WEBVTT - Hindenburg Sends Block Falling With Short Attack

0:00:01.280 --> 0:00:05.640
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg business Week Inside from the reporters and

0:00:05.840 --> 0:00:09.400
<v Speaker 1>editors who bring you America's most trusted business magazine, plus

0:00:09.480 --> 0:00:13.640
<v Speaker 1>global business finance and tech news. The Bloomberg Business Week

0:00:13.680 --> 0:00:18.600
<v Speaker 1>Podcast with Carol Masser and Tim Stenebec from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:20.079 --> 0:00:24.160
<v Speaker 1>Certainly on our radar is Shares a Block because we

0:00:24.280 --> 0:00:27.360
<v Speaker 1>have seen them take a major hit as a result

0:00:27.400 --> 0:00:29.800
<v Speaker 1>of some research out by Hindberg. You remember that's the

0:00:29.800 --> 0:00:32.360
<v Speaker 1>firm run by Nathan Anderson bolstered its profile with that

0:00:32.560 --> 0:00:37.239
<v Speaker 1>scathing report billionaire guantam Adanni's business Empire earlier this year

0:00:37.280 --> 0:00:40.040
<v Speaker 1>that really took down that name. Well, right now, he

0:00:40.520 --> 0:00:43.040
<v Speaker 1>and their team has set their sights on Block. They

0:00:43.040 --> 0:00:46.280
<v Speaker 1>did a two year investigation, and just about one and

0:00:46.360 --> 0:00:49.239
<v Speaker 1>a half hours ago, Block fought back a little bit.

0:00:49.320 --> 0:00:51.800
<v Speaker 1>So let's get into it with our own Bloomberg News

0:00:51.800 --> 0:00:54.680
<v Speaker 1>finance reporter Cat Doherty. She's here on a Bloomberg Interactive

0:00:54.680 --> 0:00:58.400
<v Speaker 1>Brokers studio joining myself and Mike Reagan, and I just

0:00:58.400 --> 0:01:01.160
<v Speaker 1>want to check Shares a Block down, still about sixteen

0:01:01.200 --> 0:01:04.319
<v Speaker 1>percent off their lows, but still taking a hit. All right, Cat,

0:01:04.360 --> 0:01:07.520
<v Speaker 1>what first of all did the Hindburg research say? I know,

0:01:07.560 --> 0:01:09.320
<v Speaker 1>it's out on social media, so people can read it

0:01:09.360 --> 0:01:12.800
<v Speaker 1>as well. But what were the highlights or lowlights. The

0:01:12.920 --> 0:01:17.640
<v Speaker 1>lowlights that their alleging is that this company took advantage

0:01:17.680 --> 0:01:22.720
<v Speaker 1>and facilitated, essentially the fraudsters who were then using government

0:01:22.840 --> 0:01:27.959
<v Speaker 1>stimulus programs during the pandemic and essentially allowing folks to

0:01:28.000 --> 0:01:31.280
<v Speaker 1>have multiple accounts. So even if an account the report

0:01:31.360 --> 0:01:36.720
<v Speaker 1>would say had been flagged as fraud, that account was

0:01:36.760 --> 0:01:39.679
<v Speaker 1>then tied to multiple other accounts and it wasn't dealt

0:01:39.680 --> 0:01:42.959
<v Speaker 1>with in a proper way. So essentially, I think that

0:01:43.040 --> 0:01:46.399
<v Speaker 1>was the key here is the extent to which the

0:01:46.400 --> 0:01:50.040
<v Speaker 1>fraudsters could actually take advantage of the system. And so

0:01:50.160 --> 0:01:56.240
<v Speaker 1>this report goes further into saying that they manipulated certain

0:01:57.000 --> 0:02:01.840
<v Speaker 1>numbers and that they either didn't go far enough to

0:02:02.680 --> 0:02:06.279
<v Speaker 1>say how many of these accounts were a fraud or

0:02:06.320 --> 0:02:11.040
<v Speaker 1>that they understated especially the customer acquisitions as well, so

0:02:11.080 --> 0:02:14.600
<v Speaker 1>that obviously, if true, it would have inflated Block's business

0:02:14.680 --> 0:02:17.239
<v Speaker 1>correct the metrics then would be off the financial metric correct.

0:02:17.320 --> 0:02:21.160
<v Speaker 1>So then Block came out and said that these claims

0:02:21.160 --> 0:02:25.000
<v Speaker 1>were inaccurate and misleading. They're saying we are registered with

0:02:25.000 --> 0:02:31.840
<v Speaker 1>the SEC we report factual, accurate information and that the

0:02:31.880 --> 0:02:36.799
<v Speaker 1>report that we saw from Hindenburg manipulated information and it

0:02:37.320 --> 0:02:39.680
<v Speaker 1>was not an accurate depiction of what's actually going on.

0:02:40.160 --> 0:02:42.240
<v Speaker 1>You know, Ken, I think when I think of block

0:02:42.320 --> 0:02:45.960
<v Speaker 1>I think of the sort of point of sale, use

0:02:46.000 --> 0:02:49.600
<v Speaker 1>a tablet iPad or whatever to swipe your credit card

0:02:49.600 --> 0:02:52.040
<v Speaker 1>out of small store or something like that. This seems

0:02:52.080 --> 0:02:55.600
<v Speaker 1>to center on a different block product, the cash app.

0:02:55.720 --> 0:02:58.360
<v Speaker 1>Is that basically the gist of that most of this

0:02:58.440 --> 0:03:01.359
<v Speaker 1>fraud that Hindenberg is alleged was using the cash app

0:03:01.520 --> 0:03:03.400
<v Speaker 1>a big part of it. And the report does seem

0:03:03.440 --> 0:03:06.119
<v Speaker 1>to be that that this cash app was likely facilitating

0:03:06.160 --> 0:03:10.240
<v Speaker 1>fraudsters taking advantage again of that government stimulus program and

0:03:10.320 --> 0:03:13.760
<v Speaker 1>in response, the state of Massachusetts. This is something that

0:03:13.800 --> 0:03:17.839
<v Speaker 1>was referenced told the short seller, So this report that

0:03:17.960 --> 0:03:22.200
<v Speaker 1>it sought to claw back close to seventy thousand unemployment

0:03:22.240 --> 0:03:25.680
<v Speaker 1>payments from the bank behind cash app accounts. That's something

0:03:25.720 --> 0:03:28.720
<v Speaker 1>that is referred to in this report. So again we'll

0:03:28.760 --> 0:03:32.880
<v Speaker 1>see what the company actually comes back, and they said

0:03:32.919 --> 0:03:34.840
<v Speaker 1>that they're going to take some legal action and they

0:03:34.840 --> 0:03:39.080
<v Speaker 1>probably will have further statements to provide. But this was

0:03:39.160 --> 0:03:44.280
<v Speaker 1>a report that was facilitated or underwent for two years.

0:03:44.480 --> 0:03:47.680
<v Speaker 1>I just want to reiterate. So the research from Hindenburgh

0:03:48.040 --> 0:03:51.480
<v Speaker 1>says Block has widely overstated its genuine user accounts and

0:03:51.520 --> 0:03:54.920
<v Speaker 1>has understated its customer acquisition costs. FORM employees estimated that

0:03:55.080 --> 0:03:58.240
<v Speaker 1>forty to seventy five percent of counts they reviewed were fake,

0:03:58.360 --> 0:04:00.720
<v Speaker 1>involved in fraud, or were additional counts tied to a

0:04:00.720 --> 0:04:05.840
<v Speaker 1>single individual. If that is the case, and I'm curious,

0:04:05.840 --> 0:04:08.240
<v Speaker 1>as you guys are reporting this out, looking at Block

0:04:08.360 --> 0:04:12.440
<v Speaker 1>and looking at its balance sheet, how would that materially

0:04:13.000 --> 0:04:17.080
<v Speaker 1>financially change the story of Block. Well, I think the

0:04:17.120 --> 0:04:20.040
<v Speaker 1>first thing to look at is regulatory or response. So

0:04:20.120 --> 0:04:24.560
<v Speaker 1>this is going to be this is already a regulated company,

0:04:24.640 --> 0:04:26.960
<v Speaker 1>but it's going to be scrutinized, and the report is

0:04:27.000 --> 0:04:29.000
<v Speaker 1>going to be cross checked, I'm sure with the public

0:04:29.040 --> 0:04:32.159
<v Speaker 1>information that's out there. So that's the first thing that

0:04:32.279 --> 0:04:34.280
<v Speaker 1>I think is going to be the next course of action.

0:04:35.120 --> 0:04:38.039
<v Speaker 1>And then as information starts to come out, either a

0:04:38.080 --> 0:04:42.120
<v Speaker 1>company may clarify certain things, or who knows, parts of

0:04:42.120 --> 0:04:44.760
<v Speaker 1>this report could be corroborated, in which case if things

0:04:44.760 --> 0:04:47.800
<v Speaker 1>are proven true, well then we have other problems, or

0:04:47.839 --> 0:04:50.599
<v Speaker 1>the company has further problems that then answers that they

0:04:50.680 --> 0:04:52.280
<v Speaker 1>need to get. If I guess my case is like Mike,

0:04:52.360 --> 0:04:54.880
<v Speaker 1>I think if that's the case, If that's true, right,

0:04:54.960 --> 0:04:57.320
<v Speaker 1>it's a very different in terms of how you value

0:04:57.320 --> 0:04:59.119
<v Speaker 1>the company, how you look at the growth in the business,

0:04:59.560 --> 0:05:02.159
<v Speaker 1>lack their do they need to restate earnings or you know,

0:05:02.279 --> 0:05:05.240
<v Speaker 1>is it really facing a big fine and punitive damages

0:05:05.320 --> 0:05:08.360
<v Speaker 1>that has everyone concerned in the stock price? But ket

0:05:08.360 --> 0:05:10.800
<v Speaker 1>you know, one thing I think's interesting is, um they're

0:05:10.839 --> 0:05:13.039
<v Speaker 1>not the only company you who's had to deal with

0:05:13.200 --> 0:05:17.200
<v Speaker 1>fraud claims when it comes to the government stimulus payments.

0:05:17.240 --> 0:05:19.360
<v Speaker 1>Other other banks have two. Right? Is it just that

0:05:19.800 --> 0:05:24.800
<v Speaker 1>block is way at least according to Hindenberg, just way

0:05:24.839 --> 0:05:26.840
<v Speaker 1>out there. As far as how many they allowed happen,

0:05:27.440 --> 0:05:30.279
<v Speaker 1>I don't know the exact comparison in terms of numbers.

0:05:30.320 --> 0:05:32.520
<v Speaker 1>I do know that there there have been other banks

0:05:32.600 --> 0:05:36.320
<v Speaker 1>that were caught in. It was like credit card payments

0:05:36.320 --> 0:05:39.800
<v Speaker 1>when when the government was giving out stimulus on the

0:05:39.839 --> 0:05:43.040
<v Speaker 1>form of what was essentially debit cards, and those were

0:05:43.480 --> 0:05:46.200
<v Speaker 1>manipulated in ways where people were taking more debit cards

0:05:46.200 --> 0:05:49.880
<v Speaker 1>than they actually were allowed. Um. So that's that's another

0:05:50.000 --> 0:05:52.640
<v Speaker 1>case I think this is very different. It sounds I'm

0:05:52.640 --> 0:05:56.760
<v Speaker 1>not I'm not exactly sure how the the app. It

0:05:57.160 --> 0:05:59.640
<v Speaker 1>seems like how the app was used was just adding

0:05:59.720 --> 0:06:03.480
<v Speaker 1>more accounts and so you had one person. But they're

0:06:03.520 --> 0:06:06.719
<v Speaker 1>taking advantage and using multiple accounts that they're therefore getting

0:06:06.760 --> 0:06:09.440
<v Speaker 1>more stimulus when they're only supposed to be allowed to

0:06:09.480 --> 0:06:11.680
<v Speaker 1>use one account. Yeah, and it's interesting. You do have

0:06:11.760 --> 0:06:14.680
<v Speaker 1>the analyst community, you know, starting to weigh in. Certainly.

