WEBVTT - Weak Dollar is Great for EM, Santos Says

0:00:03.360 --> 0:00:12.960
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane

0:00:13.480 --> 0:00:17.560
<v Speaker 1>jay Ley. We bring you insight from the best in economics, finance, investment,

0:00:18.000 --> 0:00:23.480
<v Speaker 1>and international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

0:00:23.600 --> 0:00:32.720
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg dot Com, and of course on the Bloomberg I

0:00:32.760 --> 0:00:37.159
<v Speaker 1>wonder if Gabrielle Gabriella would want to dream baroness this

0:00:37.280 --> 0:00:40.640
<v Speaker 1>week so you're better prepared to talk to Gabriella. Not

0:00:40.680 --> 0:00:44.200
<v Speaker 1>necessarily nice big photograph of Lloyd Blank. Find of Goldman

0:00:44.240 --> 0:00:48.520
<v Speaker 1>sax On the Barons. Uh. Gabriella Santos is the vice

0:00:48.560 --> 0:00:53.199
<v Speaker 1>president for JP Morgan and our global market strategist for

0:00:53.360 --> 0:00:56.040
<v Speaker 1>JP Morgan Asset Management. Gabriella, thank you very much for

0:00:56.080 --> 0:00:59.480
<v Speaker 1>being here. Good morning. You know, as I was mentioning

0:00:59.480 --> 0:01:02.840
<v Speaker 1>to Tom, looked like there was a crush people who

0:01:02.960 --> 0:01:06.800
<v Speaker 1>really wanted to be in that room, And I'm wondering

0:01:06.959 --> 0:01:10.600
<v Speaker 1>if you felt that there may be obviously you were

0:01:10.640 --> 0:01:14.880
<v Speaker 1>not there, if there was a change in sentiment because

0:01:14.920 --> 0:01:18.360
<v Speaker 1>of the remarks that were televised and broadcast by the

0:01:18.400 --> 0:01:21.280
<v Speaker 1>President on that Friday, and whether that has had any

0:01:21.360 --> 0:01:24.880
<v Speaker 1>effect in your mind about investor psychology. So if we

0:01:24.920 --> 0:01:27.800
<v Speaker 1>think about how investors are feeling right now. They're feeling

0:01:28.240 --> 0:01:32.120
<v Speaker 1>quite good about the global economy. They're feeling like we're

0:01:32.120 --> 0:01:36.479
<v Speaker 1>finally on solid footing, but they're also wondering what could

0:01:36.520 --> 0:01:41.400
<v Speaker 1>disrupt that balance. And so what I think UH investors

0:01:41.400 --> 0:01:45.160
<v Speaker 1>were looking for in that speech was any sort of

0:01:45.760 --> 0:01:50.440
<v Speaker 1>UH sign or inkling really around trade policy, which is

0:01:50.560 --> 0:01:54.000
<v Speaker 1>seen as perhaps one of those risks that could disrupt

0:01:54.000 --> 0:01:57.200
<v Speaker 1>this really good environment we're seeing for the global economy.

0:01:57.240 --> 0:02:00.200
<v Speaker 1>And in that sense, I do think it was is

0:02:00.680 --> 0:02:05.120
<v Speaker 1>well received. Uh. It was seen as a pragmatic UH

0:02:05.280 --> 0:02:09.639
<v Speaker 1>speech by someone who doesn't want to disrupt that balance

0:02:09.680 --> 0:02:11.640
<v Speaker 1>for the U. S and global economy. But I do

0:02:11.720 --> 0:02:14.760
<v Speaker 1>still think that there are some trade anxieties lingering in

0:02:14.800 --> 0:02:17.760
<v Speaker 1>the back of investors minds. Well, certainly we've got the

0:02:17.840 --> 0:02:21.240
<v Speaker 1>last meeting, I think today in Montreal of the last

0:02:21.280 --> 0:02:25.880
<v Speaker 1>meeting for this round of NAFTA renegotiation talks. Having said

0:02:25.919 --> 0:02:29.320
<v Speaker 1>that we don't know what's going to happen, UH, let's

0:02:29.360 --> 0:02:33.680
<v Speaker 1>say things stay the same status quo Latin America specifically,

0:02:33.800 --> 0:02:36.280
<v Speaker 1>I want to get your thoughts investing in Latin America.

0:02:36.800 --> 0:02:39.080
<v Speaker 1>I smile when you say that, because it's it's really

0:02:39.120 --> 0:02:42.280
<v Speaker 1>the first time, I would say, in six seven years

0:02:42.680 --> 0:02:47.240
<v Speaker 1>where Latin America is actually a positive story, right, so

0:02:47.280 --> 0:02:51.200
<v Speaker 1>we do see growth turning around. Latin America is likely

0:02:51.280 --> 0:02:53.959
<v Speaker 1>to grow at potential this year for the first time

0:02:54.000 --> 0:02:56.680
<v Speaker 1>in those six seven We've got rising commodity prices. That's

0:02:56.720 --> 0:02:59.679
<v Speaker 1>got to be good for countries that mind copper for

0:02:59.720 --> 0:03:03.840
<v Speaker 1>Exa flore Brazil getting past their petrobrass scandal. Yes, so

0:03:04.080 --> 0:03:07.680
<v Speaker 1>rising or just stable commodity prices are definitely a support

0:03:07.720 --> 0:03:10.160
<v Speaker 1>for the region. But even more than that, I think

0:03:10.160 --> 0:03:12.840
<v Speaker 1>it's about a lot of countries having really hit rock

0:03:12.880 --> 0:03:16.160
<v Speaker 1>bottom when it comes to economic growth, and Brazil really

0:03:16.160 --> 0:03:19.200
<v Speaker 1>comes to the forefront. Uh So it's about a cyclical

0:03:19.240 --> 0:03:23.520
<v Speaker 1>improvement and also the perspective of a structural improvement with

0:03:23.919 --> 0:03:28.280
<v Speaker 1>several changes in administrations towards a more business family stand Gabriela.

0:03:28.360 --> 0:03:30.720
<v Speaker 1>We spoke with a finance maner of Indonesia today, a

0:03:30.919 --> 0:03:37.520
<v Speaker 1>lengthy conversation with Mr Maliani Um. Indonesia's maybe a textbook

0:03:37.640 --> 0:03:42.120
<v Speaker 1>of the complexity we don't see as equity investors. It's

0:03:42.120 --> 0:03:44.880
<v Speaker 1>not just about buying a telephone company anymore. Is that

0:03:45.240 --> 0:03:49.320
<v Speaker 1>how do you go about acquiring shares to make capital

0:03:49.360 --> 0:03:54.560
<v Speaker 1>gain in these complex stories, these complex nations. So, I mean,

0:03:54.720 --> 0:03:57.360
<v Speaker 1>if you think about all of the different puzzle pieces

0:03:57.400 --> 0:04:00.520
<v Speaker 1>that make up this term that we use of emerging markets,

0:04:00.920 --> 0:04:03.640
<v Speaker 1>it's really very very complex, right, And and so the

0:04:03.680 --> 0:04:06.680
<v Speaker 1>way that we approach emerging markets is we have to

0:04:06.760 --> 0:04:10.000
<v Speaker 1>have people on the ground, right, people who truly understand

0:04:10.080 --> 0:04:15.320
<v Speaker 1>the dynamics in these economies, the dynamics and the political sphere,

0:04:15.360 --> 0:04:18.279
<v Speaker 1>and frankly just the dynamics at the company level. Right.

