Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Business Week. I'm Carol Masser and I'm
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Quick Takes Tim Stanovik. We're here every day bringing
Speaker 1: you the latest news from the world to business and finance,
Speaker 1: clus technology, politics, economics, all parnessing the power of Business
Speaker 1: Week reporters and editors, not to mention our journalists and
Speaker 1: analysts in more than one and twenty countries. You can
Speaker 1: download Bloomberg Business Week on 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. Well. It's one of the
Speaker 1: most read stories on the Bloomberg terminal today, and it's
Speaker 1: also the cover of the new issue of Bloomberg Business
Speaker 1: Week magazine. It's available in newsstands and at Bloomberg dot
Speaker 1: com slash business Week. It's all about Kathy Wood, who
Speaker 1: has become a star both in and outside of the
Speaker 1: world of ets. They call her Money Tree in South
Speaker 1: Korea and the Godmother in Hong Kong. Joining us now
Speaker 1: is Joel Webber, editor at Bloomberg Business Week, and Ben
Speaker 1: Steve Berman, personal Finance editor at Bloomberg News Joel Uh.
Speaker 1: People may know about Kathy Would over the last year
Speaker 1: because she has become this celebrity inside and outside of finance,
Speaker 1: but she got started at arc relatively late in her
Speaker 1: career and she's been at this for years. Yeah, And
Speaker 1: what we really tried to do. I think we talked
Speaker 1: about Kathy Would almost every day in general at Bloomberg
Speaker 1: News because it's become just one of the most remarkable
Speaker 1: stories of the past year. UM. But we what we
Speaker 1: tried to do and what Ben in Um, Claire Valentine
Speaker 1: and any Massa did with this cover story was really
Speaker 1: tried to tell a bigger story about who Kathy Wood is,
Speaker 1: where she came came from, how she's up ended investing
Speaker 1: and and maybe pull you know, pull some things that
Speaker 1: out that nobody had ever really known about her. And
Speaker 1: they did that, and you know, it's really rooted in
Speaker 1: her I think having a really deep understanding of the
Speaker 1: financial industry. UM. Before she started arc Um, she she
Speaker 1: had an active the idea of doing an actively managed
Speaker 1: g E T F at um Alliance Bernstein, which basically said,
Speaker 1: we don't want you to do that, and she went
Speaker 1: out and did it anyway. And that's made her basically
Speaker 1: one of the biggest names in in finance at the
Speaker 1: moment um And and Ben, as you just started to
Speaker 1: you know, working on this story, what what stuck out
Speaker 1: to you? What makes Cathy different and special? So I
Speaker 1: think that you know, in the last year, the pandemic
Speaker 1: has created UM a lot of frenzies, Like we've seen
Speaker 1: a lot of frenzies in the stock market, and we've
Speaker 1: seen a lot of people promoting themselves and promoting their SPACs,
Speaker 1: and we've seen a lot of that phenomenon of almost
Speaker 1: celebrity culture coming into finance and investing. And so I
Speaker 1: approached Cathy would as maybe part of that. But now,
Speaker 1: you know, the more I looked at her, the more
Speaker 1: I realized that she's actually been this same person for
Speaker 1: for for decades, Like she is obsessed with innovation and
Speaker 1: the future, and and what she was saying, you know,
Speaker 1: five years before the pandemic is the same thing she
Speaker 1: saying now more or less. Maybe the timeline has accelerated
Speaker 1: a bit in terms of the the changes she sees
Speaker 1: in the economy and the stock market. But um, I
Speaker 1: really think that UM investing in these these future technologies
Speaker 1: is more is almost more about her her like philosophy
Speaker 1: of life than it is about making money. I mean,
Speaker 1: of course she's in to make money, but I think
Speaker 1: she has broader goals in mind. Well then to that point,
Speaker 1: and among the many many new things that I learned
Speaker 1: about Cathy would in this cover story about you and
Speaker 1: Claire and Annie has has been that she talked about.
