WEBVTT - Facebook's 'Zero' Data Cost Is Threatened By Regulation

0:00:02.640 --> 0:00:05.320
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Penl Podcast. I'm Paul swing you

0:00:05.360 --> 0:00:07.680
<v Speaker 1>along with my co host Lisa Brahma Waits. Each day

0:00:07.720 --> 0:00:10.240
<v Speaker 1>we bring you the most noteworthy and useful interviews for

0:00:10.280 --> 0:00:12.520
<v Speaker 1>you and your money, whether at the grocery store or

0:00:12.560 --> 0:00:15.480
<v Speaker 1>the trading floor. Find a Bloomberg Penl podcast on Apple

0:00:15.520 --> 0:00:17.960
<v Speaker 1>podcast or wherever you listen to podcasts, as well as

0:00:17.960 --> 0:00:23.239
<v Speaker 1>at Bloomberg dot com. The busiest week of earnings for

0:00:23.400 --> 0:00:27.720
<v Speaker 1>the second quarter reporting season. Meanwhile, we are getting the

0:00:28.040 --> 0:00:31.720
<v Speaker 1>trickle out of the big tech names. Amazon reporting after

0:00:31.720 --> 0:00:34.080
<v Speaker 1>the bell today, shares lower by three quarters of a

0:00:34.200 --> 0:00:37.519
<v Speaker 1>percent today, although a lot of people are expecting them

0:00:37.600 --> 0:00:40.199
<v Speaker 1>to deliver strong results on the heels of their one

0:00:40.280 --> 0:00:43.519
<v Speaker 1>day shipping initiative. Joining us now to discuss Dave Garritty,

0:00:43.600 --> 0:00:46.040
<v Speaker 1>chief market strategist for laid Law and Company and also

0:00:46.080 --> 0:00:49.880
<v Speaker 1>a partner at bt block. He is joining us here

0:00:50.000 --> 0:00:52.800
<v Speaker 1>in our eleven three oh studios. Dave, I want to

0:00:52.840 --> 0:00:55.560
<v Speaker 1>start with Amazon. What are you expecting in terms of

0:00:55.600 --> 0:00:57.320
<v Speaker 1>their earnings and and sort of the boost that they're

0:00:57.320 --> 0:01:00.200
<v Speaker 1>expected to get from the one day shipping initiative. I

0:01:00.200 --> 0:01:02.040
<v Speaker 1>think Amazon is going to be coming in with fairly

0:01:02.040 --> 0:01:06.399
<v Speaker 1>strong results, probably looking at revenues possible growth somewhere north

0:01:06.440 --> 0:01:09.959
<v Speaker 1>of fiftent year over year. UM. You know, clearly the

0:01:10.040 --> 0:01:12.679
<v Speaker 1>question here for Amazon isn't so much just the strength

0:01:12.680 --> 0:01:15.360
<v Speaker 1>of the volumes through the e commerce platform, but really

0:01:15.400 --> 0:01:18.039
<v Speaker 1>more what's going on with Amazon Web services and the

0:01:18.080 --> 0:01:21.480
<v Speaker 1>fact that they've continue to reap returns from their leading

0:01:21.520 --> 0:01:25.840
<v Speaker 1>return as being a cloud computing platform. So UM prime

0:01:25.920 --> 0:01:28.640
<v Speaker 1>is a wonderful thing. However, at the end of the day,

0:01:28.680 --> 0:01:30.720
<v Speaker 1>the engine for profit growth of the company is what

0:01:30.760 --> 0:01:34.680
<v Speaker 1>they're doing in terms of the ability to control data. So, David,

0:01:35.000 --> 0:01:37.080
<v Speaker 1>on the data front, you're talking before we went on

0:01:37.120 --> 0:01:40.640
<v Speaker 1>the air about Facebook. They had numbers last night, really

0:01:40.680 --> 0:01:43.480
<v Speaker 1>strong top line growth, the stocks down one and a

0:01:43.480 --> 0:01:46.479
<v Speaker 1>half percent. You're calling out some issues about their cost

0:01:46.520 --> 0:01:48.960
<v Speaker 1>of good soul. It gives a sense of what you're thinking, Yeah,

0:01:49.120 --> 0:01:52.360
<v Speaker 1>UM to UM you know it certainly as a monopoly

0:01:52.400 --> 0:01:54.840
<v Speaker 1>if you will, in terms of social media. UM, you know,

0:01:55.080 --> 0:01:58.560
<v Speaker 1>Facebook is realizing these monopoly rents. UM. The thing that's

0:01:58.600 --> 0:02:02.160
<v Speaker 1>been interesting here looking more on the regulatory front towards

0:02:02.200 --> 0:02:04.840
<v Speaker 1>not just the US government and what the Hill is saying,

0:02:04.840 --> 0:02:07.880
<v Speaker 1>but also overseas. UM. You know, clearly the fact of

0:02:07.920 --> 0:02:09.799
<v Speaker 1>the matter is looking at the business model for these

0:02:09.800 --> 0:02:12.760
<v Speaker 1>companies Facebook, Uh, you know they have they pay no

0:02:12.840 --> 0:02:16.320
<v Speaker 1>cost for the data that we provide. And there have

0:02:16.360 --> 0:02:19.200
<v Speaker 1>been estimates out there that this could be giving a

0:02:19.240 --> 0:02:23.840
<v Speaker 1>benefit to the company Facebook and other um monopolies within

0:02:23.960 --> 0:02:27.080
<v Speaker 1>social media or within tech of something in the order

0:02:27.160 --> 0:02:31.360
<v Speaker 1>about seventy five to a hundred billion dollars a year. Uh.

0:02:31.400 --> 0:02:34.440
<v Speaker 1>There are discussions taking place in the U S and

0:02:34.440 --> 0:02:39.120
<v Speaker 1>elsewhere of taxing this. I mean effectively, what would happen

0:02:39.160 --> 0:02:41.680
<v Speaker 1>if say General Motors you know, paid nothing for the

0:02:41.720 --> 0:02:44.239
<v Speaker 1>steel that they used to build their cars. The model

0:02:44.280 --> 0:02:46.400
<v Speaker 1>and the argument here is effectively the same in terms

0:02:46.400 --> 0:02:49.760
<v Speaker 1>of looking at Facebook. So the issue is costs potentially

0:02:50.000 --> 0:02:52.280
<v Speaker 1>are going to be rising as a result of this

0:02:52.440 --> 0:02:56.399
<v Speaker 1>regulatory inquiry and oversight with respect of the industry. UM,

0:02:56.480 --> 0:02:59.919
<v Speaker 1>so margins will come under pressure. Clearly, the revenue moment

0:03:00.040 --> 0:03:03.480
<v Speaker 1>him continues to grow, uh, and that can support many things.

