1
00:00:02,640 --> 00:00:05,320
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Penel Podcast. I'm Paul Swinge. You.

2
00:00:05,360 --> 00:00:07,680
Speaker 1: Along with my co host Lisa Brahma Waits, each day

3
00:00:07,720 --> 00:00:10,240
Speaker 1: we bring you the most noteworthy and useful interviews for

4
00:00:10,280 --> 00:00:12,520
Speaker 1: you and your money. Whether at the grocery store or

5
00:00:12,560 --> 00:00:15,480
Speaker 1: the trading floor. Find a Bloomberg penl podcast on Apple

6
00:00:15,520 --> 00:00:17,959
Speaker 1: Podcast or wherever you listen to podcasts, as well as

7
00:00:17,960 --> 00:00:25,080
Speaker 1: at Bloomberg dot com. Well, the Wall Street Journal is

8
00:00:25,239 --> 00:00:29,160
Speaker 1: reporting that Vanguard Group held preliminary talks with private equity

9
00:00:29,200 --> 00:00:33,080
Speaker 1: firms as it considers offering alternative investments to its clients.

10
00:00:33,320 --> 00:00:36,199
Speaker 1: To get the latest returned to Eric call Tunist. Eric

11
00:00:36,320 --> 00:00:38,760
Speaker 1: is a senior et f annalyst for Bloomberg Intelligence based

12
00:00:38,760 --> 00:00:41,000
Speaker 1: in Princeton, New Jersey. Eric, thanks so much for joining us.

13
00:00:41,400 --> 00:00:43,920
Speaker 1: What do you think Vanguard is doing here as it

14
00:00:43,960 --> 00:00:46,479
Speaker 1: takes a look at the private equity space. Yeah, I

15
00:00:46,520 --> 00:00:48,159
Speaker 1: think a lot of people when they first look at this,

16
00:00:48,200 --> 00:00:51,360
Speaker 1: they think they're going to offer mutual funds right for

17
00:00:51,400 --> 00:00:54,600
Speaker 1: the masses, But this is a little different. What the

18
00:00:54,720 --> 00:00:58,680
Speaker 1: story really taps into, in my opinion, is the growing

19
00:00:58,760 --> 00:01:03,560
Speaker 1: advisory businesses Vanguard. Vanguard has five trillion a little more

20
00:01:03,600 --> 00:01:06,520
Speaker 1: than that, actually in fund assets, but it's only got

21
00:01:06,520 --> 00:01:09,760
Speaker 1: about a hundred billion in advisory assets. This is money

22
00:01:09,800 --> 00:01:14,600
Speaker 1: that it gives a tax. Advice manages your portfolio, but

23
00:01:14,720 --> 00:01:17,280
Speaker 1: that's a growing business of theirs, And what they're what

24
00:01:17,360 --> 00:01:20,959
Speaker 1: they're looking at is, hey, we're advisors now and we

25
00:01:21,120 --> 00:01:24,280
Speaker 1: offer obviously exposure to public markets, but we see that

26
00:01:24,360 --> 00:01:29,360
Speaker 1: there's less companies going public, they're waiting longer. Private equity

27
00:01:29,480 --> 00:01:31,559
Speaker 1: is where there's a lot of wealth to be made.

28
00:01:31,920 --> 00:01:35,880
Speaker 1: Potentially we could offer this to those clients, at least

29
00:01:35,880 --> 00:01:39,080
Speaker 1: the ones that pass the accredited investor test, which most

30
00:01:39,160 --> 00:01:42,360
Speaker 1: retail investors I think that use Vanguard would uh, And

31
00:01:42,440 --> 00:01:45,679
Speaker 1: so it's in my opinion pretty logical. The private equity

32
00:01:45,720 --> 00:01:47,800
Speaker 1: market is expected to grow their skating to where the

33
00:01:47,800 --> 00:01:50,480
Speaker 1: puck will be. The interesting part is will they be

34
00:01:50,520 --> 00:01:54,840
Speaker 1: able to offer it in vanguardian fees? Right now private

35
00:01:54,840 --> 00:01:57,720
Speaker 1: equity fund could be one or two percent, if not more.

36
00:01:58,240 --> 00:02:01,240
Speaker 1: Vanguard is used to offering funds at ten basis points.

37
00:02:01,240 --> 00:02:04,760
Speaker 1: So yeah, that's a big question mark, but certainly it's

38
00:02:04,800 --> 00:02:09,600
Speaker 1: not surprising, especially in the post Vogel Vogel Vanguard is

39
00:02:09,639 --> 00:02:12,440
Speaker 1: a little more aggressive. Well, I want to pick up

40
00:02:12,480 --> 00:02:14,960
Speaker 1: on exactly that point the whole concept of fees here,

41
00:02:14,960 --> 00:02:18,640
Speaker 1: because Vanderguard is the indexing giant, They're really the ones

42
00:02:19,000 --> 00:02:22,960
Speaker 1: with John Vogel, who really came up with the idea

43
00:02:23,200 --> 00:02:26,520
Speaker 1: of a low fee type of funds that just tried

44
00:02:26,560 --> 00:02:30,600
Speaker 1: to track the market performance. Uh. They arguably have been

45
00:02:30,639 --> 00:02:34,119
Speaker 1: responsible for what we've seen across the asset management industry

46
00:02:34,680 --> 00:02:36,840
Speaker 1: with a lot of the firms facing a lot of

47
00:02:36,880 --> 00:02:40,760
Speaker 1: print pressure is due to those lowered fees. Will Vanguard

48
00:02:40,800 --> 00:02:44,680
Speaker 1: do the same thing to private equity? So yeah, I

49
00:02:44,760 --> 00:02:47,840
Speaker 1: think they could start that ball rolling. Uh. You know

50
00:02:47,919 --> 00:02:51,560
Speaker 1: what's interesting is Vanguard has this situation where they offer

51
00:02:51,680 --> 00:02:56,000
Speaker 1: active mutual funds and about half of the one point

52
00:02:56,080 --> 00:02:59,520
Speaker 1: three trillion they have an active mutual point assets is subadvised.