Speaker 1: She had this rarely prescient comment back in February of
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen when she told a podcast it's the best
Speaker 1: thing that can happen for us. And this is going
Speaker 1: to sound odd, is a crisis. It's usually when innovation
Speaker 1: takes root and gains traction. So so how did that
Speaker 1: play out during the pandemic? How did this five year
Speaker 1: time arise and that she talks about so much, trunk
Speaker 1: had accelerate. Yeah, I mean she it's incredible if you
Speaker 1: look at the numbers on her fag ship et F.
Speaker 1: I mean we're talking about a hundred fifty return. She
Speaker 1: was right on. She she she she captured the mood
Speaker 1: of the market in that moment, and then it continued
Speaker 1: to go up all the way into February. Now since then, um,
Speaker 1: she's lost about a third of the value in in
Speaker 1: her fund because you know, as the economy has reopened,
Speaker 1: the market has been shifting towards a little bit more
Speaker 1: boring stocks of the broader the rally is broadened out,
Speaker 1: and she says that's actually good for her because it
Speaker 1: means that means that this is actually a sustainable bull market.
Speaker 1: And she's keeps telling her investors, who's mostly stuck with
Speaker 1: there that, um, that she has a five year time
Speaker 1: horizon and she still expects her portfolio to triple over
Speaker 1: those five years. Honey, of people don't believe that. I
Speaker 1: gotta say um. And so we try to reflect a
Speaker 1: debate in the story about you know, is she right,
Speaker 1: is she wrong? Um? You know, is this a real
Speaker 1: grounded opinion or or she just really hoping against hope?
Speaker 1: But um, but she's she seems pretty unruffled by what's
Speaker 1: happened recently. This is Bloomberg Business Week with Carol Masser
Speaker 1: and Bloomberg Quick Takes Tim Stinovic on Bloomberg Radio. Well,
Speaker 1: just a few months ago that we learned about the
Speaker 1: market rattling meltdown of Bill Wong's Archigo's Capital Management. It
Speaker 1: was a debaccle that left big banks in Europe Asia
Speaker 1: and the US nursing more than ten billion dollars in losses.
Speaker 1: Now our own street Are not Orajan reports the Justice
Speaker 1: Department is said to open a probe into the blow up.
Speaker 1: He joins us now from the Bloomberg Interactive Broker studio.
Speaker 1: Street Are is a finance reporter right here at Bloomberg News.
Speaker 1: Congratulations on the scoop. Street Are take us through what
Speaker 1: exactly the Justice Department is looking for. It's really preliminary
Speaker 1: at this stage them, but we understand that federal prosecutors
Speaker 1: in Manhattan have cent requests for information to at least
Speaker 1: some of the banks that dealt with the firm Archegos
Speaker 1: Capital Management that was Bill Hong's family office, and we
Speaker 1: believe they're trying to better piece together what really happened,
Speaker 1: because at the end of the day, you had a
Speaker 1: situation that left global banks with more than ten billion
Speaker 1: dollars in losses. Banks across Europe, Asia and the US
Speaker 1: suffered losses that, you know, the kind of losses we
Speaker 1: generally don't see, especially tied to one client. And on
Speaker 1: top of that, one man alone loss nearly twenty billion
Speaker 1: dollars and wells, So, like you said, it certainly was
Speaker 1: a market rattling event, and now it looks like the
Speaker 1: DJ is certainly sniffing around to see if there was
Speaker 1: something more malicious. Shoot, are you do point out in
Speaker 1: your piece that r K Ghost has not been accused
Speaker 1: by authorities or its banks of breaking any laws in
Speaker 1: their dealings. It has still drawn public criticism from regulators.
Speaker 1: What is it specifically that the regulators are concerned about?
