
Speaker 1: in the week Q one pattern that we've had, so
Speaker 1: you don't want to extrapolate from that. But I think
Speaker 1: whether Q want Julia, no, no, no, it's not whether
Speaker 1: it's not whether it's statistical, it's season residual, seasonality. But
Speaker 1: I think in general, for the year as a whole,
Speaker 1: we should look for trade to be a bigger drag
Speaker 1: because of stronger imports and sourcing some of the demand
Speaker 1: that we need from abroad. Julia Cornado, thank you so
Speaker 1: much for joining us today. Julia Cornado and AMP Joseph Cohine.
Speaker 1: We really wanted to put them together. We're bringing Peter
Speaker 1: Chat well, so we Missooi international head of European rate Strategy,
Speaker 1: and Jeffrey u UBS Private Banking head at UK Investment
Speaker 1: Office UBS Private Banking. He joined us right now. Jeff.
Speaker 1: Let's begin with you, sir, as you look at the
Speaker 1: forward gardeners from the e c B. It's a delicate
Speaker 1: shift that they've talked about for a year, but they've
Speaker 1: dropped that pledge. Your thoughts absolutely, and but also I
Speaker 1: think there'll be many in the market who are saying, look, guys,
Speaker 1: and what took you so long? Right? So it's clearly
Speaker 1: on that some people are not a position for this. Um.
Speaker 1: I think the ECB will still, you know, taken easy.
Speaker 1: Let's see what drug has to say. They're going to
Speaker 1: be keen on trying to avoid any type of a
Speaker 1: tantrum up ahead. But so far it looks like markets
Speaker 1: are taking this well. Pitter chat well, as Jeff points out,
Speaker 1: what did take so long? They've been talking about it
Speaker 1: for about two halve months. I guess it is relative
Speaker 1: to expectations. People just did not expect it to happen today,
Speaker 1: did you we We were not expecting this to go
Speaker 1: at this point. The only reason that we would expect
Speaker 1: that it could go here is if the e c
Speaker 1: B is also ready to make a change to some
Speaker 1: of their forward guidance on the timing and the pace
Speaker 1: of interest rate hikes. So that's the way that this.
Speaker 1: As long as they're clear about this and they prevent
Speaker 1: the market from from pricing imminent rate heights, then this
Speaker 1: won't turn into something more significant that leads to wider spread.
Speaker 1: But just having a lower buon price a higher bund yield,
Speaker 1: it's not the end of the world. I'm going to
Speaker 1: frame here after Bloomberg terminal, the sequence of headlines that
Speaker 1: I have out, I'll put that out on social for
Speaker 1: all of Bloomberg Radio and Jeff you what it is
Speaker 1: is just the tone of nine ten eleven headlines. It
Speaker 1: reminds me of Mark Kearney ten twelve months ago saying,
Speaker 1: you know, we have to wait until inflation goes up.
Speaker 1: Did Mr Drag blinked this morning? Um? I wouldn't say
Speaker 1: he's unblinking, But it's just more you realizing that some
Speaker 1: things you need to change, and at this point, and
Speaker 1: also knowing that the market probably is in a better
Speaker 1: position to actually accept change at this point. So it
Speaker 1: is really that dynamicism place. Um and again you know
Speaker 1: the markets take it well, even with further normalization prospect
Speaker 1: up ahead, then he'll be happy with the results. This
Speaker 1: is a real baby step though, Jeff. There'll be some
Speaker 1: listeners that are thinking, what are we getting excited about?
Speaker 1: What is this all about? As you said, Jeff, about time.
Speaker 1: But does this set us up for the removal of
Speaker 1: QA before the end of this year? Um? So, I
Speaker 1: think he is gradually laying the framework to actually push
Speaker 1: everyone in that direction, right, But so yes, you know,
Speaker 1: setting it up that is a clear intent that he's
Speaker 1: going to be looking at the reaction at the same time,
Speaker 1: and also bearing in mind financial conditions. Euro's higher on
Speaker 1: that he doesn't want to enforce it all the way
Speaker 1: up to one thirty either in the short right, Peter
Speaker 1: chat well also ter for you are so audience, but
Speaker 1: let's go There is the ten year German yield near
Speaker 1: a technical resistance where higher yields really denotes a breakout.
