Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Markets Podcast. I'm Paul Sweeney alongside
Speaker 1: my co host Matt Miller.
Speaker 2: Every business day we bring you interviews from CEOs, market pros,
Speaker 2: and Bloomberg experts, along with essential market moving news.
Speaker 1: Find the Bloomberg Markets Podcast called Apple Podcasts or wherever
Speaker 1: you listen to podcasts, and at Bloomberg dot com slash podcast.
Speaker 3: We want to.
Speaker 1: Welcome Star Stage and Screen Creaty Groupda. She's a markets
Speaker 1: reporter for Bloomberg and she's here doing some work on
Speaker 1: an Amazon case Federal Trade Commission. It's tough to be
Speaker 1: a big tech and trying to get bigger.
Speaker 4: Is in it? It is?
Speaker 5: Look, this is my kind of weekly obsession this week.
Speaker 5: I'm traditionally Okay, it's reporter, as you know, But to me,
Speaker 5: I think one of the big stories that perhaps isn't
Speaker 5: getting enough attention is just how much momentum the FDC
Speaker 5: is getting. Some of the biggest cases against these big
Speaker 5: tech names are coming from the FTC, and a lot
Speaker 5: of them filed just this week on Amazon, the third
Speaker 5: one on Amazon. The big one I've been keeping my
Speaker 5: eye on, though, is Microsoft and Activision. Yes, and bear
Speaker 5: with me. Fun fact my very first speed at Bloomberg
Speaker 5: was video game stocks and cannabis stocks.
Speaker 6: Really, I know, I.
Speaker 7: Didn't know that.
Speaker 5: I know, it really tracks with my image, doesn't it
Speaker 5: have a cool be It actually was, And this was
Speaker 5: back in twenty eighteen, when you know, these weren't big
Speaker 5: covered sectors just yet. So Activision kind of holds a
Speaker 5: close spot in my heart. But I think what you
Speaker 5: really have to keep in mind here is that this
Speaker 5: is one of the biggest tech deals in history, sixty
Speaker 5: nine billion dollar active acquisition of Activision getting a lot
Speaker 5: of flak for basically potentially hurting consumers. That's kind of
Speaker 5: the new definition of anti trust. Now, just how competitive
Speaker 5: does it get? If I can put some numbers on it,
Speaker 5: because you did start to hear testimony from Sati Nadella,
Speaker 5: the Microsoft CEO, the Activision CEO Bobby Codec as well,
Speaker 5: and one of the big takeaways was how much market
Speaker 5: share does Microsoft take in the cloud gaming space, which
Speaker 5: is very nascent by the way, if you take over
Speaker 5: call of Duty vertical integration essentially, and one of the
Speaker 5: chief kind of complaints came from the Sony PlayStation CEO.
Speaker 5: They're saying, look, if you take call of duty off
Speaker 5: our consoles. That's going to one erode our own kind
Speaker 5: of market dominance in the console market. But two, it's
Speaker 5: really going to hurt consumers because at the end of
Speaker 5: the day, you don't just pay fifty to one hundred
Speaker 5: bucks for the game, you have to then pay two
Speaker 5: hundred and fifty to three hundred bucks for the console
Speaker 5: as well. And you know you could have gamers up
Speaker 5: in arms about that.
Speaker 7: Yeah.
Speaker 8: Yeah, So when does Microsoft say this has just gotten
Speaker 8: too hard and too expensive, let's just call it.
Speaker 9: A day on this deal.
Speaker 5: Yeah, well, that's where I think this decision is so crucial. Look,
Speaker 5: we've had about five days of testimony from both sides.
Speaker 5: We've heard closing arguments yesterday. We are expecting now to
Speaker 5: hear from the FTC Commissioner soon as well as well
Speaker 5: as a judge who is ruling the case. Basically, the
Speaker 5: deal here is the FDC has filed an injunction, which
Speaker 5: basically means they need to if the FDC grants it,
Speaker 5: or excuse me, if the federal court grants it, they
Speaker 5: need to then be able to take this to a
Speaker 5: proper trial, a proper hearing. That's not what's happened yet.
Speaker 5: If it is taken to that proper trial hearing, that
Speaker 5: is three years of extra administrative costs plus a three
Speaker 5: billion dollar breakup fee. Now, in the context of Microsoft,
Speaker 5: three billion dollars is not that much, but the added
Speaker 5: kind of gains you've seen in Microsoft stock off of
Speaker 5: the potential of this deal is enormous, and that's where
Speaker 5: you see a bigger loss. Basically, the chief lawyer for
Speaker 5: the Microsoft side said, if this injunction is granted, we're
Speaker 5: going to drop the deal because the closing date is
Speaker 5: July eighteenth, and there's no way you can get a
Speaker 5: hearing done before that.
Speaker 1: So so when do we hear about that injunction.
Speaker 5: We're expecting starting as early as Monday, but given the holiday,
Speaker 5: it might be later in the week.
Speaker 1: And so is there a chance that this ing could
Speaker 1: actually go to trial before you know the kind of
Speaker 1: that closing date type of thing there, and we'll get
Speaker 1: a resolution one way or the other.
Speaker 5: There is it might not go to trial, because basically
Speaker 5: Microsoft is saying is if they there is a push
Speaker 5: to go to a trial, they're going to drop the
Speaker 5: deal altogether. And if they don't grant the injunction. Traditionally,
Speaker 5: the FTC says, if you don't get the adjunction, we're
Speaker 5: going to hands off on the deal. That's been the
Speaker 5: historic trend. But Lenacon is a different She comes that
Speaker 5: tech really hard. She has been for a while. So
Speaker 5: anything can happen.
Speaker 8: Here, really, And how does this impact the AI sector
Speaker 8: as well?
Speaker 5: Chredy, what's the potential read through? Yeah, well, when we
Speaker 5: talked about cloud gaming, look, cloud gaming is something that
Speaker 5: is brand spanking new in the technology sphere, and it's
Speaker 5: why Microsoft really wants to get their hands on it
Speaker 5: as well. Here's what else is brand spanking new artificial
Speaker 5: intelligence and a lot of that is happening through these
Speaker 5: acquisitions of these smaller AI players because it hasn't grown
Speaker 5: to that ability yet. And remember acquisitions have been kind
Speaker 5: of frozen for a lot of these big tech names
Speaker 5: for a while. It's why they're sitting on i think
Speaker 5: one hundred and fifty billion dollars of cash combined with
Speaker 5: all the kind of big tech players because they're trying
Speaker 5: to avoid that scrutiny from the federal government. So the
Speaker 5: concern here for the broader tech sphere and the broader
Speaker 5: benchmark is that if you start to see some sort
Speaker 5: of precedent that the FTC wins here, then it could
Speaker 5: hit every deal that big tech has had and might
Speaker 5: potentially have in their race to really expand on AI.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean that is the big fallout. Yeah, And
Speaker 1: I think we're kind of the market's kind of already
Speaker 1: pricing that in. I don't think the market anticipates the market.
Speaker 1: The government regular is allowing big tech to do anything
Speaker 1: more of size, right.
Speaker 5: Nothing more. But then they also don't think that they're
Speaker 5: going to make progress on kurttailing what's already been done,
Speaker 5: and that's really where the market.
Speaker 1: Risk is, all Rightty, great reporting, Thank you so much
Speaker 1: for coming in here. Kritti Gupta. She's host the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Surveillants Early Edition for Bloomberg News and just doing some
Speaker 1: work here on what is a huge topic in Silicon Valley,
Speaker 1: in technology, in M and A in general, which is
Speaker 1: can big tech get anything done in terms of mergers
Speaker 1: and acquisitions? And boy, the government's really clamping down hard
Speaker 1: on that after you know, decades of a soft touch.