0:04:18.680 --> 0:04:20.800
<v Speaker 1>So the way that we think about emerging markets is

0:04:20.839 --> 0:04:23.800
<v Speaker 1>really the most important thing when we look at the

0:04:23.800 --> 0:04:26.719
<v Speaker 1>long run is earnings, right, and that's the same for

0:04:26.800 --> 0:04:29.760
<v Speaker 1>emerging markets as well. So we have to have a

0:04:29.920 --> 0:04:34.200
<v Speaker 1>good feel for how earnings growth is looking in a

0:04:34.279 --> 0:04:37.200
<v Speaker 1>variety of companies countries. Just wants to know what to

0:04:37.279 --> 0:04:39.480
<v Speaker 1>buy or what to sell. Like should you be going

0:04:39.520 --> 0:04:41.760
<v Speaker 1>into the E t F E E M, for example,

0:04:41.839 --> 0:04:46.359
<v Speaker 1>what t H B I shares I shares CI emerging

0:04:46.400 --> 0:04:48.960
<v Speaker 1>markets CTF. So I would say that overall it's a

0:04:49.000 --> 0:04:52.760
<v Speaker 1>positive environment for emerging markets as a whole. Right, So

0:04:52.880 --> 0:04:56.080
<v Speaker 1>if passive is your only approach, that that's fine. But

0:04:56.440 --> 0:04:59.720
<v Speaker 1>if you are able to take the active approach. UM,

0:04:59.800 --> 0:05:02.120
<v Speaker 1>the there's definitely value to be had. And if you

0:05:02.160 --> 0:05:05.960
<v Speaker 1>look at the correlations between countries and emerging markets, they're

0:05:05.960 --> 0:05:08.680
<v Speaker 1>actually pretty low. So you are getting a bang for

0:05:08.720 --> 0:05:12.720
<v Speaker 1>your book for actually picking countries, picking stocks, and really

0:05:12.760 --> 0:05:15.520
<v Speaker 1>having that on the ground field. Give us a country.

0:05:15.640 --> 0:05:19.320
<v Speaker 1>So as we were mentioning Latin America, I feel quite

0:05:19.320 --> 0:05:22.320
<v Speaker 1>optimistic about um and it's not just because I'm Brazilian,

0:05:22.400 --> 0:05:24.440
<v Speaker 1>but I do think that there's a lot to be

0:05:24.480 --> 0:05:28.640
<v Speaker 1>said about Brazil this year with growth finally really picking

0:05:28.720 --> 0:05:31.440
<v Speaker 1>up and as a result, earnings growth picking up as well.

0:05:31.520 --> 0:05:33.760
<v Speaker 1>Where's week dollar play into that? If there's some monution

0:05:33.800 --> 0:05:37.400
<v Speaker 1>gets his way, even if it's eventually adjusted as it was.

0:05:38.320 --> 0:05:41.640
<v Speaker 1>Does does week dollar play into uh? Does week dollar

0:05:41.760 --> 0:05:45.320
<v Speaker 1>push against gains in those Latin American countries? No? Week

0:05:45.360 --> 0:05:48.600
<v Speaker 1>dollar is is really great actually for emerging markets. UM.

0:05:48.760 --> 0:05:51.719
<v Speaker 1>So if we think about just two main ways, right,

0:05:51.760 --> 0:05:56.000
<v Speaker 1>So a week or dollar relieve some pressure on inflation

0:05:56.240 --> 0:05:58.560
<v Speaker 1>in a lot of these countries. That allows their central

0:05:58.600 --> 0:06:02.120
<v Speaker 1>banks to keep rates pretty low, So that's helpful. That's

0:06:02.120 --> 0:06:06.839
<v Speaker 1>a change from with the strong dollar. And then lastly,

0:06:07.040 --> 0:06:09.479
<v Speaker 1>if you have a weaker dollar, it's also about the

0:06:09.520 --> 0:06:12.120
<v Speaker 1>signal it sends. It sends the signal that growth is

0:06:12.160 --> 0:06:16.400
<v Speaker 1>better elsewhere, that investors have a good risk appetite for

0:06:16.560 --> 0:06:19.360
<v Speaker 1>countries outside of the US. So all those factors actually

0:06:19.360 --> 0:06:22.080
<v Speaker 1>help emerging markets. A week dollar is a good thing. Okay,

0:06:22.080 --> 0:06:24.480
<v Speaker 1>So the weak dollar is a good thing. And if

0:06:24.600 --> 0:06:28.920
<v Speaker 1>you don't necessarily feel constrained to become a passive investor,

0:06:29.040 --> 0:06:32.000
<v Speaker 1>is there any industry group or any specific area that

0:06:32.080 --> 0:06:34.479
<v Speaker 1>you would recommend, Because I know that there are elections

0:06:34.520 --> 0:06:39.560
<v Speaker 1>coming up all over Latin America this year, So emerging

0:06:39.640 --> 0:06:44.440
<v Speaker 1>markets has beneath the surface, uh shifted shapes over the

0:06:44.440 --> 0:06:48.560
<v Speaker 1>past couple of years. It started rebounding in was purely

0:06:48.600 --> 0:06:51.800
<v Speaker 1>a commodity story, so materials, energy, and that was it.

0:06:52.080 --> 0:06:54.520
<v Speaker 1>We've moved on from that. Last year it was all

0:06:54.560 --> 0:06:57.320
<v Speaker 1>a story about technology and so Asia is the biggest

0:06:57.839 --> 0:07:01.040
<v Speaker 1>gainer there. I think this year it's a difference story. Um,

0:07:01.080 --> 0:07:04.440
<v Speaker 1>it's really two stories. It's about the improvement in domestic demand.