0:03:03.800 --> 0:03:05.600
<v Speaker 1>But the fact of the matter is is that life

0:03:05.639 --> 0:03:08.600
<v Speaker 1>is going to become far more complicated, not just for Facebook,

0:03:08.600 --> 0:03:11.519
<v Speaker 1>but also potentially for Amazon and Google as a result

0:03:11.560 --> 0:03:14.480
<v Speaker 1>of the antitrust inquiry with the Department of Justice and

0:03:14.680 --> 0:03:18.400
<v Speaker 1>the Federal Trade Commission the FTC have launched. Which companies

0:03:18.600 --> 0:03:20.760
<v Speaker 1>of the big tech names do you think will get

0:03:20.919 --> 0:03:25.919
<v Speaker 1>most affected by this the d efforts. My selection here

0:03:25.960 --> 0:03:28.560
<v Speaker 1>would be Facebook. Um. You know, to the extent that

0:03:28.600 --> 0:03:34.640
<v Speaker 1>Facebook does depend upon other companies for data. Um, so

0:03:34.880 --> 0:03:38.640
<v Speaker 1>other companies I think will pass costs onto Facebook. And

0:03:38.720 --> 0:03:41.240
<v Speaker 1>I would simply say that even though Facebook on a

0:03:41.280 --> 0:03:44.000
<v Speaker 1>tactical basis has had a win with respect of this

0:03:44.080 --> 0:03:47.400
<v Speaker 1>five billion dollars settlement with the FTC because it removes

0:03:47.440 --> 0:03:50.240
<v Speaker 1>liability for the officers, the fact of the matter is

0:03:50.240 --> 0:03:53.280
<v Speaker 1>is that Mark Zuckerberg has shown himself to be brazen

0:03:53.760 --> 0:03:57.440
<v Speaker 1>in his dealings with regulatory authorities, both here in the

0:03:57.560 --> 0:04:00.320
<v Speaker 1>US and elsewhere, and I think this puts some rarely

0:04:00.360 --> 0:04:03.240
<v Speaker 1>in the crosshairs and there's a foreseeable future. There's also

0:04:03.280 --> 0:04:05.560
<v Speaker 1>a question of diversification. We were talking about Amazon, and

0:04:05.600 --> 0:04:07.640
<v Speaker 1>I thought it was striking that you said that the AWS,

0:04:07.680 --> 0:04:10.240
<v Speaker 1>the sort of cloud computing services, was really where the

0:04:10.280 --> 0:04:14.120
<v Speaker 1>focus needs to be, because on the actual bread motor

0:04:14.160 --> 0:04:17.360
<v Speaker 1>of their business is sort of market platform, it's sort

0:04:17.360 --> 0:04:20.120
<v Speaker 1>of increasingly utility. They just try to crept margins as

0:04:20.160 --> 0:04:22.400
<v Speaker 1>much as possible, or that's how they'd like to put

0:04:22.440 --> 0:04:25.080
<v Speaker 1>it out there as how crucial is it for big

0:04:25.120 --> 0:04:30.680
<v Speaker 1>tech to basically create their mainstay businesses as utilities, but

0:04:30.760 --> 0:04:34.000
<v Speaker 1>then have these peripheral businesses actually give them their money.

0:04:34.080 --> 0:04:36.000
<v Speaker 1>That's a very good point, and it's you know, and

0:04:36.080 --> 0:04:38.920
<v Speaker 1>in terms of looking at the monopoly that these companies

0:04:38.960 --> 0:04:42.320
<v Speaker 1>have within their various sectors, the argument has been put

0:04:42.360 --> 0:04:46.280
<v Speaker 1>forward that these are really more utilities, and as utilities

0:04:46.320 --> 0:04:49.600
<v Speaker 1>they should be regulated and allowed to have the returns

0:04:49.640 --> 0:04:54.320
<v Speaker 1>that utilities historically have enjoyed, Which means that these companies,

0:04:54.720 --> 0:04:57.040
<v Speaker 1>much as a T and T did some time ago,

0:04:57.360 --> 0:05:01.160
<v Speaker 1>have to think about setting up unread related businesses to

0:05:01.279 --> 0:05:06.880
<v Speaker 1>potentially drive their returns and continue to attract investor attention. Well,

0:05:06.920 --> 0:05:10.279
<v Speaker 1>that brings up the ultimate question of risk, regulatory risk

0:05:10.320 --> 0:05:13.080
<v Speaker 1>for these companies. Is there a scenario where they could

0:05:13.200 --> 0:05:16.400
<v Speaker 1>be broken up? That's certainly something that Senator Elizabeth Warren

0:05:16.400 --> 0:05:20.000
<v Speaker 1>and presidential kendidate Elizabeth Warren has suggested. Well, I mean

0:05:20.600 --> 0:05:24.240
<v Speaker 1>going towards a breakup, you know, is a possible solution

0:05:24.480 --> 0:05:28.960
<v Speaker 1>or a possible scenario, um, but one which arguably comes

0:05:29.000 --> 0:05:31.880
<v Speaker 1>after you've gone through this process of inquiry and very

0:05:31.960 --> 0:05:36.640
<v Speaker 1>likely you go past the general election. Um, you know,

0:05:36.680 --> 0:05:38.800
<v Speaker 1>with the solution you know doesn't get imposed with a

0:05:38.880 --> 0:05:42.120
<v Speaker 1>hundred and seventeen Congress when it adjourns in two thousand

0:05:42.200 --> 0:05:44.159
<v Speaker 1>twenty one. I think it may take a little longer

0:05:44.160 --> 0:05:46.560
<v Speaker 1>than that, But the fact is it's on the horizon

0:05:46.800 --> 0:05:48.960
<v Speaker 1>and investors and looking at the sector have to have

0:05:49.080 --> 0:05:53.839
<v Speaker 1>this on their radar. What's the next step for regulatory action?

0:05:53.880 --> 0:05:56.920
<v Speaker 1>From your point of view, you're expecting, um, I think

0:05:56.920 --> 0:06:01.080
<v Speaker 1>it's really more a matter of various entities, whether it's

0:06:01.120 --> 0:06:03.760
<v Speaker 1>the Department Justice, whether it's a Federal Trade Commission, whether

0:06:03.800 --> 0:06:08.719
<v Speaker 1>it's the Antitrust Subcommittee of the House Judicial Committee conducting

0:06:08.760 --> 0:06:12.200
<v Speaker 1>their hearings. And as these hearings and inquiries are conducted,

0:06:12.360 --> 0:06:15.640
<v Speaker 1>clearly there's going to be a news flow coming out

0:06:15.680 --> 0:06:18.200
<v Speaker 1>of these. Um. Clearly, the people who are going to

0:06:18.279 --> 0:06:21.000
<v Speaker 1>do well out of all this are the lobby armies

0:06:21.120 --> 0:06:24.120
<v Speaker 1>of K Street down in Washington, d C. It's going

0:06:24.160 --> 0:06:27.640
<v Speaker 1>to be a bang up year, uh for attorneys going

0:06:27.680 --> 0:06:31.120
<v Speaker 1>into and Paul, it already has been. It already has been.

