WEBVTT - Chaos Kings and PCE Inflation Data

0:00:00.080 --> 0:00:06.760
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.

0:00:11.960 --> 0:00:15.560
<v Speaker 2>This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keene along

0:00:15.600 --> 0:00:18.960
<v Speaker 2>with Paul Sweeney. Join us each day for insight from

0:00:18.960 --> 0:00:23.119
<v Speaker 2>the best in economics, finance, investment, and international relations. You

0:00:23.160 --> 0:00:26.520
<v Speaker 2>can also watch the show live on YouTube. Visit the

0:00:26.520 --> 0:00:31.280
<v Speaker 2>Bloomberg Podcast channel on YouTube to see the show weekday

0:00:31.280 --> 0:00:34.320
<v Speaker 2>mornings from seven to ten am Eastern from our global

0:00:34.360 --> 0:00:39.000
<v Speaker 2>headquarters in New York City. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify,

0:00:39.360 --> 0:00:42.920
<v Speaker 2>or anywhere else you listen and always I'm Bloomberg Radio,

0:00:43.080 --> 0:00:47.319
<v Speaker 2>the Bloomberg Terminal, and the Bloomberg Business App. Joining us

0:00:47.479 --> 0:00:51.760
<v Speaker 2>here is Na Seen teleb and Scott Patterson and celebration

0:00:51.960 --> 0:00:55.360
<v Speaker 2>of a brutal book. I really can't say enough about

0:00:55.360 --> 0:00:58.160
<v Speaker 2>this for Global Wall Street. I'm sorry. This is the

0:00:58.200 --> 0:01:03.640
<v Speaker 2>adult of book Chaosis, Bill Cohen, William Cohen. He wrote

0:01:03.640 --> 0:01:07.240
<v Speaker 2>a book about Duke Lacrosse. It was Bill Cohen, just

0:01:07.280 --> 0:01:10.720
<v Speaker 2>says Scott Patterson. He's done it again, which he did

0:01:10.760 --> 0:01:13.959
<v Speaker 2>in twenty twelve, and with Dark Pools and all that.

0:01:14.280 --> 0:01:16.120
<v Speaker 2>And the problem we got here, David is we can

0:01:16.160 --> 0:01:19.120
<v Speaker 2>spend the next three hours of tleeb but you know

0:01:19.160 --> 0:01:21.440
<v Speaker 2>we got to give some love here to Scott Patterson,

0:01:21.720 --> 0:01:27.120
<v Speaker 2>who's only here because James Madison University beat Chapel. That

0:01:27.200 --> 0:01:32.520
<v Speaker 2>happened your book. In full disclosure, I'm totally in that

0:01:32.680 --> 0:01:36.440
<v Speaker 2>seems camp and knows that like Wicked in his camp.

0:01:36.640 --> 0:01:40.600
<v Speaker 2>So when you set up your book, which is the

0:01:41.000 --> 0:01:45.479
<v Speaker 2>TALEB team like JMU against the other teams, some French

0:01:45.600 --> 0:01:49.360
<v Speaker 2>dude like unc, how did you set up that polarity?

0:01:49.520 --> 0:01:52.320
<v Speaker 2>Describe the tension of chaos kings?

0:01:52.920 --> 0:01:57.000
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, well, it seems belief is that you can't predict markets,

0:01:57.080 --> 0:02:00.160
<v Speaker 3>so you just need to prepare for extreme events all

0:02:00.200 --> 0:02:04.360
<v Speaker 3>the time, the black Swans, and I can't trast that

0:02:04.480 --> 0:02:09.960
<v Speaker 3>with another character, a French econophysicist named Didier Sornette who

0:02:10.480 --> 0:02:14.960
<v Speaker 3>uses advanced physics and other mathematical models to try to

0:02:15.040 --> 0:02:20.040
<v Speaker 3>predict these big advance He calls them dragon kings, which

0:02:20.040 --> 0:02:23.440
<v Speaker 3>technical term. Yeah, yeah, I call it Newtonian envy. So

0:02:23.480 --> 0:02:25.680
<v Speaker 3>he's a math guy, right, Yeah, he's a math guy.

0:02:25.840 --> 0:02:30.080
<v Speaker 3>He uses some things that could be used to predict

0:02:30.080 --> 0:02:33.920
<v Speaker 3>the explosion of rockets and transpose that onto financial markets.

0:02:33.919 --> 0:02:36.920
<v Speaker 2>You gotta be kid, here's the reality, folks now seeing

0:02:36.960 --> 0:02:41.120
<v Speaker 2>tallav changed the world with John and nero and fooled

0:02:41.120 --> 0:02:44.720
<v Speaker 2>by randomness. Everybody else would have retired to turks and

0:02:44.800 --> 0:02:48.000
<v Speaker 2>caicos or whatever. He went on to do Black Swan.

0:02:48.120 --> 0:02:50.120
<v Speaker 2>And then you and I sat on the stairs of

0:02:50.200 --> 0:02:54.519
<v Speaker 2>Saint Bart's on Park Avenue, and you described anti fragile

0:02:54.560 --> 0:02:58.360
<v Speaker 2>to me. Now, seeing where is the humility among the

0:02:58.480 --> 0:03:00.320
<v Speaker 2>quants in this great boomer.

0:03:00.880 --> 0:03:04.679
<v Speaker 4>The point is you don't need humility. Humility actually is

0:03:05.080 --> 0:03:08.160
<v Speaker 4>not necessary. I don't why people are arrogant. There's just

0:03:08.200 --> 0:03:12.840
<v Speaker 4>got to be paranoid about the right things, namely, how

0:03:12.919 --> 0:03:16.880
<v Speaker 4>much our error costs you when it happens that ruined problem,

0:03:17.200 --> 0:03:21.359
<v Speaker 4>and and and and basically Scott's book is about ruined problems.

0:03:22.360 --> 0:03:24.600
<v Speaker 4>Let's see. So you could be arrogant about everything, all right,

0:03:24.639 --> 0:03:27.799
<v Speaker 4>You could be wrong all the time, doesn't matter. You

0:03:27.880 --> 0:03:31.320
<v Speaker 4>gotta avoid You got to avoid ruin the big things.

0:03:31.320 --> 0:03:35.400
<v Speaker 4>You've got to be right about the big sources of risk,

0:03:35.600 --> 0:03:39.240
<v Speaker 4>and and and the rest take care of itself.

0:03:39.600 --> 0:03:42.600
<v Speaker 5>Could could I get your having come out of the pandemic,

0:03:42.680 --> 0:03:47.160
<v Speaker 5>your perspective on what happened there largely but within markets

0:03:47.160 --> 0:03:48.680
<v Speaker 5>as well, the reaction to what we.

0:03:48.680 --> 0:03:53.680
<v Speaker 4>Saw, you mean, the pandemic, the reaction to it. Yeah, okay,

0:03:53.760 --> 0:03:56.880
<v Speaker 4>we we were. I mean Scott discusses what happened in

0:03:56.920 --> 0:04:01.880
<v Speaker 4>the pandemic and and and how we were sessing over it.

0:04:02.680 --> 0:04:05.120
<v Speaker 4>I mean when we started the idea of universal. When

0:04:05.120 --> 0:04:09.120
<v Speaker 4>Mark started Universal, I was a passenger, you know, I

0:04:09.160 --> 0:04:14.080
<v Speaker 4>was a retired passenger. But the name universa means universal properties.

0:04:14.240 --> 0:04:21.400
<v Speaker 4>And we're talking about some universality of these classes of

0:04:21.600 --> 0:04:26.719
<v Speaker 4>tail uh processes that generate large tale events, and we

0:04:26.839 --> 0:04:29.480
<v Speaker 4>call them, I call them grace WANs. Hence that that's

0:04:29.480 --> 0:04:35.480
<v Speaker 4>where the name universe came from. So the the we were,

0:04:35.520 --> 0:04:37.520
<v Speaker 4>I was obsessing even when I wrote the blacks one

0:04:37.520 --> 0:04:41.200
<v Speaker 4>about pandemics, and kept obsessing and they said, okay, I

0:04:41.680 --> 0:04:44.080
<v Speaker 4>didn't remember the interview. Someone asked me, what what you

0:04:44.120 --> 0:04:46.560
<v Speaker 4>have to worry about this? And that no, you can't.

0:04:46.560 --> 0:04:51.599
<v Speaker 4>To worry. First thing about some germ traveling on air France.

0:04:52.680 --> 0:04:55.800
<v Speaker 4>Air France, you get good food and if they're bad germs,

0:04:55.839 --> 0:04:57.920
<v Speaker 4>they travel along British air or they get bad food.

0:04:57.960 --> 0:05:02.400
<v Speaker 4>So that was and sure enough nothing had happened since

0:05:02.800 --> 0:05:05.240
<v Speaker 4>for one hundred years, or for close to one hundred years, right,

0:05:05.600 --> 0:05:11.200
<v Speaker 4>So and people say, well, you know, just like financial risks,

0:05:11.800 --> 0:05:14.480
<v Speaker 4>you know, people the perception for before the crisis say, oh,

0:05:14.480 --> 0:05:16.560
<v Speaker 4>we don't have to worry about these they don't happen anymore.

0:05:17.000 --> 0:05:17.960
<v Speaker 4>Sure enough, All.

0:05:17.880 --> 0:05:20.320
<v Speaker 2>Right, Scott Patterson, you've got you know, one of the

0:05:20.400 --> 0:05:23.440
<v Speaker 2>sections is the Boston section that we could problem and

0:05:23.520 --> 0:05:26.240
<v Speaker 2>the answer is flying blind. I mean, you've been doing

0:05:26.279 --> 0:05:29.080
<v Speaker 2>this for fifteen years at the Wall Street Journal, trying

0:05:29.080 --> 0:05:32.040
<v Speaker 2>to figure out the mathiness and the certitude. And I'm

0:05:32.040 --> 0:05:34.279
<v Speaker 2>gonna wake up and win. We're gonna we're number six,

0:05:34.320 --> 0:05:37.279
<v Speaker 2>We're gonna be number two or number one. What are

0:05:37.320 --> 0:05:39.320
<v Speaker 2>we flying blind on right now?

0:05:41.160 --> 0:05:45.520
<v Speaker 3>I think that you know, right now, there's obviously a

0:05:45.600 --> 0:05:50.200
<v Speaker 3>huge amount of complacency in markets. Yeah, you know, we're

0:05:50.240 --> 0:05:53.680
<v Speaker 3>hitting records time after time, and yet you look outside

0:05:54.560 --> 0:05:59.400
<v Speaker 3>Wall Street and it looks pretty crazy. So there's all

0:05:59.440 --> 0:06:02.320
<v Speaker 3>sorts of things that can happen. And I know Naim

0:06:02.320 --> 0:06:05.599
<v Speaker 3>wants to talk about China. I've been predicting China would

0:06:05.880 --> 0:06:08.680
<v Speaker 3>collapse for two decades now, and they don't.