Speaker 3: You're listening to the team Ken's are Live program Bloomberg
Speaker 3: Markets weekdays at ten am Eastern.
Speaker 4: On Bloomberg dot Com.
Speaker 3: The iHeartRadio app and the Bloomberg Business app or listen
Speaker 3: on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: First half of the year in the books, and you
Speaker 1: know when this day closes here, So we're looking at it.
Speaker 1: A nice big move up in this market. Fifteen percent
Speaker 1: plus and y s and P five hundred. Matt Stucky
Speaker 1: joins us. He's a senior portfolio manager at Northwestern Mutual. Matt,
Speaker 1: what do you make of this market here? What do
Speaker 1: you make of the first half here? With like no hindsight, Look,
Speaker 1: no hindsight.
Speaker 10: This is a surprising result for the front half of
Speaker 10: this year, and so put me in that camp of
Speaker 10: those that probably were caught a little bit off guard
Speaker 10: with how strong this market has been. Look, I mean
Speaker 10: the Nasdaq up until today is up forty percent year today.
Speaker 10: That's the best since nineteen eighty three when what a
Speaker 10: Feeling was leading the radio charts. And so this is
Speaker 10: definitely unprecedented just in terms of what this market's done
Speaker 10: in absolute terms, but also just in terms of the
Speaker 10: context of you know, we're in the middle of a
Speaker 10: fed rate hike cycle that they're moving pretty aggressively with.
Speaker 10: With there's you know, a good amount of fear out
Speaker 10: there in terms of the recession probability, and we think
Speaker 10: that is still something that's all on the table, and
Speaker 10: so pull that together, it definitely is a surprising result.
Speaker 8: So to what extent, Matt, are you concerned about lack
Speaker 8: of breadth in the rally in the first half of
Speaker 8: twenty twenty three? Paul was citing earlier some research from
Speaker 8: Bloomberg Intelligence showing that that breath may not actually be
Speaker 8: as big of a problem as we tend to talk
Speaker 8: about all day here at Bloomberg. Is that something that's
Speaker 8: on top of mind for you?
Speaker 10: It is, you know, just a I was actually looking
Speaker 10: at this topic this morning, and you know, if last
Speaker 10: October was indeed the low for this this cycle, and
Speaker 10: you know, recession risks were probably priced at that point,
Speaker 10: you would expect a pretty sizable rally off that low
Speaker 10: level and broad based participation off that level. But if
Speaker 10: you take a look at kind of what's happened since October,
Speaker 10: the equal weighted S and P five hundred for one
Speaker 10: hundred ninety days out since the low is up about
Speaker 10: fourteen percent or so. The overall market, which is cap
Speaker 10: weighted obviously, is up about twenty four percent. But if
Speaker 10: you contrast that rally off the lows of fourteen percent
Speaker 10: against prior recession trough levels, we're in weak territory on average.
Speaker 10: If you kind of go back through each recession kind
Speaker 10: of what was the low and what was the rally
Speaker 10: from the low after one hundred and ninety days, that
Speaker 10: average rally is about forty five to fifty percent or so.
Speaker 7: So we're quite a bit underneath that.
Speaker 10: So broad based participation is not quite there, and on
Speaker 10: an equal weight to basis, it's it's telling you a
Speaker 10: different story just how narrow this leadership has been, which
Speaker 10: to me makes me question some of the sustainability.
Speaker 1: All Right, so Matt, let's just assume I was overweight
Speaker 1: the magnificent seven stocks here this year. Now I'm sitting
Speaker 1: on this big game. I'm looking to reallocate here inequities.
Speaker 1: How are you kind of allocating between the various kind
Speaker 1: of ways to play this market? Large cap, small cap, growth, value,
Speaker 1: How are you guys kind of thinking about that?
Speaker 10: Well, we're shifting a little bit towards value, a little bit,
Speaker 10: a little bit towards small and madcap, which is a
Speaker 10: little bit you know, I would say it's it's not
Speaker 10: necessarily addressed for the economic environment. Yet, because we do
Speaker 10: think of recession is in the cards for later on
Speaker 10: this year and into twenty twenty four, those asset classes
Speaker 10: are a little bit more economically sensitive, you know, to
Speaker 10: the macro. But the reality that we think is priced
Speaker 10: into those asset classes to us gives us some compensation
Speaker 10: for the risks in front of us.
Speaker 7: You know, look at small.
Speaker 10: Cap as an example, it's just going to dig into
Speaker 10: that for a little bit. Earnings estimates for the four
Speaker 10: to twelve months or down about fourteen percent, and we're
Speaker 10: paying just a thirteen x multiple for those reduced estimates.
Speaker 10: Contrast that to the S and P five hundred, which
Speaker 10: have actually seen earning's revisions start to rise and they're
Speaker 10: only three percent off the all time highs, and you're
Speaker 10: paying nineteen times earnings for that. You know, valuations aren't
Speaker 10: a very good short term indicator for performance, but over
Speaker 10: the long term, where we try to align our time
Speaker 10: horizon with our investment and portfolio, they do start to matter.
Speaker 10: And so we think we can probably weather the storm
Speaker 10: pretty well in something that already is pricing in a
Speaker 10: little bit of economic weakness, which is what we expect
Speaker 10: as we kind of move throughout the rest of this year.
Speaker 10: But you know, broad outside of equities, we do think
Speaker 10: fixed income is attractive here, and we've allocated more of
Speaker 10: our portfolio towards fixed income for those that have more
Speaker 10: balanced portfolios. Part of that is just due to an
Speaker 10: overall outlook of again recession, but also inflationary pressures are
Speaker 10: coming down and religious rates are rising. These are some
Speaker 10: of the highest real interest rates we've seen in over
Speaker 10: a decade, and so for investors that are out there
Speaker 10: that have balanced portfolios, we do think fixed income is attractive.
Speaker 8: I want to talk to you about this breaking news
Speaker 8: that we've got on student loan forgiveness from the Supreme
Speaker 8: Court throwing out Biden's proposal on student loan forgiveness. There
Speaker 8: Biden's saying that he's going to come back with a
Speaker 8: different plan. But let's say that those student loan payments
Speaker 8: are not forgiven. And of course the student loan payments
Speaker 8: are resuming after a three year pause. JP Morgan says
Speaker 8: that's going to cause a hit, particularly to core retail
Speaker 8: sales growth. Are you concerned about the return of student
Speaker 8: loan payments impacting earnings this season?
Speaker 7: We are a little bit concerned about that.
Speaker 10: I think if let's just use a hypothetical situation here
Speaker 10: that you know, payments are turned back on, and what's
Speaker 10: the cost of that to the economy. It's about you know,
Speaker 10: one hundred and twenty five billion or so worth of
Speaker 10: consumer payments that are going to be reallocated towards meeting
Speaker 10: their student loan obligations. And of that subset of those
Speaker 10: that are going to be required to start repaying, think
Speaker 10: about the propensities to spend of that population. You know,
Speaker 10: typically these are younger people, these are people with lower
Speaker 10: incomes relative to the rest of the population, and the
Speaker 10: propensity is spend is very high. So the direct impact
Speaker 10: of the economy, we would think it probably punches above
Speaker 10: the way a little versus that number, and so you
Speaker 10: know the direct impact, Yeah, it's probably consumer related businesses,
Speaker 10: Retail sales definitely collecting a lot of the impact.
Speaker 1: Hey, on your fixed income comment, Matt, talk to us
Speaker 1: about duration. Can I go out from the curve? I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm very comfortable sitting here in my two year
Speaker 1: treasury four point eight seven percent. Some people are saying
Speaker 1: I got to get out of my comfort zone a
Speaker 1: little bit. And go out in duration. I don't know
Speaker 1: about that. What do you think?
Speaker 10: It's tricky right now? You know, right now, actually one
Speaker 10: year treasury bills treasury bonds are at five point four
Speaker 10: one percent. That's twenty bases higher than we were prior
Speaker 10: to the regional bank crisis that flirted up during March.
Speaker 10: And you kind of think, okay, back then, the mark
Speaker 10: was expecting a rake cut in the next thirty days
Speaker 10: when we started to see Sippy fail. Now there's no
Speaker 10: cuts priced in for the next six months, and this
Speaker 10: increase is probably we're going to get two more hikes
Speaker 10: from the Federal Reserve, and so kind of think, okay,
Speaker 10: interest rates are pressured upward from here, and maybe even
Speaker 10: the two years pressured upward from here. But we kind
Speaker 10: of go through history and hiking cycles and cutting cycles.
Speaker 10: The Fed, you know, when they're forced to cut, doesn't
Speaker 10: just cut by twenty five basis points. Typically that first
Speaker 10: cut is one hundred and fifty to two hundred basis points.
Speaker 10: If they have that in the bag, that's usually due
Speaker 10: to some sort of economic event going on, you know,
Speaker 10: some sort of form of a recession.
Speaker 7: There's a crisis somewhere.
Speaker 10: I'm just going through history, and we're not calling for
Speaker 10: any kind of episodic situation that would force that, but
Speaker 10: you know, we do need to probably think through the
Speaker 10: likelihood that what we're seeing that's attractive on the front
Speaker 10: end here, how long that's likely to persist. And so
Speaker 10: we're more intermediate and that's what we're recommending to our clients,
Speaker 10: where we get that nice balance between duration and reinvestment
Speaker 10: right for our clients. And you know, it is tempting
Speaker 10: there to take those attractive front end yields, though I
Speaker 10: understand that exactly.
Speaker 1: All right, Matt, thanks so much for joining us. Appreciate
Speaker 1: getting your thoughts. Matt Stuckey, Senior portfolio manager for Northwestern Mutual.
Speaker 3: You're listening to the tape Can's our live program Bloomberg
Speaker 3: Markets weekdays at ten am Eastern on Bloomberg Radio, the
Speaker 3: tune in app, Bloomberg dot Com, and.
Speaker 4: The Bloomberg Business App.
Speaker 3: You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our
Speaker 3: flagship New York station, Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 1: Madison Mills, Paul Sweeney. Here in our Bloomberg directive Broger Studio, Busy,
Speaker 1: busy day here, we need to take some time out
Speaker 1: here and get the latest on the geopolitical issues, particularly
Speaker 1: as it relates to Ukraine. And nobody better to speak
Speaker 1: to about this issue than Mike Rodgers. Mike is a
Speaker 1: retired four star admiral with the United States NAVING. Of course,
Speaker 1: we thank him for his service. Admiral, thanks so much
Speaker 1: for taking the time to chat with us today. I
Speaker 1: would love to get your view of the current situation
Speaker 1: on the battlefield in Ukraine.
Speaker 6: Sure, and thanks very much for the opportunity.
Speaker 11: Paul. You know, as I look at it, I don't
Speaker 11: think either side, even the aftermath of the Wagner Group
Speaker 11: activities of the rebellion, neither side has yet shown the
Speaker 11: ability to deliver a knockout bow. Even in the midst
Speaker 11: of this disarray within the Russian and this side so
Speaker 11: to speak. Is this mutiny was ongoing, Ukraine wasn't unable
Speaker 11: to really take advantage of it.
Speaker 6: They're still in the early stages I think of their offensive.
Speaker 11: We'll see how that plays out, but right now my
Speaker 11: assessment would be we're likely to see a kind of
Speaker 11: continued stalemate for the near future at least.
Speaker 1: What is your takeaway from this? Just stunning news of
Speaker 1: what happened within Russia over the last week with the
Speaker 1: Wagner Group, and most specifically, what do you think that
Speaker 1: means for Putin standing within Russia.
Speaker 11: Well, first of all, I think at highlights there's probably
Speaker 11: more fragility in the Russian system than most of the
Speaker 11: West has recognized. If I was Putin, I'd be very concerned,
Speaker 11: and I'd be concerned about a couple of specific dimensions.
Speaker 11: Number One, you saw almost no reaction from the Russian
Speaker 11: military or the Russian security services to this meeting. They
Speaker 11: literally seemed to sit on the sidelines and watch, and
Speaker 11: the Wagner Group was able to relatively quickly move several
Speaker 11: hundred miles, occupy Rostov and a few other locations with
Speaker 11: in southwest Russia, and then move on to Moscow before
Speaker 11: ultimately I think Putin cut a deal to get this
Speaker 11: thing to stop, but the fact that they didn't respond
Speaker 11: that would worry me if I were Secondly, if you
Speaker 11: look at the videos of the Wagner Group as it
Speaker 11: moved into Rostov, the largest urban area that we saw
Speaker 11: them in, are you saw people on the streets literally cheering?
Speaker 4: Yep?
Speaker 6: Now, not because they.
Speaker 11: Thought forgoes in The leader of the Wagner group was
Speaker 11: trying to overthrow Putin because he wasn't. But the idea
Speaker 11: that this strong individual who's been leading a group that's
Speaker 11: been relatively successful by Russian standards of the battlefield of Ukraine.
Speaker 11: This individual was saying, Look, the reason we're not winning
Speaker 11: his war is because of incompetence within the defense ministry
Speaker 11: and the Russian senior military leadership. And therefore, I Progozen
Speaker 11: are going to put enough pressure on the Putin that
Speaker 11: he's going to remove those people and will ultimately win
Speaker 11: this war.
Speaker 6: Because Progosen had been an advocate war, he had been
Speaker 6: arguing that it was an appropriate action. The fact that
Speaker 6: so many people were cheering this.
Speaker 11: If I was Putin, I would be thinking to myself,
Speaker 11: this is something I need to be thinking.
Speaker 6: About in terms of what does that mean? Why is
Speaker 6: the public responding so positively to this?
Speaker 8: So to speaking, well, what about the global response. I'm
Speaker 8: curious what you're thinking about to what extent this reaction
Speaker 8: to Putin on the ground is going to impact the
Speaker 8: ability for other world leaders to continue to rebuff him
Speaker 8: and rebuff Russia when it comes to things like sanctions
Speaker 8: and other measures that other global leaders have.
Speaker 11: So I think it doesn't change the broad dynamic where
Speaker 11: the West, US, EU, NATO, and a handful love on
Speaker 11: the nations remain committed to helping Ukraine, both through the
Speaker 11: provision of weapons, through assistance, and through these sanctions that
Speaker 11: are being imposed on Russia. I think all of those
Speaker 11: nations remain committed, and this activity of the last week
Speaker 11: doesn't change that. Likewise, I don't think China, the biggest
Speaker 11: champions so to speak, of the Russians, is likely to
Speaker 11: change their position at least now. I think most of
Speaker 11: the major outside parties are trying to get a sense
Speaker 11: for was this event unique, was it a one off?
Speaker 11: Does it suggest that there's something more foundational or problematic,
Speaker 11: that there's greater weakness than the Russian system that we've
Speaker 11: fully realized. So I think right now you're watching people
Speaker 11: observe this and trying to see does this activity that
Speaker 11: we watch.
Speaker 6: With the Wagoner group, does it start to spur others.
Speaker 11: In Russia to startlingly start talking about, Hey, we need
Speaker 11: to stand up, we need to stop this war.
Speaker 6: We'll see. I think we're going to see anything immediately,
Speaker 6: but everybody's clearly paying great.
Speaker 1: Attention Admiral, is there any I guess, weaponry, armaments, or
Speaker 1: even sanctions that could be provided by the West that
Speaker 1: could tip the scales materially in the favor of Ukraine.
Speaker 1: I'm thinking F sixteen fighter jets. Is there anything out
Speaker 1: there that could be provided that would make a big difference?
Speaker 11: Well, I think, though I don't want to speak for Ukraine,
Speaker 11: but my sense is if you ask them, what's the
Speaker 11: greatest capability that we wish we had that we don't
Speaker 11: have right now, I suspect their argument would be, give
Speaker 11: us long range weapons that would enable us to strike
Speaker 11: targets deeper within Russia. That would increase the pressure on
Speaker 11: Russia both domestically, it's populous, would see the war start
Speaker 11: to feel the war. Putin would be more pressured, and
Speaker 11: it would also enable us to try to stop the
Speaker 11: flow of reinforcements, munitions, support into these Russian troops in Ukraine.
Speaker 11: We could hit the targets deeper behind them, enable us
Speaker 11: to isolate that much more effectively. My guess would be
Speaker 11: that would probably be the number one thing they would
Speaker 11: be looking for it at the moment that you asked.
Speaker 6: The West has broadly said that would be really escalatory.
Speaker 6: We're not committed, We're not prepared to do that.
Speaker 11: But if you watch how this is unfolded over the
Speaker 11: last since February of last year, we're coming up now
Speaker 11: in fifteen sixteen months. Yeah, we're now providing weapons the
Speaker 11: West is in the US that when this started we
Speaker 11: initially said.
Speaker 6: Who this would be escalatory. We're not going to do that.
Speaker 11: Like as you highlighted, you know, at sixteen or fighter aircraft.
Speaker 11: So the war is definitely in a different place than
Speaker 11: it was when it started, not unexpected as.
Speaker 8: We kind of near this war lasting for a year
Speaker 8: and a half, which I feel like so many of
Speaker 8: us never anticipated. If you had to put a timeline
Speaker 8: on it, when would you say that this war is
Speaker 8: likely to wrap up? And how much acceleration do you
Speaker 8: think we'll see in that given the events that we
Speaker 8: saw in Russia for the weekend.
Speaker 11: So first of all, I wish I could tell you
Speaker 11: I knew an exact day, but clearly I don't. My
Speaker 11: gut tells me it will be longer than shorter. So
Speaker 11: for example, I would not expect.
Speaker 6: Anything before the end of the year at the earliest.
Speaker 11: Personally, Now, what are the things that might change that dynamic,
Speaker 11: We'll see how this Ukrainian offensive unfold. If it in
Speaker 11: fact leads to great success on the battlefield and they
Speaker 11: are able to push the Russians either out of or
Speaker 11: back closer out of Ukraine or closer back into Russia itself,
Speaker 11: we'll see if that plays out. We'll see if Putin
Speaker 11: makes an assessment given what we've just watched with the
Speaker 11: Wagner group. Hey, perhaps the conditions for me domestically within
Speaker 11: my own system in Russia are not quite as strong
Speaker 11: as I thought that where maybe it's in my best
Speaker 11: interest to try to declare victory, so to speak. But
Speaker 11: traditionally conflicts then for one of three reasons history. Either
Speaker 11: what happens on the battles, one side gains great advantage
Speaker 11: or another side is really weak.
Speaker 6: It feels but we've just got to stop this.
Speaker 11: The second scenario, generally historically is political pressure. Again, one
Speaker 11: site either feels I can't take this pressure, We're losing
Speaker 11: the my populaces against the war. We've got to stop
Speaker 11: at the prices too high. And then the third is
Speaker 11: some external party generally intervened. Historically, it might have been
Speaker 11: the United Nations, it could be China, the US or
Speaker 11: others who basically put pressure on the primary combatants in
Speaker 11: the conflict. At the moment, none of those three scenarios
Speaker 11: battlefield dominance or failure, political pressure or or the major
Speaker 11: external parties supporting the primary combatants, none of those three
Speaker 11: things right now looks like there is any indication that
Speaker 11: they're going to bring.
Speaker 6: An end to the battlefield conflict anytime soon.
Speaker 1: Said ambassador. Is there any reason to believe that Putin
Speaker 1: still does not enjoy the support of a senior military leadership.
Speaker 11: I would not draw the conclusion from this activity that
Speaker 11: Putin is imminent danger of being replaced removed, whether it
Speaker 11: be a coup for the military, of the security services,
Speaker 11: the only arts, et cetera. However, what we have seen
Speaker 11: should clearly show both ourselves as well as Putin. Perhaps
Speaker 11: you're not as strong as you think you are, and
Speaker 11: given that, maybe you ought to step back and rethink
Speaker 11: that the value of continuing this conflict, which you started
Speaker 11: in the first place in a directed violation of sovereigny
Speaker 11: international law, and it's.
Speaker 6: Time to end this. We'll see what if this changes.
Speaker 11: Putin's calculus in the lot to watch in coming weeks
Speaker 11: and months.
Speaker 1: All Right, Adamiral, thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 1: Mike Rogers retired four star admiral for the US Navy
Speaker 1: and a proud graduate of Auburn University, so we appreciate
Speaker 1: getting some of his time there.
Speaker 4: You're listening to the team.
Speaker 3: Can's a live program Bloomberg Markets weekdays at ten am
Speaker 3: Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com, the iHeartRadio app, and the
Speaker 3: Bloomberg Business App, or listen on demand wherever you get
Speaker 3: your podcasts.
Speaker 1: Madison Mills, Paul Sweeney. Here in the Bloomberg Interactive Brokers Studio,
Speaker 1: we've been breaking down a lot of the rulings we've
Speaker 1: received from the Central from the Supreme Court over the
Speaker 1: last several days week and a lot of smart people
Speaker 1: in there helping us understand what's going on. Today. The
Speaker 1: Supreme Court throws out President Biden's student loan relief bill,
Speaker 1: and we want to break that down a little bit more,
Speaker 1: and we've been talking about it all morning. We're joined
Speaker 1: right now by Bloomberg at Legal analyst June Garosso and
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Hire Ed Financial Report at Janet Lord. They join
Speaker 1: us here in our Bloomberg Interactive Broker Studio and on
Speaker 1: zoom from Washington D C Ryan Tige Beckworth joining us
Speaker 1: that covers the White House and politics. June, let's start
Speaker 1: with you. You've had a few minutes now to take a
Speaker 1: look at this ruling here. How profound is this ruling
Speaker 1: by the Supreme Court, How wide ranging may be.
Speaker 9: So we're talking about the student.
Speaker 12: Loan Yes, we are here, so many things.
Speaker 9: It happened today and notice all by six to three
Speaker 9: votes the conservative majority of flexing their town. It's it's
Speaker 9: very profound and the I think the Supreme Court really
Speaker 9: the Conservatives went out of their way to find standing,
Speaker 9: sort of bent the rules a little bit to find
Speaker 9: standing in this case because they said the states didn't
Speaker 9: have standing, but they used a Missouri loan servicer, by law,
Speaker 9: has to give some money kick somebody back to the state.
Speaker 9: And they said that because of this, you know, Joe Biden,
Speaker 9: for giving student loans, that loan services would lose money
Speaker 9: and so Missouri would lose money. So it was really
Speaker 9: a tenuated argument. But I mean, this is going to
Speaker 9: have profound effects on all the student loan borrowers. And
Speaker 9: I know that President Biden is supposed to announce new action,
Speaker 9: but I'm trying to figure out what action he could
Speaker 9: he could actually you know, put forward that would surpass.
Speaker 1: Well, let's go to you, Ryan, you're done in DC.
Speaker 1: You're talking to the folks down there in the White
Speaker 1: House in the administration. What do you think the president
Speaker 1: can do?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 13: I mean he's always had the power to do smaller
Speaker 13: and more targeted things, and I think if you read
Speaker 13: the decision here, the majority opinion says that its main
Speaker 13: beef with this is the unprecedented scale, so he can
Speaker 13: continue to do these sort of smaller targeted efforts that
Speaker 13: specific groups of people who have student loans. I don't know.
Speaker 13: Advocates want him to just you know, redo the same thing,
Speaker 13: but with a different rationale, not relying on the pandemic
Speaker 13: as his excuse. And I don't think he's going to
Speaker 13: do that, but I do think he'll offer up a
Speaker 13: bunch of other ideas and then I think we'll see
Speaker 13: this become a push for Congress to get involved after
Speaker 13: the twenty twenty four elections.
Speaker 14: Yeah.
Speaker 8: Well, Ryan, to your point, this has been done previously
Speaker 8: by politicians across the aisle for a variety of different
Speaker 8: individuals and communities. The Doe forgave six billion dollars for
Speaker 8: defrauded students. Trump wiped out debt for disabled veterans. So
Speaker 8: going to you on this janet, are there some smaller
Speaker 8: moves that the Biden administration could make to get around
Speaker 8: some of the Supreme Court challenges here when it comes
Speaker 8: to specific groups of students that could get their debt forgiven.
Speaker 15: Yes, you mentioned the forgiveness for for profit schools the
Speaker 15: Corinthian that was I believe it was six billion dollars.
Speaker 15: They've made the public service loan forgiveness program much easier.
Speaker 15: That was a very difficult way to get your loans
Speaker 15: repaid after ten years for working in the public sector.
Speaker 15: They've already been trying to make things easier. So there
Speaker 15: are ways, but it's not going to be the blanket
Speaker 15: ten thousand for everybody. And Elizabeth Warren has already come
Speaker 15: out to say the fight is not over, that the
Speaker 15: president has more tools and he must use them, because
Speaker 15: the advocates have been pretty you know, strong in their
Speaker 15: in their language that they want something. However, you know,
Speaker 15: probably the bigger impact is the twenty thousand dollars on
Speaker 15: Pelgram recipients that would have had a bigger impact on
Speaker 15: their lives. Certainly, Elizabeth Warren had been pushing for fifty thousand,
Speaker 15: which was not politically tenable. But the question is, if
Speaker 15: we talked about earlier, this does not solve the root
Speaker 15: problem of the increasing cost of college. This is a
Speaker 15: one time fix for ten thousand dollars for most borrowers.
Speaker 15: Doesn't aggress the cost of graduate school, which is, you know,
Speaker 15: the people with the largest balances are people who went
Speaker 15: to law school or other graduate schools and borrowed over
Speaker 15: one hundred thousand dollars, and that doesn't do anything to
Speaker 15: change that. Calculus and frankly colleges were never on the
Speaker 15: hook for this money.
Speaker 1: Yep, exactly. The last of the sweny offspring, the fourth
Speaker 1: is going to start as freshman year. It is all
Speaker 1: in numbers to them eight. It is uneven relative to
Speaker 1: my oldest that's been inflations crazy. June, let's step back
Speaker 1: from the court. You mentioned a six to three aspect
Speaker 1: of it. As we step back from and just look
Speaker 1: at it in too totality, what's your take on this
Speaker 1: court here?
Speaker 9: Well, I think that this week really says it all
Speaker 9: because during the term there was an opinion here or
Speaker 9: opinion there where you think, oh, well, they're coming.
Speaker 7: That's what I was thinking.
Speaker 9: And in the last week, which is when they usually
Speaker 9: hand down the most controversial issues, you had six to
Speaker 9: three decisions which struck down affirmative action, which got rid
Speaker 9: of President Joe Biden's loan forgiveness, and which restricted rights
Speaker 9: of LGBTQ people. So I think that you're seeing the
Speaker 9: conservative majority really flexing their muscle. They're not afraid even
Speaker 9: though we're at a point where there's so much questioning
Speaker 9: about the court and we've seen these ethics issues where
Speaker 9: were the public there's no accountability from these nine people.
Speaker 9: They can do whatever they want. Do we look what
Speaker 9: they're doing?
Speaker 7: Did we?
Speaker 1: Or do we see it on the mirror image? When
Speaker 1: the Democrats have and I can't recall when that was
Speaker 1: or whatever, But I mean, I'm not a scholar. What
Speaker 1: if the Republicans had or if the Democrats or when
Speaker 1: the Democrats had a six to three or five four,
Speaker 1: then they do kind of the same thing.
Speaker 9: I don't remember things like this that. I mean, there
Speaker 9: were some things, you know, there was affirmative action there,
Speaker 9: but there's things they're taking away rights here. That's the difference.
Speaker 9: The Conservative majority is taking away rights, limiting them. When
Speaker 9: Democrats were in the majority, they were giving rights, and
Speaker 9: of course the conservatives objected to that. But abortion is
Speaker 9: a key example, and that also happened the last day
Speaker 9: of the term. Just think about it. They wait for
Speaker 9: these decisions the last day of the term, then they
Speaker 9: all go off on vacation. There was a story about
Speaker 9: one justice that used to have the limousine waiting outside
Speaker 9: the court and once the opinions were ready'd get and
Speaker 9: go off on vacation. And they try to sort of
Speaker 9: insulate themselves from the backlash.
Speaker 8: Well, and on the last night, five month two right,
Speaker 8: I've forgotten, Yeah, June, I also really quickly want to
Speaker 8: get your take on the sort of conflict that we're
Speaker 8: hearing amongst the justices. In the descent. It feels to
Speaker 8: me like we're hearing more infighting now than we've ever
Speaker 8: heard before. Does that feel right to you?
Speaker 10: Yes?
Speaker 9: I mean it's not right, but it is true.
Speaker 8: That's a correct description rather, yeah.
Speaker 9: Because and you know, when the justices read a descent
Speaker 9: from the bench, that's sort of a move showing that
Speaker 9: they are really really upset about what's happening. And for
Speaker 9: the last two days, Justice Sonya Sotomayor, who leads the
Speaker 9: liberal wing of the Court, has read descents from the bench,
Speaker 9: and an interesting thing is in her descents usually they
Speaker 9: say I dissent respectfully something like that. She's just saying
Speaker 9: I dissent in her descence, and I think that and
Speaker 9: there the descents are really biting, and you see that
Speaker 9: in some of them. For example, in the affirmative action,
Speaker 9: Justice Katanji Brown Jackson, in the first black woman on
Speaker 9: the Court was sort of having a debate, nasty debate
Speaker 9: with Justice Clarence Thomas, who's made it his life's mission
Speaker 9: to get rid of affirmative action. So yeah, you're seeing
Speaker 9: a lot of fissures.
Speaker 1: All right, Amazing stuff, amazing reporting. Thanks guys for joining
Speaker 1: us here, June Grasso, legal analyst and Janet Lauren higher
Speaker 1: education finance reporter, as well as Ryan Teagbeck with down
Speaker 1: in DC with the political Angle.
Speaker 3: You're listening to the Tape cat'sur live program Bloomberg Markets
Speaker 3: weekdays at ten am Eastern on Bloomberg Radio, the tune
Speaker 3: in app, Bloomberg dot Com, and.
Speaker 4: The Bloomberg Business App.
Speaker 3: You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our
Speaker 3: flagship New York station. Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 1: Anna wom talk about a smart voice helping us out.
Speaker 1: Chief US economists with Bloomberg Economics Joints is here. So
Speaker 1: let's step back and what's your takeaway from the eco
Speaker 1: data we saw this week and last week what we
Speaker 1: heard from the central bankers here? You plug that all
Speaker 1: go into your model, which I know you've got a model.
Speaker 1: What does that do?
Speaker 16: Well?
Speaker 17: You know, I think the tension between what markets belief
Speaker 17: and the FED chair power wants the market to believe
Speaker 17: there's still just this DUDEO Powell wants us to believe
Speaker 17: that there's two more twenty five bits hike coming. Market
Speaker 17: is pricing in only one more hike. And you know, Paul,
Speaker 17: the student debt forgiveness today is interesting because it does
Speaker 17: shape off some a couple of tenths of percentage point
Speaker 17: off inflation and the student debt. Yes, and it so
Speaker 17: we estimated last year that the student debt forgiveness would
Speaker 17: have added point two percentage point to CPI for each year.
Speaker 17: So you know, looking at an inflation for the rest
Speaker 17: of the year, because that really is what will what
Speaker 17: will determine where Fed funds rate would go. We think
Speaker 17: that the resumption of student loan the payment this August,
Speaker 17: and on top of that, this student debt forgiveness program
Speaker 17: being invallot now that it would subtract about twenty BIPs
Speaker 17: from core inflation. And also the student debt forgiveness primarily
Speaker 17: affect people on the forty to eighty income percentile. And
Speaker 17: you know, we wrote earlier this week that the bottom
Speaker 17: forty percent of households have already exhausted their excess savings,
Speaker 17: so those folks are seeing their credit card debts run up.
Speaker 17: And now the forty to eighty percent, tell by income,
Speaker 17: those folks are also having to see their finances further
Speaker 17: stretched with student loan you know, resumption payments. So I
Speaker 17: think that a broader stretch of this economy are experiencing
Speaker 17: headwinds in the rest of the year. This is why
Speaker 17: we still think a recession is going to happen in
Speaker 17: the second half of this year. And I think that
Speaker 17: Powell will have a hard time con visiting market that
Speaker 17: there's two more hikes coming.
Speaker 8: Okay, but doesn't the resumption of student loan repayments and
Speaker 8: a isn't that going to be a bit deflationary because
Speaker 8: the consumer is going to be struggling a bit more
Speaker 8: and therefore perhaps that does the job of the FED
Speaker 8: a little bit more for them.
Speaker 17: Yes, that's exactly what I meant. So yeah, with the
Speaker 17: forgiveness program invalidated that it shoots subtract about twenty fips
Speaker 17: per year from inflation.
Speaker 8: But we're still seeing that may not be enough to
Speaker 8: do the job for the FED enough for us to
Speaker 8: have this perfect soft landing scenario.
Speaker 17: Is that what you're saying, Well, I think a recession
Speaker 17: is going to happen because there's there would be five
Speaker 17: hundred there's five hundred BIPs of rate hike in the
Speaker 17: pipeline and there's another twenty five bps likely coming in July.
Speaker 17: So in the second half of this year, you're going
Speaker 17: to have five hundred and twenty five BIPs of rate
Speaker 17: hike in the pipeline. So that should be sufficient to
Speaker 17: push the economy into your.
Speaker 1: Session, Anna, with all your education, all your experience, can
Speaker 1: you explain what biden Omics is to me?
Speaker 17: Biden Omics is about overheating the economy. And while there
Speaker 17: are short term gains, and there are a lot, and
Speaker 17: you know, it's really up to Congress to debate whether
Speaker 17: it's worth it, because you know, for many households, it's
Speaker 17: totally worth it. On employment rate for minority are at
Speaker 17: historical lows and many people. You know, it affects many people.
Speaker 17: But at the same time, there are long term costs
Speaker 17: of higher inflation, is said, having to do more, potentially
Speaker 17: putting pushing the economy into recession, which could have long
Speaker 17: term term effects as well on many households. So ultimately
Speaker 17: it depends on the It's up to the politicians engaging
Speaker 17: whether this is the right thing to do.
Speaker 8: Anna, you have an amazing story on Bidenomics on the
Speaker 8: Terminal that I read earlier this week and could not
Speaker 8: stop thinking about all week, about the three major tenth
Speaker 8: pole pieces of legislation he's been able to get through
Speaker 8: so far as president. Can you talk to me about
Speaker 8: remind our audience those three big pieces of legislation and
Speaker 8: just how much money those pieces of legislation are throwing
Speaker 8: into our economy.
Speaker 17: Right, So aside from the American Rescue Act, right, there's
Speaker 17: on top of that the infrastruct bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, which
Speaker 17: is bipartisan, and that bill is about to generate five
Speaker 17: hundred and fifty billion additional spending on highway and American
Speaker 17: infrastructure in the next five to ten years. And the
Speaker 17: second one is the Chips and Science Act, which is
Speaker 17: also going to add additional about two hundred billion or
Speaker 17: so in spending and text subsidies in rejuvenating American manufacturers
Speaker 17: in chips. And then finally there's the Inflation Reduction Act,
Speaker 17: which really adds about four hundred to five hundred billion
Speaker 17: of spending over the next couple of five to ten years,
Speaker 17: but also finance it with higher taxes on corporate and
Speaker 17: high income individuals. Altogether, whether the effects of these numbers
Speaker 17: look very large, they are going to be spread. Spending
Speaker 17: is going to be spread across a long period, so
Speaker 17: you know, the economic impact of it on a per
Speaker 17: year basis, the gain is small, but over time it's
Speaker 17: the you know, especially with Infrastructure Act, productivity is going
Speaker 17: to rise. You know, when people have better highways that
Speaker 17: get to work faster, it only get stuck in traffic.
Speaker 17: It's better for a productivity. But I think the ultimate
Speaker 17: cost is how much does it further overheat the economy
Speaker 17: at a time where where capacity of the economy is
Speaker 17: running up to the limit already and you're adding extra
Speaker 17: pressure on it, like for example, the Chips and Science
Speaker 17: Act has stimulated a lot of construction spending. The money
Speaker 17: hard on this is that you know, constructure manufacturing spending
Speaker 17: that skyrocketed this year from ninety billion last year to
Speaker 17: one hundred ninety billion this year, and that will generate,
Speaker 17: by our estimation, about four hundred k additional jobs in construction.
Speaker 17: And it's adding to the pressure in labor market at
Speaker 17: a time where the labor market needs to cool off.
Speaker 17: So I think I think the overall the impact of
Speaker 17: the well, it has noble intentions. Whether they're unintended short
Speaker 17: term consequences is another matter.
Speaker 1: So, and it's just about thirty seconds or so, what's
Speaker 1: the greatest risk in your mind, persistent inflation or recession?
Speaker 17: Persistent inflation because that and worst of actually both persistent
Speaker 17: inflation and recession than y staflation.
Speaker 1: There you go, all right, I mean that would be bad.
Speaker 1: That would call I don't think you guys call that stagflation.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 1: Anna Wong, she's the chief US economist for Bloomberg Economics.
Speaker 1: She's been great for us. She was really the first
Speaker 1: one on the street to really talk about higher rates
Speaker 1: for longer, and boy was she right on that. So
Speaker 1: here we've got the FED still thinking about you know,
Speaker 1: one maybe two more you know, FED rate increases. That
Speaker 1: was not what the market was thinking about, you know,
Speaker 1: six nine months ago, and and and her team were
Speaker 1: way out front and saying, hey, kids, you got to
Speaker 1: really think about that. This FED is going to keep
Speaker 1: rates higher for longer.
Speaker 3: If you're listening to the tape, Cat's are live program
Speaker 3: Bloomberg Markets weekdays at ten am Eastern on Bloomberg Radio,
Speaker 3: the tune in app, Bloomberg dot Com, and.
Speaker 4: The Bloomberg Business App.
Speaker 3: You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our
Speaker 3: flagship New York station, Just say Alexa, play Bloomberg eleven thirty, Madison.
Speaker 1: Wilson, Paul Sweet here in our Bloomberg Interactive Broker Studio.
Speaker 1: One of the stock stories of the day clearly is
Speaker 1: our good friends in Coopertino, California. Apple stocks up one
Speaker 1: point five six percent today. That gives it a market
Speaker 1: capitalization of just over three trillion dollars, all time high
Speaker 1: for the stock of forty eight percent year to date.
Speaker 1: All is good in the world of Apple. Let's break
Speaker 1: it down a little bit and see what this means
Speaker 1: across the board. And we're going to do that with
Speaker 1: Anna rag Rana, he's a senior tech and also Bloomberg Intelligence.
Speaker 1: And Mark German, a chief correspondent on Apple and tech
Speaker 1: with Bloomberg News. They both join us via zoom.
Speaker 7: Mark.
Speaker 1: Let's start with you. We've been talking about the stock.
Speaker 1: I'm a stock analyst. That's kind of how I think
Speaker 1: about it. Investors and stuff like that. Talk to us
Speaker 1: about the people in Kuopertino, the employees at Apple. What
Speaker 1: does the stock mean to them? I would think, like
Speaker 1: most other big tech companies, they get a lot of
Speaker 1: stock in their compensation. What's the feeling when you go
Speaker 1: into their new futuristic headquarters in Kupertino.
Speaker 16: Yeah, thank you so much for having me. Good to
Speaker 16: be here to talk about this milestone for Apple. You know,
Speaker 16: there's been a wave of departures from Apple over the
Speaker 16: last year or two. There is the post COVID quitting
Speaker 16: that you saw happen. People trying to reevaluate their careers,
Speaker 16: people wanting to go elsewhere to potentially make more money.
Speaker 16: And as you said, a big portion of Apple stock
Speaker 16: packages or pay packages or stock right you can have
Speaker 16: stock anywhere between twenty and sixty percent, even up to
Speaker 16: seventy five percent in some cases. Right, and so stock
Speaker 16: is a key reason some.
Speaker 4: People have left.
Speaker 16: They felt that the stock growth has stopped or slowed.
Speaker 16: They feel like there's more upset in other companies. But
Speaker 16: since twenty twenty two, at the beginning of twenty twenty two,
Speaker 16: the last time we were in three trillion dollar market
Speaker 16: cap territory, it has climbed pretty steadily back up to
Speaker 16: where we are today, just over three trillion dollars as
Speaker 16: of now. And I think that's going to show employees
Speaker 16: that maybe it is best to stick around.
Speaker 6: Maybe if you were thinking about quitting.
Speaker 16: In October when stock's best on the RSUs, the best,
Speaker 16: the restricted units best, maybe you don't do that. Maybe
Speaker 16: you hold off for a few more years. Maybe you
Speaker 16: stick it out, maybe you ask for more shares. Right
Speaker 16: Because clearly this Apple stock is a worthwhile investment, one
Speaker 16: that has become rock solid and even more solified over time.
Speaker 16: So I think this is a positive thing for Apple
Speaker 16: and it's employees. But also, you know, employee retention is
Speaker 16: one of the key issues right now at Apple and
Speaker 16: and other technology companies, and this helps solve that at
Speaker 16: least for the time being.
Speaker 14: Well, honoron, come on in here, because City is saying
Speaker 14: that Apple has another thirty percent upside with already forty
Speaker 14: eight percent gains in the first half of twenty twenty three.
Speaker 8: Here, do you think that the sky is the limit
Speaker 8: for Apple? When are we going to see the peak?
Speaker 7: Here?
Speaker 12: You know, I haven't seen the City report, but are
Speaker 12: they saying over the next twelve months or the next
Speaker 12: ten years? Because you know, one could make the argument that, yeah,
Speaker 12: the stock should go up over a long period of time,
Speaker 12: but you know I can't make that judgment call over
Speaker 12: a twelve month period trankly all.
Speaker 1: Right, So Anrarak, just give us a sense of what
Speaker 1: is even after a forty eight percent increase this year,
Speaker 1: what's the bullcase from here?
Speaker 12: So you can look at two ways. One is, are
Speaker 12: people you know, looking at Apple as a proxy towards
Speaker 12: the US market and that's one of the reasons why
Speaker 12: people are getting into it with you know, inflation coming down,
Speaker 12: employment rates are very good, interest rates are relatively low,
Speaker 12: or you're looking at the potential for some of the
Speaker 12: new products. But you know, in our view, as I've
Speaker 12: said in the past, I think iPhone really is the
Speaker 12: big story for Apple. I think it's going to remain
Speaker 12: that at least for the next five to seven years
Speaker 12: because globally, you know, countries like India, China, Brazil that
Speaker 12: has a large, large population and the population is getting richer.
Speaker 12: You know, they once they hit a certain point, they
Speaker 12: are more you know, possible they're going to go for
Speaker 12: an Apple device rather than an Android And that's really
Speaker 12: the growth story in our view.
Speaker 1: Hey, Mark, you know you think about India that Anorak
Speaker 1: just mentioned and I hear India, you know, mentioned from
Speaker 1: a lot of companies as an area of growth. You know,
Speaker 1: maybe China's kind of closed itself off or closing itself off,
Speaker 1: and so we're looking to India. But I think for India,
Speaker 1: don't you have to have a lower priced product to
Speaker 1: get into that market? And that doesn't just seem to
Speaker 1: be Apple's kind of strength here. What do you hear
Speaker 1: with Nkoupertino about how they might want to you know,
Speaker 1: really grow in India.
Speaker 16: I mean, the iPhone has been a failure in India,
Speaker 16: right if you're looking at it in terms of numbers
Speaker 16: at this point, right, it's been a failure. It has
Speaker 16: extremely low market share compared to many of the other
Speaker 16: handsets there. And the signals that Apple has been giving
Speaker 16: over the past several months is that we want the
Speaker 16: consumer to come to us, we don't necessarily want to
Speaker 16: come to the consumer. And what that means is they're
Speaker 16: talking about holding pricing firm right and having consumers come
Speaker 16: to those prices rather than lowering prices and coming to
Speaker 16: more consumers. And as on a Rug said, Apple believes
Speaker 16: in this growing middle class in India. They believe people
Speaker 16: are generating more revenue and money in India and they
Speaker 16: want them to be able to spend more money on
Speaker 16: their devices. Apple believes their phones are indispensable. They believe
Speaker 16: the brand is a premium brand and they don't want
Speaker 16: to impact that brand by lowering pricing or releasing cheaper models.
Speaker 16: I personally think they should. I think they could and
Speaker 16: should have already released an iPhone between two hundred and
Speaker 16: three hundred dollars. Right now, the cheapest iPhone is about
Speaker 16: four hundred and fifty dollars with five gene subs. That's
Speaker 16: the latest iPhone onc When the next generation comes out,
Speaker 16: they can easily tag or drop one hundred dollars off
Speaker 16: that and make it an iPhone here towards India, I'm
Speaker 16: not sure they're going to do that. Instead, they're creating
Speaker 16: more installment plans, more financing plans, different promotions, try to
Speaker 16: keep that high end brand, those high end price points
Speaker 16: compared to the Huawei and show me devices you see
Speaker 16: in India and have consumers come to them. So I
Speaker 16: don't see that's the endpoint changing anytime soon, though it should.
Speaker 8: Well, Apple has an update on its ten pole product
Speaker 8: coming in the next few months. Mark with a new
Speaker 8: iPhone update. Talk to me about what we can expect
Speaker 8: from the iPhone fifteen and fifteen pro lines heading into
Speaker 8: this fall, and to what extent does Apple have pricing
Speaker 8: power for those upcoming releases.
Speaker 16: Well, I would say that this iPhone fifteen launch happening
Speaker 16: in the first half of September is one of the
Speaker 16: key drivers to Anorog's point about why the stock is
Speaker 16: going up. Right, You typically see this end of June
Speaker 16: early July period. Analysts and shareholders and investors are anticipating
Speaker 16: the new iPhone launch that's happened same month for the
Speaker 16: last twelve years or so, right, and so they're really
Speaker 16: excited about that. This is going to be a larger
Speaker 16: iPhone upgrade cycle because you're going to see bigger enhancements
Speaker 16: to both the low end models and the high end models,
Speaker 16: which something which is something Apple hasn't done since twenty
Speaker 16: twenty with the iPhone twelve and at five G. You're
Speaker 16: going to see big camera improvements as well as screen
Speaker 16: improvements the lower end phones, and on the higher end phones,
Speaker 16: you're going to see a new titanium frame. So anytime
Speaker 16: Apple makes a material change in terms of the material
Speaker 16: that the phone is made out of, then you a
Speaker 16: pretty big deal about that. Consumers are going to say, Wow,
Speaker 16: that's really cool to get to be able to get
Speaker 16: a phone in titanium. Right on the highest n iPhone,
Speaker 16: the largest model. Apple's looking to raise ASPS by pushing
Speaker 16: people to the higher model by introducing what is known
Speaker 16: as a periscope camera. Now, the technology of periscope cameras
Speaker 16: is still nascent. What this allows you to do is
Speaker 16: have exceptional hardware based zoom, so you can zoom in
Speaker 16: far more into something you want to take a picture
Speaker 16: of without degrading the quality, which is something that happens
Speaker 16: on iPhones on their phones today. This is going to
Speaker 16: be a big improvement only available on the biggest and
Speaker 16: most expensive phones. That's something that I think is going
Speaker 16: to drive sales as well. I think shareholders anticipate higher
Speaker 16: end phones to raise asps and that's what's generating a
Speaker 16: lot of the excitement on the stock lately too.
Speaker 1: Hey, Anura, can you give us a kind of an
Speaker 1: update on Apple and China. So when I think that
Speaker 1: Apple and China, I think about app you know, China
Speaker 1: as obviously a big, big market for them, but I
Speaker 1: also see that as a big supply chain risk. What's
Speaker 1: the latest thinking on Apple and China?
Speaker 12: So from a supply chain point of view, they're doing
Speaker 12: a lot of work to assemble the phone outside China,
Speaker 12: and we've seen you know, a new factory you know,
Speaker 12: cropping up in India. I think that is going to
Speaker 12: be a big feature going forward. I think they will
Speaker 12: establish assembly factories outside in other regions. Also, you know,
Speaker 12: around a last Thanksgiving then they had issues with the
Speaker 12: pro model in China because of COVID, and I think
Speaker 12: that probably taught them lesson that they need to diversify
Speaker 12: that pretty strongly. And I think this year, you know,
Speaker 12: as Mark said, it's going to be a lot of
Speaker 12: excitement in the fourth quarter or the calendar fourth quarter,
Speaker 12: because last year we had know COVID related stuff, so
Speaker 12: very easy comparison for them, And from a supply chain
Speaker 12: point of view, you know more and more stuff being
Speaker 12: assembled in India and then perhaps in Brazil later on.
Speaker 8: And Mark, I want to talk to you about the
Speaker 8: headset because the day it was released, the stock price
Speaker 8: was not as in the green as we're seeing today. Obviously,
Speaker 8: is the headset going to be a headwind for Apple
Speaker 8: moving forward or is it just something that is going
Speaker 8: to be in the background but investors are happy to
Speaker 8: kind of overlook the potential success of the headset.
Speaker 16: The stock growth drivers from the headset have nothing to
Speaker 16: do with the headset themselves. That has to do with
Speaker 16: this idea of ecosystem locking, the idea of consumers wanting
Speaker 16: to buy and use multiple products. The headset itself is
Speaker 16: not going to add more than three billion dollars to
Speaker 16: Apple's bottom line in the first year. And it's also
Speaker 16: possible it could be a huge flop and after for
Speaker 16: giving Apple return on its seven year development investment, it
Speaker 16: could completely go out of style.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 16: I don't anticipate that happening. But that's to say I
Speaker 16: don't think anyone's buying Apple stock in any significant amount
Speaker 16: of money or number of cares because of this headset.
Speaker 16: The first model way overpriced out of normal consumer budgets
Speaker 16: at thirty five hundred dollars starting, It's going to go
Speaker 16: upwards at four thousand, depending on the bells and whistles
Speaker 16: you get. The people who are buying this thing are
Speaker 16: going to be the most avid Apple fans, mixed reality
Speaker 16: efficient audos, and software developers, right the mass consumer, basically
Speaker 16: anyone other than me. It's probably gonna hold off until
Speaker 16: the third or fourth generation. Right over time, Apple anticipates this,
Speaker 16: I'm told, becoming a twenty five billion or so annual business.
Speaker 16: Right that's about an eighth of what the iPhone brings
Speaker 16: in anyways, So I think at this point not a
Speaker 16: lot on the stock because of the headset. But it's
Speaker 16: really the ecosystem locking the idea where you know, I'm
Speaker 16: sitting in front of me with an iPad pro, a
Speaker 16: MacBook Pro, an iPhone pro, at AirPods Pro, and you know,
Speaker 16: in six months from now, I could be wearing an
Speaker 16: Apple Vision Pro to be talking to you. I'm wearing
Speaker 16: an Apple Watch ultra right, that's the magic subscribe to
Speaker 16: all their services.
Speaker 6: Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 16: And so I'm the shareholder's dream consumer and I helped
Speaker 16: him cook sleep at night. Consumers like me, and I
Speaker 16: think that's why that's why people want to buy Apple stock.
Speaker 16: It's just like investing in Coca Cola.
Speaker 1: Yep, all right, it's got a lot of higher evaluation.
Speaker 1: But Mark German, thank you so much for We appreciate
Speaker 1: a chief correspondent on Apple and technology with Bloomberg News
Speaker 1: and of course Ana rag Ran, a senior technology analyst
Speaker 1: with Bloomberg Intelligence.
Speaker 2: Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Markets podcast. You can
Speaker 2: subscribe and listen to interviews at Apple Podcasts or whatever
Speaker 2: podcast platform you prefer. I'm Matt Miller. I'm on Twitter
Speaker 2: at Matt Miller nineteen seventy three, and I Fall Sweeney.
Speaker 1: I'm on Twitter at pt Sweeney. Before or the podcast,
Speaker 1: you can always catch us worldwide at Bloomberg Radio.