0:06:31.120 --> 0:06:33.480
<v Speaker 1>It's that something has never changed. David Garretty, thank you

0:06:33.520 --> 0:06:36.080
<v Speaker 1>so much for joining us. David's a chief market strategist

0:06:36.080 --> 0:06:39.800
<v Speaker 1>at laid Long Company, also partner at bt block talking technology,

0:06:39.839 --> 0:06:43.200
<v Speaker 1>We've got tech earnings this week and uh, clearly investors

0:06:43.200 --> 0:06:46.560
<v Speaker 1>will be focusing on the operations of these companies, as

0:06:46.560 --> 0:06:48.880
<v Speaker 1>they should, but they will also be focusing, I think increasingly,

0:06:48.920 --> 0:06:52.480
<v Speaker 1>as David suggested, on the regulatory oversight that these companies

0:06:52.520 --> 0:06:55.120
<v Speaker 1>are now finding themselves under, which is a little bit

0:06:55.120 --> 0:06:57.280
<v Speaker 1>of a new issue for them. Most of these tech

0:06:57.320 --> 0:07:01.520
<v Speaker 1>companies historically have uh you know, you know, dealt with

0:07:01.640 --> 0:07:06.160
<v Speaker 1>European oversight, but not necessarily oversight coming from US regulators

0:07:06.279 --> 0:07:09.120
<v Speaker 1>US politicians. That appears to be changing. The question is

0:07:09.360 --> 0:07:10.840
<v Speaker 1>how will they deal with it and will there be

0:07:10.880 --> 0:07:25.040
<v Speaker 1>some winners and losers. The scores of ultra net worth

0:07:25.160 --> 0:07:29.600
<v Speaker 1>families haven't risen dramatically over the past few decades, and

0:07:29.680 --> 0:07:33.080
<v Speaker 1>a big question now for those investors is where do

0:07:33.120 --> 0:07:36.200
<v Speaker 1>they put their money at a time of high evaluations,

0:07:36.280 --> 0:07:40.400
<v Speaker 1>easing central banks, and some concerns growing about the momentum

0:07:40.520 --> 0:07:42.680
<v Speaker 1>in the global economy. Here to answer all of those

0:07:42.760 --> 0:07:45.480
<v Speaker 1>questions is Michael Son and Felt. He's chairman and founder

0:07:45.480 --> 0:07:49.400
<v Speaker 1>of Tiger twenty one, which is a consortium of ultra

0:07:49.560 --> 0:07:54.720
<v Speaker 1>net worth investors who get together and talk honestly about

0:07:54.760 --> 0:07:58.520
<v Speaker 1>what they're doing. If I get that correctly, Michael, um, so,

0:07:58.680 --> 0:08:01.520
<v Speaker 1>thank you for being here. What's the latest in terms

0:08:01.680 --> 0:08:05.280
<v Speaker 1>of the optimism or lack thereof among the members of

0:08:05.320 --> 0:08:08.840
<v Speaker 1>Tiger One. Thanks for having me uh over the last

0:08:08.920 --> 0:08:13.160
<v Speaker 1>six months. Sentiment is shifting slowly today. People are less

0:08:13.240 --> 0:08:18.080
<v Speaker 1>optimistic those who were very positive or less so, but

0:08:18.200 --> 0:08:22.320
<v Speaker 1>it's still smooth sailing for the moment. People have pulled

0:08:22.360 --> 0:08:24.440
<v Speaker 1>out of a little bit of real estate, brought it

0:08:24.480 --> 0:08:27.880
<v Speaker 1>down from the low thirty percent allocation to the high twenties,

0:08:28.040 --> 0:08:32.400
<v Speaker 1>taking profits where they could. Are members because they're all

0:08:32.720 --> 0:08:36.600
<v Speaker 1>former entrepreneurs, are much more comfortable in the private markets,

0:08:36.640 --> 0:08:39.439
<v Speaker 1>private equity, private real estate, so they only have about

0:08:39.440 --> 0:08:43.480
<v Speaker 1>twenty three percent allocation to the public markets. Hedge funds

0:08:43.480 --> 0:08:46.200
<v Speaker 1>have been very low, but the hedge funds that are

0:08:46.200 --> 0:08:49.600
<v Speaker 1>getting interest now are the defensive hedge funds what would

0:08:49.600 --> 0:08:53.520
<v Speaker 1>be called credit funds where you have distressed debts. So

0:08:53.640 --> 0:08:56.600
<v Speaker 1>there are a lot of distress debt funds gearing up

0:08:56.840 --> 0:08:59.360
<v Speaker 1>ready for the next downturn, and our members are looking

0:08:59.400 --> 0:09:01.480
<v Speaker 1>at that as well. So, Michael, one of the things

0:09:01.559 --> 0:09:03.680
<v Speaker 1>that we've noticed this was some of these tech companies

0:09:03.679 --> 0:09:06.280
<v Speaker 1>coming public like Uber and Lift, for example, is that

0:09:06.600 --> 0:09:10.720
<v Speaker 1>maybe the valuations in the private market have gotten maybe stretched,

0:09:10.760 --> 0:09:13.000
<v Speaker 1>so when they come to the equity public markets they

0:09:13.600 --> 0:09:16.520
<v Speaker 1>maybe even have a down evaluation. What are your members

0:09:16.520 --> 0:09:20.120
<v Speaker 1>saying about, given that they are entrepreneurs, about kind of

0:09:20.360 --> 0:09:23.680
<v Speaker 1>valuations in venture world, in the private equity world. So

0:09:23.840 --> 0:09:28.440
<v Speaker 1>the valuations are clearly high in the public markets. Um,

0:09:28.480 --> 0:09:32.400
<v Speaker 1>but long term people still believe that, for instance, technology

0:09:32.480 --> 0:09:38.320
<v Speaker 1>stocks have greater scalability. Uh So after the index funds,

0:09:38.360 --> 0:09:41.480
<v Speaker 1>which are members are increasingly interested in because they know

0:09:41.600 --> 0:09:45.200
<v Speaker 1>they can't outperform the market, tech stocks would be the

0:09:45.280 --> 0:09:48.520
<v Speaker 1>one subset. But even within tech stocks now you have

0:09:48.600 --> 0:09:52.320
<v Speaker 1>a divergence. Whereas a year ago our members thought, uh,

0:09:52.520 --> 0:09:56.120
<v Speaker 1>Amazon and Facebook were two tech stocks. With all the

0:09:56.200 --> 0:10:01.400
<v Speaker 1>challenges facing Facebook today regulatory and so forth, those are diverging.