0:06:09.200 --> 0:06:12.320
<v Speaker 2>Right careful cash flow lives there. My oldest son speak

0:06:12.320 --> 0:06:14.760
<v Speaker 2>care of China's not going to collect. Let's do this,

0:06:14.800 --> 0:06:17.239
<v Speaker 2>We do China. David Gurr in the next section, Okay,

0:06:17.279 --> 0:06:20.240
<v Speaker 2>we're go an extended conversation when NA see teleb and

0:06:20.839 --> 0:06:24.320
<v Speaker 2>Scott Patterson Chaos Kings is a book. Okay, you know

0:06:24.400 --> 0:06:27.120
<v Speaker 2>I asked that question to Scott. I seem to set

0:06:27.160 --> 0:06:30.480
<v Speaker 2>you up here. We're flying blind, Na seeing teleb and

0:06:30.640 --> 0:06:32.880
<v Speaker 2>private equity in private credit.

0:06:33.080 --> 0:06:37.640
<v Speaker 4>It's all the rage, Okay. The first thing I have

0:06:37.720 --> 0:06:43.000
<v Speaker 4>to say that we have a that problem in the West. Okay,

0:06:43.320 --> 0:06:46.919
<v Speaker 4>whether in the visual government, you know, you can have that.

0:06:47.600 --> 0:06:51.560
<v Speaker 4>China has that, but you must grow. And the problem

0:06:51.680 --> 0:06:55.200
<v Speaker 4>of the West is that we have an escurve of

0:06:55.320 --> 0:07:00.440
<v Speaker 4>growth or GDP or per capita and look like we're

0:07:00.480 --> 0:07:05.279
<v Speaker 4>at on the top right of that curve. So it's concave.

0:07:05.720 --> 0:07:09.720
<v Speaker 4>And people have two cars, they have two homes, and

0:07:09.840 --> 0:07:12.320
<v Speaker 4>what do they want, I mean, have perier watership to them.

0:07:12.440 --> 0:07:16.080
<v Speaker 4>I mean, so the incentive to grow isn't there. So

0:07:16.200 --> 0:07:19.760
<v Speaker 4>here it's a serious problem when you have low growth

0:07:19.800 --> 0:07:22.640
<v Speaker 4>and a lot of that. And the problem is that

0:07:23.120 --> 0:07:29.280
<v Speaker 4>Western Uh. You know, economies have never had more debt

0:07:29.400 --> 0:07:34.000
<v Speaker 4>in history as a time where gross became concave simply

0:07:34.200 --> 0:07:36.840
<v Speaker 4>the nature of gross. You grow fast when you're China,

0:07:37.160 --> 0:07:39.360
<v Speaker 4>because you've got to pull people out of the provinces

0:07:39.400 --> 0:07:42.480
<v Speaker 4>and stuff and centers of living can still rise and

0:07:42.520 --> 0:07:43.440
<v Speaker 4>make a difference now.

0:07:43.480 --> 0:07:46.600
<v Speaker 2>So they're not quants of credits sweet years ago. There,

0:07:47.560 --> 0:07:51.640
<v Speaker 2>our listeners, our viewers there, they put their pants on

0:07:51.640 --> 0:07:55.400
<v Speaker 2>one leg at a time. How did they hedge against

0:07:55.480 --> 0:07:58.760
<v Speaker 2>your concave tensions that we're in right now? How do

0:07:58.880 --> 0:07:59.960
<v Speaker 2>near mortals head?

0:08:00.840 --> 0:08:03.960
<v Speaker 4>Okay, the whole thing is, it's not you hedge. If

0:08:03.960 --> 0:08:08.360
<v Speaker 4>you're investing without a tail headge, you're practically not investing

0:08:09.120 --> 0:08:12.000
<v Speaker 4>because of the ruined problem. And that's what he discusses

0:08:12.320 --> 0:08:14.840
<v Speaker 4>in the book. That's my first statement and the second

0:08:14.880 --> 0:08:19.520
<v Speaker 4>one that people are way too static. They imagine either

0:08:20.240 --> 0:08:29.080
<v Speaker 4>they have a memory that's that's either too short or

0:08:28.960 --> 0:08:32.160
<v Speaker 4>or or has problems updating that they don't realize that,

0:08:32.280 --> 0:08:35.840
<v Speaker 4>for example, what's happening in China that the Nature index

0:08:36.080 --> 0:08:40.040
<v Speaker 4>of publications that's very hard to gain. What China used

0:08:40.080 --> 0:08:44.200
<v Speaker 4>to have one percent today it's in the twenties and

0:08:44.360 --> 0:08:48.560
<v Speaker 4>rising so tells you that that's a leading indicator of

0:08:48.600 --> 0:08:53.400
<v Speaker 4>what technologies may come out of China. So you realize that,

0:08:54.679 --> 0:08:59.640
<v Speaker 4>get a look back before seventeen fifty around when the

0:08:59.640 --> 0:09:03.160
<v Speaker 4>industry revolution started. Starting the show, so we're starting to

0:09:03.200 --> 0:09:05.760
<v Speaker 4>shift and in eighteen thirty TRYINGA had eight times the

0:09:05.880 --> 0:09:08.880
<v Speaker 4>GDP of Brittain. We're back there as soon it's gone.

0:09:09.000 --> 0:09:13.920
<v Speaker 4>So we're going back now in times like reversing the

0:09:13.920 --> 0:09:16.520
<v Speaker 4>Dominus of the West, not because the West is doing poorly,

0:09:16.960 --> 0:09:18.720
<v Speaker 4>but because it got one work.

0:09:18.920 --> 0:09:20.880
<v Speaker 2>David, We're going to China right now now seems to

0:09:20.920 --> 0:09:23.199
<v Speaker 2>running the show. We're doing China here right now we'll

0:09:23.240 --> 0:09:25.800
<v Speaker 2>do with the stock market opening your Foremanu's David Gern

0:09:25.920 --> 0:09:28.240
<v Speaker 2>China with Scott Patterson. Well now seeing.

0:09:28.080 --> 0:09:29.719
<v Speaker 5>Steth, let me ask you more about you said you've

0:09:29.760 --> 0:09:32.600
<v Speaker 5>been predicting the sort of dissolutionally been seeing for for

0:09:32.640 --> 0:09:35.680
<v Speaker 5>twenty years. What stands out to you about this moment.

0:09:35.720 --> 0:09:37.560
<v Speaker 5>We've spent the whole week talking about these kind of

0:09:37.679 --> 0:09:40.319
<v Speaker 5>unprecedented actions, the way they were delivered by the PBOC

0:09:40.520 --> 0:09:42.880
<v Speaker 5>in China. What that says about the actual state of

0:09:42.880 --> 0:09:45.640
<v Speaker 5>the economy there. Talk a bit about that and sort

0:09:45.640 --> 0:09:47.360
<v Speaker 5>of your your vantage of it, and also just sort

0:09:47.360 --> 0:09:50.160
<v Speaker 5>of how much varacity we can ascribe to the statistics

0:09:50.160 --> 0:09:51.360
<v Speaker 5>that we're getting out of China.

0:09:52.480 --> 0:09:55.000
<v Speaker 3>Well as to the veracity of the statistics. Who knows,

0:09:55.760 --> 0:09:59.120
<v Speaker 3>you know, they keep doing this, they keep they hit

0:09:59.160 --> 0:10:03.040
<v Speaker 3>a slow down and then they you know, hit the accelerator.

0:10:03.480 --> 0:10:04.320
<v Speaker 2>They've pulled.

0:10:04.440 --> 0:10:07.600
<v Speaker 3>You know, after the GFC, a great financial crisis, China

0:10:07.640 --> 0:10:12.080
<v Speaker 3>pulled the entire world out of that situation by stimulus.

0:10:13.920 --> 0:10:16.079
<v Speaker 3>You know, who knows how long they can keep it up.

0:10:16.160 --> 0:10:19.400
<v Speaker 3>It's a big mystery for me. You know, my focus

0:10:19.440 --> 0:10:24.280
<v Speaker 3>these days is on climate and the dominance of China

0:10:24.400 --> 0:10:29.400
<v Speaker 3>and climate technology is astonishing, and that's the future of energy,

0:10:29.440 --> 0:10:32.400
<v Speaker 3>it's the future of vehicles, it's the future of batteries.

0:10:32.920 --> 0:10:35.920
<v Speaker 3>And they're you know, light years ahead of everybody. We're

0:10:35.920 --> 0:10:38.559
<v Speaker 3>trying to catch up. Europe's trying to catch up, and

0:10:38.920 --> 0:10:41.559
<v Speaker 3>that for China is a big, big advantage.

0:10:41.640 --> 0:10:43.320
<v Speaker 2>I got to do a shout out here with the

0:10:43.360 --> 0:10:46.960
<v Speaker 2>Wall Street Journal this week with a stunning effort, China's

0:10:47.040 --> 0:10:52.040
<v Speaker 2>newest nuclear submarine sank, setting back its military modernization. That

0:10:52.120 --> 0:10:56.120
<v Speaker 2>was an incredible story. Out of your shop. Now on

0:10:56.320 --> 0:11:00.719
<v Speaker 2>China again, continue, Aaron Friedberg for Foreign Fair says it's

0:11:00.720 --> 0:11:05.040
<v Speaker 2>a Marxist Leninist regime. Nobody in Beijing read fooled.

0:11:04.720 --> 0:11:08.000
<v Speaker 4>By randomness now. But the point is the point is

0:11:08.040 --> 0:11:10.400
<v Speaker 4>that China is in reverse. Is the reverse of Europe.

0:11:10.600 --> 0:11:13.880
<v Speaker 4>If you're small in China, you can do whatever you want.

0:11:14.720 --> 0:11:17.720
<v Speaker 4>If you're big, the government calls you up for a meeting.

0:11:17.920 --> 0:11:18.120
<v Speaker 1>Right.

0:11:18.320 --> 0:11:23.160
<v Speaker 4>So in Europe, if you're small, you're overregulated. You got

0:11:23.160 --> 0:11:26.680
<v Speaker 4>you got like five tax inspectors breathing down your neck.

