WEBVTT - Amazon’s Demand Cools as Investors Spot Weakness 0:00:01.800 --> 0:00:04.440 This is Bloomberg Business Week. I'm Carol Masser and I'm 0:00:04.440 --> 0:00:07.280 Bloomberg Quick Takes Tim Stanovk. We're here every day bringing 0:00:07.280 --> 0:00:09.799 you the latest news from the world of business and finance, 0:00:09.840 --> 0:00:13.640 plus technology, politics, economics, all partnising the power of Business 0:00:13.640 --> 0:00:17.119 Week reporters and editors, not to mention our journalists and 0:00:17.160 --> 0:00:19.599 analyst in more than one and twenty countries. You can 0:00:19.640 --> 0:00:23.239 download Bloomberg Business Week at iTunes, SoundCloud, or Bloomberg dot com. 0:00:23.400 --> 0:00:25.160 You can also listen to our radio show at two 0:00:25.160 --> 0:00:27.840 pm Eastern Time on Bloomberg Radio or watch us on 0:00:27.880 --> 0:00:32.400 YouTube search Bloomberg Global News. Amazon shares are plummeting, posting 0:00:32.400 --> 0:00:35.519 their biggest drop since as the company acknowledged that a 0:00:35.600 --> 0:00:38.840 hiring and warehouse building binge during the pandemic now really 0:00:38.880 --> 0:00:42.080 catching up with the company as e commerce sales growth 0:00:42.120 --> 0:00:44.800 inevitably slows from the toward pace that we've seen from 0:00:44.840 --> 0:00:47.640 the outbreak. We're all done kind of Mike going crazy 0:00:47.640 --> 0:00:50.519 on Amazon and look at the if you look at 0:00:50.560 --> 0:00:52.199 the size and scope, as we like to say over 0:00:52.240 --> 0:00:56.280 in the newsroom, uh, in the just today for Amazon, 0:00:56.600 --> 0:01:00.240 that's their worst drop since two thousand and six. About 0:01:00.280 --> 0:01:02.480 the historic, so even more than I think i'd put 0:01:02.480 --> 0:01:05.120 it out. So it's it's it's a greater drop. Yeah, yeah, 0:01:05.160 --> 0:01:07.000 it's huge, all right, and that's why we're seeing the 0:01:07.040 --> 0:01:10.200 drag on those major equity averages. Hey, let's get to 0:01:10.319 --> 0:01:13.920 the story, the fundamentals. Bloomberg News technology reporter Matt Day 0:01:13.959 --> 0:01:18.000 on the phone in Seattle, joining up Mike and myself. So, Matt, 0:01:18.080 --> 0:01:20.399 we got the results. Initially, we saw the stock drop. 0:01:20.760 --> 0:01:23.360 What other insight do we get? Our intel? Um on 0:01:23.400 --> 0:01:25.960 the analysts call last night, it was it was a 0:01:26.000 --> 0:01:28.040 lot of playing defense from Amazon, which you might expect 0:01:28.080 --> 0:01:30.280 given the ugly numbers they reported. You know, they're they're 0:01:30.280 --> 0:01:32.559 really trying to push people to think of the big picture. 0:01:32.600 --> 0:01:36.000 And remember all of that growth Amazon turned through during 0:01:36.000 --> 0:01:38.199 the pandemic. Um, you know, listen at a different universe 0:01:38.240 --> 0:01:40.560 they pulled through. You know a lot of a lot 0:01:40.600 --> 0:01:44.240 of increases in an e commerce behavior just in in 0:01:44.280 --> 0:01:46.160 a period of twelve months. And to take the long view, 0:01:46.400 --> 0:01:49.160 investors clearly haven't haven't bought that. They they see some 0:01:49.200 --> 0:01:52.720 weakness and Amazon's business that that weren't weren't apparent before. 0:01:53.160 --> 0:01:56.080 Are they right to focus? Is Amazon right? We had 0:01:56.120 --> 0:01:59.360 an investor on too Amazon is is his number one pick. 0:01:59.440 --> 0:02:02.600 He says it's the most undervalued play out there. Um. 0:02:02.640 --> 0:02:04.920 Probably speaking his book, but he covers the tech sector 0:02:04.920 --> 0:02:07.480 and has for a while. Um, we talked with him 0:02:08.000 --> 0:02:12.720 last night. But I'm just wondering, is Amazon right to 0:02:12.800 --> 0:02:16.520 focus or refocus the analysis community about the growth? You know, 0:02:16.600 --> 0:02:18.959 they certainly have a point. Um, they've grown a ton, 0:02:19.080 --> 0:02:20.760 They've they've grabbed a ton of market share since the 0:02:20.760 --> 0:02:23.480 beginning of the pandemic. I think the question that that 0:02:23.480 --> 0:02:26.480 that analysis