Speaker 1: Is it? Is it the fact that they were able
Speaker 1: to build these positions and companies without being transparent about
Speaker 1: it in ways that public companies we usually know who
Speaker 1: the owners are anytimes. Anytime, important institutions like these large
Speaker 1: global banks can feel so completely blindsided. That is a
Speaker 1: matter of concern for regulators. You have a situation here where,
Speaker 1: really in two parts, you have this firm that from
Speaker 1: nowhere amassed so much wealth so quickly, which is an
Speaker 1: incredible story in itself, from next to obscurity to have
Speaker 1: more than twenty billion dollars in net assets, where a
Speaker 1: hundred billion dollar exposure in markets. That's an incredibly faster
Speaker 1: rise in less than seven years that this family office
Speaker 1: was around. That is the first most incredible thing here.
Speaker 1: But then what happened right after that, in a matter
Speaker 1: of days, that entire wealth vanished. Banks had to move
Speaker 1: to liquidate the position because some of his most concentrated bets,
Speaker 1: Bill Hong's bets moved against him, and banks are trying
Speaker 1: to save their skin. Some of them managed to do
Speaker 1: just fine and escape the burning building. Others did not,
Speaker 1: and that's why you had such big losses, and regulators
Speaker 1: are really trying to figure out a how could this
Speaker 1: possibly happen? B We we do know that part of
Speaker 1: the problem here was he had built concentrated positions across
Speaker 1: a number of stocks without all his prime brokers really
Speaker 1: having good visibility into it. And that kind of made
Speaker 1: sense because if you have a relationship with Goldman Sachs
Speaker 1: and Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs knows what it is holding
Speaker 1: for its client. It really cannot call up Morgan Stanley
Speaker 1: and say, hey, can you also tell us every single
Speaker 1: position that he has, So the concentration was certainly a surprise.
Speaker 1: There was the use of swaps and derivatives here, which
Speaker 1: kept him anonymous. So it was a whale just under
Speaker 1: the surface and really came to light when everything blew up.
Speaker 1: So let's say there are no regulatory changes, nothing happens
Speaker 1: in the Justice Department opens a probe and and potentially
Speaker 1: nothing comes a bit. How do the banks change the
Speaker 1: way that they deal with risk as a result of this,
Speaker 1: We actually have already seen some elements of change across banks.
Speaker 1: We don't know how long that behavioral change will lost.
Speaker 1: Is it because this is so close to the event
Speaker 1: that everyone's saying, we need to have heightened levels of awareness,
Speaker 1: We need to demand more margin, we need to demand
Speaker 1: more collateral. We just need to be more cautious than
Speaker 1: we have been. The problem with all these things, and
Speaker 1: if you look at the root cause of the problem here,
Speaker 1: leverage or borrowed money. That has been the same case
Speaker 1: in any crisis you go back to whether it was
Speaker 1: the implosion of LTCM now going over twenty years ago,
Speaker 1: even during the Global Financial Crisis in two thousand eight,
Speaker 1: leverage really was the root cause out there as well.
Speaker 1: All these banks might want to act and behave like
Speaker 1: they've learned their lessons, but without any real regulatory change,
Speaker 1: they may all slip into bad behavior because everyone's out
Speaker 1: there trying to make a little more money. Street are
Speaker 1: not a in finance report at Bloomberg News, joining from
Speaker 1: the interactive broke your studios, Thank you so much. This
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg Business Week with Carol Messer and Bloomberg Quick
Speaker 1: Takes Tim Stinovic on Bloomberg Radio. Well, yesterday it was
Speaker 1: all about Amazon paying eight point four or five billion
Speaker 1: dollars to buy MGM Studios, the studio behind Bond and
Speaker 1: other franchises. Today it's about anti trust Amazon, anti trust
Speaker 1: risk deepening is more states AG's way action. Join is
Speaker 1: now is Spencer Soaper, technology and e commerce reporter for
Speaker 1: Bloomberg News. He joins us on the phone from Seattle.
Speaker 1: Spencer take us through what the attorneys general are getting
Speaker 1: at when it comes to anti trust with with Amazon.