0:11:26.720 --> 0:11:28.920
<v Speaker 4>You've got to get all these permits. If you're big,

0:11:29.480 --> 0:11:32.360
<v Speaker 4>then you own the government, okay, particularly the case in

0:11:32.360 --> 0:11:35.520
<v Speaker 4>France and Germany everywhere and practically everywhere in Europe. So

0:11:36.080 --> 0:11:39.320
<v Speaker 4>China is a reverse. So they say, okay, it's capitalism

0:11:39.640 --> 0:11:44.079
<v Speaker 4>okay for the small and communism for the large, and

0:11:44.240 --> 0:11:46.880
<v Speaker 4>its effectively it's not that much that there's you know,

0:11:48.600 --> 0:11:51.160
<v Speaker 4>a centralized economy except for the top.

0:11:51.240 --> 0:11:56.440
<v Speaker 2>So what about America into our fractured election.

0:11:55.280 --> 0:11:59.720
<v Speaker 4>Okay, I don't know about whether the election makes it

0:11:59.720 --> 0:12:03.360
<v Speaker 4>different and uh in many respects. But we have a problem.

0:12:03.480 --> 0:12:09.599
<v Speaker 4>And that problem is that our death servicing is increasing,

0:12:10.600 --> 0:12:13.880
<v Speaker 4>and I guess that you cross is more than military

0:12:13.880 --> 0:12:17.080
<v Speaker 4>spending is more already okay, so and and it will

0:12:17.080 --> 0:12:19.199
<v Speaker 4>continue to pay interest on that. Now you may say

0:12:19.320 --> 0:12:23.560
<v Speaker 4>interest rates may be lower. I don't think we can

0:12:23.640 --> 0:12:26.480
<v Speaker 4>go back to zero interest rate because zero interest rates

0:12:27.280 --> 0:12:29.160
<v Speaker 4>gallas here, all right, so we're going to go back

0:12:29.200 --> 0:12:32.160
<v Speaker 4>to normal interest rates. So the death problem is not

0:12:32.280 --> 0:12:35.160
<v Speaker 4>going to go away. That service is going to keep increasing.

0:12:36.080 --> 0:12:40.520
<v Speaker 4>And and the problem is if the East becomes and

0:12:40.559 --> 0:12:43.680
<v Speaker 4>that's just China, just the East in general becomes powerful

0:12:43.840 --> 0:12:48.400
<v Speaker 4>and and becomes a target of you know, retirement money

0:12:48.400 --> 0:12:51.040
<v Speaker 4>and stuff like that, then the dollar would be in trouble.

0:13:01.360 --> 0:13:04.240
<v Speaker 2>Michael Mobison with us two days ago and nussing teleb

0:13:04.720 --> 0:13:08.440
<v Speaker 2>today was Scott Patterson and celebration of chaos King Scott,

0:13:08.480 --> 0:13:11.240
<v Speaker 2>what's the other side of the story here the mathewness

0:13:11.320 --> 0:13:13.679
<v Speaker 2>and certitude of Zurich, Switzerland.

0:13:15.440 --> 0:13:19.440
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, you're referring to Didder Sournett, the Dragon Kings guy.

0:13:20.960 --> 0:13:24.280
<v Speaker 3>You know, I we were talking about China, predicting what

0:13:24.320 --> 0:13:27.800
<v Speaker 3>happens in China. I just you know, after covering financial

0:13:27.840 --> 0:13:32.800
<v Speaker 3>markets and talking to you know, hedge fund managers who

0:13:32.840 --> 0:13:35.480
<v Speaker 3>twenty years ago were billionaires and now they're you know,

0:13:36.600 --> 0:13:41.400
<v Speaker 3>buzzing tables at diners. I you know, this is where

0:13:41.400 --> 0:13:44.080
<v Speaker 3>I come down on the Seams side is I don't

0:13:44.120 --> 0:13:48.600
<v Speaker 3>think you can predict markets. I think it's impossible. I

0:13:48.640 --> 0:13:50.920
<v Speaker 3>think that they're you know, when you look at quant

0:13:51.120 --> 0:13:55.160
<v Speaker 3>trading strategies are very short term, like over the course

0:13:55.200 --> 0:13:57.839
<v Speaker 3>of a few minutes and seconds. Those are the only

0:13:58.120 --> 0:14:01.400
<v Speaker 3>strategies that really survive long term. And even they you know,

0:14:01.520 --> 0:14:04.360
<v Speaker 3>my first book The Quants showed how they almost blew

0:14:04.440 --> 0:14:08.240
<v Speaker 3>up in the two thousands in a period of big

0:14:08.280 --> 0:14:08.760
<v Speaker 3>d leveraging.

0:14:09.000 --> 0:14:13.000
<v Speaker 4>So basically they're basically getting a higher dimensional bit than mask.

0:14:14.040 --> 0:14:15.199
<v Speaker 2>Okay, yeah, they're trading.

0:14:15.480 --> 0:14:19.040
<v Speaker 3>Didn't asked very rapidly, and that's that's good strategy. But

0:14:19.560 --> 0:14:23.520
<v Speaker 3>you know, trading making big bets on your prediction of

0:14:23.520 --> 0:14:26.000
<v Speaker 3>what China is going to do next quarter, next year,

0:14:26.760 --> 0:14:28.680
<v Speaker 3>or you know what the Fed is going to do,

0:14:29.560 --> 0:14:30.680
<v Speaker 3>This is very very.

0:14:30.520 --> 0:14:32.920
<v Speaker 2>Hard to do. My humility or David Gray is it's

0:14:32.920 --> 0:14:36.000
<v Speaker 2>a once in a lifetime event. And you know, years

0:14:36.040 --> 0:14:39.040
<v Speaker 2>ago in the old world, which is where tab is from,

0:14:39.360 --> 0:14:41.600
<v Speaker 2>you know, eleven Aine and all that, and over to

0:14:41.600 --> 0:14:44.560
<v Speaker 2>the continent of Europe. You know, they're laughing at us

0:14:44.600 --> 0:14:47.160
<v Speaker 2>about once in a lifetime event. You and I have

0:14:47.520 --> 0:14:51.680
<v Speaker 2>gotten Gray doesn't eve any great. But the answer is

0:14:51.680 --> 0:14:53.520
<v Speaker 2>there's a lot of once in a lifetime events.

0:14:53.680 --> 0:14:58.200
<v Speaker 5>David, I have a question about young people in this industry,

0:14:58.240 --> 0:14:59.800
<v Speaker 5>and it's inspired by a conversation. I had to my

0:15:00.080 --> 0:15:02.200
<v Speaker 5>and Robert Smith, who is at NPR. He's now running

0:15:02.200 --> 0:15:04.200
<v Speaker 5>the Night Badge of program at Columbia. I said, I

0:15:04.200 --> 0:15:05.560
<v Speaker 5>was gonna be talking to you today and he said,

0:15:05.840 --> 0:15:07.240
<v Speaker 5>here's what you should ask him. He pulled up a

0:15:07.240 --> 0:15:10.040
<v Speaker 5>tweet that you filed more than a year ago. Now,

0:15:10.520 --> 0:15:12.480
<v Speaker 5>the story we haven't covered this week is Caroline Ellison

0:15:12.880 --> 0:15:15.480
<v Speaker 5>of FTX getting sentenced, going to spend two years in prison,

0:15:15.480 --> 0:15:18.880
<v Speaker 5>and you tweeted about Sam Begmanfreed when everything blew up.

0:15:19.120 --> 0:15:21.080
<v Speaker 5>He said, the problem with people like SBF is knowing

0:15:21.080 --> 0:15:23.360
<v Speaker 5>the tiny bit of statistics to pairrot about it, but

0:15:23.480 --> 0:15:27.480
<v Speaker 5>not understanding processes. That is dynamics, cross time. Shakespeare has

0:15:27.520 --> 0:15:31.280
<v Speaker 5>survived nearly half a millennium by filtering by time. Then

0:15:31.320 --> 0:15:33.960
<v Speaker 5>you close, Sam Begnfreed worked at Jane Street. You're right

0:15:34.000 --> 0:15:36.760
<v Speaker 5>to Jane Street. He would have flunked my job interview.

0:15:37.040 --> 0:15:39.720
<v Speaker 5>What does the Naseem teleb job interview look like? What

0:15:39.720 --> 0:15:41.120
<v Speaker 5>do you ask somebody's applying.

0:15:40.920 --> 0:15:47.000
<v Speaker 4>For understand some basics things like ruined problems and understand dynamics.

0:15:47.520 --> 0:15:49.920
<v Speaker 4>So which is the same. You know that people if

0:15:49.960 --> 0:15:56.520
<v Speaker 4>you have probability of losing money, eventually would go out

0:15:56.560 --> 0:16:00.480
<v Speaker 4>of business, okay, over time. So if you're aware of it,

0:16:00.560 --> 0:16:02.240
<v Speaker 4>that's fine. If you're not aware of it, you've got

0:16:02.240 --> 0:16:05.920
<v Speaker 4>a problem. The other one is sizing comes from sizing. Also,

0:16:07.400 --> 0:16:11.360
<v Speaker 4>if you have the edge, you still have probably one

0:16:11.440 --> 0:16:14.320
<v Speaker 4>hundred percent of blown up if you don't size properly.

0:16:14.400 --> 0:16:18.800
<v Speaker 4>So sizing is very delicate. Two basic things, And the

0:16:18.880 --> 0:16:21.440
<v Speaker 4>third one is about fat tales, the difference between tin

0:16:21.480 --> 0:16:24.920
<v Speaker 4>tails and fat tails. That's pretty much the theme of

0:16:25.120 --> 0:16:30.080
<v Speaker 4>the Black Swan, the remedy and anti fragile and discussion

0:16:30.080 --> 0:16:32.520
<v Speaker 4>of white people don't understanding and skinning the game. Okay,

0:16:32.800 --> 0:16:36.640
<v Speaker 4>so the difference between fat tail and thin tail finance

0:16:36.800 --> 0:16:41.560
<v Speaker 4>is not Gaussian. Now everybody claims, yeah, we know that. Yeah,

0:16:41.560 --> 0:16:44.880
<v Speaker 4>if you know that, then why are you using Gaussian tools?

0:16:44.880 --> 0:16:47.760
<v Speaker 4>What tools do you use? What do you suggest people

0:16:47.800 --> 0:16:51.480
<v Speaker 4>in the street understand the parreto eighty twenty? It is

0:16:51.600 --> 0:16:55.960
<v Speaker 4>very intuitive. You need to learn to know some mass,

0:16:55.960 --> 0:16:59.400
<v Speaker 4>but not enough, okay to get to stuck to you know,

0:16:59.440 --> 0:17:01.080
<v Speaker 4>if you teach people a little bit of math but

0:17:01.120 --> 0:17:02.480
<v Speaker 4>not enough, they go to the coe.