53
00:03:00,240 --> 00:03:02,640
Speaker 1: I think they could do something similar here. But what's

54
00:03:02,680 --> 00:03:05,920
Speaker 1: interesting about those active mutual fund assets is that the

55
00:03:06,280 --> 00:03:09,760
Speaker 1: asset weighted average fee is about twenty basis points. So

56
00:03:09,800 --> 00:03:12,280
Speaker 1: they figured out a way to get active cheap. They

57
00:03:12,400 --> 00:03:14,280
Speaker 1: probably do the same thing with private equity. They're just

58
00:03:14,320 --> 00:03:16,639
Speaker 1: not going to offer something expensive. Now. The question is,

59
00:03:16,720 --> 00:03:18,880
Speaker 1: let's say they start doing this and they offer a

60
00:03:18,880 --> 00:03:23,080
Speaker 1: fund for private equity that's say forty basis points or something. Um, yeah,

61
00:03:23,160 --> 00:03:26,000
Speaker 1: I think that could start to create what we call

62
00:03:26,160 --> 00:03:29,480
Speaker 1: this the Vanguard effect. It's not just Vanguard offering it cheap.

63
00:03:29,840 --> 00:03:32,800
Speaker 1: It's that they force others in the neighborhood to lower

64
00:03:32,840 --> 00:03:34,600
Speaker 1: their fees. That's just been going on in E T

65
00:03:34,760 --> 00:03:38,360
Speaker 1: F and funds for the last thirty years. So yeah,

66
00:03:38,520 --> 00:03:40,720
Speaker 1: I think it could be something. It just probably is

67
00:03:40,720 --> 00:03:43,520
Speaker 1: going to take quite a while. Again, given that the

68
00:03:43,560 --> 00:03:46,480
Speaker 1: advisory assets they have is only about a hundred billion,

69
00:03:47,000 --> 00:03:49,119
Speaker 1: so that's why this is going to be a very

70
00:03:49,200 --> 00:03:52,040
Speaker 1: slow process. But look, I've looked at the fees. They're

71
00:03:52,120 --> 00:03:54,680
Speaker 1: kind of right for disruption, I would say, and Vanguard

72
00:03:54,720 --> 00:03:58,200
Speaker 1: is the king of disruptors in asset management. So that

73
00:03:58,240 --> 00:04:00,800
Speaker 1: brings me to my question, what has been the response

74
00:04:01,560 --> 00:04:04,880
Speaker 1: from the private equity community today, Because when Vanguard you know,

75
00:04:04,920 --> 00:04:08,200
Speaker 1: starts looking at you know, your business, much like when

76
00:04:08,240 --> 00:04:11,040
Speaker 1: Amazon looks at you know, a certain business, whether it's

77
00:04:11,040 --> 00:04:17,359
Speaker 1: retail or groceries, competitors take notice. Yeah. I've been looking

78
00:04:17,400 --> 00:04:19,599
Speaker 1: on Twitter at some of the reaction. I think a

79
00:04:19,600 --> 00:04:21,520
Speaker 1: lot of people think, first of all, do you really

80
00:04:21,520 --> 00:04:26,159
Speaker 1: want Vanguard type investors in all liquid uh, you know funds.

81
00:04:26,200 --> 00:04:28,760
Speaker 1: That's one thing I don't. I think a lot of

82
00:04:28,800 --> 00:04:31,159
Speaker 1: the best private equity and the best hedge funds because

83
00:04:31,480 --> 00:04:36,520
Speaker 1: Vanguard offers hedge funds type alternative strategies in mutual funds already,

84
00:04:36,560 --> 00:04:40,159
Speaker 1: so they do all. Uh, they haven't really you know,

85
00:04:40,240 --> 00:04:43,400
Speaker 1: completely disrupted the hedge fund business with that, So I

86
00:04:43,400 --> 00:04:45,000
Speaker 1: don't think there's a lot of fear. I don't think

87
00:04:45,000 --> 00:04:47,240
Speaker 1: there should be a lot of fear. Again, just like

88
00:04:47,279 --> 00:04:49,400
Speaker 1: with mutual funds, if you're good and you've got something

89
00:04:49,440 --> 00:04:51,200
Speaker 1: good going on, you'll be able to charge for it.

90
00:04:51,320 --> 00:04:53,560
Speaker 1: So I think for the ones that might not be

91
00:04:53,600 --> 00:04:56,359
Speaker 1: as good or might just be mediocre, those are the

92
00:04:56,360 --> 00:04:59,240
Speaker 1: ones that probably should be worried about about being priced

93
00:04:59,279 --> 00:05:02,200
Speaker 1: out or price down by a Vanguard. Just real quick,

94
00:05:02,279 --> 00:05:04,600
Speaker 1: how much could this potentially be an effort of Vanguard

95
00:05:04,640 --> 00:05:08,400
Speaker 1: to boost its own profits. I don't think it's much.

96
00:05:08,480 --> 00:05:10,920
Speaker 1: I really think Vanguard is playing a different game. They

97
00:05:10,960 --> 00:05:14,520
Speaker 1: just are not like other companies generally. That's the DNA

98
00:05:14,600 --> 00:05:17,360
Speaker 1: of Vogel still in there, the mutual ownership structure. I

99
00:05:17,400 --> 00:05:19,719
Speaker 1: just think they're really boy scout in their nature, and

100
00:05:19,720 --> 00:05:21,440
Speaker 1: they just want to serve their clients, and they feel

101
00:05:21,440 --> 00:05:24,040
Speaker 1: like private equity is something that would be missing from

102
00:05:24,040 --> 00:05:27,520
Speaker 1: a client portfolio in the future. Eric Baun, thank you

103
00:05:27,560 --> 00:05:30,040
Speaker 1: so much for being with us and sharing that perspective.

