Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg P and L Podcast. I'm Pim Fox.
Speaker 1: Along with my co host Lisa Abramowitz. Each day we
Speaker 1: bring you the most important, noteworthy, and useful interviews for
Speaker 1: you and your money, whether at the grocery store or
Speaker 1: the trading floor. Find the Bloomberg P L Podcast on iTunes,
Speaker 1: SoundCloud and at Bloomberg dot com. The Affordable Care Act, well,
Speaker 1: it is being challenged, at least rhetorically by Republicans in
Speaker 1: the House, the Senate, and soon to be in the
Speaker 1: White House. John Grouber is a professor of economics at
Speaker 1: m I T and many people consider him a key
Speaker 1: architect of the Obamacare program. He joins us now, John Groober,
Speaker 1: thank you, sir, good to be here. Can you explain
Speaker 1: some of the specific elements of the Affordable Care Act
Speaker 1: which you believe need improvement. I think the major issue
Speaker 1: before Portable Care Act that needs improvement is the fact
Speaker 1: that ensure that competition has not been the strongest who
Speaker 1: might have hoped on these exchanges, and that insures, as
Speaker 1: a result of that, to raise premiums more than we
Speaker 1: might have hoped. I think that really, in some sense
Speaker 1: what needs to happen is something. The law needs to
Speaker 1: be implemented the way it was written. I want any
Speaker 1: buy that is. Two things. First of all, the states
Speaker 1: where things are worse are the states have not expanded
Speaker 1: their medicaid programs, leading sick individuals into the exchanges rather
Speaker 1: than being covered by lower cost medicaid. Second of all, um,
Speaker 1: what's happened is in the law there was reinsurance payments
Speaker 1: to insurers that were scheduled paid to help them withstand
Speaker 1: the vicissitudes of entering a new market. Republicans blocked those
Speaker 1: payments and so insure suffered billions of costs they didn't
Speaker 1: plan to when they signed up for the Obamacare exchanges.
Speaker 1: But the law had really has been implemented as planned,
Speaker 1: I think it would have gone a lot better. Okay, well,
Speaker 1: let let's let's just take that first one just so
Speaker 1: we can understand that. You say that people who should
Speaker 1: have gone into the lower cost medic CAD program right
Speaker 1: went into an exchange based program. That's correct. So the
Speaker 1: way Obamacare was set up was individuals below a hundred
Speaker 1: thirty percent of the poverty line or you know, like
Speaker 1: fifteen dollars to an individual, we're supposed to be in
Speaker 1: the government Medicaid program, which pays providers less and is
Speaker 1: sort of a more unit is basically more managed type
Speaker 1: of care. And the drews above that level we're supposed
Speaker 1: to be in the exchanges buying private insurance along with
Speaker 1: people of of hiring income levels. UH. The problem was
Speaker 1: when states chose to turn down the free opportunity to
Speaker 1: cover their uninsured, the really crazy decision to not expand Medicaid,
Speaker 1: people between a hundred and hundred percent of poverty became
Speaker 1: eligible for exchanges. So people who say in California would
Speaker 1: be getting medicaid, people between a hundred and hundred thirty
Speaker 1: percent of poverty will be getting Medicaid in Florida there
Speaker 1: in the exchanges as a result. Actually the state with
Speaker 1: the most people in exchanges in America is Florida, which
Speaker 1: has speciferously fought the Affordable Care Act. Okay, can you
Speaker 1: reconcile that though with the idea that there are people
Speaker 1: many times above the UH the income level in order
Speaker 1: to qualify for medicaid, because it also has to do
Speaker 1: with some efforts on part of the government to figure
Speaker 1: out your assets, but that are paying maybe five hundred
Speaker 1: more more dollars a month in premiums for the least
Speaker 1: expensive plan that is on offer on the exchange, and
Speaker 1: yet the deductible is so high that it makes paying
Speaker 1: the premium almost crazy unless you know that you are
Speaker 1: going to use some type of long stay, long term stay,
Speaker 1: or catastrophic element of the plan. So basically, I think
Speaker 1: when you evaluate any law like the Affordable Care Act,
Speaker 1: you have to evaluate it relative not to the world
Speaker 1: we wish existed, but the world that would have existed otherwise.
Speaker 1: The problem you're pointing out is not about the Affordable
Speaker 1: Care Act. It's about the super high cost of healthcare
Speaker 1: in the US. We as a nation are spending seventeen
Speaker 1: percent of our income on healthcare in a world that
Speaker 1: pay income on our healthcare. A high income family paying
Speaker 1: the kind of cost you're laying out is exactly what
Speaker 1: you'd expect, you know, in a high income family is
Speaker 1: gonna have spending ten plus percent. They're in healthcare in
Speaker 1: a world where the nation of the whole is spending
Speaker 1: se So really, that's not about Obamacare. That's about the fundamental,
Speaker 1: long run problem of high costs, which Obamacare has done
Speaker 1: more to address than any legislation US history. If you
Speaker 1: look at the cost employer sponsored insurance since Obamacare has
Speaker 1: been passed, they've fallen by thirty relative to what would
Speaker 1: have happened otherwise. Well, you say relative to what would
Speaker 1: have happened otherwise, but you recognize, I would imagine you
Speaker 1: admit that if you ask people what has happened to
Speaker 1: the premiums of their health insurance that they are either
Speaker 1: paying for themselves or for their employees, you would not
Speaker 1: be surprised if you heard them say it has gone
Speaker 1: up dramatically. Well, you know, I would not be surprised
Speaker 1: at all. And so this is the really difficult problem
Speaker 1: that I think people who developed Obamacare did not appreciate
Speaker 1: enough beforehand, which is that when you reform the system,
Speaker 1: you own the system. And what that means is people
Speaker 1: hold you, really in some sense to not the standard
Speaker 1: of what would have happened otherwise, but the standard of
Speaker 1: everything they don't like is your fault. And essentially we
Speaker 1: have a system that's too expensive. Premiums since Obamacare have risen.
Speaker 1: They have written much more slow than they were rising
Speaker 1: before Obamacare, but they still risen. And the question is
Speaker 1: what Obamacare supporters and that didn't do a good enough
Speaker 1: job doing I don't know how we could have done it,
Speaker 1: but clearly we couldn't do a better job would be
Speaker 1: to explain to people, to set up more realistic expectations,
Speaker 1: that Obamacare was the first step towards address the problems
Speaker 1: to the system, not the solution. Having said that, can
Speaker 1: you also maybe give us your perspective and you say
Speaker 1: that would be the first step up. But knowing the
Speaker 1: way that legislation and the government works, you're only only
Speaker 1: going to get one or two chances during an entire administration.
Speaker 1: So to say that it's the first step implies that
Speaker 1: you're going to be able to roll out these improvements
Speaker 1: on an ongoing basis that really just never happened. But
Speaker 1: but that's actually not true. I mean, take Medicare. That's
Speaker 1: the largest single healthcare program in the country. It's fifty
Speaker 1: years old. We're continually changing it. No, but I'm talking
Speaker 1: about it. I'm talking about a bomb. I'm talking about
Speaker 1: the Affordable Care Act, not Medicare. No, but no. But
Speaker 1: here's the reason I point it. You said we won't
Speaker 1: be able to make those changes. Why not, Well, because
Speaker 1: you can because you have a Republican administration coming in.
Speaker 1: But that's a separate issue. But as political as political
Speaker 1: and policy experts, isn't that one of the most fundamental
Speaker 1: things to take into consideration that you might not be
Speaker 1: around in the next four years to implement whatever improvements
Speaker 1: you think are necessary to make it work for people.
Speaker 1: So what you do in that situation you pass a
Speaker 1: law that has two criteria. It makes to is better
Speaker 1: than if the law did not exist, and be it
Speaker 1: hopefully sets up a flexible enough system that well intentioned
Speaker 1: people can continue to improve it. That's exactly what Obamacare did.
Speaker 1: It made the world better. The healthcare costs are growing
Speaker 1: more slowly, more people have health insurance coverage. They made
Speaker 1: the world better than it was without Obamacare. But it
Speaker 1: was impossible pass a law that literally fixed the system
Speaker 1: because quite frankly, we don't know how. There's still too
Speaker 1: much unknown. So what you do is you make the
Speaker 1: world better and you set up a system where well
Speaker 1: intentioned governments, which doesn't eem like this is gonna be
Speaker 1: one but we're well intentioned governments can continue to improve things.
Speaker 1: That's all you can do. I mean, you can't solve
Speaker 1: all the world's problems in one cell swoop. No piece
Speaker 1: of legislation has ever done that the best legislation moves
Speaker 1: in the right direction sets you up to continue to
Speaker 1: move in that direction when you of government who are
Speaker 1: willing to do so. Well done, Thanks very much, John Groober.
Speaker 1: He is a professor of economics at m I T.
Speaker 1: He is considered a key architect of the Affordable Care
Speaker 1: Act Obamacare. We'll have to wait and see in seventeen
Speaker 1: what President elect Donald Trump and House and Senate Republicans
Speaker 1: have in mind for any changes or repeal of Obamacare.
Speaker 1: US intelligence agencies have concluded that the Kremlin approved the
Speaker 1: attacks on the Democratic and National Committee and other political organizations.
Speaker 1: United States has retaliated, and now President Vladimir Putin of
Speaker 1: Russia says he will not retaliate for President Obama's expulsion
Speaker 1: of thirty five suspected operatives. This comes hours after the
Speaker 1: Russian foreign minister publicly recommended a response. Here to tell
Speaker 1: us what is going on is Nick Wadhams. He is
Speaker 1: our policy foreign policy reporter for Bloomberg, and he joins
Speaker 1: us now from Washington, d C. Home to Bloomberg one
Speaker 1: and one oh five point seven eight d two. Nick,
Speaker 1: give us the latest on this, he said, he said,
Speaker 1: And now you're expelled, you're not expelled, saga. Well, it's
Speaker 1: really interesting. So earlier today, you know that the expectation
Speaker 1: was that Russia would respond in kind. I mean, traditionally
Speaker 1: how these things work, as if the US expels another
Speaker 1: country's diplomats is just sort of pro forma that they
Speaker 1: respond by expelling the same number of American diplomats from
Speaker 1: their country. And indeed that appeared to be what was
Speaker 1: going to happen after the Foreign Ministry recommended that Russia
Speaker 1: do so. Then uh, Putin overturned that and said we're
Speaker 1: not going to Obviously, whether he actually overturned it or
Speaker 1: the whole thing was sort of an orchestrated dance is
Speaker 1: up for debate. But uh, you know he said he
Speaker 1: portrayed is basically taking the high ground as saying we're
Speaker 1: not going to stoop to this sort of kitchen politics,
Speaker 1: as he called it. But really it's it's an acknowledgement
Speaker 1: that that Russia just wants to wait until Donald Trump
Speaker 1: comes to office and test his claim to seek better relations.
Speaker 1: So clearly they just see him as sort of a
Speaker 1: more reliable negotiating partner. Now, nick I got a chance,
Speaker 1: and I mean I guess you can. Anyone can look
Speaker 1: at this, of course, because it is available on the
Speaker 1: Joint Analysis Website of the US Intelligence Department of Homeland
Speaker 1: Security as well as the Federal Viewer of Investigation, and
Speaker 1: it goes into quite a detailed analysis of what is
Speaker 1: called Grizzly Step. This is the Russian malicious cyber activity.
Speaker 1: This has been going on, according to the report since right,
Speaker 1: that's right, and you know this was I think what
Speaker 1: we're seeing is partly an attempt by the Obama administration
Speaker 1: to make the case both to the American public who
Speaker 1: may have been doubtful about the claims against Russia, but
Speaker 1: also to Donald Trump and his own teams. And what
Speaker 1: they've sort of been saying recently is, you know, there's
Speaker 1: not a consensus in the intelligence community. We've had lots
Speaker 1: of um anonymous statements from various members of the intelligence community,
Speaker 1: but no full consensus where everybody says, okay, we are
Speaker 1: all united on what we think is going on. Uh.
Speaker 1: And Trump had actually pointed to the FBI and had said, well,
Speaker 1: where's the FBI in this. We've had the CIA and others,
Speaker 1: but I'm still waiting to hear from the FBI. Well,
Speaker 1: now we've heard from them, uh, and so we're all
Speaker 1: sort of waiting to see how he internalizes and processes
Speaker 1: this information and whether that changes his calculus and brings
Speaker 1: him down a little bit more firmly on the side
Speaker 1: of those who say Russia should be punished now. The
Speaker 1: summary also offers details of the actual hacks, whether it
Speaker 1: is from something called APP twenty nine or APP twenty eight,
Speaker 1: and it talks some tail about remote access tools and
Speaker 1: how they actually gained access to many emails and email
Speaker 1: accounts because in twenty team they started something called a
Speaker 1: spear phishing campaign and that created a link that made
Speaker 1: it possible for them to steal information from the computers
Speaker 1: of the US government as well as political organizations. Well
Speaker 1: that's right. I mean, the thing that's partly so interesting
Speaker 1: about all of this is, for all the discussion about
Speaker 1: technical matters and covert cyber campaigns and classified information, I mean,
Speaker 1: the way that, uh, some of this started was just
Speaker 1: hackers sending a fake email to John Podesta, allegedly or
Speaker 1: purporting to be from Google telling him to change his password.
Speaker 1: So when he clicked on it and changed his password, uh,
Speaker 1: hackers had information had access to his entire Gmail account,
Speaker 1: and that's where he saw a lot of the Wiki
Speaker 1: leaks or all all the Wiki leaks emails come from.
Speaker 1: So it was a very actually simple operation to get
Speaker 1: uh that that email account. But you know, again, what
Speaker 1: we're really seeing is the Obama administration sort of making
Speaker 1: its case and being very explicit about why it thinks
Speaker 1: Russia is involved, and being willing to disclose the evidence
Speaker 1: to back that up. Thank you, Nick wadhams, our foreign
Speaker 1: policy reporter for Bloomberg. The Supreme Court of the United
Speaker 1: States normally consists of the Chief Justice of the United
Speaker 1: States and eight Associate Justices who are nominated by the
Speaker 1: President and then confirmed by the Senate. Well, we only
Speaker 1: have eight right now, and in addition to President elect
Speaker 1: Donald Trump taking the oath of office on January, is
Speaker 1: it possible that there will be another oath administered for
Speaker 1: Supreme Court justice? Let's find out from Kimberly Robinson b N,
Speaker 1: a reporter for Bloomberg. Bloom for the Supreme Court. I
Speaker 1: beg your pardon, Kimberly, thank you very much for for
Speaker 1: being with me today. Um, tell us a little bit
Speaker 1: about what you expect to happen in twenty seventeen, and
Speaker 1: maybe give us some names of individuals who you believe
Speaker 1: are being considered for a place on the Supreme Court. Well,
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign itself actually provided a list of twenty
Speaker 1: one names that are being considered as possible nominees. They
Speaker 1: provided this list before the election, but have since confirmed
Speaker 1: that they will be picking from that list, And in fact,
Speaker 1: on December one, Donald Trump indicated that he would release
Speaker 1: the name very soon, possibly before his inauguration. UM. Of course,
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean that we'll have a sitting justice before then. UM.
Speaker 1: Any potential nominee still has to go through confirmation hearings,
Speaker 1: and those could be quite controversial, really, depending on who
Speaker 1: who it is that Donald Trump decides to ultimately nominate.
Speaker 1: So are there some particular individuals I note Bill prior
Speaker 1: form our Alabama Attorney General Thomas Hardeman, he's on the
Speaker 1: Philadelphia Appeals Court. Steve Cullaton the also US Court of
Speaker 1: Appeals from Iowa. Tell us some of the individuals being considered, Right,
Speaker 1: those are three of the five individuals who have really
Speaker 1: come out um as the front runners. Um, And as
Speaker 1: you mentioned, a lot of these individuals are are currently
Speaker 1: federal Appellate Court judges, so that could speed up the
Speaker 1: confirmation process. I think the consensus is that the two
Speaker 1: front runners really are Bill Pryor whom you mentioned, UM
Speaker 1: and Diane Sykes. Now, Donald Trump has said that he
Speaker 1: wants to nominate somebody who's in the mold of Justice Scalia,
Speaker 1: who is responsible for the vacancy on the court. UM.
Speaker 1: Somebody who's tested who wouldn't have any surprises for conservatives UM,
Speaker 1: which has happened for other Republican nominees, And somebody who's
Speaker 1: young enough to really impact the court and judicial uh
Speaker 1: in UM cases for a long time. Now. Both Bill
Speaker 1: Prior and Diane Sykes fit that bill. There the two
Speaker 1: individuals that Donald Trump name dropped back in February when
Speaker 1: Justice Scalia first passed away UH. And you know they're both,
Speaker 1: as I mentioned, long term federal Pellate Court judges who
Speaker 1: have ruled favorably on conservative issues like abortion and the
Speaker 1: Second Amendment. UM. But Bill Prior um is a more
Speaker 1: controversial pick. Now. He has once referred to Row versus Wade,
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court Landmark abortion decision as the worst abomination
Speaker 1: in constitutional legal history. UM. And so if if Donald
Speaker 1: Trump wants to avoid a very tough confirmation fight. He
Speaker 1: may instead go with Diane Sykes. She was a single
Speaker 1: mom who has said that her philosophy is one of
Speaker 1: judicial restraint, so she could be an easier confirmation battle
Speaker 1: for a new administration. What are some of the specific
Speaker 1: cases you believe will be important in the court. Well,
Speaker 1: the specific cases UM that are already at the court
Speaker 1: UM include things on transgender rights UM, and we may
Speaker 1: be seeing issues on immigration coming back to the court,
Speaker 1: and those are things actually some of these judges are
Speaker 1: already dealing with. You know, Diane Sykes, she sits in
Speaker 1: Federal Appellate Court in Chicago and is dealing with transgender
Speaker 1: rights UM out there, and so I think that that's
Speaker 1: an issue that will be closely looked at in their
Speaker 1: confirmation hearings UM and something that we'll be hearing about
Speaker 1: from the Supreme Court UM in the next year. I'm
Speaker 1: glad you mentioned those confirmation hearings. What is the thinking
Speaker 1: on part of the Democrat senators who will have to
Speaker 1: approve or at least not filibuster the nominations. Well, these
Speaker 1: five individuals are not interchangeable. They really are quite different.
Speaker 1: And so uh, as they said in the beginning, It
Speaker 1: really depends on who Donald Trump chooses to pick. As
Speaker 1: I've suggested, Bill Pryor could be a really tough confirmation battle,
Speaker 1: and Democrats may decide to dig in their heels. They
Speaker 1: certainly did that when he was up for nomination for
Speaker 1: the court that he sits on now. Uh. Democrats were
Speaker 1: able to drag his confirmation battle out for two full years.
Speaker 1: But someone like Diane Sykes might be easier for Democrats
Speaker 1: to get behind. And you know, the math for Democrats,
Speaker 1: especially Senate Democrats, is pretty difficult. They may not want
Speaker 1: to have a big fight on this first nominee, especially
Speaker 1: considering that there may be some Supreme Court vacancies coming
Speaker 1: up again in the near future. In that context, how
Speaker 1: long do you think it will be before we learn
Speaker 1: the actual name of the nominee. I think it could
Speaker 1: be any time in the next coming days. As I mentioned,
Speaker 1: it was December one when Donald Trump said that he
Speaker 1: would very soon drop the name. UM, so we're about
Speaker 1: a month out from that. UM. I would expect us
Speaker 1: to hear a name sometime very soon. We'll have to
Speaker 1: wait and see. But I want to thank you very
Speaker 1: much for keeping us up today. Kimberly Robinson is our
Speaker 1: Supreme Court reporter for Bloomberg b n A. Wenna have
Speaker 1: to watch closely. And indeed, one of the federal judges
Speaker 1: that the Donald Trump's team has indicated might be a
Speaker 1: possible fit for the Supreme Court. To Diane's Sykes, a
Speaker 1: federal judge of the United States Courts of Appeals for
Speaker 1: the Seventh Circuit. Well, maybe she'll have something to celebrate.
Speaker 1: Her birthday was just on December the twenty three, so
Speaker 1: we wish her the latest happy birthday. Well, we call
Speaker 1: on Chuck Lieberman, the chief investment Officer and managing partner
Speaker 1: at Advisors Capital Management, to help us navigate our investment
Speaker 1: portfolios and strategies. He helps to manage one point three
Speaker 1: billion dollars and he joins us from Ridgewood, New Jersey.
Speaker 1: Chuck Lieberman, thank you for being with me. Give us
Speaker 1: your outlook for twenty seventeen, and maybe you can take
Speaker 1: a look at it in terms of industry groups that
Speaker 1: will fare well and those that will fare poorly. Well,
Speaker 1: we see, uh, some continuing trends from six um. Trump selection,
Speaker 1: I think reinforces a lot of those trends that we
Speaker 1: see in place. So we see policies that are a
Speaker 1: bit more pro growth, whether it's cutting taxes at the
Speaker 1: corporate level or at the individual level, increased government spending,
Speaker 1: the regulation, all of those work in the same direction
Speaker 1: for stronger growth. So that suggests that sectors that are
Speaker 1: more cyclical should benefit, sectors that are less cyclical should
Speaker 1: be hurt, both because of the better economy, but also
Speaker 1: because of upward pressure on inflation and wage rates and
Speaker 1: and interest rates. UM. And that gets back to the
Speaker 1: notion that the truth of the matter is the U
Speaker 1: S economy hasn't feared that badly. The unemployment rate has
Speaker 1: come down pretty dramaticle we're at obviously cyclical lows and
Speaker 1: and even at full employment by the Fed Zone definition,
Speaker 1: although they haven't really reacted much to it yet. But
Speaker 1: if you then get some incremental strength in the economy,
Speaker 1: which everyone seems to think is coming UH, that has
Speaker 1: a pretty negative implication for the bond market UH, and
Speaker 1: therefore also a negative implication for everything in the stock
Speaker 1: market that is very, very interest rate sensitive, notably things
Speaker 1: like real estate investment, trust utilities UH, telephone companies UH,
Speaker 1: and even consumer staples. Well, but I thought that cyclical
Speaker 1: stocks the supercyclical sector includes such things as basic materials
Speaker 1: as well as consumer cyclicals, financial services, and real estate. Well,
Speaker 1: it varies. Uh. If you think about for example, materials, UH.
Speaker 1: Material sector has its own issues, most importantly the deceleration
Speaker 1: and economic growth in China and pretty much the end
Speaker 1: of the huge construction boom in China, both of which
Speaker 1: demanded vast quantities of raw materials. China counted for something
Speaker 1: like plus of the total world's demand for cement some
Speaker 1: years ago, and that's going to a road pretty rapidly. Uh.
Speaker 1: And the same thing follows through for iron ore and
Speaker 1: steel and all of the other industrial medals. And you're
Speaker 1: seeing the fall out of that for companies like Caterpillar
Speaker 1: and mining companies and and so on. So I wouldn't
Speaker 1: look for that to uh have a stronger economy more
Speaker 1: than offset that very very powerful secular trend working against
Speaker 1: those sectors. UM. The others like financial services, absolutely that's
Speaker 1: going to be one of the prime beneficiaries. That sector
Speaker 1: has done very well already up roughly since the election.
Speaker 1: But if you still buy into financials today, yeah, I
Speaker 1: think the valuations are still a tray active and I
Speaker 1: would buy into financials any specifics, whether you're talking regional banks,
Speaker 1: money center banks, or non financial non bank financials. I
Speaker 1: definitely like the money center banks. I think they are
Speaker 1: still pretty inexpensive. UH and deregulation plus lower interest rate
Speaker 1: put plus lower UM plus money I'm sorry, plus a
Speaker 1: widening of interest rate differentials because of rising rates UH
Speaker 1: increasing the rates that they earned versus the rates they pay,
Speaker 1: plus the deregulation. Both of those should work very powerfully
Speaker 1: for them. Well, let me just give you a couple
Speaker 1: and you can just give us a nod almost you know,
Speaker 1: whether it's Bank of America. The yield there one point
Speaker 1: three percent, the stock is up thirty this year. I
Speaker 1: still like it. Okay, how about City Group? Do you
Speaker 1: think they'll benefit? Absolutely? Still like that one as well.
Speaker 1: Any regional banks. We do like some of the regional banks. UM.
Speaker 1: The regional banks should should benefit from the wire eyes
Speaker 1: and interest rates and the same phenomenon of arising in
Speaker 1: that interest margin. UH. Pack West is one that we like.
Speaker 1: P A. C W is another one we like. UM
Speaker 1: Regions Financial in the Southeast another one we like, Bank United,
Speaker 1: also in the Southeast. Now you're not buying these because
Speaker 1: of the dividend yield or are you well? In some
Speaker 1: cases we are and in many cases we're not. We're
Speaker 1: buying them because they're attractive investments, because I'm just looking.
Speaker 1: For example, pack West up UH this year. The yield
Speaker 1: is over three and a half percent. Right, that one
Speaker 1: fits into our income with growth strategy. So there we're
Speaker 1: buying it both for the yield as well as for
Speaker 1: the upside potential. But the city is a holding in
Speaker 1: our growth portfolio. The yield is still low there, but
Speaker 1: they have the ability to raise that dividends substantially over time,
Speaker 1: and until they get approval from the Fed, they continue
Speaker 1: to buy back a lot of stocks. When Chuck Lieberman
Speaker 1: sits down around the New Year's table and someone asks,
Speaker 1: what is your most far fetched investment strategy, meaning the
Speaker 1: one for an individual or an institution that can afford
Speaker 1: some bumps along the way, what does Chuck Lieberman say? Uh.
Speaker 1: One of the areas that I like are some of
Speaker 1: the non bank financials, business development companies, and some of
Speaker 1: the UH private investment companies companies like a black Stone Group. UH,
Speaker 1: those are very interesting. They provide pretty good yields UH,
Speaker 1: and they should benefit from the healthier economy. They can
Speaker 1: sell off some of their investments in the market that
Speaker 1: I think is going to be uh doing fine, so
Speaker 1: they can realize some of those big investment gains. And
Speaker 1: you're putting your money with people like Steven Schwartzman, who
Speaker 1: happens to run the black Stone Group. Right stock down
Speaker 1: eight percent this year with the yield currently of over
Speaker 1: six per cent, But the people have to be mindful
Speaker 1: that that yield can change, and it can change dramatically,
Speaker 1: and it changes all the time. It reflects their ability
Speaker 1: to realize gains. And they've got a core business that's
Speaker 1: sort of recurring, and then there's another business that is
Speaker 1: much more uh episodic, shall we say. So they need
Speaker 1: to be able to sell off assets, but the underlying
Speaker 1: value of that building the business remains very, very attractive,
Speaker 1: and so when you ask for something that's a little
Speaker 1: bit off the mainstream, that's one I want to thank
Speaker 1: you very much for joining me. Chuck Lieberman is the
Speaker 1: chief investment Officer and managing partner for Adviser's Capital Management,
Speaker 1: where he helps manage over one point three billion dollars.
Speaker 1: Joining us from Ridgewood, New Jersey, Thanks for listening to
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg p and l podcast. You can subscribe and
Speaker 1: listen to interviews at iTunes, sound Cloud, or whatever podcast
Speaker 1: platform you prefer. I'm Pim Fox. I'm out there on
Speaker 1: Twitter at pim Fox. I'm out there on Twitter at
Speaker 1: Lisa Abramo. It's one before the podcast. You can always
Speaker 1: catch us worldwide on Bloomberg Radio