0:17:03.200 --> 0:17:05.880
<v Speaker 2>This not Sing's laughing at me here right now because

0:17:05.880 --> 0:17:08.359
<v Speaker 2>he knows it to Thudau, David, thank you, Kerr and

0:17:08.400 --> 0:17:10.399
<v Speaker 2>I don't speak before the show. In fact we're not

0:17:10.480 --> 0:17:13.760
<v Speaker 2>on speaking terms. But I'm so I brought that up.

0:17:14.440 --> 0:17:17.880
<v Speaker 2>Not seem fine, you know me on position sizing. Position

0:17:18.000 --> 0:17:21.040
<v Speaker 2>sizing is everything, and right now we're living in a

0:17:21.080 --> 0:17:25.359
<v Speaker 2>MAG seven world where everybody, whether they admit it or not,

0:17:25.560 --> 0:17:28.560
<v Speaker 2>is Scott Patterson's four oh one k at the Journal

0:17:28.920 --> 0:17:31.760
<v Speaker 2>is loaded up with Nvidia and all the rest of

0:17:31.800 --> 0:17:35.200
<v Speaker 2>it not seeing tell out on Mag seven the anti

0:17:35.480 --> 0:17:36.560
<v Speaker 2>position sizing.

0:17:37.480 --> 0:17:41.800
<v Speaker 4>Okay, so I let me give you one one thing

0:17:41.840 --> 0:17:44.000
<v Speaker 4>since I don't have a lot of things. Yeah, I read.

0:17:44.400 --> 0:17:46.920
<v Speaker 4>I wrote a tweet saying that if someone gave you

0:17:47.119 --> 0:17:51.720
<v Speaker 4>twenty four hours in advance the newspaper tomorrow's newspaper, that

0:17:51.840 --> 0:17:56.200
<v Speaker 4>you would go bust. And actually someone just tested it.

0:17:56.400 --> 0:18:01.760
<v Speaker 4>Victor Hagani Formative LTCN, who visibly no has long experience

0:18:01.840 --> 0:18:04.560
<v Speaker 4>in the market, has tested it by giving people over

0:18:04.880 --> 0:18:09.200
<v Speaker 4>fifteen years next day's the newspaper and tell and giving

0:18:09.240 --> 0:18:12.359
<v Speaker 4>them you can trade that today's price, knowing towards newspaper,

0:18:13.840 --> 0:18:17.919
<v Speaker 4>and people didn't do well. Why One of it is,

0:18:18.000 --> 0:18:21.639
<v Speaker 4>of course sizing. They don't know how to size the

0:18:21.640 --> 0:18:24.160
<v Speaker 4>position right, whether whether they're right. They don't know how

0:18:24.240 --> 0:18:26.760
<v Speaker 4>right they are because they can't figure out how much

0:18:26.800 --> 0:18:30.160
<v Speaker 4>of it is noise, all right, and of course the sizing.

0:18:30.440 --> 0:18:33.679
<v Speaker 4>So so the just you know, I heard of the

0:18:33.720 --> 0:18:36.880
<v Speaker 4>paper yesterday because it starts with my tweet. It's interesting

0:18:37.119 --> 0:18:39.520
<v Speaker 4>to have a tweet turning into a paper by someone else,

0:18:40.000 --> 0:18:42.960
<v Speaker 4>like for someone lazy like me, it's perfect, right because

0:18:42.960 --> 0:18:45.840
<v Speaker 4>tweets I don't an airport's typically right, So.

0:18:46.080 --> 0:18:49.560
<v Speaker 3>And that's not that's not how markets work. The markets

0:18:49.600 --> 0:18:52.959
<v Speaker 3>work on anticipation of news events. Oftentimes, when you you know,

0:18:53.080 --> 0:18:55.960
<v Speaker 3>you see the Fed cut interest rates, the marketer go down, Yeah,

0:18:56.000 --> 0:18:57.960
<v Speaker 3>because it's already traded on that news.

0:18:57.960 --> 0:19:01.000
<v Speaker 4>There's a fact Tony story and anti a right, how

0:19:01.240 --> 0:19:07.160
<v Speaker 4>people who anticipated the invasion of Iraq or the starting

0:19:07.160 --> 0:19:12.320
<v Speaker 4>of the war against Saddam in nineteen ninety one, those

0:19:12.400 --> 0:19:16.080
<v Speaker 4>what dissipated It went bust because guess what happened to

0:19:16.119 --> 0:19:20.000
<v Speaker 4>oil prices? They collapsed, all right. So it's not figuring

0:19:20.080 --> 0:19:22.760
<v Speaker 4>out the news. There's something more subtle about markets.

0:19:23.400 --> 0:19:25.480
<v Speaker 2>I want to get one more question in a kiss

0:19:25.560 --> 0:19:27.280
<v Speaker 2>Kings and Nassin, then we've got to talk to you

0:19:27.320 --> 0:19:30.880
<v Speaker 2>about it. Fractured your old World, your Europe with one,

0:19:30.960 --> 0:19:34.440
<v Speaker 2>two three. They're calling them conflicts, but I think there

0:19:34.720 --> 0:19:37.840
<v Speaker 2>was Skim Patterson, you have such a history of writing

0:19:37.880 --> 0:19:41.040
<v Speaker 2>of the tension of Wall Street in your experience. Is

0:19:41.080 --> 0:19:45.240
<v Speaker 2>anybody on Wall Street putting the tension and the outcome

0:19:45.359 --> 0:19:48.639
<v Speaker 2>of it of your books into practice or we still

0:19:48.640 --> 0:19:52.120
<v Speaker 2>what a to var which I know Nasim loves var.

0:19:52.640 --> 0:19:54.119
<v Speaker 2>Is anything changed on Wall Street?

0:19:54.200 --> 0:19:57.720
<v Speaker 3>I think that's it's funny. No, I don't think that

0:19:57.800 --> 0:20:00.399
<v Speaker 3>we learn our lessons. I think people are still using

0:20:00.640 --> 0:20:04.520
<v Speaker 3>value at risk even though it just got just I

0:20:04.520 --> 0:20:05.840
<v Speaker 3>mean it was a laughing stock.

0:20:05.640 --> 0:20:06.480
<v Speaker 2>In two thousand and eight.

0:20:07.560 --> 0:20:09.520
<v Speaker 3>People looked at this and like this is insane. We're

0:20:09.520 --> 0:20:11.920
<v Speaker 3>cutting out five percent of the worst days every year,

0:20:11.960 --> 0:20:15.200
<v Speaker 3>and like that doesn't matter. So yeah, no, I don't

0:20:15.240 --> 0:20:17.399
<v Speaker 3>think we learned less I wanted to come back to

0:20:17.440 --> 0:20:23.240
<v Speaker 3>the question of an interview asking, you know at a

0:20:23.240 --> 0:20:28.879
<v Speaker 3>hedge fund. Yeah. I spoke to a while back somebody

0:20:28.920 --> 0:20:33.399
<v Speaker 3>who you know at Renaissance Technologies and the big quant

0:20:33.600 --> 0:20:36.480
<v Speaker 3>Shop of Long Island. One of the questions they asked

0:20:36.640 --> 0:20:42.280
<v Speaker 3>perspective employees is how does the toilet work? Which you

0:20:42.320 --> 0:20:44.760
<v Speaker 3>know you're talking about dynamics. I thought that that's an

0:20:44.800 --> 0:20:48.840
<v Speaker 3>inod question interesting and the answer is to vacuum.

0:20:49.080 --> 0:20:50.960
<v Speaker 2>I want to devote the rest of the time with

0:20:51.080 --> 0:20:54.320
<v Speaker 2>great honor to all the people from Lebanon that have

0:20:54.359 --> 0:20:57.400
<v Speaker 2>assisted David ger and I and what we've seen over

0:20:57.440 --> 0:21:01.200
<v Speaker 2>the last weeks, days and Indian quarters and years led

0:21:01.240 --> 0:21:05.720
<v Speaker 2>by Jumana Bricchecci over in Dubai, who has been really

0:21:05.760 --> 0:21:09.200
<v Speaker 2>helpful to us here. Her show is Horizon out of Dubai.

0:21:09.320 --> 0:21:12.639
<v Speaker 2>Look for that now, seeing you have lived this, you

0:21:12.680 --> 0:21:16.080
<v Speaker 2>were in your family or deputy prime ministers, you were

0:21:16.160 --> 0:21:19.800
<v Speaker 2>involved with it. Out of the Greek Orthodox Christian sphere

0:21:19.960 --> 0:21:25.560
<v Speaker 2>of a Lebanon I remember with great prosperity, it is shattered.

0:21:26.200 --> 0:21:26.960
<v Speaker 2>What did you not know?

0:21:27.119 --> 0:21:29.280
<v Speaker 4>I mean, I was in Lebanon two weeks ago, and

0:21:29.359 --> 0:21:31.879
<v Speaker 4>I go to Lebanon, I reside there part of the time.

0:21:32.680 --> 0:21:36.399
<v Speaker 4>So what you see in pictures isn't doesn't map to

0:21:36.520 --> 0:21:38.760
<v Speaker 4>any when you hear about the economy, doesn't map to

0:21:38.800 --> 0:21:42.960
<v Speaker 4>what's going on there. There've been a little slowed down

0:21:43.000 --> 0:21:46.160
<v Speaker 4>by the slowed down by the Gaza War, some kind

0:21:46.200 --> 0:21:51.879
<v Speaker 4>of rise and across all economic sectors in Lebanon On

0:21:51.960 --> 0:21:55.960
<v Speaker 4>a more anti fragile basis. In other words, the collapse

0:21:55.960 --> 0:22:00.399
<v Speaker 4>of the government of Lebanon economically gave rise to central

0:22:01.040 --> 0:22:06.000
<v Speaker 4>large municipal power and to a lot more entrepreneurship. Okay,

0:22:06.240 --> 0:22:10.280
<v Speaker 4>because the central bank was conducting a ponzi and the

0:22:10.320 --> 0:22:14.240
<v Speaker 4>ponzi went away, and then suddenly people recovered and four

0:22:14.320 --> 0:22:18.240
<v Speaker 4>years later, you know, it's on amend and and you

0:22:18.280 --> 0:22:21.040
<v Speaker 4>can see economic activity across all sectors. I mean, restaurants

0:22:21.080 --> 0:22:24.080
<v Speaker 4>are all full, new restaurants opening up like every day,

0:22:27.240 --> 0:22:29.639
<v Speaker 4>at least in my in my my neighbor is like

0:22:29.680 --> 0:22:32.400
<v Speaker 4>forty to fifty past year, I mean every day every week.