0:10:01.440 --> 0:10:03.600
<v Speaker 1>I would say our members are a little less interested

0:10:03.640 --> 0:10:06.040
<v Speaker 1>in Facebook, although it had good earnings, it now has

0:10:06.040 --> 0:10:09.760
<v Speaker 1>a five billion dollar fine. Amazon doesn't have those problems today.

0:10:10.000 --> 0:10:13.760
<v Speaker 1>So I'm curious you said that your members were reducing

0:10:13.760 --> 0:10:17.280
<v Speaker 1>their allocation to real estate slightly. I'm wondering if you

0:10:17.320 --> 0:10:19.000
<v Speaker 1>can give me a sense or give us a sense

0:10:19.559 --> 0:10:24.079
<v Speaker 1>of where they're reducing those allocations. In other words, in

0:10:24.120 --> 0:10:26.360
<v Speaker 1>the big cities, is it and warehouses the commercial So

0:10:27.120 --> 0:10:29.600
<v Speaker 1>first of all, in real estate, you really have a

0:10:29.600 --> 0:10:32.440
<v Speaker 1>tail of two cities. You have the gateway cities where

0:10:32.480 --> 0:10:36.560
<v Speaker 1>prices are still very high, and outside of the gateway

0:10:36.600 --> 0:10:40.840
<v Speaker 1>cities you have things like the retail apocalypse where you

0:10:40.920 --> 0:10:43.720
<v Speaker 1>have streets that are just empty of retailers because of

0:10:43.720 --> 0:10:47.360
<v Speaker 1>what's going on. So retail is still real estate is

0:10:47.400 --> 0:10:50.920
<v Speaker 1>still our members largest allocation. That's an important thing. So

0:10:50.960 --> 0:10:53.040
<v Speaker 1>the fact that it came down from the high thirties

0:10:53.080 --> 0:10:57.640
<v Speaker 1>to tent, it's still their largest allocation. What they've done

0:10:58.280 --> 0:11:01.120
<v Speaker 1>is where they had an opportunit unity to take low

0:11:01.200 --> 0:11:05.240
<v Speaker 1>hanging fruit that was easily sold at a very high value,

0:11:05.280 --> 0:11:08.240
<v Speaker 1>they took those off to build cash and get ready

0:11:08.280 --> 0:11:10.800
<v Speaker 1>for the next downturn. So that's that was gonna be

0:11:10.840 --> 0:11:13.400
<v Speaker 1>my next question. What do they buy? And it sounds

0:11:13.440 --> 0:11:17.480
<v Speaker 1>like they bought nothing if they're buying it in the

0:11:17.520 --> 0:11:20.800
<v Speaker 1>real estate is more on the income producing side rather

0:11:20.880 --> 0:11:25.640
<v Speaker 1>than the speculative side. Unless because our members so many

0:11:25.720 --> 0:11:28.600
<v Speaker 1>made their money in real estate, sometimes they can see

0:11:28.600 --> 0:11:31.959
<v Speaker 1>a value that nobody else can see. An empty building

0:11:31.960 --> 0:11:35.000
<v Speaker 1>to you might be frightening, it might be an extraordinary

0:11:35.040 --> 0:11:38.320
<v Speaker 1>opportunity to one of our members. But generally there's a

0:11:38.360 --> 0:11:42.040
<v Speaker 1>lot of interest in income substitutes. So workforce housing, as

0:11:42.080 --> 0:11:45.960
<v Speaker 1>an example, is very stable, good cash flows or although

0:11:46.000 --> 0:11:48.360
<v Speaker 1>even that's gotten a little price over the last year

0:11:48.440 --> 0:11:51.040
<v Speaker 1>or two. So, Michael, where are you seeing with your

0:11:51.120 --> 0:11:53.679
<v Speaker 1>company Tiger twenty one? Where are you seeing the growth

0:11:53.840 --> 0:11:56.840
<v Speaker 1>in wealth? I mean, I'm assuming that you know, you

0:11:56.840 --> 0:11:58.400
<v Speaker 1>know there are lots of billionaires in the U s.

0:11:58.440 --> 0:12:01.280
<v Speaker 1>Where are you seeing the growth? Were you opening groups

0:12:01.280 --> 0:12:04.840
<v Speaker 1>and offices and so on? So we've identified the sixty

0:12:04.960 --> 0:12:08.960
<v Speaker 1>markets around the globe that members like Tiger members would

0:12:09.000 --> 0:12:12.000
<v Speaker 1>like to either work in, live in, invest in, or

0:12:12.800 --> 0:12:16.160
<v Speaker 1>connect to. We're already in over thirty of those markets,

0:12:16.160 --> 0:12:18.960
<v Speaker 1>so over the next five years will probably roll out

0:12:19.000 --> 0:12:22.080
<v Speaker 1>the next thirty. Our market, by the way, is not

0:12:22.200 --> 0:12:26.040
<v Speaker 1>the billionaires. Our market is from ten million to a billion.

0:12:26.080 --> 0:12:29.000
<v Speaker 1>People have created all the great meat and potato businesses,

0:12:29.040 --> 0:12:31.120
<v Speaker 1>And one way to think about it, if you're a

0:12:31.120 --> 0:12:35.080
<v Speaker 1>Major League football, baseball or basketball player, you're about one

0:12:35.080 --> 0:12:39.840
<v Speaker 1>in seventeen thousand by accomplishment. Our members are of a

0:12:39.960 --> 0:12:45.319
<v Speaker 1>similar scale of success within their field of entrepreneur minus

0:12:45.360 --> 0:12:47.800
<v Speaker 1>the all stars. We don't we don't go for the billionaires.

0:12:48.880 --> 0:12:51.640
<v Speaker 1>I'm wondering when you talk about building cash or getting

0:12:51.679 --> 0:12:56.400
<v Speaker 1>defensive or distressed debt investors trying raising capital to deploy

0:12:57.000 --> 0:13:00.320
<v Speaker 1>to take advantage of a downturn, why are they like

0:13:00.400 --> 0:13:02.880
<v Speaker 1>that's going to happen somewhat soon, given the fact that

0:13:02.920 --> 0:13:05.400
<v Speaker 1>you've got central banks that are easing and doing what

0:13:05.440 --> 0:13:09.000
<v Speaker 1>they kind of prevented. Yeah, so I think um OUR

0:13:09.120 --> 0:13:13.920
<v Speaker 1>members are looking for the all elusive, all weather portfolio,

0:13:14.360 --> 0:13:18.040
<v Speaker 1>something that will be durable. We're not traders by nature.

0:13:18.040 --> 0:13:21.400
<v Speaker 1>Are members are entrepreneurs who build businesses over ten, twenty

0:13:21.440 --> 0:13:25.480
<v Speaker 1>thirty years. So they're looking to have a portfolio that

0:13:25.520 --> 0:13:28.800
<v Speaker 1>will last through good times and bad. So they see

0:13:28.800 --> 0:13:31.440
<v Speaker 1>what happened in two thousand eight, what were the strategies

0:13:31.480 --> 0:13:34.720
<v Speaker 1>that did well? And the one thing they know is

0:13:34.760 --> 0:13:36.760
<v Speaker 1>you don't want to ever have to sell at the bottom.

0:13:36.840 --> 0:13:39.679
<v Speaker 1>You have to have enough cash to weather through the bottom,

0:13:39.720 --> 0:13:44.000
<v Speaker 1>so you're not forced to liquidate great assets at discount prices.

0:13:44.640 --> 0:13:47.400
<v Speaker 1>So that would be the that would be the main

0:13:47.480 --> 0:13:50.000
<v Speaker 1>thing is have enough cash not to be forced to

0:13:50.080 --> 0:13:53.280
<v Speaker 1>liquidate your great investments at the wrong time. Paul. This

0:13:53.400 --> 0:13:56.000
<v Speaker 1>is so fascinating to me because it's not just AlterNet

0:13:56.000 --> 0:13:58.400
<v Speaker 1>worth individuals. It's all the big firms still, the big

0:13:58.840 --> 0:14:01.680
<v Speaker 1>private equity firms, private debt firms, etcetera. And I have

0:14:01.800 --> 0:14:04.280
<v Speaker 1>to wonder if this will sort of cushion any blow

0:14:04.360 --> 0:14:07.760
<v Speaker 1>and kind of created buffer on price declines in a

0:14:07.880 --> 0:14:11.120
<v Speaker 1>downturn because you've got just so much cash they're waiting

0:14:11.480 --> 0:14:14.120
<v Speaker 1>to pick up any bargains. Yeah, And I know, I

0:14:14.120 --> 0:14:15.959
<v Speaker 1>mean you'd like to think so maybe we saw that

0:14:16.000 --> 0:14:18.000
<v Speaker 1>in December last year, you know, And we saw that

0:14:18.000 --> 0:14:19.840
<v Speaker 1>in December. We had that sell off in December. H

0:14:19.880 --> 0:14:21.720
<v Speaker 1>And then he came running back this year, Michael Son

0:14:21.760 --> 0:14:23.800
<v Speaker 1>and felt thanks so much for joining us. Michael is

0:14:23.840 --> 0:14:26.680
<v Speaker 1>a chairman and founder of Tiger twenty one but seventy

0:14:26.680 --> 0:14:30.280
<v Speaker 1>one billion dollars under management across all of their members.

0:14:30.280 --> 0:14:35.560
<v Speaker 1>Just a unique way to aggregate wealthy individuals who have

0:14:35.720 --> 0:14:39.360
<v Speaker 1>created companies and value and entrepreneurs. Uh. And the question

0:14:39.480 --> 0:14:43.240
<v Speaker 1>is when those people liquidate their investments, what do they

0:14:43.280 --> 0:14:55.520
<v Speaker 1>do with the cash? Well, yesterday was certainly an important

0:14:55.600 --> 0:14:58.960
<v Speaker 1>day for President Trump, as former Special counsel Robert Mueller

0:14:59.240 --> 0:15:03.280
<v Speaker 1>testified in front of two congressional committees to get a

0:15:03.360 --> 0:15:06.440
<v Speaker 1>post mortem on that performance. We welcome Ken nowadays. He

0:15:06.520 --> 0:15:09.240
<v Speaker 1>is a partner at Venable l l p H. He

0:15:09.320 --> 0:15:12.360
<v Speaker 1>was also a former corruption and fraud prosecutor for the U. S.

0:15:12.400 --> 0:15:15.000
<v Speaker 1>Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York, Kent.

0:15:15.040 --> 0:15:18.840
<v Speaker 1>Thanks much for joining US. President Trump yesterday claimed that

0:15:18.880 --> 0:15:21.240
<v Speaker 1>it was a great day for him. Do you agree?

0:15:21.960 --> 0:15:25.520
<v Speaker 1>I disagree with that, um, And the reason is, the

0:15:25.560 --> 0:15:28.240
<v Speaker 1>report is still the report. All the facts and the

0:15:28.280 --> 0:15:33.560
<v Speaker 1>report are still the facts. And one thing that Bob

0:15:33.680 --> 0:15:38.440
<v Speaker 1>Mueller did clarify and say pretty pretty strongly was that

0:15:38.560 --> 0:15:42.680
<v Speaker 1>the report did not exonerate the president. So I can't

0:15:42.680 --> 0:15:45.840
<v Speaker 1>say you can say it was a good day. So

0:15:45.880 --> 0:15:50.080
<v Speaker 1>I guess that my question is going forward, what precedent

0:15:50.160 --> 0:15:52.800
<v Speaker 1>does this set? Because the Special prosecutor came out with

0:15:52.800 --> 0:15:55.480
<v Speaker 1>a report he said he could not exonerate President Trump.

0:15:55.760 --> 0:15:58.280
<v Speaker 1>He also said that there were some very concerning things,

0:15:58.280 --> 0:16:01.080
<v Speaker 1>particularly pertaining to the Wiki League section. These are the

0:16:01.120 --> 0:16:03.840
<v Speaker 1>things that the Democrats are sort of clinging to as

0:16:03.920 --> 0:16:06.040
<v Speaker 1>justification for why they did this in the first place,

0:16:06.080 --> 0:16:09.200
<v Speaker 1>because they're getting a bunch of criticism today. My question

0:16:09.360 --> 0:16:13.520
<v Speaker 1>is moving forward, where do we go from here with

0:16:13.560 --> 0:16:16.320
<v Speaker 1>this report? I think we're in the same place we

0:16:16.440 --> 0:16:19.840
<v Speaker 1>were before, which is Bob Mueller has always made it

0:16:19.880 --> 0:16:24.240
<v Speaker 1>clear that he's the third party narrator of a great book.

0:16:24.760 --> 0:16:26.320
<v Speaker 1>But he's not going to give you the last chapter.

0:16:26.920 --> 0:16:29.720
<v Speaker 1>The last chapter has to come from somewhere else. He's

0:16:29.720 --> 0:16:32.000
<v Speaker 1>going to bear witness. He's going to tell you what

0:16:32.040 --> 0:16:34.920
<v Speaker 1>the facts are, but he's not going to be passing judgment.

0:16:35.000 --> 0:16:36.680
<v Speaker 1>So I think we're in the same place where we

0:16:36.720 --> 0:16:39.160
<v Speaker 1>always have been up until this point after the report,

0:16:39.480 --> 0:16:44.280
<v Speaker 1>which is, will there be impeachment proceedings? So let's just

0:16:45.360 --> 0:16:47.920
<v Speaker 1>you know, looking at yesterday and so that the bare

0:16:47.960 --> 0:16:50.840
<v Speaker 1>bones testimony we got yesterday from Mr Mueller plus the report,

0:16:50.920 --> 0:16:52.560
<v Speaker 1>you think that moves the needle at all as it

0:16:52.600 --> 0:16:55.440
<v Speaker 1>relates to the legal jeopardy of the president Trump will

0:16:55.440 --> 0:16:59.080
<v Speaker 1>face either while he's in office or after office. It

0:16:59.800 --> 0:17:03.640
<v Speaker 1>may maybe it moves it, uh where he's in more jeopardy.

0:17:03.720 --> 0:17:06.440
<v Speaker 1>And the reason for that is not because Bob Muller

0:17:06.520 --> 0:17:08.880
<v Speaker 1>brought anything new to the table that wasn't in the report.

0:17:09.240 --> 0:17:13.600
<v Speaker 1>It's because the public discourse, the public vetting, the public

0:17:13.640 --> 0:17:17.040
<v Speaker 1>attention on the facts in that report are still being

0:17:17.080 --> 0:17:20.760
<v Speaker 1>discussed and focused on, and frankly, the more you look

0:17:20.760 --> 0:17:23.080
<v Speaker 1>at those facts in that report, the more you talk

0:17:23.119 --> 0:17:26.440
<v Speaker 1>about them, it's kind of hard not to look away.

0:17:26.760 --> 0:17:30.280
<v Speaker 1>The more that I listened to Robert Mueller yesterday and

0:17:30.400 --> 0:17:33.399
<v Speaker 1>his comments since the publication of the report, the brief

0:17:33.440 --> 0:17:35.960
<v Speaker 1>ones that he has made, the more of the contrast

0:17:36.040 --> 0:17:39.959
<v Speaker 1>between him and some of the politicians UH, sort of

0:17:40.040 --> 0:17:42.359
<v Speaker 1>remains stark in my mind. This idea that he is

0:17:42.400 --> 0:17:45.920
<v Speaker 1>committed to process. He wants to basically say, the institution

0:17:46.200 --> 0:17:49.280
<v Speaker 1>will provide justice. I am committed to it. He has

0:17:49.320 --> 0:17:53.400
<v Speaker 1>a commensurate marine. As a recent guest UH said, I'm

0:17:53.440 --> 0:17:58.239
<v Speaker 1>just wondering whether career prosecutors and career workers UH in

0:17:58.320 --> 0:18:02.280
<v Speaker 1>the US government our our story to change their mentality

0:18:02.320 --> 0:18:06.199
<v Speaker 1>about faith in the institution if they feel like it

0:18:06.320 --> 0:18:09.960
<v Speaker 1>isn't rewarded in the sense of, you know, actually being

0:18:10.000 --> 0:18:13.680
<v Speaker 1>as meaningful as they hoped. I think with that question,

0:18:13.840 --> 0:18:17.320
<v Speaker 1>the d o j's credibility as an institution is taking

0:18:17.920 --> 0:18:21.480
<v Speaker 1>a hit with these proceedings, with what's going on with

0:18:21.920 --> 0:18:25.680
<v Speaker 1>how everything was handled, and you know, I don't know

0:18:25.880 --> 0:18:29.600
<v Speaker 1>what line d o J, A U, sas and prosecutors

0:18:29.640 --> 0:18:34.359
<v Speaker 1>are thinking but it's got to hurt and UM it's

0:18:35.200 --> 0:18:40.080
<v Speaker 1>my question is whether this is a permanent shift of

0:18:40.760 --> 0:18:44.439
<v Speaker 1>the viewpoint of d o J and federal their place

0:18:44.720 --> 0:18:49.160
<v Speaker 1>in federal prosecutions and and and seeking justice, or whether

0:18:49.280 --> 0:18:53.600
<v Speaker 1>this will revert back to the norm. So con it's

0:18:53.640 --> 0:18:56.320
<v Speaker 1>not just the Muller investigations. The President Trump also is

0:18:56.359 --> 0:18:59.400
<v Speaker 1>facing some potential liability with investigations here in New York.

0:18:59.440 --> 0:19:02.760
<v Speaker 1>I think the federal there's some federal prosecutors as well

0:19:02.800 --> 0:19:04.879
<v Speaker 1>as a Southern District of New York looking at some

0:19:04.920 --> 0:19:07.800
<v Speaker 1>of the Trump organizations, for example, can give us an

0:19:07.840 --> 0:19:09.679
<v Speaker 1>update on where you think the statusus of some of

0:19:09.720 --> 0:19:12.679
<v Speaker 1>those investigations are we well, first off, I think it

0:19:12.880 --> 0:19:17.119
<v Speaker 1>seems pretty clear that the campaign finance fraud investigation that

0:19:17.200 --> 0:19:20.680
<v Speaker 1>the Southern District of New York was looking into up

0:19:20.720 --> 0:19:23.800
<v Speaker 1>here has been closed. And I'm basing that on the

0:19:23.880 --> 0:19:28.520
<v Speaker 1>unsealing letter that was submitted to Michael Cohen's uh sentencing

0:19:28.560 --> 0:19:31.760
<v Speaker 1>court that said that part of the investigation is done.

0:19:32.280 --> 0:19:36.320
<v Speaker 1>UM I don't know where the investigation stands with respect

0:19:36.359 --> 0:19:39.240
<v Speaker 1>to the Trump organization. I know it's been publicly reported

0:19:39.280 --> 0:19:43.120
<v Speaker 1>that there are those investigations going on. UM as well

0:19:43.200 --> 0:19:46.320
<v Speaker 1>as investigations by the New York Attorney General, who I

0:19:46.359 --> 0:19:50.400
<v Speaker 1>suspect UH is going to be more aggressive because they're

0:19:50.920 --> 0:19:53.879
<v Speaker 1>not part of the federal system. I'm wondering what do

0:19:53.920 --> 0:19:59.160
<v Speaker 1>you think is most discouraging for federal prosecutors and career

0:19:59.119 --> 0:20:01.440
<v Speaker 1>prep the government with respect to the way that the

0:20:01.520 --> 0:20:09.920
<v Speaker 1>Muller investigation was handled it. I think the unfairness of

0:20:10.760 --> 0:20:16.520
<v Speaker 1>both sides in asking UH Mueller and his team to

0:20:16.560 --> 0:20:20.360
<v Speaker 1>do something that they were somewhat constrained from doing. They

0:20:20.359 --> 0:20:24.560
<v Speaker 1>were doing their job, and having your work turned into

0:20:24.760 --> 0:20:28.240
<v Speaker 1>a partisan fight, I think is what is discouraging for people.

0:20:29.040 --> 0:20:32.600
<v Speaker 1>I think also seeing it play out in public, the tension,

0:20:32.720 --> 0:20:36.960
<v Speaker 1>the obvious tension between the Attorney general Attorney General Barr

0:20:37.119 --> 0:20:41.160
<v Speaker 1>and Mueller and his team, where it's publicly displayed that

0:20:41.480 --> 0:20:46.359
<v Speaker 1>they had differing views about what conclusions Mueller could reach

0:20:46.760 --> 0:20:50.240
<v Speaker 1>or not, and Bar took it upon himself to reach

0:20:50.240 --> 0:20:53.840
<v Speaker 1>a conclusion um that Mueller didn't, and seeing that play

0:20:53.880 --> 0:20:57.879
<v Speaker 1>out in public, it really hurts. So you know, in

0:20:57.920 --> 0:21:00.640
<v Speaker 1>the legal community today, do you think the mull report

0:21:01.200 --> 0:21:04.639
<v Speaker 1>UH serves as a basis for impeachment? Is that the

0:21:04.680 --> 0:21:06.680
<v Speaker 1>belief or is the belief that there's just not enough

0:21:06.760 --> 0:21:12.800
<v Speaker 1>there I think the Mulla report is a there is

0:21:13.080 --> 0:21:17.879
<v Speaker 1>a lot of there there um, and it is incumbent

0:21:18.040 --> 0:21:20.399
<v Speaker 1>on the fact finders, and here the fact finders are

0:21:20.480 --> 0:21:23.880
<v Speaker 1>ultimately going to be Congress to decide and past judgment.

0:21:24.240 --> 0:21:28.160
<v Speaker 1>But it's a very in depth report with a lot

0:21:28.240 --> 0:21:34.719
<v Speaker 1>of juicy facts, uh, inculpatory facts in there. Cod Nowaday,

0:21:34.800 --> 0:21:37.119
<v Speaker 1>thank you so much for being with us. Your thoughts

0:21:37.200 --> 0:21:41.560
<v Speaker 1>are always insightful. Can nowadays a partner at Venable L L. P.

0:21:41.880 --> 0:21:45.199
<v Speaker 1>He is a former prosecutor at the U. S. Attorney's

0:21:45.240 --> 0:21:47.560
<v Speaker 1>Office in the Southern District of New York. He spent

0:21:47.640 --> 0:22:04.679
<v Speaker 1>nine years. They're focusing on corruption and fraud. Time to

0:22:04.760 --> 0:22:07.520
<v Speaker 1>check in with the Bloomberg Opinion. We're joined by opinion

0:22:07.520 --> 0:22:10.119
<v Speaker 1>Commas at least, Martin Uzi at least thanks so much

0:22:10.160 --> 0:22:12.160
<v Speaker 1>for joining us. We had a big day for Marrier

0:22:12.240 --> 0:22:15.080
<v Speaker 1>drage today and the e c B let's see already

0:22:15.080 --> 0:22:18.240
<v Speaker 1>had to say there is surrounding euro Area growth out

0:22:19.080 --> 0:22:24.439
<v Speaker 1>remained tilted to the downside, reflecting the prolonged presence of

0:22:24.560 --> 0:22:29.800
<v Speaker 1>uncertainty is related to geopolitical factors. The rise in threat

0:22:29.880 --> 0:22:35.639
<v Speaker 1>of protection is and vulnerabilities in emerging markets. That was

0:22:35.720 --> 0:22:39.720
<v Speaker 1>ECB President Mario Draggy speaking this morning talking about the

0:22:40.520 --> 0:22:43.600
<v Speaker 1>slowdown in growth and some of the concern there at

0:22:43.680 --> 0:22:46.320
<v Speaker 1>least Martinous Bloomberg Plenty opinion columns, thanks so much for

0:22:46.400 --> 0:22:48.119
<v Speaker 1>joining us at least it just real quickly, What was

0:22:48.160 --> 0:22:51.320
<v Speaker 1>your main takeaway from what we heard this morning from

0:22:51.359 --> 0:22:54.399
<v Speaker 1>Mr dry Well. I think you know there's going to

0:22:54.440 --> 0:22:56.960
<v Speaker 1>be you know, some some stimulus on the way. Um

0:22:57.000 --> 0:22:59.000
<v Speaker 1>he's signally this might you know, come as as soon

0:22:59.000 --> 0:23:03.200
<v Speaker 1>as September. You saw banks initially rally on the back

0:23:03.240 --> 0:23:07.760
<v Speaker 1>of expectations that there might well be someb mitigating actions

0:23:07.840 --> 0:23:10.399
<v Speaker 1>for them in the way of potentially deposit tearing. Of course,

0:23:10.560 --> 0:23:13.320
<v Speaker 1>the banks have to pay the ECB money. Um, I

0:23:13.400 --> 0:23:15.080
<v Speaker 1>have to pay the ECB two part their funds, and

0:23:15.119 --> 0:23:18.040
<v Speaker 1>that's been hurting them and and that's where we are.

0:23:19.080 --> 0:23:20.879
<v Speaker 1>And yet we saw a reversal in market. So this

0:23:21.000 --> 0:23:24.200
<v Speaker 1>I find really interesting because initially bond yields dropped to

0:23:24.280 --> 0:23:27.119
<v Speaker 1>record low, certainly in Germany, and there was a rally

0:23:27.320 --> 0:23:30.840
<v Speaker 1>all across the fixed income world in Europe that has

0:23:30.880 --> 0:23:35.560
<v Speaker 1>since shifted, especially after Mario Draggy suggested that perhaps the

0:23:35.600 --> 0:23:40.760
<v Speaker 1>decisions were not unanimous at this point. Yes, no, that's right.

0:23:40.880 --> 0:23:44.800
<v Speaker 1>It seems that some some also work remains to be done,

0:23:45.400 --> 0:23:47.919
<v Speaker 1>for example, on on how they might relieve banks in

0:23:47.920 --> 0:23:49.880
<v Speaker 1>the way of deposit tearing. It seems like the analysis

0:23:49.880 --> 0:23:52.360
<v Speaker 1>is still underway. So yes, I think that the takeaway

0:23:52.480 --> 0:23:56.680
<v Speaker 1>changed as as the press conference evolved. So at Lisa

0:23:56.880 --> 0:23:59.879
<v Speaker 1>so Mary dragging here is stepping down as President of

0:24:00.000 --> 0:24:03.280
<v Speaker 1>the European Central Bank in October, but there's still some

0:24:03.359 --> 0:24:06.320
<v Speaker 1>questions about some of his dealings in the past and

0:24:06.359 --> 0:24:08.600
<v Speaker 1>some of his actions in the pascess. It relates to

0:24:09.119 --> 0:24:12.520
<v Speaker 1>the Banka mont Apache in Italy. I know you wrote

0:24:12.520 --> 0:24:14.360
<v Speaker 1>a colment about that. What are some of the key

0:24:14.400 --> 0:24:17.800
<v Speaker 1>issues from that that you're looking at. Well, basically, you know,

0:24:17.840 --> 0:24:21.400
<v Speaker 1>the ECB is a very young banking supervisor. They only

0:24:21.640 --> 0:24:27.119
<v Speaker 1>officially became the region's chief regulator in fourteen, and the

0:24:27.160 --> 0:24:29.679
<v Speaker 1>idea was that, you know, you'd have a European wide

0:24:29.720 --> 0:24:33.000
<v Speaker 1>regulator that wouldn't be UM there wouldn't be influenced by

0:24:33.119 --> 0:24:37.480
<v Speaker 1>national politics, national inclinations which have you know, sometimes led

0:24:37.520 --> 0:24:41.280
<v Speaker 1>to regulators locally being too permissive for example, UM. But

0:24:41.359 --> 0:24:43.639
<v Speaker 1>what we've seen in the case of Montepasky which is

0:24:43.680 --> 0:24:46.359
<v Speaker 1>potentially quite an extreme case. Is that you know, based

0:24:46.400 --> 0:24:48.400
<v Speaker 1>on the you know, the information that we have had.

0:24:48.760 --> 0:24:52.119
<v Speaker 1>You know, the ECB potentially you know bent the rules

0:24:52.119 --> 0:24:55.880
<v Speaker 1>a little bit um in its latest rescue of Montepasky

0:24:56.000 --> 0:24:58.359
<v Speaker 1>two years ago, and that is raising questions as to

0:24:58.760 --> 0:25:02.320
<v Speaker 1>the workings of the east be as a banking regulator. Um,

0:25:02.359 --> 0:25:05.480
<v Speaker 1>you know, particularly now it's the early days of it's

0:25:05.760 --> 0:25:08.439
<v Speaker 1>of its of this role. It's important to understand, you know,

0:25:08.480 --> 0:25:10.399
<v Speaker 1>how does the CB work, how does it come to

0:25:10.440 --> 0:25:13.240
<v Speaker 1>its conclusions, and how was it you know, what led

0:25:13.280 --> 0:25:17.760
<v Speaker 1>to them, um, you know, taking not taking into consideration

0:25:18.160 --> 0:25:20.880
<v Speaker 1>or not giving you know, considerable consideration to the fact

0:25:20.920 --> 0:25:23.840
<v Speaker 1>that Montapasky was probably insolvent when it was bailed out.

0:25:24.280 --> 0:25:27.960
<v Speaker 1>So understanding how the mechanics of that decision unfolded would

0:25:28.000 --> 0:25:31.720
<v Speaker 1>be helpful. So given the fact that Christine Legarde is

0:25:31.840 --> 0:25:35.600
<v Speaker 1>going to step in as the next ECB president, what

0:25:35.680 --> 0:25:38.399
<v Speaker 1>do you think she needs to do to show up

0:25:38.480 --> 0:25:42.359
<v Speaker 1>confidence in the mechanics of the e c B. I

0:25:42.359 --> 0:25:44.800
<v Speaker 1>think more transparency to begin with. Um, you know, this

0:25:44.880 --> 0:25:47.600
<v Speaker 1>is a very young institution, as I said, it has

0:25:47.880 --> 0:25:52.000
<v Speaker 1>many overlapping arms within it. As it's not entirely clear

0:25:52.080 --> 0:25:55.960
<v Speaker 1>sometimes her decisions are taken, and I think more transparency

0:25:56.040 --> 0:25:58.119
<v Speaker 1>would be helpful in that regard. And you know, the

0:25:58.160 --> 0:26:01.640
<v Speaker 1>European Commission has also singled out the fact that there

0:26:01.640 --> 0:26:04.199
<v Speaker 1>needs to be more transparencing. So I think it's very

0:26:04.240 --> 0:26:08.360
<v Speaker 1>important because these initial UM instances are going to set

0:26:08.440 --> 0:26:11.680
<v Speaker 1>important precedents for the future. Well, Lisa, what's the what's

0:26:11.720 --> 0:26:14.200
<v Speaker 1>the sense in the European banking community as it relates

0:26:14.200 --> 0:26:16.440
<v Speaker 1>to the e c B as a regulator. Has it

0:26:16.560 --> 0:26:19.560
<v Speaker 1>been effective? I mean it is there is there uncertaintly

0:26:19.560 --> 0:26:22.960
<v Speaker 1>between local regulations and e CB wide regulations. Is that

0:26:23.040 --> 0:26:25.399
<v Speaker 1>causing some of the issues. I think, you know, the

0:26:25.600 --> 0:26:28.200
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg News around UM sort of report card about a

0:26:28.280 --> 0:26:30.440
<v Speaker 1>year ago on how it's done as a supervisor, and

0:26:30.480 --> 0:26:32.639
<v Speaker 1>I think you know they've it's great by with a

0:26:32.640 --> 0:26:34.920
<v Speaker 1>little bit more than a pass. I think the senses

0:26:35.000 --> 0:26:38.760
<v Speaker 1>that in some eras they've been a little bit too

0:26:38.800 --> 0:26:41.960
<v Speaker 1>slow to move, for example, UM with regards to the

0:26:42.000 --> 0:26:45.560
<v Speaker 1>build up of bad loans, particularly in Southern Europe. UM.

0:26:45.640 --> 0:26:50.600
<v Speaker 1>And you know, more decisive and swifter action would be welcomed,

0:26:50.680 --> 0:26:53.639
<v Speaker 1>you know, by the market. UM. I think you know,

0:26:54.160 --> 0:26:56.840
<v Speaker 1>I don't get the sense that there is necessarily concern

0:26:56.920 --> 0:27:00.080
<v Speaker 1>as to how the institution works, but it's more how

0:27:00.119 --> 0:27:02.959
<v Speaker 1>effective it is. A Lisa Martin Newsy, thank you so

0:27:03.040 --> 0:27:05.520
<v Speaker 1>much for being with us. It's always illuminating. A Lisa

0:27:05.560 --> 0:27:08.879
<v Speaker 1>Martin Newozi is a calumnist covering finance for Bloomberg Opinion,

0:27:08.960 --> 0:27:11.400
<v Speaker 1>joining us from London. You can read more on all

0:27:11.440 --> 0:27:13.840
<v Speaker 1>of her work and other stories from Bloomberg Opinion at

0:27:13.840 --> 0:27:17.040
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg dot com, Slash Opinion on the Terminal at O

0:27:17.280 --> 0:27:22.240
<v Speaker 1>P I n Go. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg

0:27:22.240 --> 0:27:24.920
<v Speaker 1>pen L podcast. You can subscribe and listen to interviews

0:27:24.960 --> 0:27:28.800
<v Speaker 1>at Apple Podcasts or whatever podcast platform you prefer. Paul Sweeney,

0:27:28.840 --> 0:27:31.560
<v Speaker 1>I'm on Twitter at pt Sweeney. I'm Lisa Abram Woyds.

0:27:31.600 --> 0:27:34.040
<v Speaker 1>I'm on Twitter at Lisa A. Bram Woyds one. Before

0:27:34.080 --> 0:27:36.880
<v Speaker 1>the podcast, you can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg

0:27:36.960 --> 0:27:37.240
<v Speaker 1>Radio