Speaker 1: Because anti trust and Amazon, it doesn't necessarily go with
Speaker 1: the traditional definition of consumer harm right, Well, it can,
Speaker 1: and that's where UM, we're just seeing more attorneys generals
Speaker 1: getting involved and poking its potentially working collaboratively to learn
Speaker 1: more about it. Um. And in terms of consumer harm
Speaker 1: we had um the Washington d c. Attorney General actually
Speaker 1: fall the lawsuit is making the allegation that it is
Speaker 1: Amazon's practices are driving prices up for consumers. And that's
Speaker 1: a very traditional anti trust argument. So Um, and you're correct.
Speaker 1: There's been a lot of debate about how to go
Speaker 1: after Amazon on anti trust grounds and just this notion
Speaker 1: of like do the do any trust laws need to
Speaker 1: be updated for the digital age and these various platforms
Speaker 1: like Google and Facebook and Amazon. But some of these
Speaker 1: complaints are pretty traditional any trust complaints about consumer harm
Speaker 1: and higher prices. So with these attorneys general, I mean,
Speaker 1: are they looking at specific elements of Amazon's business? Do
Speaker 1: we know what parts of Amazon's business they're looking at?
Speaker 1: Is there part of Amazon business, Amazon's business that would
Speaker 1: fit that traditional definition of antitrust more than other parts?
Speaker 1: I mean, the company has its hands in so much yes,
Speaker 1: so uh. A lot of it is pointed at the marketplace,
Speaker 1: Amazon's marketplace, and this is where amaz On basically plays
Speaker 1: a digital matchmaker between you know, shoppers around the world
Speaker 1: and merchants around the world. They have millions of merchants
Speaker 1: on their platform. Um, and so what the problems there
Speaker 1: is Amazon can it doesn't explicitly tell merchants what to do,
Speaker 1: but it can entice them to do certain things in
Speaker 1: exchange for greater visibility on the website. Because if you're
Speaker 1: invisible on Amazon, you're not going to get the sale.
Speaker 1: You have to be prominent in search results on the site.
Speaker 1: And that's where if if Amazon discovers that you have
Speaker 1: a lower price on another site like Walmart or something,
Speaker 1: they can bury you in search results on Amazon. And
Speaker 1: and that's where Amazon is so powerful. Some merchants will
Speaker 1: simply go back to Walmart and raise the price, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, rather than lower it on Amazon to save
Speaker 1: those Amazon sales. And that would be an example of
Speaker 1: consumer harm where Amazon's weight in online shopping is actually
Speaker 1: forcing prices up on other sites. So shares, as you
Speaker 1: point out in your piece, felt nine tents of one
Speaker 1: percent of premer trading. They were little change. Just as
Speaker 1: of this morning, shares down now by just about eight
Speaker 1: tenths of one percent. I'm wondering. I'm wondering about the
Speaker 1: regulatory risk that Amazon faces when it comes to shareholders
Speaker 1: and what could be the ultimate outcome of something like this,
Speaker 1: because yes, you know, investors certainly sending us talk lower
Speaker 1: today but not but not significantly. Yeah, the investors have
Speaker 1: pretty much written off the antitrust risk for Amazon um
Speaker 1: and and I don't know if that's going to heat
Speaker 1: up or not with the new administration and new people
Speaker 1: being appointed to the FTC. But Amazon has really been
Speaker 1: able to kind of snow cloud through most regulatory challenges
Speaker 1: and kind of adapt and evolved. If we think way
Speaker 1: back when you know, they used to uh not collect
Speaker 1: sales tax on transactions and that was a big deal.