0:22:33.400 --> 0:22:35.960
<v Speaker 4>So so you have you have. So what the perception

0:22:36.040 --> 0:22:40.680
<v Speaker 4>of Lebanon from from the outside is quite distorted, given

0:22:40.720 --> 0:22:45.359
<v Speaker 4>that I spent time there the this war, I think

0:22:45.640 --> 0:22:49.440
<v Speaker 4>is I mean, there there is a problem. Okay, let's

0:22:49.520 --> 0:22:54.080
<v Speaker 4>let's say there is a problem. The fighting is confined

0:22:54.640 --> 0:23:00.600
<v Speaker 4>to Hizballah and the State of Israel. But but but

0:23:00.720 --> 0:23:07.199
<v Speaker 4>of course their side effects outside. But something tells me

0:23:07.320 --> 0:23:09.320
<v Speaker 4>that that if you go to a bigger war, if

0:23:09.359 --> 0:23:12.240
<v Speaker 4>Israel wants to drive the US and too a that war,

0:23:12.920 --> 0:23:15.280
<v Speaker 4>and then then then think would would would blow up?

0:23:15.440 --> 0:23:19.600
<v Speaker 2>David? Yeah, David. One final question, how.

0:23:19.520 --> 0:23:21.399
<v Speaker 5>Do you engage the prospects of that happening.

0:23:21.920 --> 0:23:25.280
<v Speaker 4>I think that the Yes is resisting and the Iranians

0:23:25.320 --> 0:23:29.360
<v Speaker 4>are trying to be nice, and there is a more

0:23:29.520 --> 0:23:33.040
<v Speaker 4>considerate tone here, so we'll see, we'll see. I mean,

0:23:34.240 --> 0:23:36.280
<v Speaker 4>from there, you can see how irrational would be for

0:23:36.320 --> 0:23:40.560
<v Speaker 4>everyone to get involved in broader war, particularly that long

0:23:40.680 --> 0:23:42.800
<v Speaker 4>term it's not going to help me, think about it.

0:23:42.880 --> 0:23:45.240
<v Speaker 4>Israel had with his Balla in two thousand and six,

0:23:45.480 --> 0:23:49.280
<v Speaker 4>they got stronger, they they had they occupied the southern

0:23:49.359 --> 0:23:52.840
<v Speaker 4>Lebanon and and has been stronger and stronger. So every

0:23:52.840 --> 0:23:57.600
<v Speaker 4>every war is just like delayed training program for for

0:23:57.680 --> 0:24:02.360
<v Speaker 4>his Ballad. So Israel doesn't have it's in its own interest. Okay,

0:24:02.840 --> 0:24:08.640
<v Speaker 4>you can't destroy a you can't destroy you know, a ideology.

0:24:08.720 --> 0:24:16.160
<v Speaker 4>You can you can destroy military installations.

0:24:16.680 --> 0:24:21.119
<v Speaker 2>Coughing on Ariston. We got to leave it there rather

0:24:21.320 --> 0:24:23.960
<v Speaker 2>not seeing teller. Thank you so much. One of the

0:24:24.320 --> 0:24:28.360
<v Speaker 2>protagonists of Chaos kings how Wall Street traders make billions

0:24:28.359 --> 0:24:31.040
<v Speaker 2>in the new age of crisis. Scott Patterson, thank you

0:24:31.080 --> 0:24:33.800
<v Speaker 2>so much for coming to today. This is a really

0:24:33.880 --> 0:24:37.880
<v Speaker 2>really important book for global Wall Street. Not so much

0:24:37.960 --> 0:24:42.520
<v Speaker 2>what to do, but what not to do. Scott Patterson's

0:24:42.800 --> 0:24:47.760
<v Speaker 2>Chaos Kings setting up attension between two giants of investments.

0:24:52.040 --> 0:24:54.800
<v Speaker 2>Dying to talk to Lindsey Piggs up of Steve Wall

0:24:55.200 --> 0:24:59.600
<v Speaker 2>she's really pushed against soft landing certitude, Doctor PAGs is

0:24:59.600 --> 0:25:03.800
<v Speaker 2>thank you so much for joining Bloomberg's surveillance. How remote

0:25:04.000 --> 0:25:05.000
<v Speaker 2>is a soft landing?

0:25:06.280 --> 0:25:09.040
<v Speaker 1>Well, I think it's still a possibility. It's still out

0:25:09.040 --> 0:25:12.159
<v Speaker 1>there as a potential for the economy, but it is

0:25:12.200 --> 0:25:14.720
<v Speaker 1>going to be challenging for the FED to achieve that. Remember,

0:25:14.760 --> 0:25:18.679
<v Speaker 1>part of the soft landing is instilling price stability on

0:25:18.720 --> 0:25:21.760
<v Speaker 1>a sustained basis, So getting us back to two percent,

0:25:22.000 --> 0:25:25.199
<v Speaker 1>not just touching it, but maintaining that along with the

0:25:25.240 --> 0:25:28.720
<v Speaker 1>prospect of avoiding a downturn. Now, I do think on

0:25:28.800 --> 0:25:31.920
<v Speaker 1>the growth set, on the growth side, at least in hindsight,

0:25:32.000 --> 0:25:35.320
<v Speaker 1>the US economy remains on solid footing. But I'm not

0:25:35.520 --> 0:25:39.960
<v Speaker 1>convinced that the FED has the focus, has the stomach

0:25:40.000 --> 0:25:42.639
<v Speaker 1>to get us back to two percent. They feel they

0:25:42.680 --> 0:25:45.800
<v Speaker 1>seem to be very complacent at this point with this

0:25:46.119 --> 0:25:51.280
<v Speaker 1>very tepid, somewhat sideways and uneven movement in inflation.

0:25:51.440 --> 0:25:53.960
<v Speaker 5>At this point, I know they would beg to differ

0:25:54.119 --> 0:25:56.280
<v Speaker 5>We have heard such adamant from the FED chair about

0:25:56.280 --> 0:25:59.280
<v Speaker 5>that two percent target, but it raises this larger question

0:25:59.359 --> 0:26:01.399
<v Speaker 5>of when do we get there. There will be no

0:26:01.480 --> 0:26:04.240
<v Speaker 5>declaration of victory, of course, but what's it going to

0:26:04.240 --> 0:26:08.439
<v Speaker 5>take for you to say, look, mission accomplished, Pick your trope.

0:26:09.119 --> 0:26:10.920
<v Speaker 5>The FED has been able to win this fight.

0:26:12.040 --> 0:26:14.359
<v Speaker 1>Well, that's right. The Fed's forecast does not look for

0:26:14.560 --> 0:26:17.600
<v Speaker 1>two percent on a sustained basis until twenty twenty six,

0:26:17.720 --> 0:26:20.239
<v Speaker 1>so some two years from now. But in order for

0:26:20.280 --> 0:26:23.159
<v Speaker 1>me to get an increased level of confidence that we

0:26:23.200 --> 0:26:27.840
<v Speaker 1>will get there eventually, is further meaningful progress. Now, this

0:26:27.880 --> 0:26:31.320
<v Speaker 1>morning's report was encouraging when we look at the headline number,

0:26:31.840 --> 0:26:35.640
<v Speaker 1>but the core, after several months of sideways movement, has

0:26:35.680 --> 0:26:38.919
<v Speaker 1>now ticked higher. So we're moving in the opposite direction

0:26:39.000 --> 0:26:41.359
<v Speaker 1>of that two percent price level. And you have to

0:26:41.359 --> 0:26:43.320
<v Speaker 1>couple that with the lack of movement that we saw

0:26:43.320 --> 0:26:46.679
<v Speaker 1>on the core PPI, the core CPI. So there's a

0:26:46.800 --> 0:26:51.000
<v Speaker 1>number of key inflation metrics that are showing no further improvement,

0:26:51.400 --> 0:26:53.880
<v Speaker 1>offering no further confidence to the FED that we are

0:26:53.960 --> 0:26:57.680
<v Speaker 1>on a sustainable disinflationary trend. So I do find myself

0:26:57.720 --> 0:27:00.560
<v Speaker 1>in the camp of the sole descent into some Michelle

0:27:00.600 --> 0:27:04.400
<v Speaker 1>Bowman saying, no, there's still inflationary risks out there, there's

0:27:04.560 --> 0:27:08.080
<v Speaker 1>upside risk potential, and we need to stay focused on

0:27:08.119 --> 0:27:10.160
<v Speaker 1>that inflation component of the dual mandate.

0:27:10.560 --> 0:27:12.240
<v Speaker 5>Lindsay, if you and I were in the Echos building

0:27:12.280 --> 0:27:14.600
<v Speaker 5>looking at that dashboard, looking at all of these data

0:27:14.800 --> 0:27:18.399
<v Speaker 5>in complement, what is what is or what are the

0:27:18.400 --> 0:27:19.800
<v Speaker 5>types of data that stand out the most of you?

0:27:19.880 --> 0:27:21.440
<v Speaker 5>Is most important here as we move ahead?

0:27:22.560 --> 0:27:24.440
<v Speaker 1>Well, I think as the FED is looking at the

0:27:24.520 --> 0:27:26.919
<v Speaker 1>key data points are the inflation data and the reads

0:27:26.960 --> 0:27:29.639
<v Speaker 1>on the labor market. But what's interesting is when we

0:27:29.680 --> 0:27:32.880
<v Speaker 1>look at the labor market data, independent of any commentary

0:27:32.880 --> 0:27:35.560
<v Speaker 1>from the FED or the media of the market, the

0:27:35.640 --> 0:27:40.440
<v Speaker 1>labor market is still near full employment. The unemployment rate, yes,

0:27:40.480 --> 0:27:42.600
<v Speaker 1>has ticked up from a low level, but we're still

0:27:42.640 --> 0:27:45.480
<v Speaker 1>at four point two percent, well below what the FED

0:27:45.560 --> 0:27:50.160
<v Speaker 1>designates as that full employment range, the desirable or sustainable

0:27:50.240 --> 0:27:54.159
<v Speaker 1>level of joblessness. Jobless claims have not ticked any higher.

0:27:54.200 --> 0:27:56.200
<v Speaker 1>So the other side of the inflation excuse me, the

0:27:56.240 --> 0:27:59.520
<v Speaker 1>other side to labor equation, job destruction, is not seeing

0:27:59.560 --> 0:28:03.280
<v Speaker 1>any side movement. We're still talking about over seven million

0:28:03.359 --> 0:28:06.280
<v Speaker 1>job vacancies, and on average we're still creating over one

0:28:06.359 --> 0:28:10.159
<v Speaker 1>hundred and eighty thousand new payrolls month to month. So

0:28:10.240 --> 0:28:13.720
<v Speaker 1>that's still indicative of a tight ish labor market.