0:06:14.720 --> 0:06:18.720
<v Speaker 1>Raymond James came out earlier today contending that the report

0:06:19.360 --> 0:06:21.719
<v Speaker 1>and the short by Hindenburg doesn't include a lot of

0:06:21.960 --> 0:06:25.800
<v Speaker 1>new and in quotation marks news are a bombshell and

0:06:25.880 --> 0:06:28.160
<v Speaker 1>argues that the biggest risk is potentially drawing scrutiny from

0:06:28.200 --> 0:06:31.679
<v Speaker 1>regulators and politicians, which would create some overhang on the stock.

0:06:31.760 --> 0:06:34.200
<v Speaker 1>Right now, we've got forty one buys on block ten

0:06:34.240 --> 0:06:36.520
<v Speaker 1>holes and two cells, So you know, Wall Street for

0:06:36.520 --> 0:06:40.800
<v Speaker 1>the most part, likes this. I was curious and forgive

0:06:40.800 --> 0:06:42.520
<v Speaker 1>me if this is out of your purview, But when

0:06:42.560 --> 0:06:45.400
<v Speaker 1>I think about short sellers, we're always so careful right

0:06:45.440 --> 0:06:47.679
<v Speaker 1>when we bring up a short seller, and we always

0:06:47.680 --> 0:06:49.400
<v Speaker 1>want to make sure we get a comment from the company.

0:06:49.440 --> 0:06:53.080
<v Speaker 1>But having said that, what are the laws rules, if

0:06:53.120 --> 0:06:55.919
<v Speaker 1>you will, if any when it comes to somebody at

0:06:55.960 --> 0:06:59.520
<v Speaker 1>somebody coming out with a blockbuster report like Hindenburg and

0:06:59.640 --> 0:07:03.400
<v Speaker 1>being such a short on the company, what are their responsibilities.

0:07:03.520 --> 0:07:06.000
<v Speaker 1>So we've we've seen a number of reports from Hindenburgh,

0:07:06.560 --> 0:07:09.440
<v Speaker 1>most notably recently a Donnie Right UM, and we saw

0:07:09.480 --> 0:07:12.320
<v Speaker 1>Clover Health UM. And these reports they are they are allowed.

0:07:12.360 --> 0:07:14.320
<v Speaker 1>It's not as if once these reports come out then

0:07:16.320 --> 0:07:19.440
<v Speaker 1>now yeah, exactly, it's it's it's as if another analyst

0:07:19.560 --> 0:07:22.760
<v Speaker 1>is putting out UM. I mean, it's it's commentary, and

0:07:22.800 --> 0:07:24.680
<v Speaker 1>it's it's you could even put out a tweet, now

0:07:24.680 --> 0:07:26.400
<v Speaker 1>that's going to be scrutinized in a different way. I

0:07:26.400 --> 0:07:29.680
<v Speaker 1>think this, this report actually I believe did come through

0:07:29.800 --> 0:07:32.760
<v Speaker 1>a tweet, which is did it through social media? Through

0:07:32.840 --> 0:07:35.640
<v Speaker 1>social media? And I know that that's been circulated and

0:07:35.680 --> 0:07:38.800
<v Speaker 1>there's been a lot of responses since then. UM. But

0:07:38.960 --> 0:07:42.480
<v Speaker 1>I do think that the big question is the regulatory

0:07:42.520 --> 0:07:46.640
<v Speaker 1>scrutiny of the company here. Um. The report is what

0:07:46.680 --> 0:07:50.400
<v Speaker 1>it is, and it'll be used and looked at. UM.

0:07:50.480 --> 0:07:54.960
<v Speaker 1>But some of the fundamental questions or I guess fundamental

0:07:55.120 --> 0:07:57.480
<v Speaker 1>aspects of the company that the report is pointing out

0:07:57.960 --> 0:07:59.760
<v Speaker 1>they may be looked at in a different way just

0:07:59.800 --> 0:08:02.640
<v Speaker 1>because of what they started to explore. And it's you know,

0:08:02.640 --> 0:08:06.320
<v Speaker 1>it's interesting because not every activist short seller report is

0:08:06.400 --> 0:08:08.600
<v Speaker 1>met with this type of reaction in the stock market,

0:08:08.680 --> 0:08:13.000
<v Speaker 1>which kind of speaks to the reputation Hindenburg has. What

0:08:13.120 --> 0:08:15.040
<v Speaker 1>can you tell us about sort of their track record

0:08:15.080 --> 0:08:17.120
<v Speaker 1>with this type of thing. It seems to me like

0:08:17.160 --> 0:08:21.000
<v Speaker 1>they're pretty good at knocking share prices down and leaving

0:08:21.040 --> 0:08:24.800
<v Speaker 1>them down for a long time. Yes, especially immediately. I

0:08:24.840 --> 0:08:28.680
<v Speaker 1>mean the shares today of block were down twenty two percent.

0:08:28.720 --> 0:08:31.240
<v Speaker 1>They've since recovered a little bit, especially since the company

0:08:31.320 --> 0:08:38.400
<v Speaker 1>responded put out its own statement, But Donnie Clover Health,

0:08:38.440 --> 0:08:40.120
<v Speaker 1>those were some of the big ones that at least

0:08:40.160 --> 0:08:43.880
<v Speaker 1>I was tracking. They've recovered the six month period. Some

0:08:43.920 --> 0:08:47.760
<v Speaker 1>of these stocks they lost significant market valuation and then

0:08:48.160 --> 0:08:52.199
<v Speaker 1>have after half of a year gone back to before,

0:08:52.920 --> 0:08:54.760
<v Speaker 1>to where they were before the reports came out. So

0:08:54.800 --> 0:08:57.200
<v Speaker 1>it really depends on the name and I think to

0:08:57.240 --> 0:08:59.400
<v Speaker 1>the extent of what is included in the report, how

0:08:59.520 --> 0:09:05.760
<v Speaker 1>damning actually is. And then also if there's any information

0:09:05.800 --> 0:09:08.720
<v Speaker 1>that comes out even after the report, either to prove

0:09:08.760 --> 0:09:11.280
<v Speaker 1>it false, or true. Yeah, that's what I'm thinking out.

0:09:11.280 --> 0:09:13.240
<v Speaker 1>I mean the stock, I mean, Block could do no

0:09:13.320 --> 0:09:15.360
<v Speaker 1>wrong for such a long time and Wall Street loved

0:09:15.400 --> 0:09:17.720
<v Speaker 1>it right, and then it's down I think about seventy

0:09:17.720 --> 0:09:21.880
<v Speaker 1>five percent since August of I think, going back to

0:09:22.200 --> 0:09:25.520
<v Speaker 1>twenty twenty one. I mean, it's way down a lot.

0:09:25.640 --> 0:09:27.800
<v Speaker 1>One of those high growth fintects that it was a

0:09:27.880 --> 0:09:31.280
<v Speaker 1>pandemic Darling really was, and none of them are performing

0:09:31.320 --> 0:09:35.160
<v Speaker 1>too well in this environment. But you don't see that

0:09:35.240 --> 0:09:38.679
<v Speaker 1>kind of instant knee jerk reaction very often. It's pretty dramatic. Well,

0:09:38.720 --> 0:09:40.760
<v Speaker 1>I guess stay tuned right and just see kind of

0:09:40.760 --> 0:09:42.439
<v Speaker 1>what the next step is. The stock though shares a

0:09:42.440 --> 0:09:44.920
<v Speaker 1>block still down about sixteen percent here off their loads

0:09:44.920 --> 0:09:48.440
<v Speaker 1>of the day, but nonetheless a pretty significant hit. Kat,

0:09:48.480 --> 0:09:50.320
<v Speaker 1>thank you so much. Glad you could come in and

0:09:50.360 --> 0:09:53.200
<v Speaker 1>just kind of laid out for us. Kat Doherty, Finance reporter,

0:09:53.280 --> 0:09:56.360
<v Speaker 1>apt Bloomberg News. Here in our Bloomberg Interactive Brokers studio,

0:09:57.040 --> 0:10:00.640
<v Speaker 1>you're listening to the Bloomberg Business Week podcast. Catch us

0:10:00.640 --> 0:10:04.000
<v Speaker 1>live weekday afternoons from three to six Eastern Listen on

0:10:04.080 --> 0:10:07.320
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg dot com, the Ion Radio app, and the Bloomberg

0:10:07.400 --> 0:10:11.439
<v Speaker 1>Business app or watch us live on YouTube. We want

0:10:11.440 --> 0:10:13.600
<v Speaker 1>to talk a little bit about something Bloomberg News giving

0:10:13.679 --> 0:10:16.880
<v Speaker 1>heads up on yesterday, and that is the Ford Motor Company.

0:10:16.960 --> 0:10:21.600
<v Speaker 1>We're getting more clarity, more specifics, the company predicting losses

0:10:21.600 --> 0:10:24.680
<v Speaker 1>in its EV business electric vehicle business will grow to

0:10:24.800 --> 0:10:27.120
<v Speaker 1>three billion dollars this year as it spends big on

0:10:27.160 --> 0:10:30.960
<v Speaker 1>new models and factories, the deficit matching it's accumulated EV

0:10:31.120 --> 0:10:34.760
<v Speaker 1>losses over the past two years. The stock right now

0:10:34.800 --> 0:10:36.360
<v Speaker 1>a little bit lower, though we did see a little

0:10:36.360 --> 0:10:38.640
<v Speaker 1>bit higher earlier in today's session. So let's get to

0:10:38.679 --> 0:10:41.240
<v Speaker 1>it with Bloomberg News auto reporter Keith Noughton. He's with

0:10:41.360 --> 0:10:45.400
<v Speaker 1>us following this via zoom in Detroit. So, Keith, three

0:10:45.400 --> 0:10:49.000
<v Speaker 1>billion dollars sounds like a lot you guys were giving us.

0:10:49.040 --> 0:10:50.920
<v Speaker 1>You were giving us a heads up on it yesterday.

0:10:50.960 --> 0:10:54.439
<v Speaker 1>Why the losses and put it in perspective? Well, what

0:10:54.520 --> 0:10:57.920
<v Speaker 1>Ford says, Carol, is that the EV business is like

0:10:58.000 --> 0:11:01.680
<v Speaker 1>a startup within side side Ford Boda company, and like

0:11:01.800 --> 0:11:05.200
<v Speaker 1>any startup, they incur a lot of losses as they

0:11:05.240 --> 0:11:09.959
<v Speaker 1>spend for future growth. So what that spending is they

0:11:09.960 --> 0:11:13.480
<v Speaker 1>are currently working on their second generation of electric vehicles.