104
00:05:30,120 --> 00:05:33,720
Speaker 1: Eric Boltun as a senior et F analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence.

105
00:05:49,040 --> 00:05:52,400
Speaker 1: New York State has passed some of the most sweeping

106
00:05:52,839 --> 00:05:58,239
Speaker 1: overhauls to rent end property legislation in its history, having

107
00:05:58,480 --> 00:06:02,520
Speaker 1: some pretty big ripple effect throughout the real estate market.

108
00:06:02,600 --> 00:06:05,840
Speaker 1: Joining us down to discuss Francis Greenberger, chairman and chief

109
00:06:05,839 --> 00:06:09,880
Speaker 1: executive officer of Time Equities Incorporated, based in New York City. So,

110
00:06:09,960 --> 00:06:12,520
Speaker 1: New York State agreed to strength and rent laws and

111
00:06:12,640 --> 00:06:16,320
Speaker 1: tenant protections. From your perspective, what are the most important

112
00:06:16,400 --> 00:06:23,120
Speaker 1: parts of this legislation. Well, I think the legislation represents

113
00:06:23,240 --> 00:06:27,680
Speaker 1: very bad social and economic policy for the city and state,

114
00:06:28,040 --> 00:06:31,839
Speaker 1: and I'm happy to tell you why. Uh. Politically, it's

115
00:06:32,080 --> 00:06:35,760
Speaker 1: the narrative is that it's protecting one point three million tenants,

116
00:06:35,800 --> 00:06:38,800
Speaker 1: but it really isn't because all of those tenants are

117
00:06:38,800 --> 00:06:42,680
Speaker 1: rent stabilized and they were protected against under existing law,

118
00:06:43,360 --> 00:06:45,880
Speaker 1: and the increases to the last five years have ranged

119
00:06:45,920 --> 00:06:51,280
Speaker 1: between zero and one. Uh. Now, the part that is

120
00:06:51,320 --> 00:06:54,120
Speaker 1: being affected are the few people that choose to lead

121
00:06:54,160 --> 00:06:57,160
Speaker 1: those apartments, and it's about the new tenants who come in.

122
00:06:57,960 --> 00:07:01,440
Speaker 1: Under the prior law, there were incentives for fixing up

123
00:07:01,440 --> 00:07:06,240
Speaker 1: those apartments. There were extra increases which gave the owners

124
00:07:06,640 --> 00:07:11,480
Speaker 1: some balance to pay the increased expenses and operating taxes

125
00:07:11,680 --> 00:07:14,800
Speaker 1: and taxes which were not being covered by the zero

126
00:07:14,920 --> 00:07:19,560
Speaker 1: or rent allowance for existing tenants. So was it there

127
00:07:19,600 --> 00:07:22,840
Speaker 1: was a certain amount of balance that has been lost,

128
00:07:23,400 --> 00:07:27,440
Speaker 1: and now owners will simply face increasing losses every year.

129
00:07:28,560 --> 00:07:31,200
Speaker 1: So it's not good economic policy. So what is your

130
00:07:31,200 --> 00:07:35,080
Speaker 1: expectation about what this new rent law will due to

131
00:07:35,280 --> 00:07:39,960
Speaker 1: the value of housing. I think it will dramatically decrease

132
00:07:40,000 --> 00:07:43,880
Speaker 1: the value of housing, which will have another effect, which

133
00:07:43,960 --> 00:07:46,600
Speaker 1: is that it will erode the city's tax base. The

134
00:07:46,640 --> 00:07:49,600
Speaker 1: city needs those taxes, So what are they going to do.

135
00:07:50,120 --> 00:07:54,000
Speaker 1: They're going to increase the taxes on people own their

136
00:07:54,040 --> 00:07:58,080
Speaker 1: own homes, whether their co opt condominiums or private houses.

137
00:07:58,960 --> 00:08:01,960
Speaker 1: They will have to subs at eye these few thousand

138
00:08:02,160 --> 00:08:06,000
Speaker 1: apartments that we're turning over and providing the economic lifeline

139
00:08:06,040 --> 00:08:09,440
Speaker 1: for rental housing. So Francis just walk us through how

140
00:08:09,520 --> 00:08:14,280
Speaker 1: it would dramatically lower property values in New York City. Well,

141
00:08:14,320 --> 00:08:17,440
Speaker 1: if you buy a property where you expect your income

142
00:08:17,520 --> 00:08:20,840
Speaker 1: to go down every year instead of stay the same

143
00:08:20,960 --> 00:08:23,480
Speaker 1: or go up, you're obviously going to pay a lot

144
00:08:23,560 --> 00:08:27,120
Speaker 1: less for it. Well, I guess one question that I

145
00:08:27,200 --> 00:08:31,559
Speaker 1: have is there's one thing about buying an apartment building

146
00:08:31,560 --> 00:08:33,880
Speaker 1: in order to rent out the individual units. It's another

147
00:08:33,920 --> 00:08:38,720
Speaker 1: thing if you have a condominium building and you sell

148
00:08:38,880 --> 00:08:42,280
Speaker 1: units to people. There's a question of whether there might

149
00:08:42,400 --> 00:08:47,960
Speaker 1: be a greater demand for the condominium type units. If

150
00:08:48,000 --> 00:08:51,600
Speaker 1: you are going to guarantee a certain degree of maintenance, etcetera.