0:28:13.920 --> 0:28:16.720
<v Speaker 2>If you're joining us, Lindsay, Pie is Steefel thrilled that

0:28:16.800 --> 0:28:18.960
<v Speaker 2>she's with us today. After this report, it lifts the

0:28:19.000 --> 0:28:25.360
<v Speaker 2>market quiescent CPI pce I should say price index futures

0:28:25.400 --> 0:28:29.119
<v Speaker 2>up three now up nine, NASTAC up thirty five points

0:28:29.119 --> 0:28:31.560
<v Speaker 2>two tenths of a percent, Small cap leads away up

0:28:31.600 --> 0:28:33.960
<v Speaker 2>a solid nine tents of a percent. The fix comes

0:28:34.000 --> 0:28:37.760
<v Speaker 2>in ever so slightly fifteen point twenty nine. Looking at

0:28:37.760 --> 0:28:41.520
<v Speaker 2>the yield space ten year yield three point seven seven

0:28:41.560 --> 0:28:44.680
<v Speaker 2>and three basis points. I always look at the ten

0:28:44.760 --> 0:28:47.360
<v Speaker 2>year real yield one point six to zero comes in

0:28:47.400 --> 0:28:51.560
<v Speaker 2>two basis points, sort of inconsequential. It's now time for

0:28:51.640 --> 0:28:55.560
<v Speaker 2>the math portion. We do this with pigs of Stepheljo.

0:28:55.160 --> 0:28:55.920
<v Speaker 5>You're gonna get a coffee.

0:28:55.960 --> 0:28:58.360
<v Speaker 2>Well, yeah, Lindsay, I'm going to cut to the chase

0:28:58.400 --> 0:29:00.840
<v Speaker 2>from the cheap cheap to the high fed funds rate.

0:29:01.680 --> 0:29:04.320
<v Speaker 2>We have a belief in eight nine ten rate cuts

0:29:04.320 --> 0:29:07.360
<v Speaker 2>to come to get back to the center tendency two

0:29:07.440 --> 0:29:10.440
<v Speaker 2>point eight ish, two point nine ish, maybe three percent

0:29:10.560 --> 0:29:15.640
<v Speaker 2>as well. To me, it's wildly nonlinear. Aren't the next

0:29:16.240 --> 0:29:19.800
<v Speaker 2>twenty five, twenty five or fifty base point sort of

0:29:19.840 --> 0:29:23.680
<v Speaker 2>a non event and the real sweat for the FED comes, say,

0:29:23.720 --> 0:29:25.880
<v Speaker 2>the spring of twenty twenty five.

0:29:27.320 --> 0:29:30.680
<v Speaker 1>Well, yes, in the longer term and in terms of

0:29:30.720 --> 0:29:33.480
<v Speaker 1>the longer term timeline for getting us back to neutral.

0:29:33.680 --> 0:29:36.320
<v Speaker 1>But I would push back and say that the next

0:29:36.320 --> 0:29:38.600
<v Speaker 1>two meetings are going to be key in terms of

0:29:38.640 --> 0:29:42.040
<v Speaker 1>setting the tone for the Fed's willingness to remain data dependent.

0:29:42.600 --> 0:29:46.400
<v Speaker 1>If we see a stronger than expected labor report coupled

0:29:46.440 --> 0:29:49.520
<v Speaker 1>with this morning somewhat disappointing move in the core PCE,

0:29:50.600 --> 0:29:52.680
<v Speaker 1>I think the FED is going to have to respond

0:29:52.800 --> 0:29:56.680
<v Speaker 1>with a much smaller rate cut or a potential snip

0:29:56.720 --> 0:29:59.040
<v Speaker 1>of a meeting. And if they don't, that's going to

0:29:59.080 --> 0:30:01.400
<v Speaker 1>send the message to the that maybe they're less data

0:30:01.440 --> 0:30:04.440
<v Speaker 1>dependent than they're indicating, and they are on somewhat of

0:30:04.480 --> 0:30:08.040
<v Speaker 1>a blind sided focus to get us back to a

0:30:08.040 --> 0:30:12.000
<v Speaker 1>particular position in policy, regardless of what the data is saying.

0:30:12.120 --> 0:30:14.160
<v Speaker 2>Across the history of the FED, and particularly the more

0:30:14.200 --> 0:30:19.200
<v Speaker 2>modern FED, which labor statistic really matters. Is it non

0:30:19.240 --> 0:30:22.720
<v Speaker 2>farm payrolls? Is it the unemployment rate? Is it something

0:30:22.840 --> 0:30:24.880
<v Speaker 2>David Gerrin, Tim King don't understand.

0:30:26.280 --> 0:30:27.440
<v Speaker 1>I think the Fed is going to look at a

0:30:27.480 --> 0:30:29.320
<v Speaker 1>number of factors, but if we had to look at one,

0:30:29.360 --> 0:30:31.680
<v Speaker 1>it's going to be the unemployment rate. It's going to

0:30:31.720 --> 0:30:35.280
<v Speaker 1>be that fluctuation into or are still away from the

0:30:35.320 --> 0:30:38.920
<v Speaker 1>full employment range. Now, the non farm payroll number certainly

0:30:38.960 --> 0:30:42.240
<v Speaker 1>seems to set the tone for market expectations, but when

0:30:42.240 --> 0:30:45.320
<v Speaker 1>it comes to monetary policy, the Fed officials typically focus

0:30:45.360 --> 0:30:49.040
<v Speaker 1>on that unemployment number to really gauge what the momentum

0:30:49.120 --> 0:30:51.080
<v Speaker 1>is in terms of labor market conditions.

0:30:51.200 --> 0:30:54.080
<v Speaker 2>Sure, there're folks really really important, David, I'm going to

0:30:54.080 --> 0:30:56.640
<v Speaker 2>segue you in. Folks again, we're commercial free for cross

0:30:56.640 --> 0:31:01.120
<v Speaker 2>this hour on a PCE statistics. Market lifts on it

0:31:01.200 --> 0:31:03.680
<v Speaker 2>as well. We thank all of our good sponsors for

0:31:03.720 --> 0:31:07.080
<v Speaker 2>allowing us to do this. David Gerra anam Wong at

0:31:07.120 --> 0:31:11.000
<v Speaker 2>Bloomberg Economics, and she pushes against doctor Piegso there's no

0:31:11.120 --> 0:31:14.120
<v Speaker 2>question about that. She's got non farm payrolls three month

0:31:14.200 --> 0:31:17.920
<v Speaker 2>moving average one sixteen. She does a revision which is

0:31:18.040 --> 0:31:22.480
<v Speaker 2>hugely controversial and lowers that number, and that's the polarity

0:31:22.560 --> 0:31:24.200
<v Speaker 2>between Wong and Piegs.

0:31:24.840 --> 0:31:27.440
<v Speaker 5>Lindsey, let's marry these hard data with the softer ones.

0:31:27.440 --> 0:31:29.200
<v Speaker 5>We had Dana Peterson on the show a little earlier

0:31:29.200 --> 0:31:31.640
<v Speaker 5>in the week and talked about those consumer sentiment numbers

0:31:31.640 --> 0:31:33.480
<v Speaker 5>that were softer than a lot of folks expected and

0:31:33.480 --> 0:31:35.680
<v Speaker 5>I think spooked some folks in the market as well.

0:31:36.040 --> 0:31:38.200
<v Speaker 5>How do you look at them in complement? And you

0:31:38.240 --> 0:31:41.560
<v Speaker 5>were talking about what would happen if we saw a

0:31:41.600 --> 0:31:44.800
<v Speaker 5>real sharp decline in employment, for instance, how the FED

0:31:44.800 --> 0:31:48.960
<v Speaker 5>would react, how would both investors and consumers react to

0:31:49.000 --> 0:31:50.440
<v Speaker 5>that as well? Because that has to be front of

0:31:50.440 --> 0:31:52.520
<v Speaker 5>mine for FED policy makers too. Yes, they're kind of

0:31:52.600 --> 0:31:54.880
<v Speaker 5>looking at this in a very in this vacuum of

0:31:54.880 --> 0:31:56.640
<v Speaker 5>looking at it from a policy perspective, but they have

0:31:56.680 --> 0:31:59.320
<v Speaker 5>to be aware or cognizant of how people are going

0:31:59.360 --> 0:32:01.200
<v Speaker 5>to react to what they're doing as well.

0:32:02.480 --> 0:32:05.040
<v Speaker 1>Absolutely, and we have to also be aware that not

0:32:05.080 --> 0:32:06.920
<v Speaker 1>all the data is going to point in the same direction.

0:32:07.000 --> 0:32:08.840
<v Speaker 1>This is not going to be an easy decision for

0:32:08.880 --> 0:32:11.840
<v Speaker 1>the FED or an easy interpretation for the market by

0:32:11.840 --> 0:32:13.960
<v Speaker 1>any means. But when we look at some of this

0:32:14.600 --> 0:32:17.680
<v Speaker 1>secondary and tertiary data, what we're continuing to see is

0:32:17.680 --> 0:32:21.080
<v Speaker 1>an ongoing resilient consumer. Now, as we saw this morning,

0:32:21.280 --> 0:32:24.640
<v Speaker 1>somewhat softer income and consumption numbers, But looking at the

0:32:24.720 --> 0:32:27.840
<v Speaker 1>Q two GDP report, we anticipated that we knew what

0:32:27.880 --> 0:32:29.959
<v Speaker 1>the third month was going to be. But when we

0:32:29.960 --> 0:32:32.200
<v Speaker 1>look at that, on average, we're still talking about a

0:32:32.320 --> 0:32:35.680
<v Speaker 1>three percent growth rate and a three percent spending rate.

0:32:35.720 --> 0:32:39.400
<v Speaker 1>That's still very indicative of a solid economy and an

0:32:39.400 --> 0:32:42.920
<v Speaker 1>economy that can withstand a very slow and patient removal

0:32:42.920 --> 0:32:45.640
<v Speaker 1>of policy firming. So I go back to the Fed's

0:32:45.680 --> 0:32:49.200
<v Speaker 1>decision in September. The biggest risk of a fifty basis

0:32:49.240 --> 0:32:52.880
<v Speaker 1>point move was always sending an inappropriate signal of concern

0:32:53.360 --> 0:32:55.840
<v Speaker 1>regarding the state of the US economy the current level

0:32:55.840 --> 0:32:58.959
<v Speaker 1>of weakness, as well as an inappropriate signal that the

0:32:58.960 --> 0:33:02.000
<v Speaker 1>Fed is willing to rush back to a state of

0:33:02.120 --> 0:33:05.640
<v Speaker 1>not just neutral, but accommodation to provide stimulus to an

0:33:05.680 --> 0:33:09.239
<v Speaker 1>ailing economy, as opposed to simply removing their foot from

0:33:09.280 --> 0:33:12.360
<v Speaker 1>the break and moving back towards neutral as the data

0:33:12.480 --> 0:33:13.440
<v Speaker 1>begin to normalize.