0:11:13.480 --> 0:11:16.280
<v Speaker 1>You know, they already have the electric F one fifty

0:11:16.360 --> 0:11:19.760
<v Speaker 1>lightning pickup truck out there and the Mustang Makie. So

0:11:19.840 --> 0:11:22.440
<v Speaker 1>now they're working on the second generation of electric vehicles,

0:11:22.480 --> 0:11:25.600
<v Speaker 1>which will be ground up and cost a lot of money.

0:11:25.640 --> 0:11:28.120
<v Speaker 1>And they are on a building spree. They're building their

0:11:28.120 --> 0:11:31.880
<v Speaker 1>first new assembly plant in fifty years in Tennessee to

0:11:31.960 --> 0:11:36.320
<v Speaker 1>build electric F series trucks, and they're building battery factories

0:11:36.360 --> 0:11:39.120
<v Speaker 1>in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Michigan. So they've got a lot

0:11:39.160 --> 0:11:42.800
<v Speaker 1>of factory construction going on, and they've got a lot

0:11:42.840 --> 0:11:46.120
<v Speaker 1>of spending on new models. You know, Keith, it seems

0:11:46.120 --> 0:11:48.600
<v Speaker 1>to have caught the market at least somewhat by surprise

0:11:48.760 --> 0:11:51.760
<v Speaker 1>that the loss would be this big. Correct me if

0:11:51.800 --> 0:11:55.400
<v Speaker 1>I'm wrong about that. But what is the story? There's

0:11:55.520 --> 0:11:59.679
<v Speaker 1>just that this spending, these investments they're making are a

0:11:59.720 --> 0:12:01.800
<v Speaker 1>lot bigger than what they projected, or at least what

0:12:01.840 --> 0:12:05.120
<v Speaker 1>analysts were penciling in. You know, Ford has said that

0:12:05.160 --> 0:12:08.480
<v Speaker 1>they're planning to spend fifty billion in total on electric

0:12:08.559 --> 0:12:11.840
<v Speaker 1>vehicles by twenty twenty six. The plan is to ramp

0:12:11.960 --> 0:12:16.040
<v Speaker 1>up their factory production to be producing two million vehicles

0:12:16.040 --> 0:12:18.800
<v Speaker 1>a year by the end of twenty twenty six. Last

0:12:18.880 --> 0:12:22.200
<v Speaker 1>year they sold about sixty five thousand in America. So

0:12:22.400 --> 0:12:26.120
<v Speaker 1>it's a very steep ramp and a very big spend

0:12:26.559 --> 0:12:29.160
<v Speaker 1>because you know, they don't want to be left behind

0:12:29.240 --> 0:12:32.280
<v Speaker 1>in this transition to electric vehicles and they're trying to

0:12:32.360 --> 0:12:37.760
<v Speaker 1>catch Tesla. The losses are rising, not going down. They

0:12:37.800 --> 0:12:40.280
<v Speaker 1>had a nine hundred million dollars loss in twenty one.

0:12:40.760 --> 0:12:43.080
<v Speaker 1>They had a two point one billion dollar loss on

0:12:43.160 --> 0:12:45.959
<v Speaker 1>evs last year, and then it'll be up forty three

0:12:46.000 --> 0:12:48.800
<v Speaker 1>percent this year to that three billion figure we're talking about.

0:12:49.080 --> 0:12:52.679
<v Speaker 1>So they're in this heavy investment period. But they say

0:12:53.200 --> 0:12:56.000
<v Speaker 1>they will be profitable on an earning sefore interest in

0:12:56.080 --> 0:12:59.719
<v Speaker 1>taxes basis by the end of twenty twenty six of

0:13:00.120 --> 0:13:03.520
<v Speaker 1>an eight percent EBIT margin. They say on the evs, Hey, Keith,

0:13:03.520 --> 0:13:05.600
<v Speaker 1>help me out though. Like two Mike's point, And you

0:13:05.640 --> 0:13:07.840
<v Speaker 1>know the stock earlier Ford was up two point six

0:13:07.880 --> 0:13:11.920
<v Speaker 1>percent earlier in the session before it moved a little

0:13:11.920 --> 0:13:14.800
<v Speaker 1>bit lower. And I guess you've covered this inside and out,

0:13:14.840 --> 0:13:17.280
<v Speaker 1>and I feel like the Wall Street community who covers

0:13:17.920 --> 0:13:19.800
<v Speaker 1>Ford gets what they have to do. I get this

0:13:19.880 --> 0:13:22.840
<v Speaker 1>concept of a startup within you a bigger, broader company.

0:13:23.960 --> 0:13:26.960
<v Speaker 1>Is the street to somewhat to some extent, kind of

0:13:27.080 --> 0:13:29.439
<v Speaker 1>comfortable with it. I'm not seeing any analys calls come out,

0:13:29.480 --> 0:13:32.760
<v Speaker 1>any downgrades at least not yet, or any kind of moves,

0:13:32.840 --> 0:13:35.400
<v Speaker 1>So the street aware that this is what it's going

0:13:35.440 --> 0:13:39.640
<v Speaker 1>to take for this transition. Yeah, Carol. Actually, the three

0:13:39.720 --> 0:13:43.560
<v Speaker 1>billion dollars loss, which sounds awful, I understand, is not

0:13:43.679 --> 0:13:46.840
<v Speaker 1>as bad as some analysts were projecting. There are projections

0:13:46.840 --> 0:13:50.520
<v Speaker 1>out there of they thought Ford lost six billion last

0:13:50.600 --> 0:13:54.800
<v Speaker 1>year on electric vehicles. So while three billions bad, maybe

0:13:54.840 --> 0:13:57.599
<v Speaker 1>not as bad as the market expected. The stock was

0:13:57.679 --> 0:14:00.240
<v Speaker 1>up as much as two percent in the morning. Um.

0:14:01.000 --> 0:14:04.600
<v Speaker 1>During the morning. Also, Fords CFO John Lawler was doing

0:14:04.600 --> 0:14:08.800
<v Speaker 1>this teach in at the NYS with analysts, so, um,

0:14:09.120 --> 0:14:12.080
<v Speaker 1>you know, they are trying to explain this walk to profitability.

0:14:12.240 --> 0:14:15.640
<v Speaker 1>I was listening in. The analysts seemed fairly skeptical that

0:14:15.679 --> 0:14:19.200
<v Speaker 1>they could get to there from here. It's a big walk.

0:14:20.240 --> 0:14:26.800
<v Speaker 1>Last year's EBIT margin on electric vehicles as negative forty percent. Yeah,

0:14:27.640 --> 0:14:29.960
<v Speaker 1>it's a say, by the end of twenty six will

0:14:29.960 --> 0:14:34.160
<v Speaker 1>be a positive eight percent. That's a lot. So analysts

0:14:34.160 --> 0:14:37.960
<v Speaker 1>were skeptical probably right there. So you know, Keith as

0:14:37.960 --> 0:14:40.680
<v Speaker 1>a Twitter addict over here, you know, it's it's hard

0:14:40.760 --> 0:14:46.040
<v Speaker 1>not to notice the distraction Elon Musk has undertaken with

0:14:46.120 --> 0:14:50.280
<v Speaker 1>his purchase of Twitter and getting very political on that

0:14:50.840 --> 0:14:54.240
<v Speaker 1>on the site itself, turning a lot of people off

0:14:54.320 --> 0:14:58.600
<v Speaker 1>with some of his m political opinions and culture war

0:14:58.760 --> 0:15:01.560
<v Speaker 1>type of opinions. So I'm wondering, like, what is the

0:15:01.680 --> 0:15:04.600
<v Speaker 1>lane do you think and the strategy at Ford to

0:15:04.720 --> 0:15:10.360
<v Speaker 1>actually take some share from Tesla? Does Musk's personality play

0:15:10.360 --> 0:15:12.080
<v Speaker 1>into it at all? Or is it just a matter

0:15:12.160 --> 0:15:15.440
<v Speaker 1>of they want to make cheaper cars, better cars? What's

0:15:15.480 --> 0:15:20.720
<v Speaker 1>their strategy entail for getting that share away from Tesla? Right? So?

0:15:20.800 --> 0:15:23.600
<v Speaker 1>I mean Ford strategy is they are going straight for

0:15:23.640 --> 0:15:27.000
<v Speaker 1>the mainstream. You know where Tesla's sell best is on

0:15:27.040 --> 0:15:29.800
<v Speaker 1>the coasts right there. They kind of sell to the converted,

0:15:29.880 --> 0:15:33.280
<v Speaker 1>if you will, Folks who are wealthy and are inclined

0:15:33.680 --> 0:15:38.240
<v Speaker 1>to take actions to either because of climate change or

0:15:38.280 --> 0:15:43.520
<v Speaker 1>because that's you know, that's what is the current you know,

0:15:43.640 --> 0:15:45.880
<v Speaker 1>going Trent, and they have the money to afford that.

0:15:46.440 --> 0:15:50.040
<v Speaker 1>Ford's going for the big middle in America that buy

0:15:50.080 --> 0:15:53.440
<v Speaker 1>pickup trucks and buy Mustangs. The things that Ford is

0:15:53.480 --> 0:15:57.320
<v Speaker 1>electrifying are these sort of classic names that have been

0:15:57.360 --> 0:16:00.440
<v Speaker 1>popular in Middle America for years, and so far they're

0:16:00.480 --> 0:16:02.920
<v Speaker 1>after a very strong start. You know, the F one

0:16:03.040 --> 0:16:06.160
<v Speaker 1>fifty lightning plug in pickup truck head two hundred thousand

0:16:06.240 --> 0:16:09.240
<v Speaker 1>reservations when it went out to sale last April. And

0:16:09.280 --> 0:16:12.160
<v Speaker 1>they are doubling the capacity right now at the Mexican

0:16:12.240 --> 0:16:15.520
<v Speaker 1>factory that builds the Mustang Maki. That'll be able to

0:16:15.560 --> 0:16:18.640
<v Speaker 1>produce two hundred and ten models, two hundred and ten

0:16:18.680 --> 0:16:20.680
<v Speaker 1>thousand models a year by the end of this year.

0:16:21.600 --> 0:16:23.960
<v Speaker 1>And you know, last year they produced fewer than one

0:16:24.040 --> 0:16:28.000
<v Speaker 1>hundred thousand, So it's it's working so far, but it's

0:16:28.200 --> 0:16:30.840
<v Speaker 1>very early days. For four they are the second bestseller

0:16:30.880 --> 0:16:34.560
<v Speaker 1>of electric vehicles in America, but they're miles behind Tesla,

0:16:34.920 --> 0:16:38.440
<v Speaker 1>which controls two thirds of the EV market in America.

0:16:38.680 --> 0:16:41.400
<v Speaker 1>You know, I keep wondering, you know, Keith, in terms

0:16:41.440 --> 0:16:44.240
<v Speaker 1>of a company like a Ford or General Motors that

0:16:44.480 --> 0:16:47.240
<v Speaker 1>still think, oh, they have internal combustion engine vehicles, right,

0:16:47.240 --> 0:16:49.400
<v Speaker 1>because they still make a lot of money off of that, right,

0:16:49.440 --> 0:16:52.120
<v Speaker 1>And that's kind of the flip side. But having said that,

0:16:52.480 --> 0:16:55.880
<v Speaker 1>I wonder how much of that is a drag, you know,

0:16:56.000 --> 0:16:58.880
<v Speaker 1>in terms of really being out there with evs right

0:16:58.920 --> 0:17:02.000
<v Speaker 1>Elon Musk is a pure play doing it differently, And

0:17:02.120 --> 0:17:06.159
<v Speaker 1>I just wonder if that longer term is going to

0:17:06.200 --> 0:17:09.439
<v Speaker 1>be a problem for Ford or GM or not. I

0:17:09.440 --> 0:17:12.639
<v Speaker 1>mean Ford and GM, but Ford is saying that, you know,

0:17:13.240 --> 0:17:16.280
<v Speaker 1>internal combustion engine vehicles are still a growth business for them.

0:17:16.280 --> 0:17:20.800
<v Speaker 1>They sell lots of Bronco SUVs. They sell you know,

0:17:20.880 --> 0:17:23.800
<v Speaker 1>like nine hundred thousand F series trucks every year. I mean,

0:17:23.840 --> 0:17:27.439
<v Speaker 1>it's the best selling vehicle in America since the first

0:17:27.640 --> 0:17:32.360
<v Speaker 1>Reagan administration. Wow. So so there's a huge I mean,

0:17:32.640 --> 0:17:34.679
<v Speaker 1>you have to keep in mind that electric vehicles make

0:17:34.760 --> 0:17:38.320
<v Speaker 1>up five point eight percent of the US market. So

0:17:38.560 --> 0:17:42.119
<v Speaker 1>every nine and a half vehicle sold is still a

0:17:42.200 --> 0:17:46.840
<v Speaker 1>gas fueled car or truck. And is the F one

0:17:46.960 --> 0:17:51.359
<v Speaker 1>fifty lightning the actual performance of that vehicle enough to

0:17:51.600 --> 0:17:54.920
<v Speaker 1>convert the type of people that already own the gas

0:17:54.920 --> 0:17:58.760
<v Speaker 1>powered pickup truck. Yeah. You know, it's an interesting question

0:17:58.880 --> 0:18:02.280
<v Speaker 1>because you know, those folks wouldn't seem to be necessary

0:18:02.280 --> 0:18:04.679
<v Speaker 1>they sell mostly in Red states. They wouldn't seem to

0:18:04.720 --> 0:18:08.600
<v Speaker 1>necessarily be folks who are um, you know, trying to

0:18:08.640 --> 0:18:11.879
<v Speaker 1>address climate change in their vehicle purchases. But you know

0:18:11.960 --> 0:18:14.840
<v Speaker 1>what the Lightning has done. It's popularity is actually with

0:18:14.920 --> 0:18:19.040
<v Speaker 1>newcomers to Ford and newcomers to pickup trucks. Ford says,

0:18:19.040 --> 0:18:21.600
<v Speaker 1>you know, more than sixty percent of the sales of

0:18:21.720 --> 0:18:24.359
<v Speaker 1>the Lightning go to these new beats, not to the

0:18:24.480 --> 0:18:28.040
<v Speaker 1>traditional truckers. But eventually, if you're going to convert the fleet,

0:18:28.040 --> 0:18:30.879
<v Speaker 1>the best selling vehicles in America are the Ford truck,

0:18:31.480 --> 0:18:35.879
<v Speaker 1>the GM truck, and the you know, uh Ram truck.

0:18:35.920 --> 0:18:38.960
<v Speaker 1>It's that's that's what Americans buy. And so if you're

0:18:38.960 --> 0:18:41.760
<v Speaker 1>going to electrify the vehicle fleet in this country, you

0:18:41.840 --> 0:18:45.000
<v Speaker 1>have to be successful in electrifying pickup trucks, which is

0:18:45.000 --> 0:18:47.520
<v Speaker 1>of course why Elon Musk is doing the cyber truck.

0:18:48.600 --> 0:18:51.560
<v Speaker 1>It's so interesting in terms of all that's going on. Um,

0:18:51.840 --> 0:18:54.119
<v Speaker 1>I forgot about the cyber truck. How could you forget

0:18:54.119 --> 0:18:59.640
<v Speaker 1>how cyber truck? We're waiting right exactly all right? But yeah,

0:19:00.880 --> 0:19:03.720
<v Speaker 1>Keith not in good stuff. Out of reporter at Bloomberg News.

0:19:03.760 --> 0:19:07.960
<v Speaker 1>Joining us via zoom from Detroit. You're listening to the

0:19:08.000 --> 0:19:12.240
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Business Week podcast. Catch us Live weekday afternoons from

0:19:12.280 --> 0:19:16.160
<v Speaker 1>three to six Eastern on Bloomberg Radio, the Bloomberg Business App,

0:19:16.240 --> 0:19:19.720
<v Speaker 1>and YouTube. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa

0:19:19.800 --> 0:19:23.160
<v Speaker 1>from our flagship New York station, Just say Alexa play

0:19:23.240 --> 0:19:28.160
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg eleven thirty, joining Mike and myself. Bloomberg News Technology.

0:19:28.240 --> 0:19:31.959
<v Speaker 1>Put Alex Barenka joining us right now. She's been up

0:19:32.000 --> 0:19:35.640
<v Speaker 1>on Capitol Hill, So all right, Alex. First of all,

0:19:35.680 --> 0:19:37.640
<v Speaker 1>a lot to get to tell us about the mood

0:19:37.640 --> 0:19:40.000
<v Speaker 1>in the room, how packed it was. Paint the picture

0:19:40.080 --> 0:19:43.760
<v Speaker 1>for us, Carol. It was packed to the brim. Folks

0:19:43.760 --> 0:19:47.080
<v Speaker 1>were overflowing, We were dropping for seats, even as credentialed

0:19:47.119 --> 0:19:50.560
<v Speaker 1>media and sitting right behind TikTok was also kind of

0:19:50.560 --> 0:19:53.399
<v Speaker 1>a slew of creators. All of these folks got to

0:19:53.400 --> 0:19:55.359
<v Speaker 1>witness what I would say is probably one of the

0:19:55.400 --> 0:19:58.960
<v Speaker 1>more contentious congressional hearings that we heard. There was a

0:19:59.000 --> 0:20:02.240
<v Speaker 1>lot of cutting off of the CEO when he was

0:20:02.280 --> 0:20:04.920
<v Speaker 1>trying to give answers, a lot of pushing to try

0:20:04.960 --> 0:20:08.080
<v Speaker 1>to get him to commit to these yes or no questions?

0:20:08.800 --> 0:20:11.840
<v Speaker 1>Do you have any relationship with the Chinese Communist Party?

0:20:12.040 --> 0:20:15.399
<v Speaker 1>Who is prepping you today for today? Was there anyone

0:20:15.440 --> 0:20:18.280
<v Speaker 1>from China in doing so. There was also a lot

0:20:18.320 --> 0:20:21.560
<v Speaker 1>of emotion both when it came to the protection of

0:20:22.000 --> 0:20:25.800
<v Speaker 1>US American users data, which those national security concerns have

0:20:25.880 --> 0:20:28.959
<v Speaker 1>been top of mind, but there was also some really

0:20:29.040 --> 0:20:32.960
<v Speaker 1>kind of emotional moments talking about the impact that social

0:20:33.000 --> 0:20:36.000
<v Speaker 1>media can have on teens, particularly around users who are

0:20:36.000 --> 0:20:39.760
<v Speaker 1>posting about suicide on the app. So very high stakes moment,

0:20:39.880 --> 0:20:43.080
<v Speaker 1>and a lot of tension in that room between the

0:20:43.119 --> 0:20:46.840
<v Speaker 1>CEO and the lawmakers who were not holding back in

0:20:46.960 --> 0:20:49.639
<v Speaker 1>firing questions his way. You know, Alex, I'd love to

0:20:49.720 --> 0:20:52.600
<v Speaker 1>unpack a little bit that notion of the personal data.

0:20:53.119 --> 0:20:54.840
<v Speaker 1>You know, that seems to be one of the main

0:20:55.200 --> 0:20:59.720
<v Speaker 1>lynch pins here that Agger's politicians about TikTok, is all

0:20:59.760 --> 0:21:02.280
<v Speaker 1>this personal data. I gotta say, I've got three teenage

0:21:02.359 --> 0:21:05.239
<v Speaker 1>daughters who were all TikTok addicts. I don't know what

0:21:05.320 --> 0:21:09.320
<v Speaker 1>data they have that the communists China would be interested in,

0:21:09.359 --> 0:21:12.560
<v Speaker 1>but obviously that's probably not what's wearing people. What is

0:21:12.600 --> 0:21:15.560
<v Speaker 1>the type of data that's so precious and so dangerous

0:21:15.600 --> 0:21:19.440
<v Speaker 1>to leak from TikTok into China. So today we heard

0:21:19.880 --> 0:21:23.879
<v Speaker 1>folks talk about IP addresses, which is kind of could

0:21:24.080 --> 0:21:28.800
<v Speaker 1>narrow down your location GPS data and that additional location data.

0:21:29.080 --> 0:21:32.160
<v Speaker 1>And then you had some questions from TikTok CEO show

0:21:32.200 --> 0:21:35.679
<v Speaker 1>to himself saying, what else should I be kind of

0:21:35.680 --> 0:21:38.920
<v Speaker 1>helping protect US user data for? You asked this question, Michael,

0:21:38.920 --> 0:21:41.560
<v Speaker 1>and it's one that a lot of folks have talked

0:21:41.560 --> 0:21:44.920
<v Speaker 1>about in context of TikTok. They're being national security concerns

0:21:44.960 --> 0:21:48.479
<v Speaker 1>about data. The company feels like they are doing as

0:21:48.600 --> 0:21:51.479
<v Speaker 1>much as they can to protect American users data. They

0:21:51.480 --> 0:21:54.639
<v Speaker 1>would argue more than any of their peers by basically

0:21:54.720 --> 0:21:58.680
<v Speaker 1>setting up this firewall with Oracle to bring all Americans

0:21:58.800 --> 0:22:02.960
<v Speaker 1>data onto US soil. You saw him push back today

0:22:03.560 --> 0:22:05.680
<v Speaker 1>in the very few times that he did push back,

0:22:06.000 --> 0:22:09.200
<v Speaker 1>basically saying, some of these concerns that you guys are alleging,

0:22:09.640 --> 0:22:13.119
<v Speaker 1>they're hypotheticals. If you give us more specific information, we

0:22:13.200 --> 0:22:15.960
<v Speaker 1>can kind of work for that. So, you know, young

0:22:16.040 --> 0:22:18.880
<v Speaker 1>folks might say, TikTok and everyone under the sun has

0:22:18.920 --> 0:22:22.240
<v Speaker 1>my information. But when that argument came up today in

0:22:22.440 --> 0:22:25.359
<v Speaker 1>the hearing, lawmakers push back and said, well, we're not

0:22:25.440 --> 0:22:27.640
<v Speaker 1>here to talk about everyone else, We're here to talk

0:22:27.680 --> 0:22:31.120
<v Speaker 1>about TikTok. Well, there is something to be said to like,

0:22:31.400 --> 0:22:33.920
<v Speaker 1>can't the government, Like we work for a company where

0:22:33.920 --> 0:22:36.159
<v Speaker 1>we've just secure our information a lot of companies do.

0:22:36.240 --> 0:22:41.000
<v Speaker 1>I mean, can't the government institutions basically kind of create

0:22:41.080 --> 0:22:46.080
<v Speaker 1>firewalls around these applications and maybe you know, not allow

0:22:46.119 --> 0:22:48.720
<v Speaker 1>employees to use it, and that's a way of kind

0:22:48.720 --> 0:22:54.520
<v Speaker 1>of protecting themselves. Absolutely, and federal workers cannot actually use

0:22:54.520 --> 0:22:57.000
<v Speaker 1>TikTok on their phones after that legislation pass. But we

0:22:57.119 --> 0:23:00.680
<v Speaker 1>heard something along those lines of kind of cause comprehensive

0:23:00.800 --> 0:23:04.240
<v Speaker 1>legislation around data policy be brought up today. Honestly, that

0:23:04.320 --> 0:23:07.840
<v Speaker 1>was the argument that CEO showed Cho was trying to

0:23:08.119 --> 0:23:11.520
<v Speaker 1>push to broaden this conversation outside of just TikTok. We

0:23:11.600 --> 0:23:13.760
<v Speaker 1>did hear a little bit of that, not that they

0:23:13.760 --> 0:23:16.800
<v Speaker 1>were friendly voices, but voices along the lines of comprehensive

0:23:17.160 --> 0:23:20.800
<v Speaker 1>legislation from both sides, from Greg Pence on the Republican side,

0:23:20.840 --> 0:23:23.840
<v Speaker 1>from Darren Soto on the Democratic side, who both kind

0:23:23.880 --> 0:23:26.600
<v Speaker 1>of echoed this idea that there should be kind of

0:23:27.000 --> 0:23:30.920
<v Speaker 1>bipartisan legislation that looks at all tech companies. Pence actually

0:23:31.119 --> 0:23:33.280
<v Speaker 1>came out and said, hey, this is my thirty second

0:23:33.320 --> 0:23:36.800
<v Speaker 1>hearing that I've been in about tech companies and data.

0:23:36.920 --> 0:23:40.040
<v Speaker 1>So the push is there, but the problem is TikTok

0:23:40.119 --> 0:23:42.520
<v Speaker 1>is being seen as kind of a bigger threat right now,

0:23:42.680 --> 0:23:46.040
<v Speaker 1>and all of those things, those concerns that swirl around

0:23:46.080 --> 0:23:49.240
<v Speaker 1>regular social media companies, what data do they collect, what

0:23:49.359 --> 0:23:51.600
<v Speaker 1>are they showing me, who was influencing me, where do

0:23:51.680 --> 0:23:55.040
<v Speaker 1>the ads come from? All of those concerns have been

0:23:55.080 --> 0:23:58.320
<v Speaker 1>made kind of way more sinister because of this kind

0:23:58.320 --> 0:24:02.359
<v Speaker 1>of ratcheted up fear of China and those hypotheticals of

0:24:02.400 --> 0:24:05.840
<v Speaker 1>what could they do if they got your information? You know, Alex,

0:24:05.880 --> 0:24:10.160
<v Speaker 1>It's such a sort of perilous political topic because it

0:24:10.200 --> 0:24:14.480
<v Speaker 1>does seem like there's bipartisan support to do something about TikTok,

0:24:14.720 --> 0:24:16.480
<v Speaker 1>But on the other hand, no one wants to lose

0:24:16.520 --> 0:24:20.560
<v Speaker 1>those you know, millennial Gen Z voters who are addicted

0:24:20.600 --> 0:24:23.320
<v Speaker 1>to the app, and I know from your coverage and elsewhere,

0:24:23.320 --> 0:24:28.760
<v Speaker 1>there's several competing bills floating around Washington about what to do.

0:24:28.880 --> 0:24:32.400
<v Speaker 1>A gevity sense of where that's going, is there one

0:24:32.440 --> 0:24:35.240
<v Speaker 1>piece of legislation that you think has a better chance

0:24:35.320 --> 0:24:38.399
<v Speaker 1>or is gaining more support than the others. So the

0:24:38.400 --> 0:24:41.879
<v Speaker 1>bill from Thune and Warner, which has backing by the

0:24:41.920 --> 0:24:45.280
<v Speaker 1>Biden administration. Biden administration actually said send that to Joe's

0:24:45.280 --> 0:24:47.879
<v Speaker 1>desk and we will kind of make some moves on it.

0:24:48.119 --> 0:24:50.560
<v Speaker 1>That seems to be the one on pole position. I'll

0:24:50.600 --> 0:24:53.359
<v Speaker 1>tell you the representatives in the room at the hearing,

0:24:53.359 --> 0:24:55.360
<v Speaker 1>we're not the only ones who are kind of piling

0:24:55.359 --> 0:24:58.880
<v Speaker 1>on to the anti TikTok sentiment today. We have messages

0:24:58.880 --> 0:25:01.240
<v Speaker 1>in our inbox from those sent ors on that bill

0:25:01.600 --> 0:25:05.120
<v Speaker 1>who are excited to see the bipartisan kind of flogging

0:25:05.160 --> 0:25:07.960
<v Speaker 1>that TikTok had to take today in that hearing room,

0:25:08.040 --> 0:25:10.800
<v Speaker 1>saying hey, we should push this bill. So those folks

0:25:10.800 --> 0:25:14.680
<v Speaker 1>are moving forward. They largely say that these national security concerns,

0:25:14.680 --> 0:25:17.439
<v Speaker 1>these concerns around China are more important than the one

0:25:17.480 --> 0:25:20.680
<v Speaker 1>hundred and fifty million people who enjoy, you know, interesting

0:25:20.800 --> 0:25:23.560
<v Speaker 1>videos on the app, the voters, you know. I talked

0:25:23.560 --> 0:25:25.840
<v Speaker 1>to some creators that TikTok brought down here, about half

0:25:25.840 --> 0:25:27.679
<v Speaker 1>a dozen of them. I asked, all of them, have

0:25:27.800 --> 0:25:30.160
<v Speaker 1>you talked to your representative, have you talked to your senator?

0:25:30.400 --> 0:25:34.240
<v Speaker 1>If they vote against TikTok, will you vote for them? Unequivocally?

0:25:34.280 --> 0:25:36.359
<v Speaker 1>All of them said, my vote would be up for

0:25:36.480 --> 0:25:39.840
<v Speaker 1>question for those individuals if they pass a bill that

0:25:39.920 --> 0:25:42.480
<v Speaker 1>bans the app and removes it from my phone here

0:25:42.480 --> 0:25:44.480
<v Speaker 1>in the US, Alex. If this was a German company,

0:25:44.480 --> 0:25:47.320
<v Speaker 1>a Japanese company, pick your country other than China, would

0:25:47.320 --> 0:25:50.399
<v Speaker 1>we be going through this process? Would with the CEO

0:25:50.440 --> 0:25:55.040
<v Speaker 1>of a non Chinese TikTok be going through this China

0:25:55.040 --> 0:25:59.160
<v Speaker 1>seems to be kind of the focus right now. I mean,

0:25:59.280 --> 0:26:01.960
<v Speaker 1>last night to cross the Lawn from the Hill was

0:26:02.000 --> 0:26:05.639
<v Speaker 1>a group of vcs and lawmakers meeting at a private

0:26:05.640 --> 0:26:09.440
<v Speaker 1>dinner where Peter Teal, the billionaire and venture capitalist, was

0:26:09.520 --> 0:26:13.840
<v Speaker 1>talking about the risks of China, calling TikTok likening it

0:26:13.880 --> 0:26:17.000
<v Speaker 1>to the wholeless problem, as he called it here in

0:26:17.040 --> 0:26:19.239
<v Speaker 1>the US, something that we cannot get away from. So

0:26:19.600 --> 0:26:22.200
<v Speaker 1>that kind of rhetoric has ratted it up and ratched

0:26:22.240 --> 0:26:25.040
<v Speaker 1>it up around this country in particular. You've also seen

0:26:25.040 --> 0:26:28.560
<v Speaker 1>it with the chip deliberations and the semiconductor industry. So

0:26:28.680 --> 0:26:30.920
<v Speaker 1>this seems to be kind of the focus right now,

0:26:30.960 --> 0:26:33.719
<v Speaker 1>and we're not hearing it about those other countries. So

0:26:33.840 --> 0:26:36.560
<v Speaker 1>China seems to be kind of number one on that list.

0:26:36.600 --> 0:26:40.520
<v Speaker 1>Twenty seconds now what now? What happens. Now. What happens

0:26:40.760 --> 0:26:43.080
<v Speaker 1>is the company will probably be jocking to get this

0:26:43.200 --> 0:26:46.440
<v Speaker 1>legislation off the table. I don't think that's going to happen.

0:26:46.680 --> 0:26:49.520
<v Speaker 1>We saw such an uproar today. It seems like they

0:26:49.560 --> 0:26:52.320
<v Speaker 1>lost ground on their argument to garner trust from the

0:26:52.400 --> 0:26:54.879
<v Speaker 1>US government. So we'll be kind of watching and waiting

0:26:54.880 --> 0:26:58.160
<v Speaker 1>for next steps on bills and any additional national security

0:26:58.160 --> 0:27:00.919
<v Speaker 1>review as a result from the Testama. All right, Well,

0:27:00.920 --> 0:27:03.320
<v Speaker 1>some great coverage and reporting, Alex. Thanks so much. Alex

0:27:03.359 --> 0:27:06.600
<v Speaker 1>BARMENCA technology reporter up Bloomberg News. There. I believe in

0:27:06.640 --> 0:27:09.800
<v Speaker 1>our DC bureau after spending time up on the hill

0:27:10.160 --> 0:27:14.480
<v Speaker 1>listening and watching that testimony. You're listening to the Bloomberg

0:27:14.520 --> 0:27:18.400
<v Speaker 1>Business Week podcast. Catch US Live weekday afternoons from three

0:27:18.440 --> 0:27:21.679
<v Speaker 1>to six Eastern Listen on Bloomberg dot com, the Ion

0:27:21.840 --> 0:27:24.800
<v Speaker 1>Radio app, and the Bloomberg Business App, or watch US

0:27:24.880 --> 0:27:28.600
<v Speaker 1>Live on YouTube. Latching noted about a year ago that

0:27:28.720 --> 0:27:31.920
<v Speaker 1>drug makers advertise drugs through TV and other media to

0:27:32.000 --> 0:27:35.320
<v Speaker 1>encourage patients to ask their doctors for specific medications. In

0:27:35.359 --> 0:27:39.200
<v Speaker 1>that story, our reporters citing a GAO report on how

0:27:39.240 --> 0:27:42.080
<v Speaker 1>manufacturers spent about six billion each year for a total

0:27:42.119 --> 0:27:46.159
<v Speaker 1>of seventeen point eight billion on direct to consumer advertising

0:27:46.240 --> 0:27:49.719
<v Speaker 1>for more than five and fifty drugs from twenty sixteen

0:27:49.720 --> 0:27:52.320
<v Speaker 1>to twenty eighteen. They spend a lot, that's the bottom line.

0:27:52.400 --> 0:27:55.199
<v Speaker 1>So looking at former advertising, a new study led by

0:27:55.240 --> 0:27:58.119
<v Speaker 1>researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

0:27:58.520 --> 0:28:01.360
<v Speaker 1>Joining us right now to talk about it is Gerard Anderson,

0:28:01.400 --> 0:28:04.320
<v Speaker 1>professor in the Department of Health Policy and Management at

0:28:04.320 --> 0:28:06.840
<v Speaker 1>this school, of course, supported by Michael R. Bloomberg, founder

0:28:06.880 --> 0:28:10.440
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg UP and Bloomberg Philanthropies. He joins us now via

0:28:10.560 --> 0:28:15.240
<v Speaker 1>zoom in Washington, DC. Gerard, nice to have you here

0:28:15.280 --> 0:28:18.320
<v Speaker 1>with us. Tell us about this study, what you looked

0:28:18.320 --> 0:28:21.399
<v Speaker 1>at and what you found out. Sure, it's good to

0:28:21.440 --> 0:28:25.360
<v Speaker 1>be back. So there are only two countries in the

0:28:25.400 --> 0:28:30.040
<v Speaker 1>world that allow direct to consumer advertising, United States and

0:28:30.160 --> 0:28:33.639
<v Speaker 1>New Zealand. And so what we wanted to understand is

0:28:33.680 --> 0:28:36.600
<v Speaker 1>why are they doing this and what's so important? And

0:28:37.080 --> 0:28:39.840
<v Speaker 1>as you said in unroduction, many of us watch it

0:28:39.920 --> 0:28:42.640
<v Speaker 1>on television. And my wife and I were watching it

0:28:42.720 --> 0:28:44.880
<v Speaker 1>on television and I would look at him and I'd say,

0:28:45.000 --> 0:28:48.920
<v Speaker 1>why are they spending so much money on advertising? And

0:28:49.320 --> 0:28:52.480
<v Speaker 1>what if you looked at the fine print on TV

0:28:52.720 --> 0:28:55.360
<v Speaker 1>or something like that, you'd see that many of these

0:28:55.480 --> 0:28:58.520
<v Speaker 1>drugs really don't work very well. They do a little

0:28:58.520 --> 0:29:01.520
<v Speaker 1>bit better than nothing, they don't work very well. So

0:29:01.560 --> 0:29:04.240
<v Speaker 1>we wanted to take a look at whether or not

0:29:04.520 --> 0:29:08.320
<v Speaker 1>they actually are very good compared to the drugs that

0:29:08.400 --> 0:29:11.400
<v Speaker 1>are other ones that are also being provided, and it

0:29:11.400 --> 0:29:14.720
<v Speaker 1>turns out that most of them are not. And it

0:29:14.880 --> 0:29:16.880
<v Speaker 1>sort of makes sense. They're going to go to the

0:29:16.920 --> 0:29:20.400
<v Speaker 1>consumer when they can't go to the physician because the

0:29:20.400 --> 0:29:24.080
<v Speaker 1>physician knows that the drug isn't particularly good or is

0:29:24.480 --> 0:29:27.360
<v Speaker 1>equally good but much more expensive, and so it's not

0:29:27.440 --> 0:29:30.320
<v Speaker 1>going to prescribe it. So you go directly to the

0:29:30.400 --> 0:29:33.600
<v Speaker 1>consumer and you say to them, go ask your doctor.

0:29:33.920 --> 0:29:37.760
<v Speaker 1>And the doctors hate this because they know that the

0:29:38.240 --> 0:29:41.120
<v Speaker 1>drug is either much more expensive and therefore are not

0:29:41.280 --> 0:29:43.880
<v Speaker 1>good for the patient, or not as good or just

0:29:43.960 --> 0:29:48.400
<v Speaker 1>as good as another drug. So we basically published a

0:29:48.480 --> 0:29:53.560
<v Speaker 1>paper that said, be cautious when you watch an advertisement, well, right, Jerry,

0:29:53.560 --> 0:29:56.080
<v Speaker 1>because it seems like it must work. Right. They wouldn't

0:29:56.080 --> 0:29:59.479
<v Speaker 1>be spending this type of dollars if it wasn't working.

0:29:59.520 --> 0:30:02.680
<v Speaker 1>So some doctors able to be convinced. I guess or

0:30:02.760 --> 0:30:07.040
<v Speaker 1>is it that some patients? You know, maybe I'm a hypochondriac.

0:30:07.160 --> 0:30:10.320
<v Speaker 1>Sometimes I'm watching the commercials that I'm like the restless legs?

0:30:10.320 --> 0:30:13.840
<v Speaker 1>Do I have restless legs? What we all do? You know?

0:30:13.960 --> 0:30:16.200
<v Speaker 1>How does this work that the doctors actually end up

0:30:16.200 --> 0:30:19.360
<v Speaker 1>prescribing the drugs that patients are seen on TV. So

0:30:19.400 --> 0:30:22.400
<v Speaker 1>you're gonna understand how much these drugs cost. Some of

0:30:22.440 --> 0:30:25.200
<v Speaker 1>these drugs are ten thousand dollars. Some of these drugs

0:30:25.200 --> 0:30:28.040
<v Speaker 1>are fifty thousand dollars. Some of these are drugs are

0:30:28.040 --> 0:30:30.800
<v Speaker 1>more than one hundred thousand dollars. The more so if

0:30:30.840 --> 0:30:34.680
<v Speaker 1>you just get a few patients watching this ad going

0:30:34.760 --> 0:30:38.600
<v Speaker 1>to the doctor and saying, you should, you know, get

0:30:38.880 --> 0:30:42.080
<v Speaker 1>I prescribe this drug for me. And doctors really don't

0:30:42.120 --> 0:30:45.560
<v Speaker 1>like to disappoint their patients, so they do so if

0:30:45.600 --> 0:30:49.440
<v Speaker 1>they can just get a few patients that decide to

0:30:49.480 --> 0:30:52.959
<v Speaker 1>do this. They've made money on this particular ad, so

0:30:53.040 --> 0:30:56.040
<v Speaker 1>they're going to do this just because the high prices

0:30:56.080 --> 0:30:59.480
<v Speaker 1>of these drugs that they're being advertised on TV. So

0:30:59.600 --> 0:31:04.120
<v Speaker 1>where are regulators on this? Like, why isn't the FDA

0:31:04.600 --> 0:31:07.800
<v Speaker 1>in their analysis creating some kind of metrics, especially when

0:31:07.840 --> 0:31:11.400
<v Speaker 1>there's maybe a couple of drugs used for some ailment

0:31:11.800 --> 0:31:15.560
<v Speaker 1>and saying this one's more effective, this one's more effective

0:31:15.880 --> 0:31:18.160
<v Speaker 1>than this one. You know, why isn't that part of it?

0:31:18.920 --> 0:31:22.320
<v Speaker 1>Because the FDA is not responsible for doing that. In fact,

0:31:22.400 --> 0:31:26.440
<v Speaker 1>there's nobody in the United States responsible for making that

0:31:26.600 --> 0:31:31.880
<v Speaker 1>decision we have. Unlike other industrialized countries where there are

0:31:32.280 --> 0:31:36.560
<v Speaker 1>entities sponsored by the federal government, sponsored by insurers, sponsored

0:31:36.560 --> 0:31:40.440
<v Speaker 1>by a variety of things that make those recommendations to people,

0:31:40.720 --> 0:31:44.400
<v Speaker 1>we in the United States don't have anybody making those recommendations.

0:31:44.680 --> 0:31:50.040
<v Speaker 1>The FDA says the drug is safe and effective are afflications.

0:31:50.120 --> 0:31:53.200
<v Speaker 1>That's what it says. It doesn't say it's better than

0:31:53.240 --> 0:31:56.760
<v Speaker 1>another drug, it's more expensive than another drug. It is

0:31:56.800 --> 0:31:59.800
<v Speaker 1>just saying this drug is safe to take. And that's

0:32:00.080 --> 0:32:04.160
<v Speaker 1>only the responsibility they have. There's nobody saying, well, you

0:32:04.200 --> 0:32:06.440
<v Speaker 1>could take this drug but it's not quite as good,

0:32:06.520 --> 0:32:08.560
<v Speaker 1>or you could take this drug but it's three times

0:32:08.560 --> 0:32:11.800
<v Speaker 1>more expensive. There isn't anybody out there in the United

0:32:11.840 --> 0:32:17.400
<v Speaker 1>States that essentially is making that on that recommendation to people.

0:32:18.120 --> 0:32:20.120
<v Speaker 1>You know, Jerry, one line popped out at me in

0:32:20.160 --> 0:32:23.040
<v Speaker 1>this story It says since nineteen ninety six, annual direct

0:32:23.080 --> 0:32:26.800
<v Speaker 1>to consumer advertising budgets for prescription drugs have increased from

0:32:27.200 --> 0:32:31.720
<v Speaker 1>one point three billion to six billion in twenty sixteen.

0:32:31.920 --> 0:32:34.160
<v Speaker 1>And I'm thinking back to the nineties when there was

0:32:34.280 --> 0:32:36.080
<v Speaker 1>a sort of a lot of scandals, I guess you

0:32:36.080 --> 0:32:39.520
<v Speaker 1>could call it about drug reps, you know, who would

0:32:39.560 --> 0:32:42.720
<v Speaker 1>go in wine and dine doctors and take them goffing

0:32:42.960 --> 0:32:45.920
<v Speaker 1>or take them on vacations. And there was a big

0:32:45.960 --> 0:32:48.720
<v Speaker 1>backlash to that and a crackdown on that. Do you

0:32:48.760 --> 0:32:51.920
<v Speaker 1>think this is sort of the modern version of that?

0:32:52.040 --> 0:32:55.440
<v Speaker 1>Is this how the drug companies are sort of getting

0:32:55.440 --> 0:32:58.200
<v Speaker 1>away from that problem and creating a new one. Well,

0:32:58.520 --> 0:33:02.040
<v Speaker 1>so they're still allowed to to wine and dine the

0:33:02.080 --> 0:33:05.720
<v Speaker 1>physicians and whatever. They just have to report it, so

0:33:05.800 --> 0:33:09.120
<v Speaker 1>they're still able to do that. Some places like Johns

0:33:09.120 --> 0:33:13.040
<v Speaker 1>Hopkins don't allow the pharmaceutical reps into the hospital, but

0:33:13.160 --> 0:33:16.560
<v Speaker 1>many places do. But what they're saying is these are

0:33:16.840 --> 0:33:20.200
<v Speaker 1>very profitable drugs for us. We're going to try everything

0:33:20.240 --> 0:33:26.120
<v Speaker 1>we can to get another prescription written, and so we'll

0:33:26.160 --> 0:33:29.360
<v Speaker 1>go to the doctors. But we're also for these drugs

0:33:29.360 --> 0:33:32.880
<v Speaker 1>which are not quite as effective or are much more expensive.

0:33:33.280 --> 0:33:35.680
<v Speaker 1>We're also going to go to the patient and get

0:33:35.720 --> 0:33:40.000
<v Speaker 1>them to lobby their own doctor. Well, give me this drug.

0:33:40.040 --> 0:33:42.160
<v Speaker 1>I've read it on TV. I saw it on TV.

0:33:42.440 --> 0:33:45.560
<v Speaker 1>I should be taking this drug. Why don't I taking

0:33:45.600 --> 0:33:49.280
<v Speaker 1>this drug? Well, Jerry, what about doctors though, I mean doctors,

0:33:49.880 --> 0:33:52.760
<v Speaker 1>I would assume they take the hippocratic oath. They want

0:33:52.760 --> 0:33:55.560
<v Speaker 1>to do best by their patients. So if they have

0:33:55.760 --> 0:33:58.800
<v Speaker 1>a buffet of drugs, they're going to go for the

0:33:58.840 --> 0:34:02.080
<v Speaker 1>one that is going to be I would assume best

0:34:02.760 --> 0:34:05.600
<v Speaker 1>for their patient and do the most. Isn't that kind

0:34:05.600 --> 0:34:09.239
<v Speaker 1>of the stopgap? That is the stop gap? But now

0:34:09.360 --> 0:34:12.400
<v Speaker 1>think of yourself as a doctor. You have a patient

0:34:12.560 --> 0:34:16.880
<v Speaker 1>comes in and says I want this drug, and you

0:34:16.920 --> 0:34:20.319
<v Speaker 1>could sit there and spend twenty five minutes explaining to

0:34:20.360 --> 0:34:23.959
<v Speaker 1>them the science behind the two drugs and why this

0:34:24.080 --> 0:34:29.040
<v Speaker 1>old this other drug is better or less expensive, or

0:34:29.440 --> 0:34:32.480
<v Speaker 1>you could just say, Okay, I'll give you the drug

0:34:32.560 --> 0:34:35.040
<v Speaker 1>that you want. It's going to cost you more, it

0:34:35.480 --> 0:34:38.719
<v Speaker 1>has less effectiveness, but if you want it, I'm going

0:34:38.800 --> 0:34:40.560
<v Speaker 1>to give it to you. I mean, it's it's the

0:34:40.640 --> 0:34:44.120
<v Speaker 1>same as you know, we talk about obesity, and you

0:34:44.160 --> 0:34:46.960
<v Speaker 1>know the doctor should talk to us about obesity and

0:34:46.960 --> 0:34:49.120
<v Speaker 1>a whole variety of other things. But it would take

0:34:49.120 --> 0:34:51.840
<v Speaker 1>a long time and you might alienate some patients, and

0:34:51.960 --> 0:34:54.799
<v Speaker 1>some patients would say, well, if this doctor doesn't want

0:34:54.800 --> 0:34:56.279
<v Speaker 1>to give it to me, I'm going to go to

0:34:56.320 --> 0:34:59.879
<v Speaker 1>another doctor. But don't don't insurance companies too kind of way,

0:35:00.040 --> 0:35:02.520
<v Speaker 1>and like, I've a right, I've seen situations like hey,

0:35:02.600 --> 0:35:07.399
<v Speaker 1>you yeah, like don't they don't they play a role here?

0:35:08.040 --> 0:35:10.960
<v Speaker 1>They do play a role. It's called prior authorization. And

0:35:11.000 --> 0:35:13.200
<v Speaker 1>what they say is, you know, you've got to try

0:35:13.239 --> 0:35:16.320
<v Speaker 1>this drug before you take this drug. And so they're

0:35:16.360 --> 0:35:19.440
<v Speaker 1>making it hard to get the more expensive or the

0:35:19.560 --> 0:35:24.439
<v Speaker 1>less effective drug. But still the doctor's lobby in some

0:35:24.520 --> 0:35:28.560
<v Speaker 1>cases the insurance companies and in most cases the insurance

0:35:28.600 --> 0:35:32.080
<v Speaker 1>companies end up giving up and saying, oh, okay, you

0:35:32.239 --> 0:35:35.759
<v Speaker 1>know this patient better than we do, and you know

0:35:35.920 --> 0:35:38.680
<v Speaker 1>you've now called me three times and bugged lea for

0:35:38.760 --> 0:35:42.319
<v Speaker 1>this patient, and therefore you know, yes, we'll give you

0:35:42.400 --> 0:35:45.960
<v Speaker 1>that that new and expensive drug. Um. You know, you

0:35:46.400 --> 0:35:49.479
<v Speaker 1>just get lobbied enough as an insurance company. You don't

0:35:49.480 --> 0:35:52.240
<v Speaker 1>want to be known as the insurance company that always

0:35:52.239 --> 0:35:55.279
<v Speaker 1>says no, do we all have restless leg syndrome. That's

0:35:55.280 --> 0:35:59.320
<v Speaker 1>what we really don't know. Mike's convinced we all have it. Jerry,

0:35:59.400 --> 0:36:01.759
<v Speaker 1>um No. I think it's an important situation because you're right,

0:36:02.200 --> 0:36:04.040
<v Speaker 1>we all see the ads. They're off and out there

0:36:04.040 --> 0:36:07.040
<v Speaker 1>big time, and it's interesting that we've got to be

0:36:07.080 --> 0:36:09.960
<v Speaker 1>smart and not be sold too. What interesting point the

0:36:10.040 --> 0:36:13.439
<v Speaker 1>story makes two is that the US doesn't have comparative

0:36:13.640 --> 0:36:18.080
<v Speaker 1>comparative effectiveness rating like other countries do, and that sounds

0:36:18.080 --> 0:36:21.319
<v Speaker 1>like maybe that's an issue that I'd love a rating.

0:36:21.560 --> 0:36:23.680
<v Speaker 1>I'd love a rating I'm looking at. Is this thing

0:36:23.760 --> 0:36:26.080
<v Speaker 1>really worth it? Yeah? Exactly. Think it would be really

0:36:26.120 --> 0:36:28.719
<v Speaker 1>smart and it would be a lot more transparent if

0:36:28.719 --> 0:36:31.520
<v Speaker 1>you will, Jerry, Thank you so much. Jerry Anderson, Professor

0:36:31.520 --> 0:36:33.800
<v Speaker 1>in the Department of Health Policy and Management at Johns

0:36:33.880 --> 0:36:37.759
<v Speaker 1>Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Joining us from Washington.

0:36:38.400 --> 0:36:41.960
<v Speaker 1>You're listening to the Bloomberg Business Week podcast. Catch us

0:36:42.000 --> 0:36:46.040
<v Speaker 1>live weekday afternoons from three to six Eastern on Bloomberg Radio,

0:36:46.200 --> 0:36:49.480
<v Speaker 1>the Bloomberg Business app, and YouTube. You can also listen

0:36:49.600 --> 0:36:52.800
<v Speaker 1>live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station,

0:36:53.040 --> 0:37:03.560
<v Speaker 1>Just Say Alexa, playing Bloomberg eleven thirty. I'm a journal Yeah,

0:37:03.600 --> 0:37:07.320
<v Speaker 1>but you let me drive. Oh no, no, no, no's home?

0:37:07.760 --> 0:37:11.600
<v Speaker 1>All right, please, I'll do the riding gravels. I want

0:37:11.600 --> 0:37:20.080
<v Speaker 1>to drive. Good question, the drive. This is the drive

0:37:20.160 --> 0:37:25.320
<v Speaker 1>to the globe? Coming well up and down on Bloomberg Radio.

0:37:25.520 --> 0:37:27.359
<v Speaker 1>All right, just got about seventeen and a half minutes

0:37:27.440 --> 0:37:30.600
<v Speaker 1>left in today's trading session. We're just bouncing off our

0:37:30.640 --> 0:37:32.759
<v Speaker 1>loads of this session when it comes to the equity trade.

0:37:32.760 --> 0:37:35.719
<v Speaker 1>But we're well well off our highs of the day.

0:37:35.719 --> 0:37:39.920
<v Speaker 1>Bank stocks still seeing some pressure. Looking at the Spider

0:37:40.360 --> 0:37:43.200
<v Speaker 1>SMP Regional Banking Index, it is still down about three

0:37:43.280 --> 0:37:45.560
<v Speaker 1>percent in the trade. And Mike, we've got that two

0:37:45.640 --> 0:37:48.040
<v Speaker 1>year note with the yield of three point seven eight,

0:37:48.080 --> 0:37:50.160
<v Speaker 1>so staying well below that four percent mark. We were

0:37:50.239 --> 0:37:52.560
<v Speaker 1>up there I think earlier in the session. Yeah. Absolutely,

0:37:52.680 --> 0:37:56.120
<v Speaker 1>anytime you see those lower yields, it signals a few things.

0:37:56.200 --> 0:37:59.120
<v Speaker 1>I mean, are people worried about growth? Is it they

0:37:59.120 --> 0:38:02.160
<v Speaker 1>think the Feds done? But the best she can say

0:38:02.200 --> 0:38:04.239
<v Speaker 1>is it does perhaps alleviate a little bit of the

0:38:04.280 --> 0:38:06.440
<v Speaker 1>banking stress that we've seen, especially the further out the

0:38:06.440 --> 0:38:09.920
<v Speaker 1>curve you go. You know, those mark to market We're

0:38:09.960 --> 0:38:13.359
<v Speaker 1>not losses on bank's bonds. So right, yeah, I think

0:38:13.360 --> 0:38:15.240
<v Speaker 1>I think everyone's happy to see a drop in yields

0:38:15.239 --> 0:38:16.719
<v Speaker 1>these days. All right, well, let's see what our next

0:38:16.760 --> 0:38:19.759
<v Speaker 1>guest has to say about all of this. Time for

0:38:19.760 --> 0:38:22.839
<v Speaker 1>a drive to the closed guest Amanda, Amanda Agatti. She's

0:38:22.880 --> 0:38:24.759
<v Speaker 1>back with us, chief investment officer at P and C

0:38:24.880 --> 0:38:27.680
<v Speaker 1>Asset Management. She is with us today on the phone

0:38:27.680 --> 0:38:29.839
<v Speaker 1>in Philadelphia. I may had a good to have you

0:38:29.880 --> 0:38:33.800
<v Speaker 1>back with us. It's been an interesting twenty four hours.

0:38:34.160 --> 0:38:38.840
<v Speaker 1>The FED decision, the continuing bank questions and nervousness, the

0:38:38.960 --> 0:38:41.959
<v Speaker 1>dialing back. It feels like from Treasury sectary Janet Yellen

0:38:42.000 --> 0:38:46.560
<v Speaker 1>when it comes to maybe backstopping bank deposits. How has

0:38:46.680 --> 0:38:49.040
<v Speaker 1>any of it, if at all, change you're thinking about

0:38:49.080 --> 0:38:53.560
<v Speaker 1>investment strategy, the right strategy in today's environment. Well, thank

0:38:53.600 --> 0:38:56.240
<v Speaker 1>you so much for having me. There's a ton to unpack.

0:38:56.320 --> 0:38:58.799
<v Speaker 1>We could be on the line together all day going

0:38:58.880 --> 0:39:02.480
<v Speaker 1>through all of those variables, a lot of competing narratives.

0:39:02.520 --> 0:39:04.520
<v Speaker 1>I would say, at the end of the day, it

0:39:04.600 --> 0:39:09.839
<v Speaker 1>hasn't really changed our approach to investment strategy or portfolio positioning.

0:39:09.880 --> 0:39:13.960
<v Speaker 1>We've been running a defensive playbook for the last few

0:39:14.000 --> 0:39:18.680
<v Speaker 1>months here trying to keep our investors invested, not pulling

0:39:18.880 --> 0:39:22.240
<v Speaker 1>ripport and raising a ton of cashier saying well, diversified,

0:39:22.320 --> 0:39:25.400
<v Speaker 1>focusing on quality. I'm not sure that anything over the

0:39:25.440 --> 0:39:29.200
<v Speaker 1>last twenty four hours has changed that dynamic at all,

0:39:30.000 --> 0:39:34.080
<v Speaker 1>but certainly the end state for monetary policy is becoming

0:39:34.120 --> 0:39:38.200
<v Speaker 1>a lot clearer and probably sooner than what the market

0:39:38.239 --> 0:39:41.600
<v Speaker 1>has expected. So that's driven a lot of market leadership

0:39:41.600 --> 0:39:44.320
<v Speaker 1>and rotation. The flip side of that is, you know,

0:39:44.800 --> 0:39:46.920
<v Speaker 1>is there another shoe to drop? What are the signs

0:39:46.920 --> 0:39:48.839
<v Speaker 1>of stress that are building here? And so I think

0:39:48.880 --> 0:39:51.200
<v Speaker 1>this is the arm wrestling match that the market's just

0:39:51.280 --> 0:39:54.080
<v Speaker 1>going to continue to face here, and it's sort of

0:39:54.160 --> 0:39:58.120
<v Speaker 1>leading to overall kind of a directionless market, but under

0:39:58.280 --> 0:40:01.280
<v Speaker 1>the surface, clearly a lot of volatility. You know, Amanda,

0:40:01.320 --> 0:40:04.640
<v Speaker 1>It's interesting. I think the cliche that you hear that

0:40:04.760 --> 0:40:07.920
<v Speaker 1>everyone hears on their first day of trading school or

0:40:07.960 --> 0:40:10.520
<v Speaker 1>investing school, whatever it is, is don't fight the Fed.

0:40:11.120 --> 0:40:13.919
<v Speaker 1>But in this case, you know, I wonder which way

0:40:14.160 --> 0:40:16.839
<v Speaker 1>you shouldn't fight the FED, because on one hand, they

0:40:17.080 --> 0:40:20.280
<v Speaker 1>are obviously raising rates. Chair Pale said there's no plans

0:40:20.280 --> 0:40:22.560
<v Speaker 1>to cut them this year. But on the other side,

0:40:22.600 --> 0:40:25.920
<v Speaker 1>everyone is fixating on that FED balance sheet and the

0:40:26.000 --> 0:40:29.680
<v Speaker 1>discount window is wide open. The FED has you know,

0:40:30.120 --> 0:40:35.040
<v Speaker 1>flooded the financial system with cash in the last few weeks.

0:40:35.040 --> 0:40:38.040
<v Speaker 1>So which way, you know, should you not fight the

0:40:38.080 --> 0:40:41.920
<v Speaker 1>FED on the balance sheet side or the interest rate side.

0:40:43.040 --> 0:40:45.680
<v Speaker 1>I think it's really more on the interest rate side.

0:40:45.760 --> 0:40:48.840
<v Speaker 1>You know, you look at the sad fund futures market,

0:40:48.920 --> 0:40:52.600
<v Speaker 1>there's still a disconnect between what the FED has been saying,

0:40:52.680 --> 0:40:55.520
<v Speaker 1>what the FED is actually doing, and what the market

0:40:55.560 --> 0:40:57.560
<v Speaker 1>thinks the FAT is going to do. And so I

0:40:57.560 --> 0:41:00.799
<v Speaker 1>think it's it's much more of a focus there and

0:41:00.920 --> 0:41:03.560
<v Speaker 1>don't fight the Fed. I have gone on record many

0:41:03.640 --> 0:41:07.279
<v Speaker 1>times of fighting the FED is the target to critique

0:41:07.320 --> 0:41:10.319
<v Speaker 1>what they're doing or not doing. But for you know,

0:41:10.360 --> 0:41:13.200
<v Speaker 1>the last call at six or seven months, I've been

0:41:13.200 --> 0:41:16.640
<v Speaker 1>really trying to stay close to what the FED signaling

0:41:16.640 --> 0:41:19.000
<v Speaker 1>effect is and what they're actually doing. I think they

0:41:19.040 --> 0:41:22.120
<v Speaker 1>remain very much committed, as Kal said yesterday, to fighting

0:41:22.120 --> 0:41:25.879
<v Speaker 1>this inflationary battle, but obviously we're starting to see some

0:41:25.920 --> 0:41:29.279
<v Speaker 1>signs of stress and so makes total sense for them

0:41:29.320 --> 0:41:31.600
<v Speaker 1>to slow down here. But I think the market trying

0:41:31.640 --> 0:41:33.920
<v Speaker 1>to call the Fed's loss that we're going to see

0:41:34.080 --> 0:41:36.879
<v Speaker 1>a number of cuts here in the very short run

0:41:37.239 --> 0:41:41.000
<v Speaker 1>feels kind of delusional. Banks. Is there an entry point

0:41:41.080 --> 0:41:47.600
<v Speaker 1>for you with the selling that we've seen. Well, I

0:41:47.640 --> 0:41:50.680
<v Speaker 1>don't know that I want to necessarily comment too much

0:41:50.840 --> 0:41:54.960
<v Speaker 1>on the investment thesis around banks or an entry point,

0:41:55.040 --> 0:41:58.960
<v Speaker 1>but we definitely think that there's a lot of high

0:41:59.040 --> 0:42:03.360
<v Speaker 1>quality assets, especially relative to deposits out there, and sure

0:42:03.400 --> 0:42:06.440
<v Speaker 1>there's signs of stress building in the system, but on balance,

0:42:06.520 --> 0:42:09.480
<v Speaker 1>we feel like see industries in pretty good shape. I mean,

0:42:09.480 --> 0:42:13.279
<v Speaker 1>of course, we're watching financial conditions tighten here said took

0:42:13.280 --> 0:42:16.040
<v Speaker 1>a step you know further in that direction yesterday, So

0:42:16.080 --> 0:42:18.239
<v Speaker 1>I'm not saying that we're you know, out of the

0:42:18.280 --> 0:42:21.520
<v Speaker 1>woods yet, but you know, I think on balance we're

0:42:21.560 --> 0:42:23.400
<v Speaker 1>in pretty good shape. A lot of people, you know,

0:42:23.560 --> 0:42:27.400
<v Speaker 1>making a lot of comparisons to the financial crisis, and

0:42:28.120 --> 0:42:29.960
<v Speaker 1>I hate to say, but it's a little bit different

0:42:30.000 --> 0:42:32.920
<v Speaker 1>this time. A lot of controls, a lot of oversight,

0:42:33.120 --> 0:42:36.000
<v Speaker 1>a lot of stress testing, a lot of really stringent

0:42:36.080 --> 0:42:39.719
<v Speaker 1>capital and liquidity ratios in place make the industry in

0:42:39.760 --> 0:42:43.279
<v Speaker 1>a much better shape overall this time around relative to

0:42:43.440 --> 0:42:46.640
<v Speaker 1>last time. Conversely, if I may in terms of I mean,

0:42:46.680 --> 0:42:49.920
<v Speaker 1>financials have been on our radar. They're the worst performing

0:42:49.960 --> 0:42:51.920
<v Speaker 1>major industry group in the S and P five hundred

0:42:51.960 --> 0:42:55.080
<v Speaker 1>over the past two weeks, surprise, But at the top

0:42:55.120 --> 0:42:58.360
<v Speaker 1>of the list are the second best performing. Is information technology?

0:42:58.520 --> 0:43:02.240
<v Speaker 1>The best performing his communication services. We've seen investors moving

0:43:02.239 --> 0:43:05.479
<v Speaker 1>into some of the big tech names. What's your call

0:43:05.640 --> 0:43:10.600
<v Speaker 1>on that group? Well, I would say that group probably

0:43:10.640 --> 0:43:13.520
<v Speaker 1>has gotten a bit far ahead of itself, you know.

0:43:13.600 --> 0:43:16.320
<v Speaker 1>But we're not of the opinion that we're going to

0:43:16.400 --> 0:43:18.920
<v Speaker 1>see meaningful rate cuts here in the short run, and

0:43:18.960 --> 0:43:22.560
<v Speaker 1>we're certainly not headed back towards a zero interest rate

0:43:22.640 --> 0:43:26.720
<v Speaker 1>policy dynamic, and so the tail winds for those areas

0:43:26.760 --> 0:43:29.120
<v Speaker 1>are not going to be anywhere near what they have

0:43:29.239 --> 0:43:31.600
<v Speaker 1>then over the last few years. And I think this

0:43:31.760 --> 0:43:34.400
<v Speaker 1>is just the market trying to quickly claim victory in

0:43:34.440 --> 0:43:37.440
<v Speaker 1>the battle against inflation and thinking that rates are going

0:43:37.480 --> 0:43:40.440
<v Speaker 1>to come down a lot. We certainly have seen rates

0:43:40.600 --> 0:43:42.480
<v Speaker 1>come in and come down a lot here in the

0:43:42.560 --> 0:43:44.839
<v Speaker 1>last couple of weeks, and so I think it's just

0:43:44.920 --> 0:43:48.120
<v Speaker 1>simply that I don't know that there's a formula kind

0:43:48.120 --> 0:43:53.440
<v Speaker 1>of rates come down. Growth stocks, the discount rate associated

0:43:53.480 --> 0:43:56.319
<v Speaker 1>with them should be improving, but I'm not sure there's

0:43:56.320 --> 0:44:01.440
<v Speaker 1>a fundamental backdrop justifies how far growth exposures have rallied

0:44:01.480 --> 0:44:05.400
<v Speaker 1>here today. You know, Amanda fetchhair pal obviously likes to

0:44:05.440 --> 0:44:09.319
<v Speaker 1>talk about the long and variable effects of raising interest rates.

0:44:09.360 --> 0:44:13.439
<v Speaker 1>Obviously we've seen that crop up very suddenly with the

0:44:13.440 --> 0:44:18.000
<v Speaker 1>stress and the banking sector commercial real estates seen better days.

0:44:18.280 --> 0:44:21.600
<v Speaker 1>Where else would you be looking to see some stress

0:44:21.640 --> 0:44:24.359
<v Speaker 1>build up because of this aggressive rate campaign we've seen

0:44:24.480 --> 0:44:26.600
<v Speaker 1>a Man, it just got about twenty five seconds. Yeah,

0:44:26.680 --> 0:44:30.319
<v Speaker 1>go ahead, Yeah, I think it's really hard to answer that,

0:44:30.360 --> 0:44:33.560
<v Speaker 1>but I think there's I think there is probably broader

0:44:33.800 --> 0:44:37.080
<v Speaker 1>stress underneath the surface there in terms of balance sheet

0:44:37.120 --> 0:44:42.720
<v Speaker 1>management across the market spectrum, across the market capitalization spectrum,

0:44:42.800 --> 0:44:45.000
<v Speaker 1>though I'd be a little concerned about them allering the

0:44:45.200 --> 0:44:48.080
<v Speaker 1>exposures environment. Well, good to check in with you really

0:44:48.120 --> 0:44:51.799
<v Speaker 1>appreciate it again, Amanda Agatti, She's chief investment officer at

0:44:51.840 --> 0:44:55.600
<v Speaker 1>PNC Asset Management. On the phone from Philadelphia. This is

0:44:55.600 --> 0:45:00.080
<v Speaker 1>the Bloombird Business Week podcast, available on Apple, Spotify and

0:45:00.160 --> 0:45:04.200
<v Speaker 1>anywhere else you get your podcast. Listen live weekday afternoons

0:45:04.280 --> 0:45:07.360
<v Speaker 1>from three to six easterning on bloomberg dot com, the

0:45:07.440 --> 0:45:10.759
<v Speaker 1>iHeartRadio app tune In, and the Bloomberg Business app. You

0:45:10.800 --> 0:45:13.920
<v Speaker 1>can also watch us live every weekday on YouTube and

0:45:14.120 --> 0:45:15.760
<v Speaker 1>always on the Bloomberg Journal