Speaker 1: They were able to successfully navigate that and mature their
Speaker 1: business around collecting sales tax without a huge blow to
Speaker 1: its momentum. So I think investors just we figure that
Speaker 1: Amazon will find a way around this. There are some
Speaker 1: extreme calls, like Senator Liza that Warren has called for,
Speaker 1: like breaking it up. You can't only a marketplace and
Speaker 1: simultaneously sell your own products. Those would be the more
Speaker 1: extreme solutions that have been called for out there, But
Speaker 1: I guess investors just see those as as long shots
Speaker 1: and it's more likely going to be you know, maybe
Speaker 1: paying some fines or finessing some of its some of
Speaker 1: its business practices would be the ultimate solution that they
Speaker 1: could that they could weather. So so we're not to
Speaker 1: the point where observers, analysts, investors are are thinking about
Speaker 1: the potential breaking up of Amazon, of the Amazon potentially
Speaker 1: divesting from Amazon Web Services or spinning it out yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean that's always a question. That's always been a
Speaker 1: question of you know, whether they've spent off a WS
Speaker 1: Amazon Web Services. Um, there's any trust concerns around that
Speaker 1: part of the business as well. And and like you say,
Speaker 1: it's like you look at Amazon, this would be the
Speaker 1: non traditional way, any trust way of looking at Amazon,
Speaker 1: where it's just rolling in so many different directions, you know,
Speaker 1: could does it have to be reined in some other way?
Speaker 1: These I'm just looking at consumer harm but the AWS thing,
Speaker 1: investors have just been wondering about that as well. And
Speaker 1: as long as the other parts of Amazon's businesses are
Speaker 1: growing quickly and are profitable UM and a WS is
Speaker 1: and bankrolling some languishing part of the business, the at
Speaker 1: least the investor side, the pressure isn't there to spend
Speaker 1: it off. So I opened our conversation Spencer by referring
Speaker 1: to the news yesterday that the company was going official
Speaker 1: with buying MGM Studios for eight point four or five
Speaker 1: billion dollars. Do do antitrust concerns? And look at this
Speaker 1: was the second biggest acquisition that Amazon has ever made,
Speaker 1: after Whole Foods. But very briefly, does it does this
Speaker 1: type of scrutiny change the way that Amazon thinks about
Speaker 1: potential further acquisitions. We have about twenty seconds. Well, we
Speaker 1: have heard that the anti trust concerns have made Amazon
Speaker 1: wary about acquisitions, but this is one where that market
Speaker 1: is so fragmented and there's so much competition. I don't
Speaker 1: see that being a being a big deal or adding
Speaker 1: adding to any concerns because it is in this kind
Speaker 1: of distinct business line. Spencer Soper, technology and e commerce
Speaker 1: reporter at Bloomberg News joining us on the phone from Seattle. Spencer,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for taking the time. Spencer story
Speaker 1: can be found on the Bloomberg terminal. It's called Amazon
Speaker 1: Anti Trust risk deepens as more state ages way action.
Speaker 1: Attorney's general from Massachusetts and Pennsylvania have joined a list
Speaker 1: of officials looking at Amazon for potential anti trust violations,
Speaker 1: which include California, New York, Washington State, and the ftcat
Speaker 1: That's according to people familiar with the matter. Rock Journal.
Speaker 1: Yeah but you let me drive. Oh no, no, no no, no, honey, please,
Speaker 1: I'll do the riding revels. I want to try it.
Speaker 1: Just drive, baby, good questions trying. This is the drive
Speaker 1: to the globe thanks. We'll try us down on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: It certainly is. We are just under just a little
Speaker 1: over ten minutes from the close of trading on this
Speaker 1: second to last trading day of the month. Joanna Barton
Speaker 1: is co director of Growth Equities at Eton Vance and
Speaker 1: joins us now on the phone from Boston. Janna, it's
Speaker 1: great to have you back on the show. How you doing.
Speaker 1: I'm doing great. Thank you for having me back. Well,
Speaker 1: we're glad to have you. How do you describe where
Speaker 1: we are in today's market? For because by so many
Speaker 1: different measures, stocks are expensive. I would agree with that.
Speaker 1: I would also say that for investors there are multiple
Speaker 1: waste to when, particularly if one is focused on long
Speaker 1: term opportunities. UM. You've talked about a couple of themes
Speaker 1: reopening trade beneficiaries. I think that continues to be a
Speaker 1: place that we find, UM intriguing. Obviously, I don't have
Speaker 1: to give you the statistics, but in the US, nearly
Speaker 1: fifty of our own population has gotten at least one shots.