0:33:13.440 --> 0:33:15.880
<v Speaker 2>WELLNZI. Yet one final question here, and this is a

0:33:16.000 --> 0:33:18.240
<v Speaker 2>men's respect and part of the pigs a charm, folks,

0:33:18.280 --> 0:33:20.800
<v Speaker 2>is she's out in the Midwest, you know, I mean

0:33:20.840 --> 0:33:24.920
<v Speaker 2>she's putting up with cubs, white sox and all that. Lindsey. Seriously,

0:33:25.520 --> 0:33:29.880
<v Speaker 2>the FED has to aggregate towards one policy. Can they

0:33:30.000 --> 0:33:33.800
<v Speaker 2>not do that? Because the American labor economy and the

0:33:33.880 --> 0:33:38.880
<v Speaker 2>personal income around this polarized economy is so split. Can

0:33:38.920 --> 0:33:41.280
<v Speaker 2>they not succeed in aggregating?

0:33:42.800 --> 0:33:45.200
<v Speaker 1>Well, it is difficult. When we talk about the resilience

0:33:45.200 --> 0:33:47.240
<v Speaker 1>of the consumer. It is dangerous to paint with a

0:33:47.240 --> 0:33:49.520
<v Speaker 1>broad brush, because we do see that those at the

0:33:49.520 --> 0:33:52.000
<v Speaker 1>middle and the lower end of the spectrum are having

0:33:52.000 --> 0:33:55.320
<v Speaker 1>a much more difficult time faring in this environment amid

0:33:55.600 --> 0:33:58.960
<v Speaker 1>higher borrowing costs, higher prices, the resumption of student debt

0:33:58.960 --> 0:34:01.880
<v Speaker 1>payments than while those at the top are not necessarily

0:34:01.920 --> 0:34:04.920
<v Speaker 1>feeling a pitch amid a growth of household net worth

0:34:04.960 --> 0:34:08.480
<v Speaker 1>over sixteen trillion dollars in the past year. So we

0:34:08.600 --> 0:34:11.960
<v Speaker 1>do see two very different themes in the underlying consumer.

0:34:12.320 --> 0:34:14.160
<v Speaker 1>And it's not a difference of hals and have nots,

0:34:14.200 --> 0:34:17.440
<v Speaker 1>but asset holders and non asset holders. So that is

0:34:17.520 --> 0:34:20.919
<v Speaker 1>complicating FED policy, But that's nothing new. We always see

0:34:20.960 --> 0:34:23.799
<v Speaker 1>that bifurcation. But what we do see, which is new.

0:34:23.920 --> 0:34:27.680
<v Speaker 1>Is this growing divide among FED officials themselves. While the

0:34:27.760 --> 0:34:30.520
<v Speaker 1>median is looking for fifty basis points by the end

0:34:30.560 --> 0:34:33.719
<v Speaker 1>of the year, nine FEED officials say no, we're going

0:34:33.800 --> 0:34:36.920
<v Speaker 1>to see maybe one twenty five basis points cut or

0:34:37.040 --> 0:34:40.799
<v Speaker 1>no further adjustice is great. So that divide alone, I

0:34:40.840 --> 0:34:44.600
<v Speaker 1>think underscores how difficult the December decision was and how

0:34:44.640 --> 0:34:46.759
<v Speaker 1>difficult further decisions are going to be.

0:34:47.000 --> 0:34:50.480
<v Speaker 2>David. If Pigsa was a governor, she'd dissent at every meeting.

0:34:50.840 --> 0:34:55.279
<v Speaker 2>She'd be the Catherine Man of American economicory. She'd be

0:34:55.320 --> 0:34:59.000
<v Speaker 2>like pounding the table. Jay, no, Chay, no, don't do it. Lindsey,

0:34:59.040 --> 0:35:02.920
<v Speaker 2>pigs thank you so much. It's Stifel there pushing against

0:35:02.920 --> 0:35:15.560
<v Speaker 2>the soft landing, joining us on for Chicago, where she's

0:35:15.600 --> 0:35:19.000
<v Speaker 2>interviewing to be the general manager of Chicago White Sox.

0:35:19.080 --> 0:35:23.920
<v Speaker 2>John Adams, Gina. Martin Adams joins us here on your

0:35:24.360 --> 0:35:27.960
<v Speaker 2>stock market, your bullmarket forward, Gina, I'm going to cut

0:35:28.000 --> 0:35:32.359
<v Speaker 2>to the chase. There's all this noise, China, China. Are

0:35:32.400 --> 0:35:36.480
<v Speaker 2>we just discounting still double digit earnings growth?

0:35:37.719 --> 0:35:41.440
<v Speaker 6>I think it's a great point is the macro has oftentimes,

0:35:41.440 --> 0:35:46.600
<v Speaker 6>oftentimes overwhelmed the earnings in terms of commentary, but ultimately

0:35:46.600 --> 0:35:50.080
<v Speaker 6>earnings drive stock prices, and earnings have frankly continued to

0:35:50.080 --> 0:35:55.240
<v Speaker 6>surprise the consensus. Right now, the analyst consensus is looking

0:35:55.320 --> 0:35:57.840
<v Speaker 6>at close to ten percent earnings growth emerging over the

0:35:57.880 --> 0:36:00.480
<v Speaker 6>course of the next year. I would say the stock

0:36:00.520 --> 0:36:03.800
<v Speaker 6>market is pricing closer to five to seven percent earnings

0:36:03.840 --> 0:36:07.080
<v Speaker 6>growth just based upon what our macro models suggest. What's

0:36:07.120 --> 0:36:09.239
<v Speaker 6>been so interesting about the last two years, and I

0:36:09.320 --> 0:36:13.239
<v Speaker 6>think this persists is the macro has been closer to

0:36:13.280 --> 0:36:16.600
<v Speaker 6>what the market price is, where the analyst consensus, even

0:36:16.640 --> 0:36:20.040
<v Speaker 6>though they've been conservative, are still not bullish enough, and

0:36:20.080 --> 0:36:23.400
<v Speaker 6>so that big divergence is what has created the uptrend

0:36:23.400 --> 0:36:27.880
<v Speaker 6>in stocks. Is we persistently have this sort of negative undertone,

0:36:27.920 --> 0:36:32.000
<v Speaker 6>this negative view that is embedded in the psychology, that's

0:36:32.040 --> 0:36:35.120
<v Speaker 6>embedded in prices. But kind of the reality on the

0:36:35.120 --> 0:36:37.880
<v Speaker 6>ground from corporations is that things are still improving and

0:36:37.960 --> 0:36:41.360
<v Speaker 6>have been improving really since twenty twenty two, and that

0:36:41.400 --> 0:36:44.640
<v Speaker 6>doesn't appear to be changing. Analysts are slowly getting on

0:36:44.640 --> 0:36:47.959
<v Speaker 6>board with that, so certainly they're you know, expecting better

0:36:47.960 --> 0:36:50.000
<v Speaker 6>growth in the next twelve months than they did twelve

0:36:50.000 --> 0:36:53.560
<v Speaker 6>months ago. But it is a slow climb.

0:36:53.640 --> 0:36:57.480
<v Speaker 2>Textbook Gino Martin Adams, and she combines us like Edheimen,

0:36:57.880 --> 0:37:02.000
<v Speaker 2>with fundamental analysis, technical analysis, and a respect for the

0:37:02.040 --> 0:37:05.760
<v Speaker 2>economic Gino Martin Adams. What does the bull market chart

0:37:05.800 --> 0:37:06.279
<v Speaker 2>tell you?

0:37:07.440 --> 0:37:07.600
<v Speaker 1>Oh?

0:37:07.600 --> 0:37:10.160
<v Speaker 6>Well, I mean, look, the trend is your friend. The

0:37:10.320 --> 0:37:14.360
<v Speaker 6>stocks are still up and to the right right, so

0:37:15.120 --> 0:37:18.399
<v Speaker 6>very simplistically, when you're making new highs, and more than

0:37:18.480 --> 0:37:20.759
<v Speaker 6>seventy percent of stocks they're still trading above their tu

0:37:20.840 --> 0:37:24.160
<v Speaker 6>nity moving average. So contrary to popular beliefs, breadth is

0:37:24.200 --> 0:37:28.000
<v Speaker 6>still improving. We're making new highs. Even small caps are

0:37:28.040 --> 0:37:30.319
<v Speaker 6>showing some signs of clawing their way out of their

0:37:30.320 --> 0:37:32.759
<v Speaker 6>bear market condition that has existed for the better part

0:37:32.760 --> 0:37:35.000
<v Speaker 6>of three years. There's just not a lot in the

0:37:35.040 --> 0:37:37.800
<v Speaker 6>charts to complain about. If there is anything to complain about,

0:37:37.840 --> 0:37:40.960
<v Speaker 6>it is really about leadership inside the market, where we

0:37:41.040 --> 0:37:43.680
<v Speaker 6>do appear to be sort of grappling with a potential

0:37:43.719 --> 0:37:46.239
<v Speaker 6>leadership change away from the MAX seven toward the four

0:37:46.400 --> 0:37:49.160
<v Speaker 6>ninety three other stocks in the S and P five hundred,

0:37:49.680 --> 0:37:53.960
<v Speaker 6>sort of away from predominantly growth towards some mored value

0:37:54.040 --> 0:37:57.560
<v Speaker 6>oriented industries. There are a lot of sort of internal churn.

0:37:57.600 --> 0:38:01.200
<v Speaker 6>A lot of internal churning happening, but nonetheless, markets are

0:38:01.239 --> 0:38:03.759
<v Speaker 6>still making new heights, especially the S and P five hundred,

0:38:03.800 --> 0:38:05.440
<v Speaker 6>so there's not a lot to complain about from a

0:38:05.440 --> 0:38:08.319
<v Speaker 6>technical perspective. The only thing that I would say from

0:38:08.320 --> 0:38:11.120
<v Speaker 6>a broad charting perspective that we're watching with a really

0:38:11.200 --> 0:38:15.359
<v Speaker 6>close sort of eye is what's happening with momentum. When

0:38:15.400 --> 0:38:17.120
<v Speaker 6>we look at what's happening with momentum in the S

0:38:17.200 --> 0:38:20.280
<v Speaker 6>and P five hundred, it's been struggling as a result

0:38:20.360 --> 0:38:24.920
<v Speaker 6>of this internal turn. It certainly has confirmed the recent

0:38:25.000 --> 0:38:28.799
<v Speaker 6>rally off of those October sort of depressed lows, but

0:38:28.960 --> 0:38:32.000
<v Speaker 6>nonetheless it's not as positive or not as strong as

0:38:32.000 --> 0:38:34.360
<v Speaker 6>we would like it to see or like to see it,

0:38:34.400 --> 0:38:36.440
<v Speaker 6>and I think that that's something to watch going forward.