leaves out is what happens now. You know, 0:02:27.160 --> 0:02:29.960 is Amazon structurally more profitable business now that they have 0:02:30.040 --> 0:02:32.320 built all of these warehouses around the U S to 0:02:32.360 --> 0:02:34.840 meet all of our demand? Or you know, because labor 0:02:34.840 --> 0:02:36.680 costs are what they are and and supply to him, 0:02:36.680 --> 0:02:38.840 looks like it's never gonna get uncanked. Um, is it 0:02:38.960 --> 0:02:41.600 just a structurally more expensive business to run an e 0:02:41.639 --> 0:02:43.960 commerce operation? I think that's a that's an open question 0:02:43.960 --> 0:02:45.760 now in a way it wasn't just just twenty four 0:02:45.800 --> 0:02:48.639 hours ago. Yeah, Matt, you know, I'm an older guy, 0:02:48.680 --> 0:02:50.480 as they say, as the reason I have that title 0:02:50.560 --> 0:02:54.760 senior senior editor, Carol. But I remember back in the day. 0:02:54.919 --> 0:02:59.320 It almost didn't matter what Amazon's earnings said. You know, 0:02:59.760 --> 0:03:03.040 they had that top line growth, They had these investments 0:03:03.520 --> 0:03:06.360 in R and D, branching out into new business lines, 0:03:06.760 --> 0:03:09.320 cloud computing, you know. I mean, they went from basically 0:03:09.320 --> 0:03:12.600 a bookseller to what they are now. Is anyone in 0:03:12.600 --> 0:03:15.760 the analyst community making that case sort of defending them, saying, look, 0:03:15.800 --> 0:03:17.960 this is kind of old school Amazon, just laying the 0:03:18.000 --> 0:03:21.840 groundwork for for the future. We're are we really looking 0:03:21.880 --> 0:03:24.400 at a scenario where we could see maybe even the 0:03:25.240 --> 0:03:28.320 closing some of all these warehouses they build, or laying 0:03:28.360 --> 0:03:31.480 off this massive number of people that they hired. Uh 0:03:31.880 --> 0:03:34.120 any idea which way people are expecting them to go? 0:03:34.920 --> 0:03:36.520 I think it's it's a great question. I mean, it's 0:03:36.520 --> 0:03:39.000 definitely too soon to suggest they're gonna they're gonna start 0:03:39.040 --> 0:03:41.559 laying people off in droves or closing some of these facilities. 0:03:41.880 --> 0:03:44.120 But I think some of the problem that that analysts 0:03:44.120 --> 0:03:47.880 are chewing on is just how big Amazon has gotten. 0:03:48.240 --> 0:03:50.160 Like in those in those earlier days you talked about 0:03:50.160 --> 0:03:51.920 like they could they could move the needle a lot easily. 0:03:51.920 --> 0:03:54.240 They are, They're a cute e commerce company, and getting 0:03:54.240 --> 0:03:56.880 into new lines of business was with maybe maybe less 0:03:56.880 --> 0:03:58.360 of a risk and easier to make a big difference. 0:03:58.600 --> 0:04:02.040 Even even after that crazy decline in their their share price, 0:04:02.040 --> 0:04:05.120 there's still more than a one trillion dollar company, right, Um, 0:04:05.160 --> 0:04:07.800 So it's just just getting incrementally harder to keep up 0:04:07.840 --> 0:04:10.040 with all of this, you know, twenty year growth that 0:04:10.120 --> 0:04:13.200 they they fed to Wall Street for so many years 0:04:13.400 --> 0:04:15.600 in a row. You know, uh that I was reading 0:04:15.600 --> 0:04:18.560 a story of years a while back on CEO Andy 0:04:18.640 --> 0:04:21.800 Jesse's compensation package, and I almost I had to take 0:04:21.800 --> 0:04:24.000 my glasses off and clean them. I I thought I 0:04:24.200 --> 0:04:26.599 thought I was reading it wrong. It was like moment 0:04:26.680 --> 0:04:28.599 it was like, yeah, it was like two d and 0:04:28.600 --> 0:04:32.240 twenty million. Granted a lot of that in stock. Um, 0:04:32.279 --> 0:04:33.919 but I'm wondering that. You know, so he has a 0:04:33.960 --> 0:04:36.599 background in the web services side of the business, which 0:04:36.680 --> 0:04:39.080 was such a strong driver of growth now, but with 0:04:39.160 --> 0:04:42.240 this problem on the the e commerce side, is is 0:04:42.279 --> 0:04:44.760 there any grumblings you're picking up, any grumblings that you know, 0:04:44.800 --> 0:04:47.680 maybe Jeff Bezos should come back from space and and 0:04:47.720 --> 0:04:49.920 that maybe you know that they should that they need 0:04:49.960 --> 0:04:52.240 a stronger leader in that retail side of the business. 