Speaker 1: So the global economic recovery is in school swing. UM.
Speaker 1: And while the cyclical areas of the market have benefited,
Speaker 1: I think one area of the market that has been
Speaker 1: less be dead is the consumer Again, particularly in the
Speaker 1: U S where a majority of our economic activity is
Speaker 1: consumption driven. We've got something like over two trillion of
Speaker 1: excess savings that consumers are spending on UM, and let
Speaker 1: me tell you, they're ready to spend. So that's why
Speaker 1: we like specialty retail. We like UM some areas within
Speaker 1: the food distributors UM area of the market against beneficiaries
Speaker 1: from that restaurant parks and entertainment recovery. So I wonder
Speaker 1: though the you know you you you said you don't
Speaker 1: have to tell me when you when you rattled off
Speaker 1: the statistics about vaccines, and it leads me to to ask,
Speaker 1: to what extent are these trades already priced into the
Speaker 1: market right now? If people are betting on that reopening,
Speaker 1: where are you finding the value? In other words, that's
Speaker 1: a fair question. I think you're absolutely right where you know. Listen,
Speaker 1: we're spitting here with nearly twelve percent we turn on
Speaker 1: the STP FIP under average stock is actually up even
Speaker 1: more so, and the market as a whole, to your point,
Speaker 1: is trading in excessive twenty times and next year's earnings.
Speaker 1: That being said, the consumer side of the equation again
Speaker 1: I mentioned to you the consumer stables has been the
Speaker 1: second worst area of the market and underperformed the market,
Speaker 1: and consumer discretionary is not that far behind. So I
Speaker 1: guess the point is one has to look on an
Speaker 1: industry in stock specific basis in those laggards, UM and UM.
Speaker 1: Fortunately for investors that plenty of names that haven't yet
Speaker 1: benefited from this one of the themes, which is reopening trade.
Speaker 1: Another theme, as you know, is higher inflation that we
Speaker 1: shall see if it's transitory or not. In the last
Speaker 1: theme is just being garky. That's that's the question, transitory
Speaker 1: or not. Well, let's start with the reopening trade. Among
Speaker 1: the top holdings in in your fund include Amazon, Microsoft, Visa,
Speaker 1: United United Health Group, Alphabet, PayPal, among others. UM. How
Speaker 1: do you see this playing out in terms of the
Speaker 1: reopening UM? Again, I think there are multiple waste to
Speaker 1: kind of think through the reopening. I think I would
Speaker 1: again UM ask investors to go into areas in the
Speaker 1: market they wouldn't necessarily go to. So industrial there's one
Speaker 1: area of the market that would continue to be intrigued
Speaker 1: by and actually within commercial services and waste area if
Speaker 1: reopening has taken place. There's more trash and there's more waste.
Speaker 1: And guess what, those companies have a really neat business
Speaker 1: model where there is a constant inflationary reset that their
Speaker 1: contracts are map too. So it's a double when Um,
Speaker 1: you know, you've got obviously in the macroeconomic recovery with
Speaker 1: a nice inflationary hedge, and it's a consolidating industry with
Speaker 1: m and a momentum behind it. So that's one area
Speaker 1: that one might not find its sexy as the other
Speaker 1: ones that we've talked about in other areas within healthcare, UM,
Speaker 1: I know I've talked about this area of the market,
Speaker 1: but I really think it's one of those hybrids. Right. Um,
Speaker 1: it is still inexpensive. We talked about high valuations health
Speaker 1: carerustrating something like discount when you look at next twelve
Speaker 1: months earnings with double digit earnings growth expectations for in
Speaker 1: the next twelve months. When you look one step deeper,
Speaker 1: which is within the biotech and the farmer side of
Speaker 1: the equation, those um, those companies are trading at twelve
Speaker 1: to fourteen times and they both of those areas have
Speaker 1: been laggards. And again, if you think about just the
Speaker 1: thing that we just went through. I think those companies
Speaker 1: are going to continue to benefit from CAPEX and procedure
Speaker 1: recovery as well as just genomic sequencing, how we go
Speaker 1: about therapy UM and finding drugs and drug discovery as
Speaker 1: a whole. So we're really excited about those two areas
Speaker 1: of the market. I'm here you mentioned inflation, so I
Speaker 1: gotta ask about inflation, um yelling Uh. Jenny Yellen was
Speaker 1: Treasury Secretary testifying earlier today, and she did mention inflation,
Speaker 1: but but said it would be transitory. And and I'm
Speaker 1: wondering how you would define transitory and what signs would
Speaker 1: point you to saying, wait a second, this is not temporary,
Speaker 1: This is not transitory. The unfortunate answer to the question
Speaker 1: is we won't know until we know until it's too late. Perhaps,
Speaker 1: But I think investors could be doing all the things
Speaker 1: that I'm talking about, which is being balanced in their
Speaker 1: allocation decisions to ensure that they're protected. Should this be
Speaker 1: more than just the transitory pool on the veralu asseid prices? Right?
Speaker 1: And I do want to I do want to jump in,
Speaker 1: and just just because I have some some remarks from
Speaker 1: yelling here, inflation seen recently is temporary, not endemic. Expect
Speaker 1: to see higher inflation lasting a few more months, and
Speaker 1: yelling sees high rates of inflation through the end of
Speaker 1: the year. So not exactly saying the word transitory, but
Speaker 1: saying a few more months, yes, UM. And to your
Speaker 1: point about what are the staff that we're looking at.
Speaker 1: Obviously we're looking at five year and ten year break
Speaker 1: even inflationary UM levels that are significantly above the ten
Speaker 1: year rates. We're looking and listening to what the companies
Speaker 1: are telling us, and the companies are telling us that
Speaker 1: input costs of rising UM and they continue to rise
Speaker 1: because of all the logistical issues and because of all
Speaker 1: these perhaps transitory things that we're living through right where
Speaker 1: the demand has been and continues to be so hot,
Speaker 1: there's just not enough supply or their shortages in certain
Speaker 1: areas of the market. So I think you will you know,
Speaker 1: we shall see. But in the meantime, I think you
Speaker 1: want to be focused on companies that have pricing power
Speaker 1: or at least business models that can be agile and
Speaker 1: flexible UM as their input costs continue to be elevated.
Speaker 1: Just in the last minute that we we have with you,
Speaker 1: how would you describe the state of the economy. We
Speaker 1: did get some solid economic data this morning, with weekly
Speaker 1: travel claims fall into a fresh pandemic low at four
Speaker 1: hundred and six thousand. How would you describe the economy.
Speaker 1: The economy is very strong. I mean all the macro
Speaker 1: and microeconomic data continues to be just astounding. I mean
Speaker 1: we look at fundamentals, right, I mean, earnings are the
Speaker 1: best leading indicative to the economic progress. We always talk
Speaker 1: about that, and we just went through a Q one
Speaker 1: earning season. I know we're just a couple of percentage
Speaker 1: points away that has set all records. Not only that, Tim,
Speaker 1: I look at Q two and there's an acceleration of
Speaker 1: growth rate both on earnings and revenue line. So the
Speaker 1: profits are off the charts. And by the way, companies
Speaker 1: spies are sitting on something like two twillion dollars of caps,
Speaker 1: so it it's mind boggling. I mean, these are incredible numbers.
Speaker 1: It is a lot of money that's out there. Joanna Barton,
Speaker 1: it is always great when you join us. Thank you
Speaker 1: so much for taking the time. Janna is co director
Speaker 1: of Growth Equities at Eaton Vance. Joins us on the
Speaker 1: phone from Boston. Thanks for listening to Bloomberg Business Week.
Speaker 1: Download the podcast on iTunes, SoundCloud, or Bloomberg dot com,
Speaker 1: and you can also listen to our radio show at
Speaker 1: two pm Eastern on Bloomberg Radio or watch us on YouTube.
Speaker 1: Search to Bloomberg Global News