0:07:04.640 --> 0:07:07.200
<v Speaker 1>So when we talk about Brazil turning around, the consumer

0:07:07.240 --> 0:07:11.080
<v Speaker 1>coming back, So that would argue for things like consumer names,

0:07:11.120 --> 0:07:14.400
<v Speaker 1>consumer discretionary as well as financials. And I think the

0:07:14.400 --> 0:07:18.840
<v Speaker 1>other second bigger story is also about big export powerhouses

0:07:18.920 --> 0:07:23.240
<v Speaker 1>benefiting from the improvement in industrial production and capex and

0:07:23.280 --> 0:07:26.240
<v Speaker 1>developed markets, and that would argue for things like industrials

0:07:26.240 --> 0:07:28.880
<v Speaker 1>in Asia. Well it seems as so Boeing not to

0:07:28.920 --> 0:07:32.320
<v Speaker 1>mention Asia for your second, but Boeing is certainly believing

0:07:32.360 --> 0:07:35.000
<v Speaker 1>in part of this because of the ongoing negotiations to

0:07:35.080 --> 0:07:39.560
<v Speaker 1>acquire a part or all of em Air, the aircraft

0:07:39.560 --> 0:07:43.360
<v Speaker 1>manufacturer in Brasila, Brazil. So that's still I would say

0:07:43.400 --> 0:07:47.840
<v Speaker 1>there's national trophy, right, so there are some political considerations

0:07:47.880 --> 0:07:50.800
<v Speaker 1>there the pres and this this is worse than talking

0:07:50.800 --> 0:07:54.120
<v Speaker 1>about blockchain with or bitcoin. I didn't say a thing

0:07:54.200 --> 0:08:02.160
<v Speaker 1>about bitcoin, did not going there. Gabriela Santos, Thank god,

0:08:02.160 --> 0:08:05.560
<v Speaker 1>we're out of time with JP. Morgan Asset Management. Thank

0:08:05.600 --> 0:08:21.720
<v Speaker 1>you so much. Whether it's down Dana Telsey, that tells

0:08:21.720 --> 0:08:24.320
<v Speaker 1>the advisory group. Dana, thank you for joining us. I'm

0:08:24.320 --> 0:08:28.240
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Radio, Bloomberg Television earlier where we dived into luxury.

0:08:28.600 --> 0:08:31.520
<v Speaker 1>Let's dive right now to the death of retail. Retail

0:08:31.560 --> 0:08:34.959
<v Speaker 1>is terrible. All the charts are ugly, except in junieh

0:08:35.160 --> 0:08:38.920
<v Speaker 1>of last year, they all started to vault higher in

0:08:39.040 --> 0:08:41.920
<v Speaker 1>share price. Macy's up. Maybe it's a big thing up

0:08:41.960 --> 0:08:44.800
<v Speaker 1>a little bit, but some of these stocks have really moved.

0:08:44.880 --> 0:08:47.920
<v Speaker 1>Let's go back. Why did retails start to do better

0:08:48.360 --> 0:08:51.680
<v Speaker 1>summer of last year? The group and Tom thank you

0:08:51.760 --> 0:08:54.559
<v Speaker 1>very much for having me exactly right. The group bottomed

0:08:54.559 --> 0:08:57.160
<v Speaker 1>in August and in mid November it improved with the

0:08:57.160 --> 0:09:00.320
<v Speaker 1>initial reads that this that the holiday see in the

0:09:00.320 --> 0:09:03.600
<v Speaker 1>fourth quarter outlook was off to a solid start, and

0:09:03.640 --> 0:09:07.000
<v Speaker 1>that was followed by tax reform becoming a reality. And

0:09:07.040 --> 0:09:11.040
<v Speaker 1>then from their keep it from mid August to mid November,

0:09:11.080 --> 0:09:14.120
<v Speaker 1>our stocks are up six eight percent versus the market,

0:09:14.200 --> 0:09:17.280
<v Speaker 1>up just under five and then from mid November until

0:09:17.320 --> 0:09:21.200
<v Speaker 1>now the stocks are up almost sev versus the market

0:09:21.280 --> 0:09:26.160
<v Speaker 1>up ten percent. And frankly, valuations on current consensual consensus

0:09:26.200 --> 0:09:29.000
<v Speaker 1>are certainly reasonable and earnings in our group are going

0:09:29.080 --> 0:09:32.120
<v Speaker 1>to benefit from lower tax rates, so you're still going

0:09:32.160 --> 0:09:35.640
<v Speaker 1>to have some momentum. With the easy comparisons, I mean

0:09:35.679 --> 0:09:38.400
<v Speaker 1>within this is the y up and is it at

0:09:38.400 --> 0:09:41.360
<v Speaker 1>the top line revenue in that crazy mix of unit

0:09:41.400 --> 0:09:44.800
<v Speaker 1>and price, or is it down the income statement where

0:09:44.800 --> 0:09:47.320
<v Speaker 1>they're finally going to maybe generate some cash. Which is

0:09:47.360 --> 0:09:49.920
<v Speaker 1>it at the top or the middle of the income statement.

0:09:50.040 --> 0:09:52.520
<v Speaker 1>It's both. I've got the top because there's a stronger

0:09:52.600 --> 0:09:55.600
<v Speaker 1>response to the fashion cycle. I got I have in

0:09:55.640 --> 0:09:58.920
<v Speaker 1>the middle. It's better position store fleets, it's improved the

0:09:59.000 --> 0:10:02.440
<v Speaker 1>commerce capability these I've got a macro. I have hir

0:10:02.600 --> 0:10:08.120
<v Speaker 1>income consumers and lower income consumers, each having more disposable dollars.

0:10:08.400 --> 0:10:11.240
<v Speaker 1>And I don't have the election hangover like you had

0:10:11.320 --> 0:10:16.119
<v Speaker 1>last year, Dana pim Fox. Here are you on Instagram

0:10:16.120 --> 0:10:18.880
<v Speaker 1>Buy any chance? Not right now? Okay? But you are

0:10:18.920 --> 0:10:21.600
<v Speaker 1>a member, right okay? So you're one of eight hundred

0:10:21.640 --> 0:10:25.960
<v Speaker 1>million users. Of those users are actually connected to a

0:10:26.120 --> 0:10:30.760
<v Speaker 1>business by choice. And where I'm going with this is

0:10:30.800 --> 0:10:34.240
<v Speaker 1>that Facebook, of course, the parent company of Instagram, now

0:10:34.320 --> 0:10:40.120
<v Speaker 1>has agreements to take data from in store UH positions

0:10:40.240 --> 0:10:43.200
<v Speaker 1>of customers. In other words, they can geo locate you

0:10:43.880 --> 0:10:47.160
<v Speaker 1>in a store. They then take the data from the

0:10:47.400 --> 0:10:52.920
<v Speaker 1>store and combine that with your online activity. Is that

0:10:53.200 --> 0:10:56.480
<v Speaker 1>something that you're seeing as being productive not only for

0:10:56.640 --> 0:11:00.800
<v Speaker 1>obviously Facebook, but for the stores themselves. You see more

0:11:01.120 --> 0:11:05.080
<v Speaker 1>focus on knowing more about your customer, whether it's from

0:11:05.200 --> 0:11:09.360
<v Speaker 1>social media, whether it's from CRM systems, whether it's from

0:11:09.440 --> 0:11:13.040
<v Speaker 1>enhanced loyalty programs. Instead of the customer just going to

0:11:13.080 --> 0:11:15.960
<v Speaker 1>the store, the store is coming to the customer. But

0:11:16.040 --> 0:11:19.000
<v Speaker 1>you need to marry this activity of buying with the

0:11:19.040 --> 0:11:21.920
<v Speaker 1>activity of doing. And what we're seeing is we're seeing

0:11:21.920 --> 0:11:25.760
<v Speaker 1>experiential retail come to the forefront. Well, the reason I

0:11:25.800 --> 0:11:28.640
<v Speaker 1>mentioned this all is beriential retail PIM is where your

0:11:28.640 --> 0:11:32.800
<v Speaker 1>will experience. It just means spend more. But think about it.