0:38:36.480 --> 0:38:38.640
<v Speaker 6>We do need to gather a bit more momentum to

0:38:38.719 --> 0:38:40.160
<v Speaker 6>sustain the games that we've had.

0:38:40.760 --> 0:38:42.360
<v Speaker 5>Gina, great to talk to you, and I wanted to

0:38:42.400 --> 0:38:44.520
<v Speaker 5>ask you about this China story that we've been falling

0:38:44.520 --> 0:38:46.400
<v Speaker 5>over the course of the week and what it means

0:38:46.160 --> 0:38:48.920
<v Speaker 5>for US investors. We talked a little earlier in the

0:38:48.920 --> 0:38:53.279
<v Speaker 5>show about the PBOC put on Chinese equities. What does

0:38:53.280 --> 0:38:57.480
<v Speaker 5>it mean for the palatability or attractiveness of Chinese stocks

0:38:57.520 --> 0:38:58.680
<v Speaker 5>what the bank has done this week.

0:38:58.719 --> 0:39:02.399
<v Speaker 6>Yeah, I think it's been tough in China. Honestly, we've had,

0:39:02.440 --> 0:39:05.280
<v Speaker 6>you know, a series of stimulus measures all year, from

0:39:05.719 --> 0:39:08.520
<v Speaker 6>direct purchases of assets in the market, to changes in

0:39:08.560 --> 0:39:12.799
<v Speaker 6>policy rates to the news of this week, you know,

0:39:13.160 --> 0:39:16.719
<v Speaker 6>to the degree that it ultimately creates more stability in

0:39:16.840 --> 0:39:20.439
<v Speaker 6>economic conditions, that's the thing that I think can draw

0:39:20.520 --> 0:39:24.080
<v Speaker 6>investors back into China. It's a wait and see approach

0:39:24.120 --> 0:39:27.120
<v Speaker 6>though with respect to China, and it's been such a

0:39:27.120 --> 0:39:29.800
<v Speaker 6>difficult run for the last several years as a global

0:39:29.800 --> 0:39:33.799
<v Speaker 6>investor starting to think about investment in China that we've

0:39:33.800 --> 0:39:37.880
<v Speaker 6>had a proliferation of EM equity products excluding China, just

0:39:37.960 --> 0:39:40.839
<v Speaker 6>to try to get at where the other growth opportunities

0:39:40.880 --> 0:39:43.400
<v Speaker 6>are in EM. So, you know, I would say, we

0:39:43.480 --> 0:39:46.520
<v Speaker 6>need to see this manifest itself in real economic conditions

0:39:46.560 --> 0:39:50.720
<v Speaker 6>and even more importantly, real earnings growth prospects improving for China.

0:39:51.239 --> 0:39:53.640
<v Speaker 6>That's a long time coming yet, because when you look

0:39:53.680 --> 0:39:58.800
<v Speaker 6>at EM equity revisions X China, they are surging. Equity

0:39:59.000 --> 0:40:01.960
<v Speaker 6>analysts are getting much more optimistic about the outlook for

0:40:02.000 --> 0:40:06.080
<v Speaker 6>earnings growth outside of China, and analysts are not telling

0:40:06.160 --> 0:40:08.080
<v Speaker 6>us that things are getting better in China yet, So

0:40:08.120 --> 0:40:10.160
<v Speaker 6>we need to see that momentum turn around there.

0:40:10.400 --> 0:40:12.120
<v Speaker 2>You know, I got to ask you this, Gina. I

0:40:12.200 --> 0:40:14.799
<v Speaker 2>know you're not on speaking terms with Allison Williams, but

0:40:15.400 --> 0:40:19.520
<v Speaker 2>the banks for end of Q three, what is their

0:40:19.600 --> 0:40:22.520
<v Speaker 2>business plan for Q four? How bad are the cost

0:40:22.520 --> 0:40:25.120
<v Speaker 2>cuts going to be? Yeah?

0:40:25.160 --> 0:40:27.520
<v Speaker 6>I think, first of all, I'm in great terms with

0:40:27.560 --> 0:40:29.799
<v Speaker 6>Alison Williams, and I think she was a brilliant analysts

0:40:30.160 --> 0:40:34.600
<v Speaker 6>in terms of all those H courses help Gina in

0:40:34.719 --> 0:40:37.319
<v Speaker 6>terms of financials. You know, I think that it's going

0:40:37.400 --> 0:40:40.600
<v Speaker 6>to be really interesting coming into this court because the

0:40:40.680 --> 0:40:43.800
<v Speaker 6>banks spent so much of their time really cutting costs

0:40:43.840 --> 0:40:47.120
<v Speaker 6>back in twenty twenty three that that's been a bit

0:40:47.160 --> 0:40:47.840
<v Speaker 6>of a tailwind.

0:40:47.920 --> 0:40:48.040
<v Speaker 1>Right.

0:40:48.080 --> 0:40:50.040
<v Speaker 6>Remember twenty twenty three was the year in which we

0:40:50.080 --> 0:40:53.720
<v Speaker 6>saw tremendous provisions, a lot of concern about loan losses

0:40:53.760 --> 0:40:57.160
<v Speaker 6>emerging in commercial real estate, decent amount of cost cutting

0:40:57.480 --> 0:41:00.759
<v Speaker 6>coming out of that sector because the yield curve was

0:41:00.800 --> 0:41:05.480
<v Speaker 6>tremendously inverted. Right, We've come off of that deep inversion

0:41:05.480 --> 0:41:07.799
<v Speaker 6>in the yield curve over the course of the last

0:41:07.800 --> 0:41:11.680
<v Speaker 6>several months. That improves the outlook for an interest margin

0:41:11.760 --> 0:41:14.800
<v Speaker 6>for some of the segments, but it's still tough going.

0:41:14.920 --> 0:41:17.400
<v Speaker 6>What was most interesting out of the second quarter is

0:41:17.440 --> 0:41:19.520
<v Speaker 6>that financials, for the first time in a long time,

0:41:19.920 --> 0:41:23.040
<v Speaker 6>feed on top line. We saw better revenue growth out

0:41:23.040 --> 0:41:25.480
<v Speaker 6>of financials than we've seen in a very, very long time.

0:41:25.600 --> 0:41:28.640
<v Speaker 6>That's what I'm looking for going into third quarter because

0:41:28.640 --> 0:41:31.239
<v Speaker 6>that's what's been missing in financials for the better part

0:41:31.239 --> 0:41:34.319
<v Speaker 6>of five years. Not just sort of short term what's

0:41:34.320 --> 0:41:36.680
<v Speaker 6>happening with a lot of cost cuts. When we get

0:41:36.680 --> 0:41:40.239
<v Speaker 6>into October and then even more importantly in the January season, though,

0:41:40.360 --> 0:41:43.000
<v Speaker 6>I think you do want to start looking for layoffs.

0:41:43.320 --> 0:41:45.440
<v Speaker 6>Are we going to see a surgeon layoffs again? This

0:41:45.520 --> 0:41:48.640
<v Speaker 6>sector has been a big persistent part of that story

0:41:48.760 --> 0:41:53.200
<v Speaker 6>from twenty twenty two on financials as well as technology companies.

0:41:53.200 --> 0:41:55.800
<v Speaker 6>Communication companies, to a slightly lesser degree, have led the

0:41:55.880 --> 0:41:59.600
<v Speaker 6>layoff trend. They've kept costs very, very lean, and that's

0:42:00.120 --> 0:42:03.239
<v Speaker 6>enabling margins to continue to stay a float. There. So

0:42:03.280 --> 0:42:04.880
<v Speaker 6>there are a lot of moving parks to watch for

0:42:04.960 --> 0:42:07.640
<v Speaker 6>in financials. It's frankly one of the sectors that we've

0:42:07.680 --> 0:42:11.279
<v Speaker 6>been watching most closely in this rotation because we are

0:42:11.320 --> 0:42:14.560
<v Speaker 6>seeing much better growth start to emerge there and finally

0:42:14.600 --> 0:42:17.000
<v Speaker 6>some investor interest, but I think that that's mostly related

0:42:17.000 --> 0:42:17.600
<v Speaker 6>to the yieldcaper.

0:42:17.680 --> 0:42:20.200
<v Speaker 2>Okay, Gina, don't take the White Sox job unless you

0:42:20.200 --> 0:42:23.040
<v Speaker 2>can clean out the bullpen. Gina Martin Adams from Chicago,

0:42:23.600 --> 0:42:27.040
<v Speaker 2>where she's on a job interview at Kimiski Park, which

0:42:27.080 --> 0:42:28.359
<v Speaker 2>I will always call it.

0:42:28.320 --> 0:42:29.359
<v Speaker 5>In a fact check this entime.

0:42:29.920 --> 0:42:33.520
<v Speaker 2>Grandpa took me to Komiski Park. I saw Nellie Fox

0:42:34.400 --> 0:42:36.840
<v Speaker 2>a few years ago. Only Michael Barr on the planet

0:42:36.840 --> 0:42:40.680
<v Speaker 2>knows who Nellie Fox is. This is a Bloomberg Surveillance podcast,

0:42:40.880 --> 0:42:45.719
<v Speaker 2>bringing you the best in economics, finance, investment, and international relations.

0:42:45.960 --> 0:42:49.320
<v Speaker 2>You can also watch the show live on YouTube. Visit

0:42:49.360 --> 0:42:53.520
<v Speaker 2>the Bloomberg Podcast channel on YouTube to see the show

0:42:53.719 --> 0:42:56.799
<v Speaker 2>weekday mornings from seven to ten am Eastern from our

0:42:56.800 --> 0:43:00.560
<v Speaker 2>global headquarters in New York City. Subscribe to the podcast

0:43:00.640 --> 0:43:04.680
<v Speaker 2>on Apple, Spotify, or anywhere else you listen, and always

0:43:04.800 --> 0:43:09.200
<v Speaker 2>on Bloomberg Radio, the Bloomberg Terminal, and the Bloomberg Business App.