Speaker 1: I think it's important. I mean, yes, if you look
Speaker 1: at at a chart you might get concerned that they
Speaker 1: could go a lot higher from here, but you've got
Speaker 1: to think about the implication that that would have on
Speaker 1: financial conditions for the euro Area. And when you're giving,
Speaker 1: when you're taking away on the one hand, saying that
Speaker 1: que is not going to be increased, then I think
Speaker 1: the ECB is likely to also give something back, which
Speaker 1: is to try and reinforce and push out some of
Speaker 1: the rate high expectations. So this is why I think
Speaker 1: I was going up to seventy seventy five basis points.
Speaker 1: Then it would probably still be viewed as a buying
Speaker 1: opportunity by investors. So Jeff, get me set up for
Speaker 1: the news conference that comes in about thirty forty minutes
Speaker 1: time with ECP President maryo Draki. Is it a hawker
Speaker 1: shift at seven five Eastern time? And then a dovish
Speaker 1: news conference forty five minutes later. Um. I think the
Speaker 1: best news conferences you know will the ones where euro
Speaker 1: dollar is actually training exactly the same level as when
Speaker 1: the continents compared to then started markets and now pricing
Speaker 1: in them to be relatively confish. As long as he
Speaker 1: actually doesn't push things about that, I think you'll be
Speaker 1: fine with it. Jeff. What's so important here to me
Speaker 1: is the tone of the set of headlines. I just
Speaker 1: put out my screen. They're all different. Jam Ferrells looks
Speaker 1: different than mine. Of ECB headlines and the colors in
Speaker 1: in Jeff, I just headlined to headline to headline, they're
Speaker 1: saying we're going to wait. Explain why they're waiting for
Speaker 1: more information. Is there just no inflation out there or
Speaker 1: is it something else? There are inflation expectations as always,
Speaker 1: and that they need to be anchored, right, So drag
Speaker 1: has always expressed this uson now let's see how the
Speaker 1: break evens and move as well. Um that he needs
Speaker 1: evidence that inflation expectations on that anchored, that they can
Speaker 1: be sustained for a period of time and then there
Speaker 1: will be fully ready for a game baby steps in
Speaker 1: that direction, but he needs more evidence that those expectations
Speaker 1: are here to stay an extended period waiting running until
Speaker 1: inflation path has sustainably adjusted. That the language that that
Speaker 1: that kind of tone is still dovish as far as
Speaker 1: I agree and Peter chatwell, this is still a dovish
Speaker 1: European Central Bank under President Trachy. They are not in
Speaker 1: a rush to remove accommodation. Regardless of this pickup we've
Speaker 1: seen over the last year for the general economy, I
Speaker 1: think they're not in a rush to remove accommodation, but
Speaker 1: the market needs reassurance. And see a lot of these
Speaker 1: these headlines that you're talking about, they're still pretty wishy washy.
Speaker 1: So the market doesn't really know what and how long
Speaker 1: an extended period is. The market doesn't know how quickly
Speaker 1: rates will go up. And so these are the points
Speaker 1: that the ECB needs to make much more transparent in
Speaker 1: their forward guidance or in the press conference going award
Speaker 1: to prevent there from being what they what they call
Speaker 1: an unwarranted tiening of monetary conditions. But hold on a minute, Jeff,
Speaker 1: I remember the Federal Reserve using exactly the same language
Speaker 1: that the rates wouldn't rise until an extended period of time.
Speaker 1: Are they just taken a leaf out of the Federal
Speaker 1: Reserves forward guidance playbook from several years ago? Well, I
Speaker 1: think if you look at how they said handled rate
Speaker 1: hikes last year, you know when there was sort of
Speaker 1: a shift, especially around the March meeting, from not much
Speaker 1: being priced for suddenly a lot being priced for the
Speaker 1: market absorbed it. Well, that's a very good playbook to follow.
Speaker 1: But again, going back to that sustain period, we've seen
Speaker 1: invasion data surprised to the upsides and surround like June
Speaker 1: last year. So again that's barely a yeah, barely nine
Speaker 1: months at this point. They need a bit more time.
Speaker 1: And the problem Tom that the ECB is going to
Speaker 1: have an extended period of time for Mario drag is
Speaker 1: going to be a very different extendard period of time
Speaker 1: for Yen's Wideman, and I imagine the governing Council is
Speaker 1: going to be a lot more fragile and broken up
Speaker 1: divided as we approach your end. This has been wonderful Jeffrey,
Speaker 1: You Pierre chat well away from their clients to today.
Speaker 1: We greatly appreciate you being with us with these ECB announcements.
Speaker 1: Joining us now are really wonderful. Guest, Isaac Boltanski is
Speaker 1: with a compass point and he is knee deep in
Speaker 1: the minutia of policy at Washington and particularly financial policy,
Speaker 1: and joins us now with comments that maybe most of
Speaker 1: us can understand. Um, Isaac, I'm gonna frame this for
Speaker 1: the politically accessible, is the senator from Massachusetts against the
Speaker 1: known world? Uh. For cable TV, it's great to have
Speaker 1: Senator Warren on. She always creates a motion whether you
Speaker 1: agree or disagree with her. I get that. But is
Speaker 1: that as simple as financial regulation is, Dodd Frank, Senator
Speaker 1: Warren Or is there a greater complexity to what's going
Speaker 1: on right now? You know, I think you've really hit
Speaker 1: on something there. The the issue at hand is this
Speaker 1: regulatory relief bill for banks, and the proponents for this
Speaker 1: bill argue that it's going to usher in a new
Speaker 1: wave of lending and and economic growth. The opponents, such
Speaker 1: as Senator Warren, suggests that it's going to do unleash
Speaker 1: this sort of mad Max hellscape on the lending environment,
Speaker 1: and and and hearken back to the predatory lending days
Speaker 1: of of a decade plus ago. As with almost everything
Speaker 1: in d C and surely everything in the financial regulatory regime,
Speaker 1: the truth is far more nuanced and the the bill
Speaker 1: that's in question here is honestly a very targeted, narrow
Speaker 1: measured bill that would almost exclusively benefit the country's smallest banks,
Speaker 1: and generally there I'm speaking about banks below ten bill.
Speaker 1: In yes, of course, there are examples of larger banks
Speaker 1: having benefits in this bill as well. Um it raises
Speaker 1: the UH the city or c car threshold from fifty
Speaker 1: billion to two d and fifty billion over time, which
Speaker 1: will provide some modicum of relief for those banks. And
Speaker 1: it has a custodian bank carve out which should help
Speaker 1: Sade Street and Bank of New York Mellon Northern Trust.
Speaker 1: But on balance, this bill is skewed towards benefiting smaller banks,
Speaker 1: but you wouldn't know that from the rhetoric and the
Speaker 1: rhetoric here I think is is red hot in part
Speaker 1: because we're coming up on ten years from the crisis,
Speaker 1: but also because there are seventeen Democrats right now in
Speaker 1: the Senate who are supporting this bill, and so it's
Speaker 1: the first time that we've actually been a bipartisan push
Speaker 1: to alter the roles. That's what I can't say fair enough.
Speaker 1: How unusual that is. Yeah, extraordinarily unusual, ISAI? What do
Speaker 1: you make of the retric then why do we still
Speaker 1: have this? And it can't just be because of the
Speaker 1: financial crisis that's gone by. The people think seriously that
Speaker 1: the regulatory regime that we have right now is good.
Speaker 1: I think that I think that the inherent complexy of
Speaker 1: financial policy makes it easier for hyperbole on both sides.
Speaker 1: And that's why what I think that we're seeing firsthand
Speaker 1: here UM the explaining the supplementary leverage ratio and its
Speaker 1: impact the capital management is not exactly a political sound bite,
Speaker 1: but hitting the bank bill for rolling back Dodd Frank
Speaker 1: regulations is something that some senators are actually fundraising on
Speaker 1: right now. You know, I look, Isaac, and I just
Speaker 1: did this, folks, and you know I knew where I
Speaker 1: was going, but not really. JP Morgan operating income thirty
Speaker 1: six billion, on its way to forty five billion. A
Speaker 1: big bank, PNC Financial of Pittsburgh operating incomes seven billion.
Speaker 1: So it's Isaac, forty five is compared to seven And
Speaker 1: the answer is that's a big That's a comparison of
Speaker 1: a super bank to a big, big, big regional bank.
Speaker 1: Are we treating all our banks too much the same?
Speaker 1: Within our legislation, our regulation, within the Washington ballet, it's
Speaker 1: something where yes, the the simple and unquestionable answer is yes.
Speaker 1: And I think that UM regulation tends to benefit scale players.
Speaker 1: They have the capital and the personnel necessary to build
Speaker 1: the system. Where's the president on that? Does he want
Speaker 1: to help the small banks and the mere mortal regional banks. Yes?
Speaker 1: I think there is a bias, and thus far, all
Speaker 1: we've really seen as the president so far he met
Speaker 1: with the smallest bankers a few months ago and met
Speaker 1: with the credit unions a few weeks go, so we
Speaker 1: haven't seen him decided to meet with the larger players yet.
Speaker 1: But yes, I think that there is an undeniable bias
Speaker 1: in DC on both sides of the aisle to help
Speaker 1: smaller banks. The question here is just how do you
Speaker 1: define that and what is the legislative vehicle that carries that.
Speaker 1: I said, this has been the policy push that's happened
Speaker 1: in the background throughout the last week, front and center
Speaker 1: has being issues around trade. Your thoughts somewhere this is
Speaker 1: going and whether we have actually got an administration that
Speaker 1: ultimately is together on the same page and this is
Speaker 1: a negotiation tactic that they started the extreme and then
Speaker 1: they come in. Is that what this is? It appears
Speaker 1: that once again that framework is playing with the with
Speaker 1: the signals that there's a softening on the country exemptions
Speaker 1: for Canada in Mexico as it relates to the terraces.
Speaker 1: I am still unsure if that is strategy or or
Speaker 1: bending to the broader pressure. It was striking to see
Speaker 1: how unified. Both parties were in their opposition in particular
Speaker 1: because Republicans want to run on the economic benefits of
Speaker 1: the tax cuts, and there is a real concern that
Speaker 1: these tariffs would eat into those benefits, and so you
Speaker 1: can always count on actors in d C looking for
Speaker 1: their own self interest. Isaac Bill Tansky, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: At the compass Point today, an update there on bipartisan
Speaker 1: banking legislation. I can't remember when the last time I
Speaker 1: said this A thrilled death. Cynthia Coon's with us with
Speaker 1: Bloomberg News, who has been more than patient over the time,
Speaker 1: over the years and following the drug slash pharmaceutical business.
Speaker 1: Today's theme, I believe is the distribution of the pharmaceuticals.
Speaker 1: Cynthia Coon's. What is express Scripts actually do well? This
Speaker 1: is this takes a long time to explain, so I'll
Speaker 1: try to keep it quick. But basically, what express Scripts
Speaker 1: does essentially is manage the drug benefit plans as there
Speaker 1: used for insurers and payers to determine what drugs to
Speaker 1: patients actually pay and how much we pay. So express
Speaker 1: Scripts is a line in the middle. They're considered a middleman,
Speaker 1: and what they do is they negotiate the drug prices
Speaker 1: with the actual manufacturers, and they make determinations about what
Speaker 1: is a preferred draw first year, seconds year. So your
Speaker 1: co pay is dependent on decisions a lot of times
Speaker 1: made by Expressed Scripts. And the reason needs to get
Speaker 1: a little bit tricky is primarily because of exclusivity contracts,
Speaker 1: and so drug makers, really powerful drug makers can negotiate
Speaker 1: exclusivity contracts and get preferred status on these formularias, and
Speaker 1: other drugs that even might clinically be considered better alternative
Speaker 1: is aren't necessarily getting coveraged. And all of this is
Speaker 1: happening through a system known as rebating, and drug makers
Speaker 1: are basically able to give rebates to Express Scripts. I
Speaker 1: read into a physician the other day that said, we've
Speaker 1: basically had a tipping point of American fraud in pricing
Speaker 1: of drugs. Do you know how profitable Express Scripts is
Speaker 1: by looking at their accounting statements or is it? Is
Speaker 1: it almost to the point where there's cash flows or
Speaker 1: agreements or exclusive at ease that we don't observe. It's
Speaker 1: really hard to know. So it's easy to see, Okay,
Speaker 1: these are their profits and what theyre etcetera. But really
Speaker 1: what everyone wants is a little bit of a line
Speaker 1: of sight into the agreements that how much and you
Speaker 1: don't know that makers are paying for access and we
Speaker 1: can't see that. And there are commercial concerns that these
Speaker 1: guys have longsighted as to why they don't make that clear.
Speaker 1: So their their negotiations with a big employer like like
Speaker 1: JP Morgan are obviously going to be different than our
Speaker 1: small employer, and that's sort of glee and so on.
Speaker 1: But where it gets really tricky is you have drugs
Speaker 1: that might be clinically superior and they're fighting or they're
Speaker 1: even equivalent, um, and they're fighting to get onto formularies
Speaker 1: and and companies are saying they can't get access and
Speaker 1: they think that's anti competitive. So we've seen suits along
Speaker 1: those lines. And that's where did they do this deal
Speaker 1: because of Jeff Bezos? Is this just about Amazon and
Speaker 1: everybody's trying to get out in front of Jeff Bezos
Speaker 1: running a you know, a bulldozer through the industry. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's a very astute observation and it very well may
Speaker 1: have played into the thinking of what can we do
Speaker 1: now from sickness perspective, how do we necessarily become something
Speaker 1: that's more valuable than a standalone ensure, and so that's
Speaker 1: not necessarily that's a very you know, that's a very
Speaker 1: smart thought. It's just very hard to know what what
Speaker 1: Amazon is going to do and how they're going to
Speaker 1: do it. And I think Amazon's impact, yes, it could
Speaker 1: uh disintermediate the PBMs in the system. That they also
Speaker 1: will have a very big impact on drugs and drug pricing,
Speaker 1: and so there's a whole other dimension to that. So
Speaker 1: getting ahead of Amazon, yes, that's one way of thinking
Speaker 1: about it, but we're still in very early innings of
Speaker 1: knowing what Amazon is going to do and how they're
Speaker 1: going to disrupt this part of the supply chain. There
Speaker 1: is a huge dance going on at the moment, Cynthia
Speaker 1: that we should point out. Signal and Anthem were meant
Speaker 1: to get together. It didn't happen. Anthem drop express Scripts
Speaker 1: at the same time Anthem go alone. So essentially you're
Speaker 1: left with these two that wanted a dance partner and
Speaker 1: haven't got one, and they need to get bigger. Is
Speaker 1: that what needs to happen in this space at the moment,
Speaker 1: Just get bigger and find a dance partner. Well, it's certainly,
Speaker 1: it's sort of like, because that's happening, it's going to
Speaker 1: continue to happen. I find that these sorts of things
Speaker 1: become once the bigger. Once players start making moves like
Speaker 1: this and integrating, other companies start looking at it as
Speaker 1: um inevitable that that's what they need to do to
Speaker 1: be competitive. What's very interesting about this integration is it's
Speaker 1: not necessarily following classic logic. The deals that you cited
Speaker 1: made more sense than the perspective of okay, we're two insures,
Speaker 1: we make our businesses bigger. Of course that didn't pass
Speaker 1: muster with antitrust regulators, judges, et cetera. And so that's
Speaker 1: why those didn't work out. And so what's happening now
Speaker 1: is we're seeing a lot of this vertical integration, and
Speaker 1: we don't know how these are going to work for
Speaker 1: shareholders necessarily. This Signal Express deal is more of a
Speaker 1: classical We've seen United Health has um a PBM. Do
Speaker 1: we know what that joint business model looks like? But
Speaker 1: when you think of the CBS deal, for example, retail
Speaker 1: and insurance, what does that look like? How does it
Speaker 1: benefit the end consumer? We don't know yet. So while
Speaker 1: this is happening, and because there aren't that many dance
Speaker 1: partners last, like you say, then it's going to raise
Speaker 1: questions about how how well these deals are gonna showed
Speaker 1: us longer term term. Cynthia, thank you so much. I
Speaker 1: know it'll be a busy day. Cynthia Coon's with Bloomberg
Speaker 1: News and her work on pharmaceuticals and the major drug
Speaker 1: companies as well. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast.
Speaker 1: Subscribe and listen to interviews on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or
Speaker 1: whichever podcast platform you prefer. I'm on Twitter at Tom
Speaker 1: Keene before the podcast. You can always catch us worldwide.
Speaker 1: I'm Bloomberg Radio