151
00:08:51,800 --> 00:08:54,360
Speaker 1: That might be UH sort of left behind a little

152
00:08:54,360 --> 00:08:57,600
Speaker 1: bit on the rental units due to fee pressures. Well,

153
00:08:57,640 --> 00:09:01,880
Speaker 1: clearly the future of rental house UH and the maintenance

154
00:09:01,920 --> 00:09:06,040
Speaker 1: of it UH is in doubt because when owners don't

155
00:09:06,080 --> 00:09:09,160
Speaker 1: have income to pay the costs, where is the money

156
00:09:09,200 --> 00:09:11,920
Speaker 1: going to come from. We see that in the in

157
00:09:11,960 --> 00:09:15,400
Speaker 1: the housing that the that the government owns, the Nightsha housing,

158
00:09:15,480 --> 00:09:18,240
Speaker 1: and what a disaster that is because they are base

159
00:09:18,360 --> 00:09:22,680
Speaker 1: basically starved it in this case their own revenue streams

160
00:09:22,800 --> 00:09:27,080
Speaker 1: and didn't do the necessary repairs. So, yes, condominium or

161
00:09:27,160 --> 00:09:30,720
Speaker 1: co op housing will be superior in the event in

162
00:09:30,760 --> 00:09:35,120
Speaker 1: the sense that it will be UH better maintained On

163
00:09:35,160 --> 00:09:37,480
Speaker 1: the other hand, those are the people who are going

164
00:09:37,559 --> 00:09:42,920
Speaker 1: to be picking up the bill for the UH for

165
00:09:42,920 --> 00:09:47,480
Speaker 1: for taking away this income stream and tax space on

166
00:09:47,640 --> 00:09:51,720
Speaker 1: rent on the rental housing side. Another potential effect here

167
00:09:51,880 --> 00:09:56,040
Speaker 1: is that as this situation increases, and again I think

168
00:09:56,080 --> 00:09:58,520
Speaker 1: it's really very important to focus on the fact that

169
00:09:58,559 --> 00:10:02,800
Speaker 1: this law really affects few thousand apartments that turn over

170
00:10:02,880 --> 00:10:10,000
Speaker 1: every year and we're then being rented at UH significant

171
00:10:10,000 --> 00:10:17,839
Speaker 1: increases or UH twenty. They used to allow increases, so

172
00:10:18,000 --> 00:10:22,360
Speaker 1: um by taking that away, it made force increases on

173
00:10:22,559 --> 00:10:25,720
Speaker 1: the people that are stabilized tenants in place, whereas I said,

174
00:10:26,000 --> 00:10:28,680
Speaker 1: current law has left those increases at zero or one,

175
00:10:29,840 --> 00:10:32,080
Speaker 1: so those people may also have to pick up the bill.

176
00:10:32,880 --> 00:10:37,440
Speaker 1: This is a complete disbalancing of what previously was a

177
00:10:37,480 --> 00:10:41,400
Speaker 1: working solution. So, for instance, how will this impact you're

178
00:10:41,440 --> 00:10:46,000
Speaker 1: investing across a New York City. Well, I think that's

179
00:10:46,040 --> 00:10:48,920
Speaker 1: the other thing. Uh Again, as I said, there was

180
00:10:48,960 --> 00:10:53,960
Speaker 1: a semi balanced picture before, and now the political process

181
00:10:54,000 --> 00:10:57,280
Speaker 1: has taken that away, which means that in the eyes

182
00:10:57,320 --> 00:11:00,600
Speaker 1: of business people and investors like me, the state and

183
00:11:00,640 --> 00:11:04,040
Speaker 1: the city are no longer reliable partners. And I think

184
00:11:04,080 --> 00:11:06,840
Speaker 1: any person who invested with people who turned out to

185
00:11:06,840 --> 00:11:10,880
Speaker 1: be unreliable certainly wouldn't come back and be invested. So

186
00:11:10,960 --> 00:11:12,800
Speaker 1: I think you're going to see more and more people

187
00:11:13,440 --> 00:11:16,760
Speaker 1: uh turning their investments to states that have a more

188
00:11:16,800 --> 00:11:22,880
Speaker 1: reliable pattern of unfair pattern of treating business and investors

189
00:11:22,880 --> 00:11:26,520
Speaker 1: in their in their states fairly. So friends, as which

190
00:11:26,520 --> 00:11:29,400
Speaker 1: states are you turning your sites to instead of New

191
00:11:29,480 --> 00:11:33,720
Speaker 1: York when it comes to investing, Well, we're currently we're

192
00:11:33,840 --> 00:11:37,679
Speaker 1: just started a construction project in Florida. We just finished

193
00:11:37,679 --> 00:11:42,280
Speaker 1: one in Michigan in a place called Grand Rapids. Uh,

194
00:11:42,520 --> 00:11:47,840
Speaker 1: we're about to begin one in Chicago. So from your perspective,

195
00:11:47,880 --> 00:11:50,160
Speaker 1: is this something that again it seems like it's a

196
00:11:50,200 --> 00:11:55,280
Speaker 1: relatively uh low number of units we're talking about across

197
00:11:55,679 --> 00:11:58,439
Speaker 1: you know, a big market. I mean, is the material

198
00:11:58,520 --> 00:12:00,840
Speaker 1: it just doesn't seem that matio real to the overall

199
00:12:00,880 --> 00:12:04,439
Speaker 1: economics of real estate in this market. Well, I think

200
00:12:04,640 --> 00:12:07,760
Speaker 1: in addition, as I say, it disturbed the balance that

201
00:12:07,880 --> 00:12:13,559
Speaker 1: existed between allowing existing tenants zero or one percent increases

202
00:12:14,240 --> 00:12:18,960
Speaker 1: and still allowing landlords to maintain, not increase their profit margins.

203
00:12:19,000 --> 00:12:22,000
Speaker 1: But they were able to pay the increased expenses out

204
00:12:22,040 --> 00:12:24,559
Speaker 1: of the increased rents on the vacancies, so that has

205
00:12:24,600 --> 00:12:27,640
Speaker 1: been taken away and landlords have been left with a

206
00:12:27,679 --> 00:12:31,120
Speaker 1: losing proposition. You know, that leaves a very bitter taste

207
00:12:31,120 --> 00:12:34,960
Speaker 1: in people's minds and and and in their investment intentions.