0:11:32.840 --> 0:11:36.000
<v Speaker 1>You have gyms like Yoga Works, you have beauty salons

0:11:36.080 --> 0:11:38.800
<v Speaker 1>like dry Bar. You have movies which are now wine

0:11:38.840 --> 0:11:41.600
<v Speaker 1>dine and reclined theaters like I Pick. So I have

0:11:41.679 --> 0:11:45.880
<v Speaker 1>a new way that customers are trafficking and center JANEA

0:11:45.880 --> 0:11:51.840
<v Speaker 1>has helped us wine dine and he doesn't even need

0:11:51.880 --> 0:11:54.000
<v Speaker 1>the movie. He just wants to do all three. He

0:11:54.000 --> 0:11:56.960
<v Speaker 1>doesn't you need it all and it happens. Okay. But

0:11:57.080 --> 0:12:00.000
<v Speaker 1>having said that, what I was going with this Instagram

0:12:00.000 --> 0:12:03.160
<v Speaker 1>an online connection is about a third of the content

0:12:03.280 --> 0:12:06.559
<v Speaker 1>that people who use Instagram save you know the new

0:12:06.679 --> 0:12:11.880
<v Speaker 1>save post feature are from business accounts, right, so that

0:12:11.920 --> 0:12:14.760
<v Speaker 1>means they're using it as a wish list of products

0:12:14.800 --> 0:12:19.000
<v Speaker 1>that they may eventually purchase. And as a result, you

0:12:19.040 --> 0:12:21.400
<v Speaker 1>now know that as a merchant and you can help

0:12:21.440 --> 0:12:24.360
<v Speaker 1>them make that purchase in some way exactly. Well, what

0:12:24.679 --> 0:12:27.440
<v Speaker 1>are the things you're seeing is where are companies investing

0:12:27.480 --> 0:12:30.760
<v Speaker 1>their advertising dollars. You've seen a shift going on, and

0:12:30.760 --> 0:12:33.760
<v Speaker 1>the shift for social media and Instagram is what we're

0:12:33.760 --> 0:12:37.680
<v Speaker 1>seeing happen. Dana. One final question, who's battling best against

0:12:37.720 --> 0:12:41.240
<v Speaker 1>the onslaught known as Gucci? Who's like like fighting Gucci

0:12:41.320 --> 0:12:43.040
<v Speaker 1>the best? I mean, you have to think there's a

0:12:43.040 --> 0:12:45.560
<v Speaker 1>couple of companies out there. Have LVMH, who has so

0:12:45.640 --> 0:12:48.800
<v Speaker 1>many brands and so many creative directors. You have PVH

0:12:48.880 --> 0:12:52.120
<v Speaker 1>with Calvin Klein and with Tommy Hilfiger. And let's see

0:12:52.120 --> 0:12:55.280
<v Speaker 1>what caring does given the fact that Gucci, I mean,

0:12:55.320 --> 0:12:58.240
<v Speaker 1>as you said, the momentum is continuing. I think something

0:12:58.280 --> 0:13:01.640
<v Speaker 1>conservative for you, Dana, like the Margaret Leather pump. You

0:13:01.679 --> 0:13:04.640
<v Speaker 1>can't make this up, folks, The Queen Margaret Leather pump

0:13:04.679 --> 0:13:10.000
<v Speaker 1>at Bergdorf one thousand, one fifty dollars. Every home should have,

0:13:10.640 --> 0:13:12.960
<v Speaker 1>well at least the black ones, but maybe even pin

0:13:13.080 --> 0:13:15.880
<v Speaker 1>the pink and the black ones as well. Dana, Telsey,

0:13:15.960 --> 0:13:19.040
<v Speaker 1>thank you so much, greatly appreciate it. With Telsey Advisory

0:13:19.040 --> 0:13:31.679
<v Speaker 1>Group as well. Just the final chapter of his book,

0:13:32.600 --> 0:13:35.480
<v Speaker 1>call It twenty Pages, is probably a good place for

0:13:35.520 --> 0:13:39.200
<v Speaker 1>the President to start a strategy for competing in a

0:13:39.240 --> 0:13:44.839
<v Speaker 1>globalized world. After the Pierceborgan interview Edward Alden. His book

0:13:44.880 --> 0:13:48.559
<v Speaker 1>Failure to Adjust is absolutely phenomenal. It is a dense

0:13:49.160 --> 0:13:53.080
<v Speaker 1>pro read on how Americans got left behind and the

0:13:53.080 --> 0:13:56.640
<v Speaker 1>global economy. Ted Alden, good morning, Um, is you write

0:13:56.679 --> 0:14:00.520
<v Speaker 1>about the startling comments the President made to Mr Morgan

0:14:01.559 --> 0:14:04.560
<v Speaker 1>about Europe. I've had a lot of problems with the

0:14:04.600 --> 0:14:08.959
<v Speaker 1>European Union and may morph into something very big. Um,

0:14:09.000 --> 0:14:11.840
<v Speaker 1>He's gone after people that we usually think of, Why

0:14:11.920 --> 0:14:15.120
<v Speaker 1>go after Europe? Well, I presume the reason he's going

0:14:15.160 --> 0:14:17.800
<v Speaker 1>after Europe is the same reason he's going after Mexico

0:14:18.040 --> 0:14:20.520
<v Speaker 1>and after South Korea and after China, which is the

0:14:20.640 --> 0:14:24.440
<v Speaker 1>large trade surplus that Europe, mostly Germany runs with the

0:14:24.520 --> 0:14:26.840
<v Speaker 1>United States. But it is an odd choice. I mean,

0:14:26.880 --> 0:14:29.920
<v Speaker 1>if you look at where the real challenges on trade lie,

0:14:30.040 --> 0:14:33.160
<v Speaker 1>China looms by far the largest. We could sure use

0:14:33.200 --> 0:14:35.200
<v Speaker 1>the Europeans help on that one. We could use the

0:14:35.240 --> 0:14:40.960
<v Speaker 1>Europeans help, which speaks of maybe multilateral is too strong. Uh,

0:14:41.160 --> 0:14:42.880
<v Speaker 1>some would say hope in prayer. I don't mean to

0:14:42.960 --> 0:14:46.960
<v Speaker 1>give it, but I mean, really the body language that

0:14:47.080 --> 0:14:50.360
<v Speaker 1>Davos was, Okay, we're bilateral, but we're gonna make the rules.

0:14:50.960 --> 0:14:53.400
<v Speaker 1>Is that what he wants with Europe as well? We're bilateral,

0:14:53.640 --> 0:14:56.880
<v Speaker 1>but we make the rules on bree cheese. I don't know.

0:14:56.960 --> 0:14:59.280
<v Speaker 1>It's it's a little puzzling. I mean, you know, the

0:14:59.360 --> 0:15:01.480
<v Speaker 1>chance to make the rules on breeches and it wasn't

0:15:01.480 --> 0:15:03.760
<v Speaker 1>gonna happen even there. But that was the t tip talks,

0:15:03.800 --> 0:15:06.360
<v Speaker 1>and those have been suspended either the Europeans nor this

0:15:06.440 --> 0:15:10.120
<v Speaker 1>administration or particularly eager to move forward to. But I

0:15:10.160 --> 0:15:12.200
<v Speaker 1>would think that there are some at least some lowest

0:15:12.240 --> 0:15:16.760
<v Speaker 1>common denominator possibilities for cooperation and and and that would

0:15:16.760 --> 0:15:19.000
<v Speaker 1>be on China. I mean, European companies are having the

0:15:19.080 --> 0:15:22.920
<v Speaker 1>same problems in China that American companies are having. Um,

0:15:22.960 --> 0:15:25.280
<v Speaker 1>that's a much bigger fish to fry, it seems to

0:15:25.360 --> 0:15:27.920
<v Speaker 1>me than than worrying about Germany's trades are plus with

0:15:27.960 --> 0:15:29.640
<v Speaker 1>the United States, most of which is, you know, kind

0:15:29.680 --> 0:15:33.400
<v Speaker 1>of fairly come by that. Germans are a great manufacturing nation.

0:15:33.440 --> 0:15:35.400
<v Speaker 1>They make really good products. That's kind of the way

0:15:35.400 --> 0:15:38.080
<v Speaker 1>the world's supposed to work on question. Do we have

0:15:38.200 --> 0:15:43.160
<v Speaker 1>a quote unquote excuse me, it's a plague, folks, massive

0:15:43.200 --> 0:15:47.560
<v Speaker 1>trade deficit? Do we have a massive trade deficit with Germany? Well,

0:15:47.560 --> 0:15:49.400
<v Speaker 1>it's I mean it's large, it's you know, in the

0:15:49.440 --> 0:15:52.000
<v Speaker 1>sort of sixty seventy billion dollar range. But if you know,

0:15:52.040 --> 0:15:54.640
<v Speaker 1>if you compare it to the definite of China, which

0:15:54.760 --> 0:15:57.360
<v Speaker 1>over three fifty billion dollars. No, I don't think massive

0:15:57.480 --> 0:16:00.720
<v Speaker 1>is the right word. I think significant. Perhaps I'm running

0:16:00.800 --> 0:16:03.840
<v Speaker 1>based on the title of your book, Failure to Adjust

0:16:03.840 --> 0:16:07.080
<v Speaker 1>how Americans got left behind in the global economy. What

0:16:07.120 --> 0:16:10.240
<v Speaker 1>would be a specific example of something that we would

0:16:10.280 --> 0:16:13.600
<v Speaker 1>see in another country that we don't see here that

0:16:13.640 --> 0:16:17.040
<v Speaker 1>you find that we're left behind? Oh, a whole bunch

0:16:17.040 --> 0:16:18.880
<v Speaker 1>of things. I mean, you look at at the existence

0:16:18.920 --> 0:16:22.720
<v Speaker 1>of apprenticeship programs and and work education experience far more

0:16:22.760 --> 0:16:26.080
<v Speaker 1>prevalent in Europe. You look at their system for supporting

0:16:26.160 --> 0:16:29.160
<v Speaker 1>unemployed workers and getting them back into the job market.

0:16:29.200 --> 0:16:32.840
<v Speaker 1>The average European country spends five or six times what

0:16:32.880 --> 0:16:35.160
<v Speaker 1>we do. Okay, but hang on, hang on right there, okay,

0:16:35.160 --> 0:16:37.280
<v Speaker 1>So hang on right there with unemployment, So why do

0:16:37.320 --> 0:16:40.080
<v Speaker 1>you have chronically high unemployment in a place like Spain.

0:16:40.840 --> 0:16:43.040
<v Speaker 1>Oh well, look, I mean Spain is not, you know,

0:16:43.120 --> 0:16:45.360
<v Speaker 1>particularly the best model here, and there are lots of

0:16:45.400 --> 0:16:48.200
<v Speaker 1>reasons for high unemployment. Um, what I'm saying is that

0:16:48.280 --> 0:16:52.280
<v Speaker 1>if you lose your job in Germany or Denmark, or

0:16:52.320 --> 0:16:55.560
<v Speaker 1>Sweden or most of them. Wait wait wait wait wait

0:16:55.560 --> 0:16:57.680
<v Speaker 1>wait wait. You can't cherry pick this, can you. I mean,

0:16:57.680 --> 0:16:59.360
<v Speaker 1>I'm just saying, Look, if you look at the europe

0:16:59.560 --> 0:17:01.520
<v Speaker 1>you're telling you're saying that the United States has got

0:17:01.600 --> 0:17:06.119
<v Speaker 1>left behind for unemployment benefits. We do have unemployment insurance,

0:17:06.760 --> 0:17:10.160
<v Speaker 1>and you have a completely different mindset when it comes

0:17:10.160 --> 0:17:13.399
<v Speaker 1>to the labor market here because of the effect of unions. Right,

0:17:13.560 --> 0:17:16.320
<v Speaker 1>Unions sit on the boards of most companies in Germany.

0:17:16.720 --> 0:17:18.840
<v Speaker 1>Oh look, I have I would agree that there are

0:17:18.920 --> 0:17:22.000
<v Speaker 1>reasons for the difference. I'm just saying that if you're

0:17:22.040 --> 0:17:25.680
<v Speaker 1>trying to get maximum benefits out of your workforce, retrain

0:17:25.760 --> 0:17:27.199
<v Speaker 1>them for the jobs that are available. You've got six

0:17:27.240 --> 0:17:29.760
<v Speaker 1>million jobs open in the United States right now, and

0:17:29.840 --> 0:17:32.840
<v Speaker 1>manufacturers crying bloody murder because they don't have folks with

0:17:32.840 --> 0:17:35.240
<v Speaker 1>the skills to fill those jobs. And we are doing

0:17:35.320 --> 0:17:37.240
<v Speaker 1>little or nothing as a country to try to meet

0:17:37.280 --> 0:17:39.760
<v Speaker 1>that demand, so you feel that the it's a government's

0:17:39.760 --> 0:17:43.040
<v Speaker 1>responsibility to do that. No, not necessarily. I mean, if

0:17:43.080 --> 0:17:45.080
<v Speaker 1>you look at the Swedish model, it's all run by

0:17:45.119 --> 0:17:48.440
<v Speaker 1>the companies with some cooperation from the union. Excuse me,

0:17:48.480 --> 0:17:51.200
<v Speaker 1>I got a bit of tom I think I think

0:17:52.520 --> 0:17:55.760
<v Speaker 1>everybody's got the plague. I mean, it's it is. It's

0:17:55.760 --> 0:17:59.879
<v Speaker 1>a bad season, absolutely, it is a bad bad season.

0:18:00.119 --> 0:18:02.159
<v Speaker 1>Within you know all that we're going What are you

0:18:02.160 --> 0:18:04.960
<v Speaker 1>even listened for from the state of the Union. I

0:18:05.000 --> 0:18:08.280
<v Speaker 1>assume it's going to be the same discussion as Davos,

0:18:08.400 --> 0:18:10.480
<v Speaker 1>which is, you know, this is the way America is

0:18:10.520 --> 0:18:14.320
<v Speaker 1>doing it. We're angry, We're an aggrieved America. So these

0:18:14.359 --> 0:18:16.399
<v Speaker 1>are the rules, and if you want to participate, great,

0:18:16.440 --> 0:18:19.480
<v Speaker 1>But is that a trade policy? Well, it's not a

0:18:19.480 --> 0:18:21.119
<v Speaker 1>trade policy in the sense that you've got to make

0:18:21.160 --> 0:18:23.399
<v Speaker 1>some choices. Obviously you can pick fights, and there's some

0:18:23.440 --> 0:18:26.080
<v Speaker 1>fights worth picking, but I think the president has got

0:18:26.080 --> 0:18:29.040
<v Speaker 1>to decide which those are. Are we more worried about NAFTA,

0:18:29.080 --> 0:18:30.919
<v Speaker 1>or be more worried about Korea, or may be more

0:18:30.960 --> 0:18:34.359
<v Speaker 1>worried about China? Are we more worried about Germany? What's

0:18:34.400 --> 0:18:37.240
<v Speaker 1>the order of priority? And how is the United States

0:18:37.240 --> 0:18:39.000
<v Speaker 1>going to go after these we we we may know

0:18:39.160 --> 0:18:42.679
<v Speaker 1>more very soon when the announcements are made with respect

0:18:42.760 --> 0:18:45.480
<v Speaker 1>to China trade policy, which are which are coming soon.

0:18:45.520 --> 0:18:48.399
<v Speaker 1>But I'm hoping to get some clear sense of the

0:18:48.520 --> 0:18:52.879
<v Speaker 1>hierarchy of priorities for this administration on trade. Well, the

0:18:52.880 --> 0:18:56.280
<v Speaker 1>most recent news perhaps is the Bombardier deal. Right. Bombardier

0:18:56.359 --> 0:18:59.600
<v Speaker 1>can now start shipping those C series jets to Delta

0:18:59.680 --> 0:19:01.960
<v Speaker 1>air Lines because of that ruling of the U. S

0:19:02.000 --> 0:19:05.680
<v Speaker 1>Trade Panel that was on Friday, Right, And so that

0:19:05.840 --> 0:19:08.520
<v Speaker 1>means that Boeing isn't going to get what it wants.

0:19:08.880 --> 0:19:10.800
<v Speaker 1>Is this an indication of the kind of things you're

0:19:10.800 --> 0:19:14.040
<v Speaker 1>talking about? Well, I mean you can't necessarily conflate this

0:19:14.119 --> 0:19:16.719
<v Speaker 1>with the Trump administration's policy. That decision was made by

0:19:16.720 --> 0:19:20.200
<v Speaker 1>the International Trade Commission, which is an independent body, long

0:19:20.320 --> 0:19:23.480
<v Speaker 1>history of independence. They looked into the case and simply said,

0:19:23.600 --> 0:19:26.879
<v Speaker 1>you know, Boeing's claim for having been injured doesn't hold up,

0:19:26.920 --> 0:19:28.400
<v Speaker 1>and I think a lot of the analysts looking at

0:19:28.400 --> 0:19:31.280
<v Speaker 1>it thought that was the correct decision. Um Interestingly, though,

0:19:31.280 --> 0:19:34.040
<v Speaker 1>those planes are now coming from Alabama. I mean, bombard

0:19:34.040 --> 0:19:36.240
<v Speaker 1>you entered into a joint venture with Airbus to produce

0:19:36.280 --> 0:19:38.639
<v Speaker 1>them inside the United States, in part because they were

0:19:38.680 --> 0:19:40.800
<v Speaker 1>having their own problems, but in part to get around

0:19:40.800 --> 0:19:43.800
<v Speaker 1>what they feared would be tariffs. So so it doesn't

0:19:43.800 --> 0:19:46.920
<v Speaker 1>that end up being a good thing for the United States. Absolutely,

0:19:46.960 --> 0:19:49.240
<v Speaker 1>I mean one of the really interesting things about Trump's

0:19:49.280 --> 0:19:52.400
<v Speaker 1>policy is that in the short run, it can pay

0:19:52.440 --> 0:19:54.960
<v Speaker 1>some benefits. I mean you look at h at the

0:19:54.960 --> 0:19:58.000
<v Speaker 1>announcement by Chrysler to bring its light truck production back

0:19:58.000 --> 0:20:00.719
<v Speaker 1>from Mexico. That was a hedge a against the NAFTA

0:20:00.760 --> 0:20:03.200
<v Speaker 1>going away, which would have meant that those vehicles face

0:20:03.280 --> 0:20:06.960
<v Speaker 1>to tariff. You look at the announcements by Apple, you

0:20:07.000 --> 0:20:10.040
<v Speaker 1>look at the expansion announcements by Toyota. I mean, companies

0:20:10.040 --> 0:20:12.720
<v Speaker 1>are trying to say to the President, yeah, we're going

0:20:12.800 --> 0:20:15.600
<v Speaker 1>to bed big on America, and and the tax reform helps, right,

0:20:16.480 --> 0:20:18.439
<v Speaker 1>corporate tax looks a heck of a lot better than

0:20:19.440 --> 0:20:22.320
<v Speaker 1>So there's no question it can pay some benefits. Question

0:20:22.359 --> 0:20:25.600
<v Speaker 1>is do other countries respond in ways that harm us

0:20:25.640 --> 0:20:28.080
<v Speaker 1>export interests? We have seen that, yet we have we

0:20:28.160 --> 0:20:33.760
<v Speaker 1>have economists at all explained to us the trade dynamics

0:20:33.800 --> 0:20:37.359
<v Speaker 1>against savings equal investment and all that. Let's have you do.

0:20:37.440 --> 0:20:42.639
<v Speaker 1>It is a more international relations specialist. When we say

0:20:42.960 --> 0:20:46.480
<v Speaker 1>deficits are bad or surpluses are bad, that's confusing to

0:20:46.560 --> 0:20:50.000
<v Speaker 1>our listeners. What do we want? Do we want a

0:20:50.040 --> 0:20:52.840
<v Speaker 1>little deficit, do we want a surplus? What? What is

0:20:52.960 --> 0:20:55.919
<v Speaker 1>the goal? I mean? I think the goal should be

0:20:56.000 --> 0:20:59.720
<v Speaker 1>global economic growth, and we obviously want a big piece

0:20:59.720 --> 0:21:01.720
<v Speaker 1>of that. And that's where the focus on the depth.

0:21:01.800 --> 0:21:05.320
<v Speaker 1>That doesn't necessarily make a lot of sense because generally speaking,

0:21:05.359 --> 0:21:08.320
<v Speaker 1>when the U. S economy grows more strongly, the trade

0:21:08.359 --> 0:21:11.439
<v Speaker 1>deficit goes up. Um that said, you know, there are

0:21:11.480 --> 0:21:13.119
<v Speaker 1>things you don't want to do. You don't want to

0:21:13.160 --> 0:21:16.879
<v Speaker 1>be running a big budget deficit, which US government has

0:21:16.920 --> 0:21:18.760
<v Speaker 1>been doing for a long time. You don't want a

0:21:18.840 --> 0:21:22.119
<v Speaker 1>currency that's too strong that knocks you out of global markets.

0:21:22.160 --> 0:21:24.480
<v Speaker 1>And I have some sympathy with the Trump administration on

0:21:24.560 --> 0:21:27.040
<v Speaker 1>that one. So so I don't think the trade deficit

0:21:27.119 --> 0:21:31.040
<v Speaker 1>alone is a good metric. But attracting investment, attracting jobs,

0:21:31.040 --> 0:21:33.320
<v Speaker 1>boosting exports, those are all good things that we want

0:21:33.359 --> 0:21:36.800
<v Speaker 1>to pay attention to as a country. Tell all the

0:21:37.960 --> 0:21:54.639
<v Speaker 1>concept formulations failure to adjustice is wonderful booking. Are you

0:21:54.800 --> 0:21:59.440
<v Speaker 1>gallows with Federated, which runs a huge amount of coupon money.

0:21:59.440 --> 0:22:03.240
<v Speaker 1>His focus, he's on municipal bonds. He's had of something

0:22:03.520 --> 0:22:07.440
<v Speaker 1>called the duration committee. R J. Gallo, with your experience

0:22:07.520 --> 0:22:11.280
<v Speaker 1>in in fixed income, what does the duration committee do

0:22:11.359 --> 0:22:15.160
<v Speaker 1>at a shop like Federated? Good morning Tom and him

0:22:15.200 --> 0:22:18.080
<v Speaker 1>and thanks for having me um. Our main role on

0:22:18.119 --> 0:22:22.800
<v Speaker 1>the Duration Committee is to make tactical calls on the

0:22:22.840 --> 0:22:26.760
<v Speaker 1>direction of underlying US market yields, focusing on treasuries obviously

0:22:26.760 --> 0:22:29.439
<v Speaker 1>the you know, sort of the basis for US fixed income.

0:22:30.119 --> 0:22:33.639
<v Speaker 1>Our goal there is to generate alpha, generate access return

0:22:34.440 --> 0:22:37.639
<v Speaker 1>by shading our duration shorter along depending upon what we

0:22:37.720 --> 0:22:41.520
<v Speaker 1>expect from a macroeconomic context and a market outcome. Uh.

0:22:41.560 --> 0:22:43.640
<v Speaker 1>You know, it's a it's a tough job. Calling rates

0:22:43.720 --> 0:22:45.840
<v Speaker 1>is never an easy thing to do, especially with massive

0:22:46.200 --> 0:22:48.920
<v Speaker 1>central bank balance sheets. But that's our goal. Okay, what's

0:22:48.960 --> 0:22:52.719
<v Speaker 1>the level of sweat at the esteemed Federated group this morning?

0:22:52.760 --> 0:22:55.199
<v Speaker 1>And I say that in the sense of all of

0:22:55.200 --> 0:23:00.240
<v Speaker 1>our listeners understand yield up, price down. We're it is

0:23:00.320 --> 0:23:06.480
<v Speaker 1>Federated hide in two thousand. Well, uh, it's interesting you

0:23:06.840 --> 0:23:09.160
<v Speaker 1>say that we we we meet on an ad hoc

0:23:09.240 --> 0:23:12.600
<v Speaker 1>basis and at least monthly to to adjust our duration call.

0:23:12.720 --> 0:23:16.440
<v Speaker 1>We have been tactically short uh for for quite some time,

0:23:16.480 --> 0:23:20.120
<v Speaker 1>but to varying degrees. That worked rather well last year

0:23:20.240 --> 0:23:22.240
<v Speaker 1>for all bonds the eight years, and in of course

0:23:22.320 --> 0:23:25.200
<v Speaker 1>last year was a relentless flattner. This year we're seeing

0:23:25.240 --> 0:23:29.560
<v Speaker 1>all yields heading higher, which is more typical. I looked

0:23:29.560 --> 0:23:32.080
<v Speaker 1>at the data going back forty five years, and only

0:23:32.119 --> 0:23:35.240
<v Speaker 1>four times in forty five years has the yield on

0:23:35.320 --> 0:23:38.359
<v Speaker 1>the ten year gone in a different direction than the

0:23:38.359 --> 0:23:41.840
<v Speaker 1>market weighted average yield on the entire bar Cap Treasury index.

0:23:42.160 --> 0:23:44.400
<v Speaker 1>Last year was one of those years. Phenomenal to say

0:23:44.440 --> 0:23:46.440
<v Speaker 1>that again, that's so important to say it again, Tim,

0:23:46.480 --> 0:23:48.560
<v Speaker 1>jump in here. Only four times in forty five years

0:23:48.560 --> 0:23:50.720
<v Speaker 1>of history of the bar Cap Treasury Index has the

0:23:50.760 --> 0:23:53.480
<v Speaker 1>yield on the index gone in a different mathematical direction

0:23:53.760 --> 0:23:55.560
<v Speaker 1>than the yield in the ten year, and last year

0:23:55.560 --> 0:23:58.280
<v Speaker 1>was one of those years. In other words, it was extraordinary,

0:23:58.920 --> 0:24:01.480
<v Speaker 1>and we anticipate this year will be a little bit

0:24:01.520 --> 0:24:04.000
<v Speaker 1>more normal in that sense that all yields will be

0:24:04.040 --> 0:24:07.000
<v Speaker 1>heading higher. We're not positioning for a massive spike or

0:24:07.040 --> 0:24:09.600
<v Speaker 1>a massive bear market, or a rerun of the taper tantrum.

0:24:10.040 --> 0:24:12.480
<v Speaker 1>But we think that the U S economy, the global economy,

0:24:12.680 --> 0:24:15.920
<v Speaker 1>even the inflation picture are such that yields should be

0:24:15.960 --> 0:24:19.560
<v Speaker 1>heading upwards and and a cautious duration short is warranted

0:24:20.160 --> 0:24:21.760
<v Speaker 1>in terms of what are you how you gonna make money?

0:24:21.760 --> 0:24:24.760
<v Speaker 1>And fixed income well, when when high quality treasury yields

0:24:24.800 --> 0:24:27.360
<v Speaker 1>are rising, you know clearly that's some price loss, that's

0:24:27.359 --> 0:24:30.320
<v Speaker 1>a headwind to total return. But active management and the

0:24:30.359 --> 0:24:34.760
<v Speaker 1>other fixed income sectors UH presents opportunities. Nevertheless, and we're

0:24:34.800 --> 0:24:38.560
<v Speaker 1>still overweight for example, corporate high yield UH. There's a

0:24:38.560 --> 0:24:41.159
<v Speaker 1>lot of caution about evaluation there. We've peeled back a

0:24:41.200 --> 0:24:43.560
<v Speaker 1>little bit, but we remain overweight relative to our neutral

0:24:43.600 --> 0:24:47.600
<v Speaker 1>positioning there. We're looking for opportunities in other spaces. We

0:24:47.640 --> 0:24:50.800
<v Speaker 1>think munties, for example UM are a portion of the

0:24:50.880 --> 0:24:54.520
<v Speaker 1>US fixed income marketplace where you can get relatively attractive

0:24:54.560 --> 0:24:57.119
<v Speaker 1>total returns versus treasuries. Well, that's why I wanted to

0:24:57.160 --> 0:25:00.000
<v Speaker 1>go with you is the municipal bond market and are

0:24:59.880 --> 0:25:03.720
<v Speaker 1>to well. Recently Embarons talking about pension fund liabilities for

0:25:03.840 --> 0:25:07.440
<v Speaker 1>public pension funds, having said that what area of the

0:25:07.560 --> 0:25:10.800
<v Speaker 1>muni market would you be interested in? We're talking revenue

0:25:10.840 --> 0:25:15.760
<v Speaker 1>bonds or anything specific. We tend to be and have

0:25:15.960 --> 0:25:17.960
<v Speaker 1>been for for a while now, and I would say

0:25:18.119 --> 0:25:20.720
<v Speaker 1>we arguably were little early. In some cases, we tend

0:25:20.720 --> 0:25:25.159
<v Speaker 1>to be overweight revenue sectors that have a greater leverage

0:25:25.240 --> 0:25:27.879
<v Speaker 1>or exposure, if you will, to the economic cycle. So

0:25:27.960 --> 0:25:32.000
<v Speaker 1>that would include areas like toll road revenue bonds airport

0:25:32.080 --> 0:25:35.080
<v Speaker 1>revenue bonds, both of which have done relatively well in

0:25:35.440 --> 0:25:39.520
<v Speaker 1>an absolute return standpoint and a relative return standpoint, because

0:25:39.520 --> 0:25:41.720
<v Speaker 1>the underlying economy has been winded the back of the

0:25:41.760 --> 0:25:45.600
<v Speaker 1>performance of those types of issuers. Um, we also tend

0:25:45.640 --> 0:25:49.399
<v Speaker 1>to be a little underweight local geos. Uh. There we

0:25:49.400 --> 0:25:52.320
<v Speaker 1>were a little early, I admit. Um. The pension challenge

0:25:52.800 --> 0:25:58.080
<v Speaker 1>is well known. It is, however not universal. Pension challenges

0:25:58.080 --> 0:26:00.280
<v Speaker 1>are far greater in states like New Jersey and Anois

0:26:00.280 --> 0:26:03.040
<v Speaker 1>than they are in Florida, for example, and so there

0:26:03.040 --> 0:26:06.720
<v Speaker 1>are plenty of opportunities to be selective about which geos

0:26:06.760 --> 0:26:09.399
<v Speaker 1>you own, and we have tended to do that. The

0:26:09.480 --> 0:26:13.679
<v Speaker 1>market does create opportunities where assets are mispriced or poorly

0:26:13.800 --> 0:26:17.800
<v Speaker 1>priced relative to the risk they present. So, for example, Illinois,

0:26:17.800 --> 0:26:20.760
<v Speaker 1>in the first part of last year, everybody hated Illinois,

0:26:20.800 --> 0:26:23.679
<v Speaker 1>and the spreads were huge, you know, two fifty basis

0:26:23.720 --> 0:26:26.880
<v Speaker 1>points over triple A munis. We felt ultimately they were

0:26:26.880 --> 0:26:30.399
<v Speaker 1>going to resolve their multi year budget impass, and we

0:26:30.400 --> 0:26:33.880
<v Speaker 1>were adding at that time that was a huge opportunity

0:26:33.880 --> 0:26:36.800
<v Speaker 1>for out performance with which actually worked. Of course, pensions

0:26:36.800 --> 0:26:38.959
<v Speaker 1>aren't fixed in Illinois because they finally got a budget.

0:26:39.160 --> 0:26:41.680
<v Speaker 1>So that's a multi chapter story that still has many

0:26:41.760 --> 0:26:44.520
<v Speaker 1>chapters to go. But our active management is focusing on

0:26:44.560 --> 0:26:47.119
<v Speaker 1>revenue bonds and taking risk when we feel like prices

0:26:47.119 --> 0:26:50.040
<v Speaker 1>are compensating us for taking that risk in spots even

0:26:50.040 --> 0:26:54.159
<v Speaker 1>where geo's may be struggling with pension challenges. Thank you

0:26:54.200 --> 0:26:55.919
<v Speaker 1>so much, r J. Gillow. We need to get you

0:26:55.960 --> 0:26:58.240
<v Speaker 1>back for a longer discussion. We're sorry with a new

0:26:58.280 --> 0:27:00.480
<v Speaker 1>slow today, but we sent a raid to this is

0:27:00.480 --> 0:27:09.760
<v Speaker 1>an important discussion on those challenges. Thanks for listening to

0:27:09.800 --> 0:27:14.320
<v Speaker 1>the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and listen to interviews on

0:27:14.400 --> 0:27:20.240
<v Speaker 1>Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whichever podcast platform you prefer. I'm

0:27:20.280 --> 0:27:23.560
<v Speaker 1>on Twitter at Tom Keene Before the podcast, you can

0:27:23.640 --> 0:27:26.800
<v Speaker 1>always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio