Speaker 1: Strap on your parachute. It's time for What Goes Up
Speaker 1: with Sarah Ponzik and Mike Reagan. Hello and welcome to
Speaker 1: What goes Up, a Bloomberg Weekly markets podcast. I'm Mike Reagan,
Speaker 1: a senior editor at Bloomberg, and I'm Katie Greifeld Across
Speaker 1: as a reporter, filling in for Sarah Ponzak, who's on
Speaker 1: a much deserved vacation. No pressure, Katie, but Sarah pretty
Speaker 1: much carries the show on her back, you know, so
Speaker 1: you better, you better be good. Yeah. No, I'm a
Speaker 1: frequent listener. I've got big shoes to fill, right, and
Speaker 1: the only role is you have to laugh at my jokes,
Speaker 1: or at least pretend to laugh. Alright, I do. That's
Speaker 1: a little week, but we'll we'll, we'll work on it
Speaker 1: anyway this week on the show. Obviously, government and central
Speaker 1: bank policies have once again became the main drivers of
Speaker 1: financial markets. Our guest this week will help us make
Speaker 1: sense of all of it. He has served in important
Speaker 1: economic position is under five different US presidents. He's an
Speaker 1: expert on how policy and diplomacy and investments interact and Kenny,
Speaker 1: he will hopefully help us sort out these crazy times
Speaker 1: in markets, and as always, will close out this episode
Speaker 1: with our tradition, which is the craziest thing I saw
Speaker 1: in markets this week? And remember, if you see something
Speaker 1: crazy and markets, give us a call on the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Podcast hotline at six four six three two four three
Speaker 1: four nine zero and leave us a voicemail and maybe
Speaker 1: we'll play it on the next episode. Kay, Yes, we
Speaker 1: were talking about this before. I think this week's guest
Speaker 1: has one of the most fascinating resumes I've ever read.
Speaker 1: Um I was reading. I was very impressed reading his
Speaker 1: Wikipedia page. Firstly because he's got a Wikipedia page that's
Speaker 1: that's sort of impressive in and of itself. But he's
Speaker 1: been in government a long time. He was had roles
Speaker 1: such as Deputy US Trade Representative with the rank of
Speaker 1: ambassad He was a senior economic advisor to Henry Kissinger.
Speaker 1: He most recently served in the Obama into administration as
Speaker 1: Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy and the
Speaker 1: Environment and UH. To top it all off, he was
Speaker 1: vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International for quite a long time.
Speaker 1: U Currently he is a managing director at the wealth
Speaker 1: management firm of Taman Advisers, and his name is Robert Hormaz.
Speaker 1: Rob welcome to the show. Thanks very much, Mike. Great
Speaker 1: to be with you, and great to be with you,
Speaker 1: Katie Bob. I was reading a recent piece you had, oh,
Speaker 1: and Katie Bob also with all that going on, he
Speaker 1: manages to get more bylines in the financial press than
Speaker 1: I do. I think somehow very impressive. But Bobby had
Speaker 1: a recent piece in Baron's talking about obviously the federal
Speaker 1: deficit is just ballooning. UH. It's gonna get bigger and
Speaker 1: bigger for the foreseeable future as the government sort of
Speaker 1: counteracts the economic damage from the pandemic mc um and
Speaker 1: you write about sort of, you know that the risks
Speaker 1: of sort of political extremism on both sides that could
Speaker 1: come as a result of, you know, the nation just
Speaker 1: kind of trying to wrap its head around how we
Speaker 1: can possibly solve this deficit issue. But one thing I
Speaker 1: want to ask in regards to that is what are
Speaker 1: those sort of fringe economic ideas that I feel like
Speaker 1: is going more and more mainstream uh these days? Is
Speaker 1: the idea of uh modern monetary theory. Uh. Stephaniekelton, who
Speaker 1: is a columnist for Bloomberg, has a book out that's
Speaker 1: that's really hot, called the Deficit Myth, you know, and
Speaker 1: you know, for listeners who are unfamiliar, there's it's kind
Speaker 1: of a complex thing to discuss mm T. But the
Speaker 1: the gist of it, as that book title suggests, is
Speaker 1: perhaps we've been too afraid of of deficit spending, and
Speaker 1: that when you're a sovereign country like the US that
Speaker 1: issues its own currency, it's not as big of a
Speaker 1: deal as deficit hawks would uh claim it is. Um
Speaker 1: If you issue your own currency, theoretically you can never
Speaker 1: default on your debt. I'm just curious, given your vast
Speaker 1: experience in the government and and thinking about the depth
Speaker 1: sit thinking about the global economies, what is your take
Speaker 1: on modern monetary theory these days as we are faced
Speaker 1: with this unprecedented depthsit situation. Well, now we have a
Speaker 1: particularly unusual set of circumstances whereby we're in the midst
Speaker 1: of forced or involuntary utilization of modern monetary theory. That
Speaker 1: is to say, the federal government is issuing and will
Speaker 1: continue to issue trillions of dollars worth of bonds, and
Speaker 1: the market is by and large buying them up at
Speaker 1: a very low interest rate. And the Fed if the
Speaker 1: market is not going to do it. The FED has
Speaker 1: demonstrated its desire and its willingness to buy the assets
Speaker 1: up and keep interest rates extremely low. This is not
Speaker 1: unheard of, and then as states, this was done during
Speaker 1: World War Two where the FED guaranteed the Treasury that
Speaker 1: it would buy Treasury bonds at a very low rate
Speaker 1: to keep interest rates low, to keep the death service
Speaker 1: and costs of the of the government low. So theoretically
Speaker 1: this can last a very long time as long as
Speaker 1: the Treasury is making these big bond issues a regular occurrence,
Speaker 1: as it appears to be, although now it's not decided
Speaker 1: what the next step is, but there will be some
Speaker 1: additional spending, large additional spending. It's necessary, and the Fed. J.
Speaker 1: Powell has said he is going to in effect continue
Speaker 1: to keep rates low. But he said also something we
Speaker 1: should be aware of. The Fed can't do at all,
Speaker 1: the fan FED cannot do this indefinitely. But what is
Speaker 1: definitely mean? How long can this occur? What are the
Speaker 1: end results of this? At some point if trees don't
Speaker 1: go to the sky, what could disrupt the markets and
Speaker 1: what could cause either the Treasury to run into trouble
Speaker 1: with its issues or the FAT to feel uncomfortable and
Speaker 1: underwriting those issues for the indefinite future. We don't know
Speaker 1: that this is all terra incongnito. Well, I do want
Speaker 1: to jump in and ask, even though you just said
Speaker 1: we don't know, but what do you think is the
Speaker 1: breaking point? You know, as the US just continues to
Speaker 1: sell more and more debt, the budget deficit is just ballooning.
Speaker 1: At what point does that become a problem and might
Speaker 1: cause that disruption you touch on, Well, I think one
Speaker 1: thing we have to bear in mind is that foreigners
Speaker 1: are major players in the debt market here. The FED
Speaker 1: is a bigger player, and obviously American financial institutions are
Speaker 1: bigger players. But feigners are still buying debt issued by
Speaker 1: the Treasury in part because they see other parts of
Speaker 1: the world less stable than the US. With all of
Speaker 1: our problems that we have here, we're probably the most
Speaker 1: reliable creditor, well, certainly the most reliable creditor in the
Speaker 1: world by by all traditional standards. The problem would occur
Speaker 1: if there are doubts about the FED and the particularly
Speaker 1: doubts about the Treasury repaying the debt of the United States.
Speaker 1: For instance, there is some discussion in the United States
Speaker 1: UH Congress and and in Washington in general about maybe
Speaker 1: the US will decide it doesn't want to pay interest
Speaker 1: on some of the deck that it owes China. No
Speaker 1: one has actually threatened this, but it's sort of part
Speaker 1: of the Washington rumor mill. That would be the kind
Speaker 1: of thing that would be highly disruptive and could really
Speaker 1: undermine this scenario, because the key to the American credit
Speaker 1: market all the way back to Alexander Hamilton, is the
Speaker 1: full faith and credit of the United States is behind
Speaker 1: the bonds issued by the United States, and that is
Speaker 1: critically important. The second is that if rates stay low
Speaker 1: and inflation starts going up, then people who are holding
Speaker 1: dollar assets low yielding dollar assets find that they're losing
Speaker 1: more and more in real terms every year, and that
Speaker 1: could be a problem. And third, the question of the
Speaker 1: dollar itself, and that is if if the dollar, which
Speaker 1: has been relatively strong, the dollar weakens further, then other
Speaker 1: countries like the Europeans will be in a better position
Speaker 1: to if, depending on what their own rates are, to
Speaker 1: attract some of the money that's now currently going into
Speaker 1: the dollar. But we have seen some weakening in the
Speaker 1: dollar this year. I mean, nothing too dramatic yet, but
Speaker 1: last time I checked the some of the broad indexes
Speaker 1: were down near the lowest in in a couple of years.
Speaker 1: Is that the beginning of that? Do you think? And
Speaker 1: is that you know, for an investor to sort of
Speaker 1: wrap their heads around all these issues, is that sort
Speaker 1: of the main where the main focus should be is
Speaker 1: what role the dollar plays in the global economy in
Speaker 1: sort of this new world we have of of a
Speaker 1: little bit of political isolationism, um and these massive deficits.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you're an investor, you mainly just focused
Speaker 1: on the risks to the dollar at this point. I
Speaker 1: think you're focused to a degree on the risk of
Speaker 1: the dollar. Probably that's not the main thing you're focused on.
Speaker 1: You're focused on essentially interest rates. You're focused on the
Speaker 1: credibility of the federal government's commitment to repay its debt.
Speaker 1: But I do think the dollar, if you're abroad, and
Speaker 1: even if you're an American, is important in part if
Speaker 1: you're abroad and you're buying dollar denominated assets and you're
Speaker 1: seeing that all our weakening, you're you're losing money, and
Speaker 1: particularly if you're buying fixed income assets where you're getting
Speaker 1: no interests, practically you're really losing money. You're certainly losing
Speaker 1: it in real terms. That's a factor. The second thing
Speaker 1: we have to bear in mind is that low interest
Speaker 1: rates are not free in the sense that there are
Speaker 1: a lot of Americans, particularly retirees, older Americans, who don't
Speaker 1: like to buy equities because they consider them risky. They
Speaker 1: want secure assets, they want to secure flow of income.
Speaker 1: And you know that is a problem for them because
Speaker 1: if they're holding a lot of treasuries, they're holding secure
Speaker 1: assets for sure, but they're losing year after year after year.
Speaker 1: If Treasury is paying twenty basis points or thirty basis
Speaker 1: points and the inflation rate is two work two and
Speaker 1: a half percent or whatever will turn out to be.
Speaker 1: So it's really a huge burden on savers who want
Speaker 1: secure flows of income but want to avoid risk. But
Speaker 1: one of the more fascinating parts of your career was
Speaker 1: sort of helping to negotiate diplomacy with China way back
Speaker 1: in the Nixon administration. I'm curious just your sort of
Speaker 1: overall thoughts of the U. S. China relationship right now.
Speaker 1: Obviously it's seen better days, it's deteriorating. Is this friction
Speaker 1: between these two countries here to stay regardless of who
Speaker 1: the next president and is, And how do you sort
Speaker 1: of see it all shaping up in terms of, you know,
Speaker 1: geopolitics from one thing, but also just what the economic
Speaker 1: and market implications will be saying the next decade between
Speaker 1: the US and China. Relations between US and China are
Speaker 1: more fraught, more tense, more acrimonious then I have seen
Speaker 1: in all the time I've been working on China, and
Speaker 1: I started, as you mentioned, in the early nineteen seventies
Speaker 1: with Henry Kissinger, and there have been a lot of
Speaker 1: issues between the United States and China, but the relationship
Speaker 1: really is deteriorating, and deteriorating badly. It was beginning to
Speaker 1: deteriorate even before COVID. It was the beginning to deteriorate
Speaker 1: because of differences over trade, differences over intellectual property, differences
Speaker 1: over who would be the dominant player in global technology.
Speaker 1: All these things were important in the relationship. And China
Speaker 1: now is a country that sees the US preoccupied with
Speaker 1: very difficult domestic issues and believes that this is an
Speaker 1: opportunity for it to expand its role internationally. Which it
Speaker 1: is doing, not just through the Belton Road initiative, but
Speaker 1: trying to write some of the rules or a lot
Speaker 1: of the rules for global trade, for global technology, et cetera.
Speaker 1: The problem for China though, is that it has a
Speaker 1: lot of domestic issues, and there's issues relating to joblessness.
Speaker 1: That's a problem. There are a lot of people who
Speaker 1: are big borrowers in China. Now they're unable to pay
Speaker 1: their debts. So China is not immune to economic difficulties.
Speaker 1: That the death situation there is quite substantial, and it
Speaker 1: now has to rely more and more, and President Chijin
Speaker 1: pain has made this point, rely more and more on
Speaker 1: its own economy. It can't rely as much on the
Speaker 1: United States, so it has to bolster its own economy domestically,
Speaker 1: and it has to develop relationships with other markets Southeast
Speaker 1: Days and Europe and other markets as well. So it's
Speaker 1: becoming more and more I wouldn't say detached from the
Speaker 1: United States, but it's coming to rely less and less
Speaker 1: on the American market. And also it's worried that the
Speaker 1: United States, at some point, for political or other reasons,
Speaker 1: will cut off Chinese access to certain important technologies that
Speaker 1: Chinese companies need China realize very heavily, for instance, on
Speaker 1: American semiconductors. And there's also this concern that the United
Speaker 1: States will interfere with the capital market relationship, with the
Speaker 1: financial relationship between the United States and China. So China
Speaker 1: is beginning to realize that it is vulnerable to what
Speaker 1: the United States has been doing and what the United
Speaker 1: States is threatening or implying that it might do, which
Speaker 1: could be a disruptive to the Chinese economy. I wanted
Speaker 1: to talk about that a little bit. You know, we
Speaker 1: mentioned earlier in the pod that there's been some talk about,
Speaker 1: you know, perhaps Chinese companies wouldn't be able to list
Speaker 1: on US exchanges. I mean, when you sort of think
Speaker 1: about that happening, in the implications of that, do you
Speaker 1: view that as a real threat, something that could happen
Speaker 1: that we could see in the next you know, a
Speaker 1: couple of months or years, or do you think still
Speaker 1: a lot of the back and forth between the US
Speaker 1: and China is posturing? Well, I think so far it's posturing.
Speaker 1: I I do think there are people who in the
Speaker 1: financial markets who don't like the idea of the listing
Speaker 1: Chinese assets and American equities markets. So the issue is
Speaker 1: what kind of reporting requirements the US is going to
Speaker 1: impose on China. Will China comply with those, because partly
Speaker 1: it's about that as well, not just about the political threat,
Speaker 1: but about it and regulatory issues. But these have existed
Speaker 1: in the past and the US government has sort of
Speaker 1: overlooked them. Now that's becoming a more serious issue. I
Speaker 1: do think it would be a problem in part for
Speaker 1: China because it does get the broad benefits of being
Speaker 1: able to list in New York, but it also has
Speaker 1: other markets where it can list. If it can list
Speaker 1: in Hong Kong, for instance, it can list in Shanghai,
Speaker 1: can list in Beijing, can list in London. So the
Speaker 1: Chinese would regard this as a disruptive act by the
Speaker 1: United States, but they could find alternatives if if they
Speaker 1: had to be considered a very bad political signal threatening
Speaker 1: the repayment of debt owed to China, that is a
Speaker 1: wholly different issue, and that would be very disruptive to
Speaker 1: the Chinese who expect to get paid when they invest
Speaker 1: in American assets. But other countries, well then say well,
Speaker 1: if US does this to China, maybe it will do
Speaker 1: it to US. For other political reasons or exert leverage.
Speaker 1: So I think you'd see a highly disruptive reaction in
Speaker 1: the US financial markets and certainly in the dollar. So Bob,
Speaker 1: if the next president, whoever it is, we're able to
Speaker 1: lure you back into the Beltway to to give them
Speaker 1: some advice on this issue. What's your advice on how
Speaker 1: to handle China going forward? I think there are various
Speaker 1: issues where the United States should take a tough negotiating position.
Speaker 1: I've negotiated with the Chinese on a number of technology
Speaker 1: and related issues, and uh, it's possible to take tough
Speaker 1: positions visa of each China without being confrontational towards China.
Speaker 1: So you have to find the right balance. Um, and
Speaker 1: one can say, well, we haven't gotten as much as
Speaker 1: we would like to in terms of the kind of
Speaker 1: changes that we've been asking the Chinese or negotiating for.
Speaker 1: But we also have to come to the understanding in
Speaker 1: in our policy framework the way we set up our
Speaker 1: relations with China, that we're gonna need China for a
Speaker 1: variety of reasons. For instance, if there is a major
Speaker 1: global financial crisis as a result of this pandemic, as
Speaker 1: a result of all the debt that has been accumulated
Speaker 1: by a great many countries, not just the US and China,
Speaker 1: but many emerging economies. China was critical in two thousand
Speaker 1: and eight resolving the financial problems of that period of time. Second,
Speaker 1: we also have to bear in mind that Chinese and
Speaker 1: American scientists are working very closely and companies are working
Speaker 1: very closely on trying to find various kinds of immunization technologies, therapies,
Speaker 1: drugs to deal with COVID, and we do not want
Speaker 1: to sever those relationships with American and Chinese scientists. We
Speaker 1: can learn from them and they can learn from us.
Speaker 1: They have some very very good scientists working on back scenes.
Speaker 1: They have a wholly different testing regime from the United States.
Speaker 1: We have a we have a different more rigorous testing
Speaker 1: regime or trials than the Chinese do, or at least
Speaker 1: it's different. They need to be seeing in Washington is
Speaker 1: part of dealing with the COVID issue through various vaccines
Speaker 1: and various therapies, and to deal with the post COVID
Speaker 1: financial issues that were clearly going to face. So Bob
Speaker 1: I actually wanted to go back to the dollar. It's
Speaker 1: one of my favorite things to talk about and within that,
Speaker 1: one of my favorite things to talk about is the
Speaker 1: reserve status of the dollar, and hearing you talk about
Speaker 1: you know how much debt were issuing the importance of
Speaker 1: foreigners in buying that debt. You know, how important is
Speaker 1: the reserve stas of the dollar to the US. Do
Speaker 1: you think and do you think there's any risk that
Speaker 1: the dollar could lose some of that reserve status going
Speaker 1: forward from here? At the mom meant, I think the
Speaker 1: dollar is still pretty secure as a reserve currency as
Speaker 1: the major global transaction currency, is the major global store
Speaker 1: of value. Most global trade, even trade between China and
Speaker 1: other countries, is denominated in dollars. Oil trades denominated in dollars.
Speaker 1: So for the moment, I think the role of the
Speaker 1: dollar is quite secure. On the other hand, it's not
Speaker 1: a god given right for the United States to have
Speaker 1: the world's reserve currency. And what you're going to get
Speaker 1: over a period of time are countries that will be
Speaker 1: exploring digital currencies, that will be exploring other kinds of assets,
Speaker 1: reserve assets, that will be using their own currencies like
Speaker 1: the EU and the Euro. The Chinese want the RMB currency.
Speaker 1: If you want to play a greater reserve role, and
Speaker 1: the US has to recognize that everyone does trust the
Speaker 1: US dollar as the major reserve currency in the world.
Speaker 1: But what we don't want to do is overdo the
Speaker 1: dollar as a way of imposing sanctions on other countries,
Speaker 1: which we often do. We don't want to cause anyone
Speaker 1: the doubt the ability and the United States to meet
Speaker 1: its obligations. We want to make sure that we behave
Speaker 1: responsibly when it comes to the management of the dollar.
Speaker 1: The flip side of the coin, Bob so to speak
Speaker 1: of a week dollar is obviously uh, somewhat of a
Speaker 1: tailwind for the US equity market uh, and for gold
Speaker 1: obviously has been been roaring this year, especially with equities
Speaker 1: UM now SMP flirting with another record high territory this week.
Speaker 1: How much are equity markets, in your opinion, in pricing
Speaker 1: in sort of the best possible outcome to the virus,
Speaker 1: you know, is it seems like there's a lot of
Speaker 1: optimism about a vaccine coming perhaps in the fall or
Speaker 1: by the end of the year. UM. How much risk
Speaker 1: you do you see equities at this type of loft
Speaker 1: evaluation given UM, you know there is some potential risk
Speaker 1: with how well the vaccine plays out in the near future,
Speaker 1: what the economy looks like in the fall as we
Speaker 1: go back to school in the US and and the
Speaker 1: virus potentially could flare up again. How do you see
Speaker 1: it all playing out for the rest of the year. Well,
Speaker 1: I do think for the rest of the year, the
Speaker 1: markets are more and more going to be focused on
Speaker 1: the virus and on the treatments for the virus or
Speaker 1: a vaccine. We have a lot of experience in developing vaccines,
Speaker 1: and the one thing we know about vaccines is they
Speaker 1: take a long time to develop. Now, it's certainly true
Speaker 1: that a lot of big companies are putting all the ammunition,
Speaker 1: all the brainpower, all the capacity they can in the
Speaker 1: developing vaccines, but you have to test them, you have
Speaker 1: to go through trials. You have the trials are quite
Speaker 1: have to be quite extensive because you're actually giving the
Speaker 1: vaccine to well people, so you don't want to make
Speaker 1: them sick by giving them the vaccine. It's very optimistic
Speaker 1: to think that we're going to get a vaccine as
Speaker 1: quickly as a lot of people think. Now. There are
Speaker 1: a lot of announcements about candidate vaccines. There's something like
Speaker 1: twenty six candidate vaccines. Of those, just as a matter
Speaker 1: of interest, China is engaged in nine of them, so
Speaker 1: show see that China is playing a role. There are
Speaker 1: other countries Britain, Oxford University, Israel, Germany, even Russia. The
Speaker 1: role of science, the role of medicine in dealing with
Speaker 1: COVID has actually led to a lot of progress and
Speaker 1: a lot of lives have been saved and we're some
Speaker 1: of our very best people. We looked at science and
Speaker 1: scientists after World War Two as heroes of the war
Speaker 1: and developing new weapons and heroes of the space age.
Speaker 1: We took people from all over the world and they
Speaker 1: helped us to build up our capability in the military
Speaker 1: area after World War Two, you know the rocket program,
Speaker 1: nuclear program, etcetera. We have to look now at our
Speaker 1: security and say we can't just do this on our own.
Speaker 1: We have to get the best and the brightest here,
Speaker 1: but also open up to the best and the brightest
Speaker 1: from the rest of the world. The scientists who come
Speaker 1: from or work with people all over the world. That
Speaker 1: that that new definition security is that it's military, but
Speaker 1: it's military plus health and military plus the environment. And
Speaker 1: we're gonna need to work with our own best and
Speaker 1: brightest and give more of respect to scientists and others,
Speaker 1: but also interact with those from other countries who have
Speaker 1: a lot to offer. Also, I hear you, Bob. I'm
Speaker 1: all for working with the best and the brightest. But now, Bob,
Speaker 1: it's time to work with the craziest things I think
Speaker 1: we've seen in markets. This is our our gimmick to
Speaker 1: close the show every week. A lot of people love it.
Speaker 1: It's the craziest thing we've seen in markets. Stand clear
Speaker 1: of the craziest things we saw in markets this week, Katie,
Speaker 1: I want to start with you, what's the craziest thing
Speaker 1: you saw in markets this week? So it's not in markets,
Speaker 1: but it's about markets, so I think it counts. Um
Speaker 1: I found on Twitter of screenshot from the subreddit data
Speaker 1: is Beautiful. It's a subreddit on reddit dot com and
Speaker 1: uh user l L moon Jay makes art out of
Speaker 1: stock charts, and this week he made this beautiful chart
Speaker 1: of Ford stock price going back the past year. He
Speaker 1: took that chart. Obviously it dipped in March and then
Speaker 1: it's rebounded a little bit, but it kind of looks
Speaker 1: like a clip. And he made this beautiful mountain scene
Speaker 1: and actually has a little FOURD truck in it as well,
Speaker 1: and I'm just in awe of it. I can't stop
Speaker 1: like switching between the picture and then the actual chart.
Speaker 1: So I would head to that subrette and look at
Speaker 1: it because it is beautiful. All right. Well, hopefully he
Speaker 1: had paid paid the appropriate data license for that, for
Speaker 1: that data for that. How about you, Bob? Have you
Speaker 1: seen anything crazy recently in markets? Originally, when the when
Speaker 1: gold started shooting up, I thought that was crazy. We're
Speaker 1: not going to have any inflation anytime soon. I don't think, um,
Speaker 1: why was gold shooting up? But now I don't think
Speaker 1: that's so crazy anymore because it's really, in a in
Speaker 1: a way a bet against the dollar. And it goes
Speaker 1: back to what we were saying earlier. If you don't
Speaker 1: want to hold another foreign currency, but you don't want
Speaker 1: to hold the dollar because the dollar is depreciating, than
Speaker 1: gold is a good asset. It's a good hedge against
Speaker 1: a week or dollar. So what I thought was crazy.
Speaker 1: I'm not a gold bug, but it was crazy a
Speaker 1: little while ago, and the gold shooting up as much
Speaker 1: as it did, I now regard, and um, I think
Speaker 1: others do as well. Regard gold as a single a
Speaker 1: signal of concern about the dollar continuing to depreciate, and
Speaker 1: it's a signal that we as a country and we
Speaker 1: in Washington have to bear in mind. Absolutely absolutely amazing
Speaker 1: running gold this year. And as you said, I guess
Speaker 1: not too surprising given the circumstances, but still pretty spectacular. Yeah, Okatty,
Speaker 1: I will, I'll give you mine now. And Katy, you
Speaker 1: and I as reporters and journalists in financial markets, we
Speaker 1: spend a lot of time writing about the way people
Speaker 1: like Bob and professional investors sort of come up with
Speaker 1: their investment ideas, all the heavy duty analysis and number
Speaker 1: crunching involved. But the New York Post this week's brings
Speaker 1: us another way to go about it. And you know
Speaker 1: what it is. You just hire a psychic. Hire a
Speaker 1: psychic who will read tarot cards. And apparently there is
Speaker 1: a woman named Hey June who she used to work
Speaker 1: at JP Morgan as a data analyst, a couple other roles,
Speaker 1: strategists and on the side, she was given tarot card
Speaker 1: readings to colleagues and friends. Uh and and she decided,
Speaker 1: you know what, there's so much demand for this, I'm
Speaker 1: just gonna do this full time, and apparently, according to
Speaker 1: The New York Post, she has clients in in the
Speaker 1: hedge fund world, in the big tech world, and she
Speaker 1: gives literally gives tarot card readings in the boardroom. I'll
Speaker 1: give you one quote from her. She said, I've had
Speaker 1: many instances where I've told traders be more open minded
Speaker 1: today because I pulled a Capricorn card, which means big business,
Speaker 1: or a Chariot card, which means getting lucky. Then they
Speaker 1: put in a trade that they normally wouldn't do and
Speaker 1: they make bank. So I don't know, Bob, I don't know.
Speaker 1: Are you gonna be replaced by a tarot card reader?
Speaker 1: Do you think is there a risk of that? I
Speaker 1: think it's unlikely. I mean. The one thing, the one
Speaker 1: thing uh I can say as we conclude here, is
Speaker 1: that we at Tedaman have a great team of people
Speaker 1: who make judgments on the basis of of facts, make
Speaker 1: judgments on the basis of thoughtful analysis, make judgments on
Speaker 1: the knowledge of what's going on in our own country,
Speaker 1: in the world and various markets, and and do very
Speaker 1: thoughtful research. The one thing we don't use is tarot cards.
Speaker 1: That's problem guessing. That's probably a good thing. I think
Speaker 1: that's it for the this week's episode, Bob. We can't
Speaker 1: thank you enough, very illuminating an educational discussion, and I
Speaker 1: hope someday we can have you back to talk more.
Speaker 1: I would love to. I want to thank you for
Speaker 1: inviting me to participate. Mike and Katie, you have been great,
Speaker 1: great questions. Um. I hope I do have a chance
Speaker 1: to see you both again soon. What Goes Up will
Speaker 1: be back next week. Until then, you can find us
Speaker 1: on the Bloomberg Terminal website and app, or wherever you
Speaker 1: get your podcasts. We'd love it if you took the
Speaker 1: time to rate and review the show on Apple podcast
Speaker 1: so more listeners can find us. And you can follow
Speaker 1: us on Twitter, follow me at Rea Anonymous, follow Sarah
Speaker 1: at Sarah Ponzac, and follow Katie Greifeld at k Greifeld.
Speaker 1: You can also follow Bloomberg Podcasts at Podcasts and thank
Speaker 1: you to Charlie Pellett of Bloomberg Radio and the voice
Speaker 1: of the New York City Subway System. What Goes Up
Speaker 1: is produced by Jordan's Gas Poora. The head of Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Podcasts is Francesco Leavy. Thanks for listening. See you next time,