0:04:52.839 --> 0:04:55.080 Nobody's nobody's crying loud enough, but it's it's reaching my 0:04:55.160 --> 0:04:56.680 ears so far. I mean, I think this is this 0:04:56.720 --> 0:05:00.559 is definitely and Jesse's biggest challenge since sitting in this chair. 0:05:00.920 --> 0:05:02.359 And and and the word we get from Amazon is that 0:05:02.360 --> 0:05:04.320 he's still asking just really hard questions of a lot 0:05:04.320 --> 0:05:06.520 of business. You know, certainly today he's asking a bunch 0:05:06.600 --> 0:05:09.120 of of their core retail unit. Um What what we're 0:05:09.160 --> 0:05:11.720 hearing at Amazon is this is giving giving Jesse uh 0:05:11.920 --> 0:05:15.240 kind of an excuse to um to to interrogate some 0:05:15.240 --> 0:05:17.320 of Amazon's assumptions, right, like what are they what are 0:05:17.320 --> 0:05:19.160 they planning on for e commerce growth? And can they 0:05:19.200 --> 0:05:21.600 sustain that? So I don't think we've seen enough results 0:05:21.600 --> 0:05:23.400 of that, And certainly, you know, nobody seems to be 0:05:23.400 --> 0:05:25.120 calling for his head this morning as far as I 0:05:25.120 --> 0:05:27.359 can tell. Hey, man, I'm looking at the Bloomberg and 0:05:27.440 --> 0:05:30.359 looking at three year growth average numbers on the big 0:05:30.400 --> 0:05:33.480 product revenue segmentation when it comes to Amazon, I mean, 0:05:33.520 --> 0:05:35.520 online store is obviously the big bulk in terms of 0:05:35.560 --> 0:05:37.760 the overall revenues, but in terms of growth it is 0:05:37.800 --> 0:05:40.680 a WS or those third party sellers at least over 0:05:40.720 --> 0:05:43.279 the last three years. Subscription services is too when you 0:05:43.320 --> 0:05:45.880 look especially at a WS, is that still the thing 0:05:46.000 --> 0:05:49.600 that kind of shining holy grail when it comes to Amazon, 0:05:49.680 --> 0:05:51.640 and that's where a lot of growth can still come 0:05:51.960 --> 0:05:53.800 And it really is. And that's that's so much of 0:05:53.839 --> 0:05:55.719 the bool case for the company and buy some estimates 0:05:55.720 --> 0:05:57.800 at half of their valuation or more today is just 0:05:57.839 --> 0:06:02.000 at AWS. You know, structurally, more business and retail is 0:06:02.000 --> 0:06:03.960 going to keep growing and they're going to keep expanding 0:06:04.000 --> 0:06:06.880 as as you know, more companies put put their servers 0:06:06.880 --> 0:06:08.920 out of business and and trust to the cloud. Right. 0:06:09.320 --> 0:06:10.720 I think you've also you also got to note the 0:06:10.800 --> 0:06:13.320 advertising business Amazon. Last four I started to break out 0:06:13.360 --> 0:06:16.360 ads and they're doing real well there too. Yeah, it's 0:06:16.400 --> 0:06:19.320 interesting to our Bloomberg Intelligence team putting that out to 0:06:19.400 --> 0:06:20.600 when it comes to when we're seeing some of the 0:06:20.640 --> 0:06:24.719 ad disappointments amongst some of the other companies, whether it 0:06:24.880 --> 0:06:29.560 was Google right specifically UM saying that increasingly we're seeing 0:06:29.560 --> 0:06:31.520 Amazon take a bigger share of that. Hey, Matt Day, 0:06:31.600 --> 0:06:34.080 thank you so much. Technology Putter at Bloomberg News. We 0:06:34.120 --> 0:06:37.159 know Amazon among the top decliners in both the SMP 0:06:37.200 --> 0:06:41.240 and the NASDAC on this Friday. You're listening to Bloomberg 0:06:41.279 --> 0:06:45.000 Business Week with Carol Messer and Bloomberg Quick Takes Tim 0:06:45.000 --> 0:06:49.240 Stinovic on Bloomberg Radio. So outside advisors to the U 0:06:49.279 --> 0:06:52.000 s f d A tentatively planned to meet UH in 0:06:52.160 --> 0:06:55.480 June to talk about covenanteen vaccines for younger kids were 0:06:55.480 --> 0:06:58.360 talking about five years or under five years of age. 0:06:58.360 --> 0:07:00.440 The news coming one day after Maderna's that it had 0:07:00.480 --> 0:07:04.400 applied for emergency authorization for itch shot in young kids. 0:07:04.440 --> 0:07:07.120 So let's get a pandemic update on this Friday. Back 0:07:07.160 --> 0:07:09.400 with us, as he often is on a Friday, Dr 0:07:09.440 --> 0:07:11.960 Ian LUs Bader, clinical Professor of Medicine at n y 0:07:12.040 --> 0:07:13.800 U Land, going on the phone in New York City, 0:07:13.880 --> 0:07:18.080 joining Mike Reagan and myself. Ian, how are you doing 0:07:18.240 --> 0:07:20.440 very well? Carol and Mike. Happy Friday. I hope you 0:07:20.520 --> 0:07:22.840 guys are doing well. Yeah, it feels good. Feels good 0:07:22.880 --> 0:07:25.520 to be Friday. Uh. Yeah, we're we're loving it ahead 0:07:25.520 --> 0:07:28.080 of the weekend. Um. It also does feel good to 0:07:28.120 --> 0:07:30.000 see that when it comes to the vaccine, we're finally 0:07:30.040 --> 0:07:32.560 getting to those little critters. How do you see it? 0:07:32.600 --> 0:07:36.120 And I'm always curious about what's involved and getting um, 0:07:36.160 --> 0:07:39.920 you know, youth authorization safe use authorization for younger kids. 0:07:41.320 --> 0:07:44.200 So there are really a number of questions about COVID 0:07:44.240 --> 0:07:46.280 of as there have been over the past two years 0:07:46.320 --> 0:07:49.120 that we've been following this and vaccines. In a very 0:07:49.120 --> 0:07:52.679 interesting article in the New York Times entitled Truth and Trust, 0:07:53.000 --> 0:07:57.200 the author David Leonard really talks about public health officials 0:07:57.280 --> 0:08:02.320 sending confusing messages about masks vaccines, and I think that's 0:08:02.360 --> 0:08:06.280 what we're seeing with the really pediatric and UM, you know, 0:08:06.480 --> 0:08:11.200 essentially neo natal vaccines. And they do have to go 0:08:11.280 --> 0:08:15.240 through a vaccine committee that reviews the data, and they're 0:08:15.240 --> 0:08:17.960 taking a little bit of a pause to to really 0:08:18.200 --> 0:08:20.480 review this. And I think we have to keep in 0:08:20.520 --> 0:08:24.000 mind a few things. One, UM, these vaccines still are 0:08:24.040 --> 0:08:27.360 for the alpha That the alpha virus, which is two 0:08:27.480 --> 0:08:31.720 years old O macron, both in kids and adults, is 0:08:31.760 --> 0:08:36.200 a relatively milder vaccine over thirty mutations just in the 0:08:36.280 --> 0:08:40.280 spike protein alone. So I think their question is going 0:08:40.320 --> 0:08:44.800 to be, UM, do we really need this uh? And 0:08:44.840 --> 0:08:46.960 what are the risks and what are the benefits? So 0:08:47.160 --> 0:08:49.880 a O macron is milder than alphas, So do we 0:08:49.920 --> 0:08:53.160 really need to give alpha shots? It's two shots to 0:08:53.880 --> 0:08:56.520 UM two children really as young as six months old. 0:08:56.559 --> 0:09:00.360 The studies look from six months to six years to 0:09:00.679 --> 0:09:04.200 most young people do better than old people anyway. With 0:09:04.600 --> 0:09:07.400 with the virus and what really are both the short 0:09:07.520 --> 0:09:10.560 term and long term side effects. We know that the 0:09:10.640 --> 0:09:15.120 vaccines in a small percent of patients, they can have myocarditis, 0:09:15.240 --> 0:09:19.079 neurologic problems, other problems. And do we really need to 0:09:19.240 --> 0:09:24.080 expose millions of kids to really save the lives potentially 0:09:24.240 --> 0:09:28.439 of maybe hundreds or perhaps a thousand kids who have 0:09:28.720 --> 0:09:32.240 died sadly, but that's really mainly from the from the 0:09:32.320 --> 0:09:36.480 alpha of virus, not from the omicron. So anyway, they 0:09:36.520 --> 0:09:38.880 have to look at all of that data, right, the 0:09:39.040 --> 0:09:42.880 data is sort of questionable. It's the efficacy was fairly 0:09:42.960 --> 0:09:47.439 low at you know, talk to those calculations that the 0:09:47.520 --> 0:09:50.120 FDA are doing that you're talking about, I feel like 0:09:50.200 --> 0:09:53.480 parents in this country are doing the same type of calculations. 0:09:53.559 --> 0:09:56.839 And I've noticed just anecdotally, you know, friends that I 0:09:56.920 --> 0:09:59.880 talked to who even have gotten the vaccine themselves, and 0:10:00.000 --> 0:10:03.079 at the booster, there's a bit more reluctance to have 0:10:03.240 --> 0:10:05.640 their kids get the booster or to get the shot 0:10:05.679 --> 0:10:08.800 when it's available. Do you think the uptake on this 0:10:09.440 --> 0:10:11.840 Madurna vaccine, if it is approved for these young kids 0:10:11.880 --> 0:10:14.559 will be will be pretty low as a result, And 0:10:15.040 --> 0:10:18.640 you know what does that mean for the virus going forward? Mike, 0:10:18.800 --> 0:10:21.760 You're exactly right. That's sort of hesitancy I think will 0:10:21.800 --> 0:10:24.320 be shared by a lot of people because they're seeing 0:10:24.800 --> 0:10:28.199 an adults that many people have either had COVID or 0:10:28.240 --> 0:10:31.000 have had three shots and they still get O macron 0:10:31.080 --> 0:10:33.360 and they're going to wonder like if I even vaccinate 0:10:33.480 --> 0:10:36.880 my child, my me andate or young child isn't really 0:10:36.920 --> 0:10:39.520 going to do anything. And that's what we're seeing with 0:10:39.760 --> 0:10:43.000 questions about the fourth shot, the same question how long 0:10:43.120 --> 0:10:46.280 does the protection last? Do we really needed for our kids? 0:10:46.600 --> 0:10:49.520 And what other potential side effects? So I do think, 0:10:49.760 --> 0:10:53.199 as you say, the uptake on this may not be 0:10:53.520 --> 0:10:55.839 as great as we think. I think it's good to 0:10:55.960 --> 0:10:59.160 offer to people they can make their own decision. Um. 0:10:59.400 --> 0:11:01.679 I think it's nice for for some kids who may 0:11:01.720 --> 0:11:05.800 have immune compromise. Is it good for everyone? I think 0:11:05.840 --> 0:11:08.240 we have to wait and really review more data. Yeah. 0:11:08.240 --> 0:11:10.040 I feel like anything that has to do with COVID, 0:11:10.080 --> 0:11:13.559 I feel like there's always a ton of question. No, 0:11:14.440 --> 0:11:16.760 um Ian, thank you so much. Listen, have a great weekend. 0:11:16.840 --> 0:11:19.079 Dr Ian los Spader, clinical Professor of Medicine at n 0:11:19.160 --> 0:11:21.760 y U Lango Medical Center with us on the phone 0:11:21.800 --> 0:11:24.160 from New York City. The FDA, though, has said it 0:11:24.280 --> 0:11:27.719 is holding the dates of June eight je June for 0:11:27.800 --> 0:11:31.720 potential meetings of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory 0:11:31.720 --> 0:11:34.400 Committee to talk about pediatric use of vaccines made my 0:11:34.920 --> 0:11:37.880 Manderna and also the partnership of Fiser and bion Tech, 0:11:37.960 --> 0:11:40.199 so they're going to be Mike certainly looking into it. 0:11:40.800 --> 0:11:44.840 This is Bloomberg Business Week with Carol Messer and Bloomberg 0:11:44.920 --> 0:11:48.839 Quick Takes Tim Stinovic on Bloomberg Radio. So in the 0:11:48.880 --> 0:11:51.480 new issue of Bloomberg business Week magazine, it's already out 0:11:51.520 --> 0:11:54.720 on newsstands, it's online at Bloomberg dot com, also business 0:11:54.720 --> 0:11:56.840 Week dot com and off of course, on the Bloomberg terminal. 0:11:57.280 --> 0:11:59.400 It's a story by Josh Green that looks at Florida's 0:11:59.400 --> 0:12:03.120 Governor Rondo Santis raising his profile while managing to not 0:12:03.280 --> 0:12:06.559 alienate former President Donald Trump, which is tricky as we 0:12:06.640 --> 0:12:09.640 all know. That story from Bloomberg Business Week National correspondent 0:12:09.720 --> 0:12:12.240 Josh Green, who joins us on the phone in Washington, 0:12:12.360 --> 0:12:14.559 d C. Josh, good to have you here with Mike 0:12:14.640 --> 0:12:18.160 Reagan and myself. So tell us about what the Florida 0:12:18.200 --> 0:12:21.400 governor is up to, because he's been quite public uh 0:12:22.080 --> 0:12:23.840 as of late, especially when it comes to his spat 0:12:23.920 --> 0:12:27.640 with the Walt Disney Company. Yeah. I'm really looking at it, 0:12:27.800 --> 0:12:29.960 at the Santis and the Disney fight in our new issue, 0:12:30.000 --> 0:12:33.640 because it's it's just odd to see the popular governor 0:12:33.800 --> 0:12:37.600 of a big state attack his state's most prominent employer. 0:12:37.640 --> 0:12:39.520 And yet that is what is happening in Florida, with 0:12:39.640 --> 0:12:44.199 the Santis attacking the Walt Disney Company for uh statements 0:12:44.240 --> 0:12:47.199 and support it's put out for for gay people and 0:12:47.280 --> 0:12:51.400 for criticizing what Democrats called the Don't Say Gay law 0:12:51.480 --> 0:12:54.280 in Florida that the sand is pushed and signed that 0:12:54.600 --> 0:13:00.880 forbids teachers from teaching about gender to uh younger school kids. UH. 0:13:00.960 --> 0:13:03.160 And it's turned into this big fight in politics, and 0:13:03.200 --> 0:13:06.000 people are kind of wondering what is going on. And basically, 0:13:06.000 --> 0:13:07.679 as I lay out in the new issue of Business Week, 0:13:07.760 --> 0:13:12.360 de Santis is purposely picking this fight because it is 0:13:12.440 --> 0:13:16.280 something that chimes with what conservatives care about it's about 0:13:16.320 --> 0:13:19.040 the culture wars. But he's also trying to do something 0:13:19.400 --> 0:13:22.800 very tricky for Republican presidential hopeful, and that is to 0:13:22.960 --> 0:13:28.760 raise his own profiles presidential prospect without pissing off the 0:13:28.800 --> 0:13:31.439 biggest guy in Republican politics, and that is Donald Trump. 0:13:32.120 --> 0:13:34.680 You know. And first, Carol, full disclosure, as a father 0:13:34.760 --> 0:13:36.520 of three daughters, I don't know how much I've spent 0:13:36.640 --> 0:13:40.040 at Disney and on their products. Just get that out 0:13:40.080 --> 0:13:42.400 of the way. But josh I, I think you you 0:13:42.679 --> 0:13:45.880 make a good point in this column about how this 0:13:46.120 --> 0:13:48.600 is really something that kind of riles up the base, 0:13:48.960 --> 0:13:52.520 uh and and the real sort of vocal thought leaders, 0:13:52.559 --> 0:13:55.200 if you will, of the Republican Party. It's the type 0:13:55.240 --> 0:13:58.360 of thing that maybe makes sense in a primary season, 0:13:58.840 --> 0:14:01.720 but if de Santis is to get the nomination, um, 0:14:01.840 --> 0:14:05.200 I'm curious what you think, you know, does being anti 0:14:05.400 --> 0:14:08.520 Disney play nationally or is it the type of thing 0:14:08.600 --> 0:14:10.880 where he you know, suddenly we'll see him make amends 0:14:11.000 --> 0:14:13.160 with with Disney and be riding the teacups in a 0:14:13.240 --> 0:14:15.439 in a photo op and and making friends with the 0:14:15.880 --> 0:14:19.560 LGBTQ community a little bit. When he tries to move 0:14:19.640 --> 0:14:22.880 to the middle of a little bit in a general election. Yeah. Well, 0:14:22.920 --> 0:14:25.120 what he's really doing, and he's been doing this since 0:14:25.240 --> 0:14:28.000 last fall I wrote about him back then, before Disney 0:14:28.120 --> 0:14:30.760 was in his crosshairs, is it's not so much that 0:14:30.840 --> 0:14:34.560 he's fighting against Disney. He's fighting against this broader notion 0:14:34.640 --> 0:14:38.160 of what he calls woke capitalism, the idea that businesses 0:14:38.280 --> 0:14:43.760 generally are spurning their shareholders and kind of subordinating themselves 0:14:43.920 --> 0:14:48.000 to UM activist liberals who want them to adopt a 0:14:48.120 --> 0:14:50.760 social agenda. And in fairness to the Santus, that is 0:14:50.840 --> 0:14:54.680 not entirely untrue. Liberals have made a point of targeting 0:14:55.080 --> 0:14:58.640 Fortune five companies in states like Georgia where they really 0:14:58.680 --> 0:15:01.000 don't have political power. He saw that last year with 0:15:01.080 --> 0:15:04.800 all the fights over Delta and Coca Cola. UM activists 0:15:04.840 --> 0:15:08.560 had pressured them to speak out against these voting restriction laws. 0:15:08.880 --> 0:15:12.160 Republicans had responded with the boycott. What the Santus is 0:15:12.200 --> 0:15:14.520 doing and essentially is turning the table and starting a 0:15:14.560 --> 0:15:17.560 political fight with Disney because he wants to draw his 0:15:17.840 --> 0:15:22.160 attention to himself as someone combating UH this issue of 0:15:22.240 --> 0:15:26.040 woke capitalism, which is very popular with conservatives UM, and 0:15:26.160 --> 0:15:29.200 it serves his immediate political interests because it helps to 0:15:29.320 --> 0:15:33.800 raise his profile in the lead up to the Republican 0:15:33.840 --> 0:15:36.680 presidential primary. And you know, Josh, you follow this stuff 0:15:36.680 --> 0:15:39.240 a lot more closely than I do. But it seems 0:15:39.240 --> 0:15:41.440 to me that Donald Trump hasn't really staked out a 0:15:41.520 --> 0:15:45.560 position on Disney per se, and he never really seemed 0:15:45.600 --> 0:15:47.720 to show too much animosity, at least in his in 0:15:47.800 --> 0:15:51.120 his statements towards the LGBTQ community. Do you think he'll 0:15:51.400 --> 0:15:53.560 he'll try to chase the Santis on this issue or 0:15:53.800 --> 0:15:55.440 how do you see him reacting to this? You know, 0:15:55.720 --> 0:15:57.280 it's interesting. I'm not sure if you will are not. 0:15:57.440 --> 0:16:00.080 The reason to Santis started this issue is because he 0:16:00.200 --> 0:16:03.120 needed something to raise his profile, and the problem he 0:16:03.240 --> 0:16:06.600 had is that most of the fights in Republican politics 0:16:07.160 --> 0:16:11.080 are cultural fights that revolve around Donald Trump. There fights 0:16:11.160 --> 0:16:14.920 Donald Trump has started, Their fights that revolve around him. 0:16:15.000 --> 0:16:17.560 The big one that's royaling a lot of primary races, 0:16:17.600 --> 0:16:20.840 including the one I've written about um in the Pennsylvania 0:16:20.920 --> 0:16:23.560 Senate race, is the question of whether or not Trump 0:16:23.680 --> 0:16:25.640 was the rightful winner of the election and had it 0:16:25.760 --> 0:16:31.200 stolen from him. The status correctly recognizes that anytime you 0:16:31.240 --> 0:16:33.600 know he's gotta he's got to sort of talk about 0:16:33.640 --> 0:16:38.200 Trump's issues, subordinate himself to Trump. It makes him look feckless, 0:16:38.280 --> 0:16:42.000 it doesn't make him look like a strong, standalone candidate 0:16:42.040 --> 0:16:44.320 who can develop his own following. And so one reason 0:16:44.400 --> 0:16:47.160 he started this fight with with Disney is that it's 0:16:47.160 --> 0:16:50.920 the kind of uh cultural grievance that Republicans have really 0:16:51.040 --> 0:16:53.520 learned to care a lot about um in the era 0:16:53.600 --> 0:16:56.120 of Donald Trump. And yet it isn't a fight that 0:16:56.240 --> 0:17:00.200 revolves around Trump or one that Trump has even particularly involved. Then, 0:17:00.440 --> 0:17:01.680 so I think we'll have to wait and see whether 0:17:01.760 --> 0:17:05.080 Trump or not decides to get involved in the Disney fight. 0:17:05.400 --> 0:17:08.159 But the Santus has already won to an extent, at 0:17:08.240 --> 0:17:11.359 least in the political realm um by by creating this 0:17:11.440 --> 0:17:14.680 spectacle that revolves around him, that's raised his profile, that's 0:17:14.720 --> 0:17:17.720 gotten conservatives excited, and that has nothing to do for 0:17:17.800 --> 0:17:20.320 the time being with Donald Trump. Hey Josh, what is 0:17:20.560 --> 0:17:24.480 the relationship between De Santis and Donald Trump? It sounds 0:17:24.480 --> 0:17:28.200 like it's a little complicated, very frosty, very frosty. Yes, 0:17:28.280 --> 0:17:33.720 I mean, Trump expects people in the Republican Party, all politicians, 0:17:33.840 --> 0:17:37.440 to essentially bow down to him, in genuflect um de 0:17:37.600 --> 0:17:41.080 Santis in particular because when the Santis was first running 0:17:41.080 --> 0:17:44.199 for governor in the Republican primary, Trump endorsed him and frankly, 0:17:44.320 --> 0:17:46.600 probably got him elected. I don't think the Santis would 0:17:46.600 --> 0:17:49.240 be governor were it not for Donald Trump. UM. But 0:17:49.320 --> 0:17:51.320 at the same time, the Santus has ambitions of his 0:17:51.400 --> 0:17:54.560 own and recognizes that deferring to Trump is going to 0:17:54.600 --> 0:17:56.920 make it impossible for De Santis to be the Republican 0:17:57.000 --> 0:18:00.239 nominee in two and so he's refused to try. Has 0:18:00.359 --> 0:18:03.400 noticed this, Uh, it's angered him quite a bit. He's 0:18:03.400 --> 0:18:07.280 complained privately to advisers that the Sanders is a loser, 0:18:07.400 --> 0:18:10.560 that he has a dull personality, and he's taken shots 0:18:10.600 --> 0:18:13.479 at the Santis publicly for refusing to reveal, for instance, 0:18:13.480 --> 0:18:16.280 whether or not he's had a COVID booster shot. He 0:18:16.400 --> 0:18:18.920 doesn't like the fact that the Santus has become popular 0:18:19.480 --> 0:18:23.520 on terms that don't put him um as a secondary 0:18:23.520 --> 0:18:26.840 figure to Trump, you know. Trust. Another story that caught 0:18:26.880 --> 0:18:28.800 my eye this week was that the whole Q and 0:18:29.000 --> 0:18:33.639 On community has piled in on this Disney issue. Is 0:18:33.720 --> 0:18:35.760 are we seeing the signs of that sort of fringe 0:18:35.880 --> 0:18:39.159 element of the right wing getting on board with the 0:18:39.280 --> 0:18:42.520 Santis or is or is that just absolutely well, certainly 0:18:42.560 --> 0:18:45.240 they're being attracted to the fight that the Santus has started, 0:18:45.280 --> 0:18:48.800 and to the extent that this fight raises, the santass profile, 0:18:49.240 --> 0:18:52.640 you know, sucks in all the kind of activist fringy 0:18:53.160 --> 0:18:56.840 wackos who drive so much Republican politics these days, you'd 0:18:56.880 --> 0:18:58.879 have to think, you know, not great for Disney, not 0:18:59.040 --> 0:19:01.840 great for teachers and kids and l g B, t 0:19:02.000 --> 0:19:04.879 q Q folks who are in the cross singers here. 0:19:05.119 --> 0:19:08.440 But as far as the Santus's own short term political interests, 0:19:08.880 --> 0:19:11.720 it's really hard to see that hurting him. It's fascinating 0:19:11.720 --> 0:19:13.560 to see how this is playing out here, and of 0:19:13.600 --> 0:19:18.040 course the midterms just really months away. A Josh Father, 0:19:18.160 --> 0:19:20.800 excuse me, thank you so much. Josh Green. He's national 0:19:20.800 --> 0:19:23.840 correspondent at Bloomberg Business Week. His story is featured in 0:19:23.880 --> 0:19:26.600 the new issue of Business Week magazine, available on newsstands, 0:19:26.680 --> 0:19:29.520 on the Bloomberg and at Bloomberg dot com slash business Week, 0:19:29.560 --> 0:19:32.000 so be sure to check it out. You're listening to 0:19:32.119 --> 0:19:36.080 Bloomberg Business Week with Carol Messer and Bloomberg Quick takes 0:19:36.200 --> 0:19:40.719 Tim Stinovic on Bloomberg Radio. So Goldman Sacks offering its 0:19:40.720 --> 0:19:43.680 first ever lending facility back by bitcoin. It's a significant 0:19:43.680 --> 0:19:46.159 step for a major US bank that accelerates Wall streets 0:19:46.160 --> 0:19:49.040 embrace of crypto. Meantime, Mike and I just talking about 0:19:49.119 --> 0:19:52.920 the journal, talking about the labor department and officials they're 0:19:52.960 --> 0:19:55.480 believing Fidelities planned to allow investors to put bitcoin in 0:19:55.480 --> 0:19:58.639 there four oh one k accounts, risks, the retirement security 0:19:58.760 --> 0:20:01.480 of Americans, so so much as always on a daily 0:20:01.520 --> 0:20:03.879 basis to talk about when it comes to crypto. In 0:20:03.920 --> 0:20:07.280 our weekly crypto segment, we welcome Rick Edelman. He's founder 0:20:07.440 --> 0:20:10.960 of dac FP. That's Digital Assets Council of Financial Professionals, 0:20:11.000 --> 0:20:13.840 which worked with financial professionals when it comes to learning 0:20:13.840 --> 0:20:16.320 about blockchain and digital assets. Rick is with us on 0:20:16.440 --> 0:20:19.000 the phone in Virginia. Rick, nice to have you here. 0:20:19.080 --> 0:20:21.800 I do feel like every day we are flooded by 0:20:22.000 --> 0:20:24.960 people embracing the crypto world and people taking a step 0:20:25.000 --> 0:20:28.440 back and being more cautious about crypto. Tell us, first 0:20:28.440 --> 0:20:31.919 of all your organization, what you are doing to educate 0:20:32.040 --> 0:20:35.359