208
00:12:35,520 --> 00:12:40,040
Speaker 1: And just like the Amazon reaction to politics in New

209
00:12:40,120 --> 00:12:42,199
Speaker 1: York was negative, I think you're going to see this

210
00:12:42,360 --> 00:12:45,840
Speaker 1: spread and this is a a second uh nail in

211
00:12:45,880 --> 00:12:50,920
Speaker 1: the uh in the coffin, so to speak. So francis

212
00:12:51,000 --> 00:12:53,200
Speaker 1: just just just real quick here, how much do you

213
00:12:53,800 --> 00:12:56,560
Speaker 1: how much do you expect prices to go down in

214
00:12:56,600 --> 00:13:05,240
Speaker 1: New York City? Uh? You? Um, real estate often trades

215
00:13:05,320 --> 00:13:10,640
Speaker 1: on futures rather than existing and this has taken away

216
00:13:10,679 --> 00:13:14,960
Speaker 1: to the future, the hope for something better and it's

217
00:13:15,280 --> 00:13:18,839
Speaker 1: and it's replaced it with an expectation of something worse.

218
00:13:19,480 --> 00:13:24,000
Speaker 1: Is that reduction? Is it more? I'm not sure the

219
00:13:24,040 --> 00:13:29,360
Speaker 1: market will tell our storyection that would be news. Francis Greenberger,

220
00:13:29,440 --> 00:13:33,000
Speaker 1: value of all rental housing in New York. Francis Greenberger,

221
00:13:33,160 --> 00:13:35,439
Speaker 1: Chairman CEO of Time Equity, Inc. Thank you so much

222
00:13:35,520 --> 00:13:55,559
Speaker 1: for joining us. Well about a year after shuttering it's

223
00:13:55,640 --> 00:13:59,200
Speaker 1: US operations, toys are us is back to get a

224
00:13:59,200 --> 00:14:00,959
Speaker 1: sense of what's going on there. We welcome to good

225
00:14:00,960 --> 00:14:04,880
Speaker 1: friend Burt Flickinger, Managing director of Strategic Resource Group, joining

226
00:14:04,920 --> 00:14:08,000
Speaker 1: us here in our Bloomberg Interactive Brooker Studio. So correct

227
00:14:08,000 --> 00:14:10,480
Speaker 1: me if I'm wrong, Bert, So, the US business of

228
00:14:10,559 --> 00:14:14,200
Speaker 1: Toys r US UH shuttered their operations about a year ago,

229
00:14:14,240 --> 00:14:16,640
Speaker 1: but now they're coming back. How are they doing that?

230
00:14:16,920 --> 00:14:20,400
Speaker 1: Coming back with a couple of stores, But it's already

231
00:14:20,400 --> 00:14:23,880
Speaker 1: a proven concept and that they have scores of stores

232
00:14:23,920 --> 00:14:27,600
Speaker 1: that are very successful Asia, India, parts of Europe. And

233
00:14:27,640 --> 00:14:31,840
Speaker 1: it was affirmed by Kroger fred Meyer brilliant CEO Rodney

234
00:14:31,920 --> 00:14:36,840
Speaker 1: McMullen that put six hundred Jeffrey Jeffries Toy Box Toys

235
00:14:36,920 --> 00:14:41,440
Speaker 1: r US departments and stores within the Kroger stores, which

236
00:14:41,440 --> 00:14:45,880
Speaker 1: are doing tremendously well. The other key comparable on the

237
00:14:45,880 --> 00:14:50,800
Speaker 1: Bloomberg terminal is the toys have catalyzed a big part

238
00:14:50,840 --> 00:14:55,200
Speaker 1: of Walmart, Target and Amazon's growth and on a total

239
00:14:55,240 --> 00:14:58,720
Speaker 1: return basis in the last year, Walmart and Target are

240
00:14:58,720 --> 00:15:01,960
Speaker 1: both up about forty or sent Amazon about the same

241
00:15:02,520 --> 00:15:05,560
Speaker 1: and compared to the x RT or the SMP Retail

242
00:15:05,600 --> 00:15:09,040
Speaker 1: Index is barely up at all, and they still can't

243
00:15:09,040 --> 00:15:12,480
Speaker 1: handle the big box stores still can't handle the demand

244
00:15:13,640 --> 00:15:15,880
Speaker 1: of the ten billion that Toys r Us did in

245
00:15:15,920 --> 00:15:19,720
Speaker 1: the US retail So it sounds like Richard Barry has

246
00:15:19,760 --> 00:15:24,520
Speaker 1: come up with this concept of reincarnating Toys r US

247
00:15:25,040 --> 00:15:27,800
Speaker 1: with smaller stores but in some of the same footprints,

248
00:15:28,520 --> 00:15:32,760
Speaker 1: shrunken footprints, because he saw an opportunity there that was

249
00:15:32,880 --> 00:15:38,320
Speaker 1: still being unmet by the big box retailers. My question is, UH,

250
00:15:39,080 --> 00:15:42,200
Speaker 1: what what exactly is this reincarnation. Is it just taking

251
00:15:42,200 --> 00:15:45,520
Speaker 1: the name and then re envisioning the modern toy store

252
00:15:45,680 --> 00:15:49,440
Speaker 1: or is this basically just restarting without the debt? Lisa,

253
00:15:49,520 --> 00:15:53,320
Speaker 1: It's both restarting without the debt, that's key, and the

254
00:15:53,400 --> 00:15:56,200
Speaker 1: landlords of the major malls will pay for the UH

255
00:15:56,280 --> 00:15:58,440
Speaker 1: fit out a lot of the equipment build out, so

256
00:15:58,480 --> 00:16:02,040
Speaker 1: they'll be next to no capital commitment. The key thing

257
00:16:02,440 --> 00:16:05,520
Speaker 1: you references the name UH. They'll have the name. The

258
00:16:05,600 --> 00:16:09,080
Speaker 1: stores were about fifteen years behind UH, caught in a

259
00:16:09,200 --> 00:16:13,880
Speaker 1: bowl constricted proverbial choke hold from RNADO and the original

260
00:16:14,000 --> 00:16:17,960
Speaker 1: legacy owners and now with Richard Barry, it's the chief

261
00:16:18,000 --> 00:16:20,560
Speaker 1: merchant who goes all the way back to the seminal

262
00:16:20,600 --> 00:16:24,160
Speaker 1: genius Charles Lazarus who uh started Toys r US and

263
00:16:24,240 --> 00:16:27,680
Speaker 1: built it into a worldwide powerhouse. Barry knows how to

264
00:16:27,760 --> 00:16:32,600
Speaker 1: merchandise the stores, work with Disney, Marvel, Lucas studios for

265
00:16:32,640 --> 00:16:35,440
Speaker 1: the licensed goods, but also to make the stores exciting

266
00:16:35,480 --> 00:16:38,760
Speaker 1: from a digital interactive standpoint. So they'll have the name,

267
00:16:39,200 --> 00:16:42,840
Speaker 1: but the stores will catch up about fifteen years because

268
00:16:42,840 --> 00:16:46,640
Speaker 1: they'll have the capital along with the skill and hopefully

269
00:16:46,640 --> 00:16:50,640
Speaker 1: the scale. So what I understand about this is Toys

270
00:16:50,720 --> 00:16:53,080
Speaker 1: Rust is looking to open about it maybe a half

271
00:16:53,080 --> 00:16:56,000
Speaker 1: a dozen stores for the holiday season. Do you think

272
00:16:56,040 --> 00:16:59,120
Speaker 1: this might just be the first step and maybe bringing

273
00:16:59,160 --> 00:17:01,840
Speaker 1: back Toys Rust and bigger way in US? Yes, the

274
00:17:01,920 --> 00:17:06,240
Speaker 1: first step, and and our research indicates with mall support,

275
00:17:06,280 --> 00:17:08,879
Speaker 1: they'll be able to do at least fifty, likely a

276
00:17:08,960 --> 00:17:12,440
Speaker 1: hundred plus stores in the major malls across the US

277
00:17:12,760 --> 00:17:15,280
Speaker 1: which would love to have Toys or US and Babies

278
00:17:15,440 --> 00:17:18,640
Speaker 1: or US as a co anchor. And what's interesting from

279
00:17:18,640 --> 00:17:22,120
Speaker 1: our researches, Amazon has an achilles heel in this thing too,

280
00:17:22,760 --> 00:17:26,320
Speaker 1: is Amazon's almost de facto price gouging on anything that's

281
00:17:26,359 --> 00:17:29,919
Speaker 1: either heavier weight or large and shipping size. So if

282
00:17:29,920 --> 00:17:33,320
Speaker 1: it's a baby crib or baby stroller. Amazonal charge a

283
00:17:33,400 --> 00:17:37,280
Speaker 1: hundred dollars more delivered Amazon Prime members than say even

284
00:17:37,320 --> 00:17:40,160
Speaker 1: Alby's on the West Side of Manhattan or any other

285
00:17:40,240 --> 00:17:43,119
Speaker 1: major toy retailer in the US. There's a lot of

286
00:17:43,200 --> 00:17:49,440
Speaker 1: room with the support from UH Jack's, Marvel, Marvel has Bro,

287
00:17:49,920 --> 00:17:53,840
Speaker 1: the studios and the hardlines and soft lines vendors, and

288
00:17:53,880 --> 00:17:57,080
Speaker 1: also Amazon went bankrupt with diapers are US, so there's

289
00:17:57,119 --> 00:17:59,960
Speaker 1: a big window for Toys r US to re estate

290
00:18:00,000 --> 00:18:03,439
Speaker 1: wish itself. One thing you talked about was reimagining the

291
00:18:03,520 --> 00:18:07,720
Speaker 1: stores and making them more enticing to the modern child,

292
00:18:07,840 --> 00:18:11,040
Speaker 1: which means having all sorts of electronics there. I'm just

293
00:18:11,080 --> 00:18:14,840
Speaker 1: wondering what type of investment uh they really need to

294
00:18:14,920 --> 00:18:18,400
Speaker 1: get these stores into a shape to be an experience,

295
00:18:18,440 --> 00:18:20,199
Speaker 1: which really is the name of the game in retail

296
00:18:20,240 --> 00:18:24,359
Speaker 1: right now. Perfect variable you're referencing, Lisa. If it's an

297
00:18:24,400 --> 00:18:27,840
Speaker 1: investment on toys or US as part, it could be

298
00:18:27,880 --> 00:18:31,360
Speaker 1: a million plus per store. If they get the support

299
00:18:31,560 --> 00:18:38,280
Speaker 1: of Disney behind Star Wars, UH Frozen, Future Toy Story releases,

300
00:18:38,480 --> 00:18:42,680
Speaker 1: Kung Fu Panda, whatever it is, and get the studios

301
00:18:42,760 --> 00:18:46,320
Speaker 1: to co invest and ideally get somebody like UH Bob

302
00:18:46,359 --> 00:18:51,159
Speaker 1: Pittman at Clear Channel Outdoor use their skill outside on

303
00:18:51,280 --> 00:18:53,560
Speaker 1: the air rights of the store, the walls and the

304
00:18:53,600 --> 00:18:57,840
Speaker 1: departments inside the store could be spectacular. Would would the

305
00:18:57,960 --> 00:19:00,679
Speaker 1: actual vendors, the toy vendors, Would they prefer to do

306
00:19:00,720 --> 00:19:05,280
Speaker 1: business with toys r US over say Amazon or Walmart?

307
00:19:06,000 --> 00:19:09,040
Speaker 1: UH definitely prefer to do business with toys. Are USO

308
00:19:09,240 --> 00:19:12,960
Speaker 1: over Amazon? Going back to the Hachette Books, UH and

309
00:19:13,160 --> 00:19:17,960
Speaker 1: I trust case for UH anti competitive practices, potential predatory

310
00:19:18,040 --> 00:19:22,600
Speaker 1: pricing that seems to be ubiquitous beyond books to toys, etcetera.

311
00:19:23,119 --> 00:19:27,200
Speaker 1: Walmart under Doug McMillan, Target under Brian Cornell are more

312
00:19:27,320 --> 00:19:30,399
Speaker 1: enlightened buyers, but they don't have the physical space and

313
00:19:30,440 --> 00:19:33,480
Speaker 1: the stores to carry the full depth and range of toys.

314
00:19:33,520 --> 00:19:35,760
Speaker 1: So the vendors are seeing a lot of growth with

315
00:19:35,880 --> 00:19:39,240
Speaker 1: Macy's committing a full floor at Harold Squared to Toys

316
00:19:39,560 --> 00:19:41,520
Speaker 1: and some of the other stores, but nobody can do

317
00:19:41,560 --> 00:19:44,240
Speaker 1: it like Toys r US and Richard Berry. The one

318
00:19:44,400 --> 00:19:48,840
Speaker 1: variable is David Pico, who is the genius of real

319
00:19:48,960 --> 00:19:52,360
Speaker 1: estate strategy and development, got picked off by Chris Baldwin

320
00:19:52,400 --> 00:19:55,119
Speaker 1: and his team to go to BJ's wholesale, So toys

321
00:19:55,119 --> 00:19:57,600
Speaker 1: are us is skating shorthanded with a key player on

322
00:19:57,640 --> 00:20:00,600
Speaker 1: the development side. But Richard Berry's the end and he'll

323
00:20:00,600 --> 00:20:04,399
Speaker 1: break through with this format. To Paul's point on on

324
00:20:04,520 --> 00:20:09,000
Speaker 1: a very strong continuum of future growth. Really interesting to

325
00:20:09,040 --> 00:20:13,080
Speaker 1: see the revival here. I Frankly Brick and Mortar. Bert Flickinger,

326
00:20:13,119 --> 00:20:15,159
Speaker 1: thank you so much for being with us. Always a pleasure.

327
00:20:15,160 --> 00:20:35,520
Speaker 1: Bert Flickinger is Managing director for Strategic Resource Group. Well,

328
00:20:35,520 --> 00:20:40,240
Speaker 1: many companies are developing products to reduce sugar intake by consumers.

329
00:20:40,560 --> 00:20:43,440
Speaker 1: One such company is Duma Talk and has really startup

330
00:20:43,440 --> 00:20:46,720
Speaker 1: that has created a sugar reduction solution that uses targeted

331
00:20:46,760 --> 00:20:50,000
Speaker 1: delivery technology to reduce the amount of sugar used up

332
00:20:50,000 --> 00:20:54,280
Speaker 1: to per serving. To help us dig into the details

333
00:20:54,359 --> 00:20:58,320
Speaker 1: of this new company, we welcome Iran Baniel, chief executive

334
00:20:58,320 --> 00:21:01,760
Speaker 1: officer and president of Duma Talk based in Israel. Aron,

335
00:21:01,880 --> 00:21:03,520
Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining us. I wonder if

336
00:21:03,520 --> 00:21:05,719
Speaker 1: you could just briefly kind of tell us kind of

337
00:21:05,760 --> 00:21:09,600
Speaker 1: what is the solution, uh that your company has that

338
00:21:09,680 --> 00:21:14,800
Speaker 1: reduces the sugar intake. So nice to be with you guys.

339
00:21:16,280 --> 00:21:21,560
Speaker 1: When you take a bite into a cake, say over

340
00:21:21,800 --> 00:21:26,000
Speaker 1: eight of the sugar in the cake will never see

341
00:21:26,000 --> 00:21:31,200
Speaker 1: a sweet receptor, so it contributes nothing towards the sweetness

342
00:21:31,320 --> 00:21:37,439
Speaker 1: of the product, so only would probably hit receptors. What

343
00:21:37,680 --> 00:21:44,040
Speaker 1: we do is by loading the sugar onto a mineral

344
00:21:44,560 --> 00:21:50,280
Speaker 1: or a fiber carrier, we actually create clusters of sugar

345
00:21:50,320 --> 00:21:54,800
Speaker 1: molecules and when those hit the receptors, they get they

346
00:21:54,880 --> 00:21:59,400
Speaker 1: stick to the receptors longer, and they keep pumping sugar

347
00:21:59,440 --> 00:22:07,320
Speaker 1: molecule to the receptors, sort of cheating you to experience

348
00:22:07,760 --> 00:22:12,280
Speaker 1: a sweetness that is disproportionate to the amount of sugar

349
00:22:12,800 --> 00:22:16,359
Speaker 1: in the cake or in the biscuit or in the chocolate.

350
00:22:16,920 --> 00:22:23,679
Speaker 1: So you literally use less two taste more that is

351
00:22:24,240 --> 00:22:31,040
Speaker 1: flavored delivery improved in efficacy. So the results of this,

352
00:22:31,520 --> 00:22:35,080
Speaker 1: if I am correct, is that you can reduce by

353
00:22:35,080 --> 00:22:38,720
Speaker 1: more than of sugar content in some of these sweets

354
00:22:38,800 --> 00:22:44,320
Speaker 1: or other products by using your technologies. I'm wondering have

355
00:22:44,440 --> 00:22:48,119
Speaker 1: there been any big companies that have adopted some of

356
00:22:48,160 --> 00:22:53,240
Speaker 1: your techniques. So we are now in the process of

357
00:22:53,720 --> 00:23:03,880
Speaker 1: a providing large pilots to some those large CPGs um

358
00:23:03,920 --> 00:23:11,760
Speaker 1: taking existing products and making the doumatalk version of the product,

359
00:23:11,880 --> 00:23:16,040
Speaker 1: which would be not only reduced in sugar, but also

360
00:23:16,320 --> 00:23:21,560
Speaker 1: rich in fiber and rich often in proteins. So we

361
00:23:21,760 --> 00:23:27,880
Speaker 1: also have developed a whole host of data on how

362
00:23:28,040 --> 00:23:32,480
Speaker 1: you can replace the photy percent of sugar you've taken

363
00:23:32,520 --> 00:23:41,080
Speaker 1: out with really much better for you nutrition and actually,

364
00:23:41,760 --> 00:23:48,240
Speaker 1: in blind tastings, consumers seem to prefer the Doumatalk reduced

365
00:23:48,400 --> 00:23:55,040
Speaker 1: version to the original products. So we started by wanting

366
00:23:55,080 --> 00:23:59,600
Speaker 1: to be as sweet, we are now understanding that we

367
00:23:59,680 --> 00:24:05,160
Speaker 1: are very often preferred and we seem to fare better

368
00:24:05,640 --> 00:24:11,040
Speaker 1: than the original. So that's really, uh, the first time

369
00:24:11,840 --> 00:24:16,439
Speaker 1: that someone that we are aware of can propose a

370
00:24:16,520 --> 00:24:22,560
Speaker 1: sugar reduced version of products that don't disrupt the need

371
00:24:22,720 --> 00:24:28,080
Speaker 1: we have for indulgences for the products we love. So,

372
00:24:28,400 --> 00:24:31,760
Speaker 1: is this going to be another colored packet, packet of

373
00:24:31,760 --> 00:24:33,760
Speaker 1: sweeteners in the bowl when I go to a restaurant.

374
00:24:33,800 --> 00:24:35,800
Speaker 1: I've got pink, I've got blue, I've got yellow. Is

375
00:24:35,840 --> 00:24:40,359
Speaker 1: this going to be another those your competitors? No, what,

376
00:24:41,840 --> 00:24:46,240
Speaker 1: the existing sugar reductions are not sugar based. We are

377
00:24:46,240 --> 00:24:52,120
Speaker 1: sugar based, and sugar is not It's not bad for you,

378
00:24:52,400 --> 00:24:58,000
Speaker 1: and unless you over overdo it. So sugar, if you

379
00:24:58,080 --> 00:25:04,400
Speaker 1: consume sugar in measured quantities. You'll find it gives you energy,

380
00:25:04,720 --> 00:25:09,920
Speaker 1: its bulk, it's taste, its color, its happiness. Sugar is happiness,

381
00:25:09,960 --> 00:25:17,359
Speaker 1: but only if consumed as recommended. So what we do

382
00:25:17,600 --> 00:25:22,600
Speaker 1: is we actually allow you to consume the products you

383
00:25:22,720 --> 00:25:29,240
Speaker 1: love without actually overdoing the sugar intake. Run. One question

384
00:25:29,240 --> 00:25:33,080
Speaker 1: that I have is people have found that sugar replacements

385
00:25:33,200 --> 00:25:38,880
Speaker 1: actually don't necessarily contribute to weight loss because people feel hungrier,

386
00:25:38,920 --> 00:25:40,600
Speaker 1: their bodies feel like they're going to be getting a

387
00:25:40,600 --> 00:25:43,000
Speaker 1: certain amount of sugar, so they eat more to compensate

388
00:25:43,080 --> 00:25:47,080
Speaker 1: for that. Has there been any study done in a

389
00:25:47,119 --> 00:25:52,920
Speaker 1: similar vein with Tom talk, It's a very good question,

390
00:25:53,080 --> 00:25:58,440
Speaker 1: and thank you for asking it. We are the funding

391
00:25:59,119 --> 00:26:04,080
Speaker 1: is there and angst others to fund much larger trials

392
00:26:04,119 --> 00:26:07,919
Speaker 1: than we've done. But one of the mode of actions

393
00:26:07,960 --> 00:26:15,480
Speaker 1: that we have developed is called muco adhesive. The area

394
00:26:15,600 --> 00:26:22,439
Speaker 1: of the tongue is the best probably area for dispersing

395
00:26:24,040 --> 00:26:32,159
Speaker 1: in a very same way things like sugars, but also people.

396
00:26:32,920 --> 00:26:37,640
Speaker 1: It's been used for pharmaceuticals as well. So what we

397
00:26:37,800 --> 00:26:43,000
Speaker 1: actually do is we have this cluster, let's say, of

398
00:26:43,080 --> 00:26:48,359
Speaker 1: sweetness come to the receptor. It sticks by the receptor

399
00:26:48,840 --> 00:26:54,840
Speaker 1: longer and and the sweetness is very satisfying, so you

400
00:26:55,000 --> 00:27:00,280
Speaker 1: don't really reach out for another bite so quickly. Yeah,

401
00:27:00,359 --> 00:27:05,360
Speaker 1: you are really getting the full beauty of the sweetness

402
00:27:05,400 --> 00:27:10,360
Speaker 1: with the first bite, and you are not rushing into

403
00:27:10,560 --> 00:27:14,359
Speaker 1: the second, third bite. Aaron Vanielle, thank you so much

404
00:27:14,400 --> 00:27:16,920
Speaker 1: for being with us, chief executive officer and president of

405
00:27:16,960 --> 00:27:20,840
Speaker 1: Duma Talk based in Israel. They just raised two million

406
00:27:20,880 --> 00:27:24,480
Speaker 1: dollars in a series B round funding. This is Bloomberg.

407
00:27:25,040 --> 00:27:27,520
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg pen L podcast. You

408
00:27:27,520 --> 00:27:30,199
Speaker 1: can subscribe and listen to interviews at Apple Podcasts or

409
00:27:30,200 --> 00:27:33,239
Speaker 1: whatever podcast platform you prefer. I'm Paul Sweeney. I'm on

410
00:27:33,240 --> 00:27:35,919
Speaker 1: Twitter at pt Sweeney. I'm Lisa Bramoy. It's I'm on

411
00:27:35,920 --> 00:27:38,840
Speaker 1: Twitter at Lisa A. Bramwoit's one before the podcast. You

412
00:27:38,840 --> 00:27:41,359
Speaker 1: can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio.