WEBVTT - Bloomberg Intelligence: Oil Merger, U.S Earnings

0:00:00.600 --> 0:00:07.280
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.

0:00:10.600 --> 0:00:14.360
<v Speaker 2>This is Bloomberg Intelligence with Alex Steinhl and Paul'sweeny.

0:00:14.520 --> 0:00:17.720
<v Speaker 3>The real ap performance has been in US corporate high yield.

0:00:17.880 --> 0:00:20.280
<v Speaker 4>Are the companies lean enough? Have they trimmed all the fats?

0:00:20.320 --> 0:00:23.480
<v Speaker 3>The semiconductor business is a really cyclical.

0:00:23.079 --> 0:00:27.200
<v Speaker 2>Business, breaking market headlines and corporate news from across the globe.

0:00:27.240 --> 0:00:29.880
<v Speaker 4>Do investors like the M and A that we've seen?

0:00:30.080 --> 0:00:31.000
<v Speaker 1>These are two.

0:00:31.040 --> 0:00:33.159
<v Speaker 3>Big time blue chip companies.

0:00:33.320 --> 0:00:36.920
<v Speaker 4>The window between the peak and cut changing super fast.

0:00:37.080 --> 0:00:41.720
<v Speaker 2>Bloomberg Intelligence with Alex Steinhl and Paul'sweenye on Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:42.800 --> 0:00:45.400
<v Speaker 3>On Today's Bloomberg Intelligence Show, we dig inside the big

0:00:45.520 --> 0:00:47.839
<v Speaker 3>business stories impacting Wall Street and the global markets.

0:00:47.920 --> 0:00:49.680
<v Speaker 4>Each and every week, we're going to provide in depth

0:00:49.680 --> 0:00:52.200
<v Speaker 4>research and data on some of the two thousand companies

0:00:52.240 --> 0:00:55.240
<v Speaker 4>and one hundred and thirty industries our analysts cover worldwide.

0:00:55.440 --> 0:00:57.639
<v Speaker 3>Today will take a look at Paramount Global and why

0:00:57.680 --> 0:01:00.000
<v Speaker 3>they're said to be cutting jobs despite hosting a record

0:01:00.200 --> 0:01:00.960
<v Speaker 3>breaking Super Bowl.

0:01:01.000 --> 0:01:03.320
<v Speaker 4>Plus, we'll discuss why food and beverage company craft Times

0:01:03.400 --> 0:01:04.760
<v Speaker 4>is experiencing weaker sales.

0:01:04.880 --> 0:01:06.960
<v Speaker 3>But first we dive into a major deal that could

0:01:07.000 --> 0:01:10.440
<v Speaker 3>redefine the US energy sector. Diamondback Energy has agreed to

0:01:10.440 --> 0:01:14.080
<v Speaker 3>buy fellow Permian base and driller Endeavor Energy Resources and

0:01:14.160 --> 0:01:15.360
<v Speaker 3>a twenty six billion dollar.

0:01:15.319 --> 0:01:17.920
<v Speaker 4>Deal Love Me Energy Deals. We're joined by Vince Piazza,

0:01:17.920 --> 0:01:21.000
<v Speaker 4>Bloomberg Intelligence senior energy research analyst, and we asked him

0:01:21.040 --> 0:01:22.280
<v Speaker 4>first what he thought of the deal.

0:01:22.600 --> 0:01:26.120
<v Speaker 5>I think the deal ticks all the boxes that we're

0:01:26.160 --> 0:01:29.399
<v Speaker 5>going to need to see in this MNA.

0:01:29.040 --> 0:01:30.319
<v Speaker 6>Wave in the Permian.

0:01:30.840 --> 0:01:36.560
<v Speaker 5>It grows Diamondbacks acreage, it grows locations, so inventory is

0:01:36.600 --> 0:01:37.720
<v Speaker 5>not going to be an issue.

0:01:38.280 --> 0:01:39.920
<v Speaker 6>In terms of the price that they paid.

0:01:40.000 --> 0:01:45.720
<v Speaker 5>Look, Diamondback, in my universe of coverage had the highest premium,

0:01:46.000 --> 0:01:49.440
<v Speaker 5>so they're using their multiple to get this deal done

0:01:49.640 --> 0:01:53.320
<v Speaker 5>and so elevated currency along with some.

0:01:53.720 --> 0:01:54.680
<v Speaker 6>Cash and debt.

0:01:55.000 --> 0:01:58.280
<v Speaker 5>They do have a fairly low leverage on their balance sheet,

0:01:58.400 --> 0:02:01.280
<v Speaker 5>so I think the picks all of the boxes. They'll

0:02:01.280 --> 0:02:04.720
<v Speaker 5>throw off significant free cash flow in twenty twenty four

0:02:04.720 --> 0:02:07.440
<v Speaker 5>and twenty twenty five, so in terms of paying off

0:02:07.480 --> 0:02:10.000
<v Speaker 5>whatever bank loans that they're going to take on for this,

0:02:10.280 --> 0:02:13.080
<v Speaker 5>but also works out for the founding family of Endeavor,

0:02:13.400 --> 0:02:16.200
<v Speaker 5>they get to monetize decades of hard work.

0:02:16.480 --> 0:02:18.160
<v Speaker 4>Vince is this a merger of equals?

0:02:18.840 --> 0:02:21.160
<v Speaker 6>Well, in this case, think about what Endeavor brings to

0:02:21.200 --> 0:02:21.680
<v Speaker 6>the table.

0:02:21.840 --> 0:02:28.040
<v Speaker 5>It almost doubles Diamondbacks Middlin acreage, and it brings sizeable

0:02:28.200 --> 0:02:32.480
<v Speaker 5>oil production for the broader Diamondback franchise. So I would

0:02:32.520 --> 0:02:35.280
<v Speaker 5>tell you that in terms of size, it is a

0:02:35.320 --> 0:02:39.080
<v Speaker 5>merger of equals. But the family will get roughly thirty

0:02:39.120 --> 0:02:45.160
<v Speaker 5>percent of Diamondback with selling off almost half the resource

0:02:45.240 --> 0:02:50.120
<v Speaker 5>to Diamondbacks, so it basically doubles Diamondbacks total size, and

0:02:50.320 --> 0:02:53.840
<v Speaker 5>the founding family gets about thirty percent of the new Diamondback.

0:02:53.919 --> 0:02:56.720
<v Speaker 3>Let's say, Vince, are there any regulatory issues here? A

0:02:56.800 --> 0:02:58.760
<v Speaker 3>lot of m and A going on in this space here.

0:02:59.760 --> 0:03:01.400
<v Speaker 6>Yeah, you know it's going to get looked at.

0:03:01.800 --> 0:03:06.760
<v Speaker 5>So Southwestern and Chesapeake getting together out in Apalachia, that's

0:03:06.800 --> 0:03:10.040
<v Speaker 5>a gas deal. But that will get a very very

0:03:10.080 --> 0:03:13.400
<v Speaker 5>clear look, a very very deep look by the regulators.

0:03:13.560 --> 0:03:14.560
<v Speaker 6>This will as well.

0:03:14.600 --> 0:03:17.440
<v Speaker 5>I don't see why it wouldn't because of the actual

0:03:17.600 --> 0:03:20.840
<v Speaker 5>size of this entity. It's going to be an enterprise

0:03:21.000 --> 0:03:23.240
<v Speaker 5>value of north with sixty billion. It will be the

0:03:23.400 --> 0:03:27.480
<v Speaker 5>largest Permian pure play, so it'll get looked at.

0:03:27.600 --> 0:03:29.400
<v Speaker 6>All these deals will get looked at and.

0:03:29.360 --> 0:03:33.440
<v Speaker 5>It'll take a deeper look, same as Southwestern and Chesapeake.

0:03:33.520 --> 0:03:35.800
<v Speaker 4>I was talking to jenre and she covers Antrust for

0:03:35.800 --> 0:03:39.400
<v Speaker 4>Bloomberg Intelligence, and she's like, yes, like all of these

0:03:39.440 --> 0:03:41.080
<v Speaker 4>are going to have to get looked at. They're particularly

0:03:41.080 --> 0:03:44.480
<v Speaker 4>interested in the Exon Permian Pioneer deal and that all

0:03:44.520 --> 0:03:46.720
<v Speaker 4>these deals are definite gonna have the FTC sort of

0:03:46.920 --> 0:03:49.960
<v Speaker 4>wide eyed looking at it. But you have to wonder though,

0:03:50.000 --> 0:03:52.840
<v Speaker 4>if they want more oil, they're going to have to

0:03:52.960 --> 0:03:55.080
<v Speaker 4>do it, right, Vince, I mean it's gonna I'm just

0:03:55.080 --> 0:03:57.080
<v Speaker 4>trying to think of like what the rationale will be

0:03:57.120 --> 0:03:59.840
<v Speaker 4>to block say this deal, but like let exce On

0:04:00.040 --> 0:04:01.760
<v Speaker 4>Pioneer and go through, Like you can't.

0:04:02.400 --> 0:04:05.960
<v Speaker 5>This deal is much more North America centric, much more

0:04:06.000 --> 0:04:07.240
<v Speaker 5>North America focused.

0:04:07.800 --> 0:04:09.200
<v Speaker 6>So when you think about you know.

0:04:09.200 --> 0:04:14.920
<v Speaker 7>Exon and Pioneer Pioneer fits within Exon's Permian portfolio, but

0:04:15.000 --> 0:04:19.680
<v Speaker 7>Exon is a large, integrated multinational franchise.

0:04:20.000 --> 0:04:24.599
<v Speaker 5>This is more US centric and Permian centric as well.

0:04:25.320 --> 0:04:27.960
<v Speaker 5>But look, they're all going to get looked at. It

0:04:28.040 --> 0:04:31.159
<v Speaker 5>is what it is. This is a very large transaction.

0:04:31.720 --> 0:04:34.520
<v Speaker 5>Like I said, Southwestern Chesapeake is getting looked at. This

0:04:34.560 --> 0:04:36.800
<v Speaker 5>will get looked at as well. It's an important resource.

0:04:36.960 --> 0:04:41.240
<v Speaker 5>What you have here, though, is you have resources now

0:04:41.320 --> 0:04:47.080
<v Speaker 5>in stronger hands. You have Exon Mobile, Chevron, you have Diamondback.

0:04:47.160 --> 0:04:52.240
<v Speaker 5>You have very large entities with big balance sheets and

0:04:52.279 --> 0:04:56.840
<v Speaker 5>the capability to take down even greater levels of capital

0:04:57.160 --> 0:05:02.799
<v Speaker 5>in order to move production from the delineation phase into

0:05:02.800 --> 0:05:03.800
<v Speaker 5>the production phase.

0:05:04.240 --> 0:05:06.800
<v Speaker 3>Give me a sense, Vincent, I'm putting my banker hat on.

0:05:07.320 --> 0:05:09.520
<v Speaker 3>Can I keep doing a bunch of deals here? I mean?

0:05:09.760 --> 0:05:11.360
<v Speaker 3>How many players are left?

0:05:12.440 --> 0:05:13.719
<v Speaker 6>Yeah, it's a very interesting question.

0:05:13.760 --> 0:05:17.680
<v Speaker 5>So we put out last year the top twenty privately

0:05:17.720 --> 0:05:21.800
<v Speaker 5>held PE sponsored names in the Permian. In this case

0:05:21.920 --> 0:05:26.880
<v Speaker 5>Endeavor being the second largest, Mewborn, which has mentioned that

0:05:26.960 --> 0:05:31.240
<v Speaker 5>it wishes to sell. That's the largest of the top

0:05:31.320 --> 0:05:34.800
<v Speaker 5>twenty that'll go out, we think, because it has been

0:05:34.839 --> 0:05:39.440
<v Speaker 5>mentioned as a takeover candidate. Similar situation Founding family looking

0:05:39.480 --> 0:05:43.119
<v Speaker 5>to move the assets. If you think about the top five,

0:05:43.560 --> 0:05:46.480
<v Speaker 5>three are now gone, so there is a great deal

0:05:46.520 --> 0:05:50.240
<v Speaker 5>of interest. There's interest by the private players as well,

0:05:50.360 --> 0:05:54.160
<v Speaker 5>especially the PE sponsored players. You're getting close to these

0:05:54.240 --> 0:05:57.680
<v Speaker 5>vintages that are aged and now this capital needs to

0:05:57.720 --> 0:06:00.960
<v Speaker 5>be recycled, so you will see more of that. You

0:06:01.000 --> 0:06:05.839
<v Speaker 5>will see public buying private. Public does have the currency.

0:06:06.160 --> 0:06:09.320
<v Speaker 5>In the case of Diamondback, they had a premium multiple

0:06:10.240 --> 0:06:13.799
<v Speaker 5>elevated currency that they were able to use to monetize

0:06:13.960 --> 0:06:17.760
<v Speaker 5>the founding families investment, and you'll see that as well,

0:06:17.960 --> 0:06:21.040
<v Speaker 5>especially in the permium where you do have this difference

0:06:21.160 --> 0:06:26.320
<v Speaker 5>of large cap premium valuations looking for assets and the

0:06:26.360 --> 0:06:30.800
<v Speaker 5>smaller cap names trading at a relative discount to peers,

0:06:31.120 --> 0:06:33.840
<v Speaker 5>but trading at a discount to the larger names as well.

0:06:33.920 --> 0:06:37.159
<v Speaker 3>Our thanks to Vincent Piazza Bloomberg Intelligence and Senior Energy

0:06:37.200 --> 0:06:38.320
<v Speaker 3>Research analysts, we go.

0:06:38.320 --> 0:06:40.799
<v Speaker 4>Next to earnings and focus on Hasbro, the toy maker,

0:06:40.800 --> 0:06:43.279
<v Speaker 4>reporting fourth quarter net revenue and adjuster earnings per share

0:06:43.320 --> 0:06:45.920
<v Speaker 4>the trailed analyst estimates, and this comes that the toy

0:06:45.960 --> 0:06:49.039
<v Speaker 4>industry continues to suffer from week consumer demand after that

0:06:49.120 --> 0:06:50.839
<v Speaker 4>boom in the early days of the pandemic.

0:06:51.200 --> 0:06:53.400
<v Speaker 3>For more on this, we talked with Lindsay Dutch Bloomberg

0:06:53.440 --> 0:06:57.159
<v Speaker 3>Intelligence Consumer Hardlines Senior Analysts. We first asked Lindsay what

0:06:57.360 --> 0:06:58.279
<v Speaker 3>she made of the quarter.

0:06:58.560 --> 0:07:02.520
<v Speaker 8>Osbro definitely disappointed on the quarter as top and bottom

0:07:02.560 --> 0:07:06.680
<v Speaker 8>line missing, but more importantly that outlook for twenty twenty

0:07:06.680 --> 0:07:10.360
<v Speaker 8>four looks pretty rough. They're definitely thinking about the toy

0:07:10.440 --> 0:07:13.600
<v Speaker 8>industry more bearish than some of their peers like Mattel.

0:07:14.440 --> 0:07:17.080
<v Speaker 8>And this is coming from a place where they've had

0:07:17.160 --> 0:07:21.240
<v Speaker 8>more challenges than Mattel. In twenty twenty three, and even

0:07:21.320 --> 0:07:24.320
<v Speaker 8>at the very end of twenty twenty two, there's some

0:07:24.480 --> 0:07:28.520
<v Speaker 8>concern about profitability improvement for this company. They've sort of

0:07:28.560 --> 0:07:31.880
<v Speaker 8>struggled to raise that operating margin over the past year,

0:07:32.560 --> 0:07:35.200
<v Speaker 8>and I think that's like a really big worry bead

0:07:35.400 --> 0:07:39.040
<v Speaker 8>thinking about twenty twenty four. They posted an operating margin

0:07:39.080 --> 0:07:41.680
<v Speaker 8>for twenty twenty three nine point five percent. It was

0:07:41.720 --> 0:07:45.040
<v Speaker 8>the lowest in at least twelve years, So there's real

0:07:45.080 --> 0:07:45.760
<v Speaker 8>concern there.

0:07:45.840 --> 0:07:48.239
<v Speaker 3>So let's start with the top line in the toy business.

0:07:48.320 --> 0:07:52.520
<v Speaker 3>Is this a GDP growth business? Less more, how does

0:07:52.560 --> 0:07:53.120
<v Speaker 3>this business grew?

0:07:53.200 --> 0:07:55.720
<v Speaker 8>Yeah, so typically, I mean the toy business. You know,

0:07:55.840 --> 0:07:59.280
<v Speaker 8>you think about growth two to three percent a year.

0:08:00.200 --> 0:08:04.320
<v Speaker 8>Toy business boomed with the pandemic, so we're still coming

0:08:04.360 --> 0:08:08.760
<v Speaker 8>off of those twenty twenty twenty twenty one highs, and

0:08:09.200 --> 0:08:12.239
<v Speaker 8>in twenty twenty three, the industry contracted about seven percent

0:08:12.400 --> 0:08:16.160
<v Speaker 8>per Circana data. Mattel was thinking that, you know, this

0:08:16.320 --> 0:08:19.080
<v Speaker 8>year twenty twenty four would be a little bit better

0:08:19.120 --> 0:08:23.160
<v Speaker 8>than that, but still contraction. Hasbro is saying down eight percent,

0:08:23.560 --> 0:08:26.400
<v Speaker 8>So definitely a more bearish view on the industry as

0:08:26.440 --> 0:08:30.760
<v Speaker 8>a whole. But this year definitely looks rough in terms

0:08:30.840 --> 0:08:33.200
<v Speaker 8>of toy demands, still coming off of those.

0:08:33.040 --> 0:08:37.320
<v Speaker 4>Highs, and they don't have Barbie. I mean, I asked

0:08:37.320 --> 0:08:39.280
<v Speaker 4>the CEO of Mattel this on TV. I was like,

0:08:39.320 --> 0:08:41.720
<v Speaker 4>you know, do you need a Barbie two? Like, what's

0:08:41.760 --> 0:08:45.480
<v Speaker 4>your next evolution here? I mean, I know the quarter

0:08:45.600 --> 0:08:48.120
<v Speaker 4>was better than Hasbro, but it still has problems. There's

0:08:48.120 --> 0:08:50.000
<v Speaker 4>still an activist investor that wants them to spin off

0:08:50.040 --> 0:08:52.560
<v Speaker 4>their American Girl and Fisher Price business, et cetera. It's like,

0:08:52.600 --> 0:08:54.840
<v Speaker 4>you have to sell more cars if you're not selling dolls.

0:08:55.280 --> 0:08:59.000
<v Speaker 4>And Hasbro doesn't have Barbie. Pow Reliant is a toy business.

0:08:59.000 --> 0:09:03.320
<v Speaker 8>On movies, yes, so content has been a big driver

0:09:03.480 --> 0:09:06.760
<v Speaker 8>over the past couple of years. Barbie is a great

0:09:06.800 --> 0:09:09.880
<v Speaker 8>example of that. I think we also know that you

0:09:09.960 --> 0:09:13.880
<v Speaker 8>can't have that blockbuster type movie every single year, but

0:09:13.960 --> 0:09:16.320
<v Speaker 8>a lot of the preschool brands, you know, you can

0:09:16.400 --> 0:09:19.520
<v Speaker 8>link to a series. So Hasbro does own Pepa pig.

0:09:19.960 --> 0:09:23.520
<v Speaker 8>So just getting like this the animated series there sometimes

0:09:23.559 --> 0:09:26.439
<v Speaker 8>can help with toy sales, but there's a major connection

0:09:26.480 --> 0:09:30.360
<v Speaker 8>with entertainment. Entertainment generally across the board, not just Hasbro

0:09:30.520 --> 0:09:33.880
<v Speaker 8>specific is going to be light in twenty twenty four,

0:09:34.040 --> 0:09:37.440
<v Speaker 8>so they do lose that driver. Hasbro is also different

0:09:37.440 --> 0:09:40.880
<v Speaker 8>than Mattel in the key categories that they play in,

0:09:40.960 --> 0:09:43.440
<v Speaker 8>so they own NERF So they're really big sort of

0:09:43.440 --> 0:09:47.720
<v Speaker 8>on that outdoor category, which again that's an outsize grower

0:09:47.800 --> 0:09:51.480
<v Speaker 8>during the pandemic. They play in arts and crafts with Plato.

0:09:51.880 --> 0:09:54.520
<v Speaker 8>Plato's like they've come out with some new products, but

0:09:54.559 --> 0:09:56.360
<v Speaker 8>it's kind of really hard to come up with new

0:09:56.360 --> 0:10:01.480
<v Speaker 8>innovative things in that category. Some of their outperformers were

0:10:01.520 --> 0:10:07.160
<v Speaker 8>like Transformers in the past year again and entertainment linked product,

0:10:07.480 --> 0:10:09.160
<v Speaker 8>you know that did well because of that.

0:10:09.679 --> 0:10:11.960
<v Speaker 3>All Right, So if I've got a business where the

0:10:12.000 --> 0:10:14.960
<v Speaker 3>demand is challenge, what do I do on the cost

0:10:15.000 --> 0:10:17.360
<v Speaker 3>side to try to preserve my margins here?

0:10:18.400 --> 0:10:18.640
<v Speaker 2>Right?

0:10:18.800 --> 0:10:22.240
<v Speaker 8>So you know, Hasbro laid out a plan in October

0:10:22.280 --> 0:10:25.880
<v Speaker 8>of twenty twenty two cutting costs. They kind of realized

0:10:25.920 --> 0:10:28.960
<v Speaker 8>over time that wasn't quite enough, but they were planning,

0:10:29.000 --> 0:10:31.200
<v Speaker 8>so they wint of double that goal, a lot of

0:10:31.200 --> 0:10:35.600
<v Speaker 8>it coming out of SG and A. They're also offloading

0:10:35.679 --> 0:10:39.200
<v Speaker 8>some of their brands and basically licensing out to other

0:10:39.679 --> 0:10:43.679
<v Speaker 8>manufacturers to actually make the products, and that is going

0:10:43.720 --> 0:10:46.320
<v Speaker 8>to be a key part of you know, their outlook

0:10:46.400 --> 0:10:49.400
<v Speaker 8>for a stronger operating margin in that toy segment in

0:10:49.480 --> 0:10:52.680
<v Speaker 8>twenty twenty four, and by that, they're expecting a four

0:10:52.720 --> 0:10:56.440
<v Speaker 8>to six percent operating margin this year, whereas last year

0:10:56.440 --> 0:10:59.000
<v Speaker 8>it was an operating loss. It's still a pretty low

0:10:59.120 --> 0:11:03.400
<v Speaker 8>number below they're targeting twenty percent over the long term,

0:11:03.600 --> 0:11:05.079
<v Speaker 8>so there's a lot of work to.

0:11:05.080 --> 0:11:08.280
<v Speaker 4>Be done there. What's the Wizards of the Coast segment?

0:11:08.880 --> 0:11:11.199
<v Speaker 4>Does that really hurt? What is that?

0:11:11.200 --> 0:11:14.840
<v Speaker 8>That includes their magic of the gathering at tabletop gaming

0:11:15.080 --> 0:11:19.319
<v Speaker 8>digital gaming brands, So that has been a top grower

0:11:19.400 --> 0:11:22.760
<v Speaker 8>for this company over the past couple of years. They're

0:11:22.840 --> 0:11:26.480
<v Speaker 8>again lapping difficult comparisons, only expecting three to five percent

0:11:26.600 --> 0:11:30.720
<v Speaker 8>growth in twenty twenty four. But that business is a

0:11:30.800 --> 0:11:34.240
<v Speaker 8>high margin business for them, So you're talking about thirty

0:11:34.280 --> 0:11:38.960
<v Speaker 8>eight forty percent margins, but the problem is it's it's

0:11:39.000 --> 0:11:42.720
<v Speaker 8>closer to thirty percent of their overall business. So as

0:11:43.559 --> 0:11:47.160
<v Speaker 8>continued growth there is great, the margin is great, but

0:11:47.240 --> 0:11:49.560
<v Speaker 8>it's still a smaller part of their mix, so it

0:11:49.600 --> 0:11:54.080
<v Speaker 8>can't quite offset this weakness that they feel sort of

0:11:54.120 --> 0:11:55.720
<v Speaker 8>in the traditional toy business.

0:11:56.160 --> 0:11:59.400
<v Speaker 3>Thanks to Lindsey Dutch Bloomberg Intelligence Consumer Hardline Secret Analyst.

0:11:59.600 --> 0:12:01.440
<v Speaker 4>Coming up, we're going to break down what Paramount Global

0:12:01.520 --> 0:12:02.560
<v Speaker 4>said be cutting jobs.

0:12:02.880 --> 0:12:05.559
<v Speaker 3>You're listening to Bloomberg Intelligence on Bloomberg Radio, providing in

0:12:05.600 --> 0:12:07.760
<v Speaker 3>there with research and data on two thousand companies and

0:12:07.760 --> 0:12:10.760
<v Speaker 3>one hundred and thirty industries. You can access Bloomberg Intelligence

0:12:10.840 --> 0:12:12.280
<v Speaker 3>via b I go on the terminal.

0:12:12.360 --> 0:12:14.880
<v Speaker 4>I'm Paul Sweeney and am Malling Steel and this is Bloomberg.

0:12:21.800 --> 0:12:25.679
<v Speaker 2>You're listening to the Bloomberg Intelligence podcast. Catch us live

0:12:25.760 --> 0:12:29.120
<v Speaker 2>weekdays at ten am Eastern on Afocarplay and Android Auto

0:12:29.160 --> 0:12:32.080
<v Speaker 2>with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever you

0:12:32.160 --> 0:12:35.839
<v Speaker 2>get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.

0:12:37.040 --> 0:12:39.880
<v Speaker 4>Let's turn out to the media and entertainment industry. Earlier

0:12:39.880 --> 0:12:41.640
<v Speaker 4>in the week, we heard the Paramount Global is cutting

0:12:41.679 --> 0:12:44.360
<v Speaker 4>roughly eight hundred jobs, or three percent of its workforce.

0:12:44.559 --> 0:12:46.720
<v Speaker 3>We're told the cuts of our response to the continued

0:12:46.760 --> 0:12:49.680
<v Speaker 3>loss of cable and satellite TV subscribers to streaming services

0:12:49.920 --> 0:12:53.360
<v Speaker 3>like Netflix, and this comes despite Paramount hosting a record

0:12:53.400 --> 0:12:54.840
<v Speaker 3>breaking Super Bowl TV audience.

0:12:55.000 --> 0:12:57.760
<v Speaker 4>So for more, we're joined by either Maganathan Bloomberg intelligence

0:12:57.800 --> 0:12:59.840
<v Speaker 4>analyst on US Media, and we ask Ether for her

0:13:00.040 --> 0:13:01.160
<v Speaker 4>take on this week's news.

0:13:01.400 --> 0:13:03.640
<v Speaker 9>This is really more of course, they did have a

0:13:03.679 --> 0:13:06.880
<v Speaker 9>great Super Bowl, but I think this is really more

0:13:06.920 --> 0:13:09.240
<v Speaker 9>about the future outlook for the company, and that is

0:13:09.320 --> 0:13:12.640
<v Speaker 9>super super bleak. Yes, it was a great night for

0:13:12.720 --> 0:13:16.840
<v Speaker 9>TV advertising. We think they gotten seven hundred million dollars

0:13:16.920 --> 0:13:20.520
<v Speaker 9>in roughly about four hours. But then it's throughout twenty

0:13:20.559 --> 0:13:25.199
<v Speaker 9>twenty three we've seen TV advertising decline by low double digits.

0:13:25.240 --> 0:13:28.080
<v Speaker 9>It was down almost thirteen percent in the latest quarter

0:13:28.120 --> 0:13:29.840
<v Speaker 9>that they reported, and it's not going to get too

0:13:29.920 --> 0:13:32.480
<v Speaker 9>much better. And it's not just the challenges on the

0:13:32.520 --> 0:13:35.080
<v Speaker 9>TV side of the equation for them. It's also about

0:13:35.120 --> 0:13:38.000
<v Speaker 9>their streaming business and they've made good strides absolutely in

0:13:38.080 --> 0:13:41.440
<v Speaker 9>terms of you know, streaming subscribers, and again I anticipate

0:13:41.480 --> 0:13:43.400
<v Speaker 9>that they're going to have some good streaming numbers to

0:13:43.440 --> 0:13:46.480
<v Speaker 9>report thanks to the Super Bowl, but it is burning

0:13:46.559 --> 0:13:50.079
<v Speaker 9>a lot of money, almost one point seven billion dollars

0:13:50.200 --> 0:13:53.440
<v Speaker 9>is what they will report in losses for twenty twenty three,

0:13:53.480 --> 0:13:55.760
<v Speaker 9>and before that they lost about one point eight billion.

0:13:55.840 --> 0:13:58.679
<v Speaker 10>So it's just been a continuous drain on the company.

0:13:59.200 --> 0:14:01.000
<v Speaker 3>And I know they're there's a lot of talk around

0:14:01.320 --> 0:14:05.920
<v Speaker 3>perhaps the controlling shareholder, Sherry Redstone, will consider selling all

0:14:05.960 --> 0:14:08.200
<v Speaker 3>a part of the company. What's the latest on that?

0:14:09.720 --> 0:14:11.839
<v Speaker 9>So the latest actually in that saga, and this has

0:14:11.880 --> 0:14:15.120
<v Speaker 9>now been an ongoing drama for many months now, Paul,

0:14:15.559 --> 0:14:18.679
<v Speaker 9>The latest is that Byron Allen actually came up with

0:14:19.000 --> 0:14:21.320
<v Speaker 9>a bid for all of the company, not just for

0:14:21.400 --> 0:14:24.000
<v Speaker 9>the controlling stake held through National Amusements.

0:14:24.280 --> 0:14:26.600
<v Speaker 10>And he actually put up a pretty good bid.

0:14:26.880 --> 0:14:30.200
<v Speaker 9>You know, it was fourteen billion dollars in terms of equity,

0:14:30.280 --> 0:14:33.560
<v Speaker 9>so thirty billion dollars enterprise value. We think it was

0:14:33.600 --> 0:14:36.720
<v Speaker 9>a pretty fair bid. The problem is, you know, Byron Allen,

0:14:36.800 --> 0:14:39.320
<v Speaker 9>I don't think anybody is taking him too seriously. He's

0:14:39.400 --> 0:14:42.200
<v Speaker 9>you know, had this track record of kind of coming

0:14:42.280 --> 0:14:46.000
<v Speaker 9>up with these empty bids. So while it is a number, again,

0:14:46.280 --> 0:14:48.720
<v Speaker 9>we've not really seen a whole lot of action that

0:14:48.800 --> 0:14:50.160
<v Speaker 9>we would have expected.

0:14:50.640 --> 0:14:54.000
<v Speaker 4>So this is a totally unfair question to Paul. Let's

0:14:54.000 --> 0:14:56.960
<v Speaker 4>pretend you're still an M and a banker here, investment banker.

0:14:57.120 --> 0:14:59.160
<v Speaker 4>What would you be talking to Paaramount about.

0:14:59.200 --> 0:15:01.560
<v Speaker 3>I would I would say, I think the best buyer

0:15:01.560 --> 0:15:04.880
<v Speaker 3>here there's a strategic buyer, maybe Warner Brothers, the Discovery,

0:15:04.880 --> 0:15:07.240
<v Speaker 3>But both of those companies, as keitha Wall and those

0:15:07.360 --> 0:15:09.680
<v Speaker 3>bound sheets are not great. I think I would be

0:15:09.720 --> 0:15:13.160
<v Speaker 3>shopping into a private equity because they're still good for

0:15:13.480 --> 0:15:15.600
<v Speaker 3>free cash flows here and let them deal with it.

0:15:15.920 --> 0:15:19.400
<v Speaker 3>So Githay, what is the sense here as to I

0:15:19.440 --> 0:15:23.080
<v Speaker 3>think about Paramount, I think about Warner Brothers, Discovery, what

0:15:23.280 --> 0:15:25.520
<v Speaker 3>happens to these companies because it just feels like against

0:15:25.520 --> 0:15:28.360
<v Speaker 3>some of the big tech companies, they're just not big

0:15:28.440 --> 0:15:31.160
<v Speaker 3>enough here, against Netflix, are just not big enough. What

0:15:31.200 --> 0:15:31.640
<v Speaker 3>did they do?

0:15:33.040 --> 0:15:33.120
<v Speaker 11>So?

0:15:33.160 --> 0:15:36.400
<v Speaker 9>I think Warner Brothers Discovery actually had a pretty interesting

0:15:36.440 --> 0:15:40.600
<v Speaker 9>move last week Pall, which was they banded together with ESPN,

0:15:40.760 --> 0:15:44.680
<v Speaker 9>Disney and Fox to kind of create this sports super

0:15:44.720 --> 0:15:47.280
<v Speaker 9>app which will launch in the fall. And that's one

0:15:47.320 --> 0:15:49.880
<v Speaker 9>way for them to kind of protect at least some

0:15:50.080 --> 0:15:52.240
<v Speaker 9>part of their linear revenue stream, because I mean they've

0:15:52.320 --> 0:15:53.920
<v Speaker 9>kind of everybody's seeing the writing.

0:15:53.680 --> 0:15:54.600
<v Speaker 10>On the wall here.

0:15:54.320 --> 0:15:57.880
<v Speaker 9>We're seeing cord cutting, we're seeing about ten percent of

0:15:58.000 --> 0:16:02.040
<v Speaker 9>the subscriber base get eroded ear after ear We've already

0:16:02.040 --> 0:16:05.400
<v Speaker 9>lost thirty million subscribers. So that's one good way for them,

0:16:05.400 --> 0:16:08.240
<v Speaker 9>I think, to kind of control their destiny a little

0:16:08.280 --> 0:16:12.240
<v Speaker 9>bit in terms of distribution. Again, remember Paramount is not

0:16:12.520 --> 0:16:15.480
<v Speaker 9>part of that bundle, so that again is a little

0:16:15.520 --> 0:16:18.520
<v Speaker 9>bit of you know, a strike against them. But you know,

0:16:18.560 --> 0:16:19.920
<v Speaker 9>you bring up a good point. I think at the

0:16:20.000 --> 0:16:21.520
<v Speaker 9>end of the day, we are going to have to

0:16:21.560 --> 0:16:23.920
<v Speaker 9>see consolidation. Of course, as you just pointed out, there

0:16:23.920 --> 0:16:27.240
<v Speaker 9>were rumors of actually Warner Brothers Discovery being interested in Paramount,

0:16:27.240 --> 0:16:30.240
<v Speaker 9>but that would be about more than you know, sixty

0:16:30.280 --> 0:16:33.240
<v Speaker 9>billion dollars I think in debt for those combined companies.

0:16:33.600 --> 0:16:35.640
<v Speaker 9>So yeah, it is it is definitely going to be challenging,

0:16:35.640 --> 0:16:38.160
<v Speaker 9>but I think consolidation is definitely on the cards.

0:16:38.200 --> 0:16:40.000
<v Speaker 4>Okay, So then how does that happen? Because if like,

0:16:40.080 --> 0:16:41.920
<v Speaker 4>three wrongs don't make a right, and you're not going

0:16:42.000 --> 0:16:43.720
<v Speaker 4>to put all the media companies together because it's going

0:16:43.760 --> 0:16:46.800
<v Speaker 4>to create more problems. So is it private equity like

0:16:47.280 --> 0:16:49.960
<v Speaker 4>to split up different areas of media within the company.

0:16:50.480 --> 0:16:52.160
<v Speaker 9>Yeah, I think Paramount I think one of the things

0:16:52.160 --> 0:16:53.720
<v Speaker 9>has been you know, to sell it for parts. Right,

0:16:53.760 --> 0:16:57.080
<v Speaker 9>there are some parts of the company, the TV networks

0:16:57.080 --> 0:16:59.840
<v Speaker 9>that could be very, very attractive to private equity, as

0:16:59.840 --> 0:17:01.720
<v Speaker 9>you just pointed out, because of the cash flows. Right,

0:17:01.720 --> 0:17:04.120
<v Speaker 9>it's still a business. It used to throw out about

0:17:04.160 --> 0:17:06.480
<v Speaker 9>six billion dollars in ebit dah, but it will still

0:17:06.480 --> 0:17:08.440
<v Speaker 9>throw out about four and a half to almost close

0:17:08.480 --> 0:17:10.639
<v Speaker 9>to four point eight billion dollars in ebit DAH. So

0:17:11.000 --> 0:17:14.320
<v Speaker 9>again cash highly cash generative. Of course, the future you

0:17:14.359 --> 0:17:16.840
<v Speaker 9>know flows don't look so great. But then there has

0:17:16.920 --> 0:17:18.800
<v Speaker 9>been a lot of interest in the studio part of

0:17:18.800 --> 0:17:21.040
<v Speaker 9>the business, right, whether that's you know, David Ellison with

0:17:21.080 --> 0:17:22.879
<v Speaker 9>his guy Dance Media, maybe.

0:17:22.600 --> 0:17:24.040
<v Speaker 10>Somebody else, maybe even an Apple.

0:17:24.320 --> 0:17:27.639
<v Speaker 9>We haven't necessarily seen any of those you know, bids

0:17:27.720 --> 0:17:30.119
<v Speaker 9>kind of come to fruition, but there definitely will be

0:17:30.119 --> 0:17:31.760
<v Speaker 9>a lot of interest. But I think the one thing

0:17:31.800 --> 0:17:33.240
<v Speaker 9>that we kind of have to wait to get some

0:17:33.280 --> 0:17:36.400
<v Speaker 9>clarity on is definitely the regulatory environment. We've seen big

0:17:36.480 --> 0:17:40.280
<v Speaker 9>tech kind of really shy away from anything too splashy,

0:17:40.680 --> 0:17:43.080
<v Speaker 9>but who knows, maybe when the government changes, all of

0:17:43.080 --> 0:17:44.119
<v Speaker 9>that will change as well.

0:17:44.520 --> 0:17:48.280
<v Speaker 3>You know, Githa, When these networks bid and pay billions

0:17:48.280 --> 0:17:50.960
<v Speaker 3>of dollars for sports rights. And even if you you know,

0:17:50.960 --> 0:17:52.680
<v Speaker 3>you put up that seven hundred million dollars of bad

0:17:52.720 --> 0:17:55.640
<v Speaker 3>revenue that you reference, you know, it's tough to make

0:17:55.680 --> 0:17:58.960
<v Speaker 3>a profit on that kind of business. So what the

0:17:59.000 --> 0:18:02.520
<v Speaker 3>networks have always said is, yes, but we promote other

0:18:02.760 --> 0:18:07.119
<v Speaker 3>shows on our networks, and that value is really worth

0:18:07.119 --> 0:18:10.000
<v Speaker 3>paying these big rights fees. But if you're promoting all

0:18:10.000 --> 0:18:12.400
<v Speaker 3>these shows on the CBS network that nobody's watching because

0:18:12.400 --> 0:18:15.919
<v Speaker 3>of chord cutting, how valuable is that? I mean, I

0:18:16.000 --> 0:18:18.800
<v Speaker 3>thought about that they were promoting all their shows that

0:18:19.520 --> 0:18:22.040
<v Speaker 3>I don't think anybody's watching because they've already cut the cord.

0:18:22.600 --> 0:18:24.320
<v Speaker 10>Yeah, you're absolutely right for them. Though.

0:18:24.760 --> 0:18:27.440
<v Speaker 9>The one thing that Paramount has done really kind of well,

0:18:27.440 --> 0:18:28.840
<v Speaker 9>and I don't know whether this is a plus or

0:18:28.880 --> 0:18:29.800
<v Speaker 9>a minus.

0:18:29.440 --> 0:18:31.639
<v Speaker 10>But it definitely helps them at least shore up.

0:18:31.640 --> 0:18:33.400
<v Speaker 9>I think the total value of their assets is they've

0:18:33.440 --> 0:18:37.120
<v Speaker 9>actually all of their sports properties, including the NFL, they've

0:18:37.119 --> 0:18:39.119
<v Speaker 9>actually kind of leaked it outside the bundle, so they

0:18:39.160 --> 0:18:41.800
<v Speaker 9>were showing it on Paramount Plus Day one, and they

0:18:41.800 --> 0:18:44.040
<v Speaker 9>did the same thing with the Super Bowl as well.

0:18:44.080 --> 0:18:45.719
<v Speaker 9>So I think even if they're you know, even if

0:18:45.760 --> 0:18:48.600
<v Speaker 9>you have cord cutters. They could make the argument that yes,

0:18:48.720 --> 0:18:51.400
<v Speaker 9>you know, people can potentially sign up for that service.

0:18:51.600 --> 0:18:54.160
<v Speaker 9>We saw, of course Peacock do that with that wildcard

0:18:54.320 --> 0:18:57.920
<v Speaker 9>NFL game. Again, what they know that they're losing subscribers

0:18:57.960 --> 0:19:00.800
<v Speaker 9>on the PATV bundle, so they're trying to they're trying

0:19:00.840 --> 0:19:02.720
<v Speaker 9>their best, I don't know how successfully to kind of

0:19:02.720 --> 0:19:05.080
<v Speaker 9>make it up on the streaming side, but you're right,

0:19:05.119 --> 0:19:06.560
<v Speaker 9>I mean it is kind of a lose.

0:19:06.359 --> 0:19:08.560
<v Speaker 4>Lose, Keitha. So what's next? Like, what are you watching?

0:19:09.119 --> 0:19:10.200
<v Speaker 4>Preparea amount now?

0:19:10.840 --> 0:19:13.080
<v Speaker 10>For Paramount, It's definitely it is an M and a place.

0:19:13.200 --> 0:19:17.360
<v Speaker 10>Something has to happen. It has to happen fast. Bob Backish,

0:19:17.359 --> 0:19:19.879
<v Speaker 10>the CEO, has pretty much said it. You know, he

0:19:19.960 --> 0:19:20.520
<v Speaker 10>said he's.

0:19:20.359 --> 0:19:25.240
<v Speaker 9>Evaluating Bayern Allen's proposal again, not sure whether that will

0:19:25.280 --> 0:19:27.600
<v Speaker 9>necessarily pan out, but somebody has to come up with

0:19:28.000 --> 0:19:29.320
<v Speaker 9>something and it has.

0:19:29.200 --> 0:19:29.959
<v Speaker 10>To happen quickly.

0:19:30.160 --> 0:19:33.680
<v Speaker 3>Our thanks to Keitha Ranganathan Bloomberg intelligence analyst on US

0:19:33.720 --> 0:19:34.320
<v Speaker 3>Media fall.

0:19:34.440 --> 0:19:37.000
<v Speaker 4>Let's turn out of Cisco So the largest maker of

0:19:37.000 --> 0:19:40.840
<v Speaker 4>computer networking equipment, Cisco announcing plans to cut thousands of jobs,

0:19:41.040 --> 0:19:44.040
<v Speaker 4>saying the cuts will affect roughly five percent of its workforce.

0:19:44.280 --> 0:19:46.320
<v Speaker 3>This all comes after a slow down and corporate tech

0:19:46.359 --> 0:19:49.639
<v Speaker 3>spending wiped out Cisco's sales growth last quarter. For more

0:19:49.680 --> 0:19:51.840
<v Speaker 3>on all of this, we spoke with Woojin Hoo, Bloomberg

0:19:51.880 --> 0:19:55.359
<v Speaker 3>Intelligence senior technology analysts. We first asked him if anything

0:19:55.400 --> 0:19:57.280
<v Speaker 3>stood out from Cisco's quarterly results.

0:19:57.680 --> 0:19:59.960
<v Speaker 1>I think after the job cuts league from last quarter,

0:20:00.040 --> 0:20:02.480
<v Speaker 1>I think there were expectations that there were going to

0:20:02.520 --> 0:20:05.159
<v Speaker 1>be cut the estimates. Quite frankly, the big standout for

0:20:05.200 --> 0:20:07.399
<v Speaker 1>me was that the cuts were big enough. You know,

0:20:07.480 --> 0:20:10.080
<v Speaker 1>five percent op X cuts. That's part of the course

0:20:10.160 --> 0:20:12.639
<v Speaker 1>for what Cisco typically does. But at the end of

0:20:12.680 --> 0:20:15.000
<v Speaker 1>the day, I mean, based on reports, it looks like

0:20:15.280 --> 0:20:16.520
<v Speaker 1>a lot of this was expected.

0:20:17.400 --> 0:20:20.600
<v Speaker 3>You know which I've followed the Cisco name for decades.

0:20:20.640 --> 0:20:23.480
<v Speaker 3>I mean it's one of the founding Silicon Valley tech

0:20:23.560 --> 0:20:26.199
<v Speaker 3>names based in San joseric smack in the middle, you know,

0:20:26.240 --> 0:20:29.480
<v Speaker 3>Silicon Valley. What are they not getting right here? This

0:20:29.560 --> 0:20:31.359
<v Speaker 3>SoC hasn't worked for a long time, and it just

0:20:32.160 --> 0:20:34.280
<v Speaker 3>what from your perspective, what are they just missing here?

0:20:35.400 --> 0:20:38.480
<v Speaker 1>Well, let's talk about large cap stocks in general, right,

0:20:38.520 --> 0:20:41.760
<v Speaker 1>If we if we think about the big bangs let's

0:20:41.760 --> 0:20:46.320
<v Speaker 1>say Microsoft, the old tech guard of the Microsoft Google, Right,

0:20:46.440 --> 0:20:50.800
<v Speaker 1>they all really led on a cloud software transition. If

0:20:50.800 --> 0:20:54.560
<v Speaker 1>we think about it, from the hardware old guard Cisco, Dell,

0:20:54.880 --> 0:20:59.600
<v Speaker 1>HPE or the old HP, there's still relatively a hardware business.

0:21:00.240 --> 0:21:03.080
<v Speaker 1>So you're not going to get the fast, sexy growth

0:21:03.200 --> 0:21:05.280
<v Speaker 1>from the hardware business. I mean, if you look at Cisco,

0:21:05.800 --> 0:21:08.280
<v Speaker 1>you know, after the estimate cuts fifty two billion for

0:21:08.480 --> 0:21:11.520
<v Speaker 1>fiscal twenty four, that brings them back to twenty twenty

0:21:11.520 --> 0:21:14.840
<v Speaker 1>four levels, right, So you're not getting the growth that

0:21:14.880 --> 0:21:17.800
<v Speaker 1>people want, and also you're not getting the margin profiles

0:21:17.920 --> 0:21:20.960
<v Speaker 1>that you want as well. So that's why the multiples

0:21:20.960 --> 0:21:22.840
<v Speaker 1>are lower and the growth of shallower.

0:21:23.119 --> 0:21:25.159
<v Speaker 3>So over the last five years, this stock has compounded

0:21:25.480 --> 0:21:28.440
<v Speaker 3>three percent per year, Cisco S and P five and

0:21:28.480 --> 0:21:30.720
<v Speaker 3>fourteen and a half percent, the S and P information

0:21:30.800 --> 0:21:34.840
<v Speaker 3>technology sector twenty six percent. So it's really really underperformed

0:21:35.000 --> 0:21:37.840
<v Speaker 3>going forward, which I guess over the next several quarters.

0:21:37.880 --> 0:21:42.600
<v Speaker 3>What Cisco's saying about their customers and inventory and cutting

0:21:42.600 --> 0:21:45.000
<v Speaker 3>this forecast suggests that they don't have a lot of

0:21:45.000 --> 0:21:45.920
<v Speaker 3>great visibility here.

0:21:46.560 --> 0:21:50.560
<v Speaker 1>If you remember the server and storage cycle from a

0:21:50.640 --> 0:21:53.680
<v Speaker 1>year ago, Cisco is going through that right now. Part

0:21:53.680 --> 0:21:57.000
<v Speaker 1>of it is because of the supply chain glut all

0:21:57.000 --> 0:22:00.760
<v Speaker 1>of a sudden, Their customers got their equipment two quarters

0:22:00.800 --> 0:22:05.160
<v Speaker 1>ago and they're taking their time implementing it. So typical

0:22:05.240 --> 0:22:09.480
<v Speaker 1>cycles are roughly five to six quarters. I was running

0:22:09.480 --> 0:22:12.119
<v Speaker 1>through the numbers and when we're talking about anywhere between

0:22:12.119 --> 0:22:15.040
<v Speaker 1>twenty seven to thirty percent declines for the next two

0:22:15.040 --> 0:22:18.240
<v Speaker 1>to three quarters for Cisco for the networking business, not sales.

0:22:18.560 --> 0:22:20.480
<v Speaker 1>But they won't get out of this decline until the

0:22:20.480 --> 0:22:22.360
<v Speaker 1>second half of fiscal year, which is about a year

0:22:22.359 --> 0:22:26.280
<v Speaker 1>from now. Right again, the model's going to be reworked,

0:22:26.560 --> 0:22:30.359
<v Speaker 1>primarily because of this Plunk deal. The hope is is

0:22:30.359 --> 0:22:33.560
<v Speaker 1>that they're going to have more recurring revenues to boost

0:22:33.640 --> 0:22:35.439
<v Speaker 1>up the multiples going forward.

0:22:36.080 --> 0:22:38.280
<v Speaker 4>Where's the AI component for Cisco.

0:22:39.000 --> 0:22:42.080
<v Speaker 1>I will tell you they're making a lot of good progress.

0:22:42.480 --> 0:22:45.880
<v Speaker 1>They had a billion dollars in bookings in black black

0:22:45.960 --> 0:22:49.399
<v Speaker 1>orders with Cloud customers, and the issue is is that

0:22:49.400 --> 0:22:52.719
<v Speaker 1>that only represents two percent of total orders, right so

0:22:52.920 --> 0:22:55.719
<v Speaker 1>it's still relatively small. It is going to be growing,

0:22:55.800 --> 0:22:59.199
<v Speaker 1>and they're probably going to bang the drum louder on

0:22:59.240 --> 0:23:02.119
<v Speaker 1>the AI the over the next couple of quarters As

0:23:02.160 --> 0:23:06.240
<v Speaker 1>these deals really start to balloon. The one thing is, again,

0:23:06.320 --> 0:23:10.399
<v Speaker 1>it's still a corporate IT name. If I were to

0:23:10.440 --> 0:23:14.080
<v Speaker 1>pick one AI name on the networking side, it's probably

0:23:14.119 --> 0:23:16.080
<v Speaker 1>going to be more Arista than Cisco for now.

0:23:16.880 --> 0:23:19.919
<v Speaker 3>So again, is there a way WOODS is broadly defined

0:23:20.080 --> 0:23:23.080
<v Speaker 3>On the hardware side, Have investors embraced any of the

0:23:23.080 --> 0:23:25.439
<v Speaker 3>hardware's names as AI plays?

0:23:25.560 --> 0:23:26.040
<v Speaker 5>Is it?

0:23:26.160 --> 0:23:28.040
<v Speaker 3>Because it just doesn't feel like it. It feels like what

0:23:28.119 --> 0:23:30.440
<v Speaker 3>I'm hearing from a lot of your folks on the

0:23:30.480 --> 0:23:33.520
<v Speaker 3>tech team of Bloomberg Intelligence. It's kind of software applications,

0:23:33.520 --> 0:23:34.200
<v Speaker 3>that kind of thing.

0:23:34.760 --> 0:23:40.359
<v Speaker 1>I can name for Arista Networks, Wow, super Micro and Dell.

0:23:40.600 --> 0:23:42.840
<v Speaker 1>And they reported in a couple of weeks there's a

0:23:42.920 --> 0:23:47.480
<v Speaker 1>growing AI story there and one name that's been underappreciated

0:23:47.560 --> 0:23:51.280
<v Speaker 1>is probably Hpe. They have a high performance computing business,

0:23:51.600 --> 0:23:53.359
<v Speaker 1>but the story is a little muddled because of a

0:23:53.480 --> 0:23:56.920
<v Speaker 1>pending Juniper deal. And then there's you know, my colleague

0:23:56.920 --> 0:24:00.440
<v Speaker 1>Steve saying he covers the white box vendors, and there's

0:24:00.480 --> 0:24:03.840
<v Speaker 1>some white box vendors that may potentially benefit because they

0:24:03.880 --> 0:24:06.720
<v Speaker 1>sell server equipment to the cloud guys.

0:24:06.560 --> 0:24:09.600
<v Speaker 3>Our thanks to Wu Jinho, Bloomberg Intelligence senior technology analysts.

0:24:09.840 --> 0:24:11.720
<v Speaker 4>Coming up on the program, we'll discuss why food and

0:24:11.760 --> 0:24:14.399
<v Speaker 4>beverage company Craft Tines is experienced in weaker sales.

0:24:14.520 --> 0:24:17.359
<v Speaker 3>You're listening to Bloomberg Intelligence on Bloomberg Radio, providing in

0:24:17.400 --> 0:24:20.199
<v Speaker 3>depth research and data on two thousand companies in one

0:24:20.280 --> 0:24:22.959
<v Speaker 3>hundred and thirty industries. You can access Bloomberg Intelligence via

0:24:23.040 --> 0:24:25.399
<v Speaker 3>Bigo on the terminal on Paul Sweeney.

0:24:25.040 --> 0:24:27.240
<v Speaker 4>Anda, Alex Deeal and this is Bloomberg.

0:24:39.760 --> 0:24:43.680
<v Speaker 2>You're listening to the Bloomberg Intelligence podcast. Catch us live

0:24:43.760 --> 0:24:47.280
<v Speaker 2>weekdays at ten am Eastern on applecar Play and Android

0:24:47.280 --> 0:24:50.080
<v Speaker 2>Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. You can also listen

0:24:50.200 --> 0:24:53.280
<v Speaker 2>live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station

0:24:53.640 --> 0:24:57.399
<v Speaker 2>Just say Alexa playing Bloomberg eleven thirty.

0:24:57.960 --> 0:25:00.159
<v Speaker 4>We move next to the food and beverage industry. So

0:25:00.240 --> 0:25:03.160
<v Speaker 4>earlier in the week, Craft Times reported first consolidated organic

0:25:03.240 --> 0:25:05.800
<v Speaker 4>sales declined since the second quarter of twenty twenty one.

0:25:06.040 --> 0:25:09.240
<v Speaker 3>We heard from Jennifer Bartashi's Bloomberg Intelligence senior analysts retail,

0:25:09.240 --> 0:25:11.639
<v Speaker 3>staples and packaged food. We first asked Jennifer for her

0:25:11.680 --> 0:25:13.440
<v Speaker 3>key takeaways from Craft's earnings results.

0:25:13.680 --> 0:25:16.720
<v Speaker 12>The big surprise for Craft was that volume was down,

0:25:16.800 --> 0:25:19.400
<v Speaker 12>which was not a surprise, but it was down more

0:25:19.480 --> 0:25:22.879
<v Speaker 12>than prices rows and that really put pressure on the

0:25:22.920 --> 0:25:27.040
<v Speaker 12>ability to generate sales growth. And so organic sales were

0:25:27.160 --> 0:25:31.040
<v Speaker 12>negative for the first time since twenty twenty. And although

0:25:31.040 --> 0:25:33.960
<v Speaker 12>there's some momentum in the business, it's got people concerned.

0:25:34.480 --> 0:25:36.840
<v Speaker 3>So, jenn as I understand the package food business from

0:25:36.920 --> 0:25:39.520
<v Speaker 3>reading your research and talking to you, you know, I

0:25:39.520 --> 0:25:42.000
<v Speaker 3>guess post pandemic volumes were down, but they've been able

0:25:42.040 --> 0:25:45.159
<v Speaker 3>to make up for it by raising prices. More so,

0:25:45.280 --> 0:25:46.640
<v Speaker 3>is that game kind of played out now?

0:25:47.440 --> 0:25:50.680
<v Speaker 12>Yeah. Basically a lot of these companies have run out

0:25:50.680 --> 0:25:53.399
<v Speaker 12>of their pricing power. And what that means is, you know,

0:25:53.520 --> 0:25:55.880
<v Speaker 12>they were able to raise prices because their input costs

0:25:55.920 --> 0:25:59.400
<v Speaker 12>were hire, whether it was ingredients or transportation or packaging.

0:25:59.640 --> 0:26:03.240
<v Speaker 12>But as inflation is coming down, they're losing the ability

0:26:03.240 --> 0:26:06.720
<v Speaker 12>to pass through additional price increases, which means that if

0:26:06.760 --> 0:26:10.240
<v Speaker 12>you want to have top line growth or organic sales growth,

0:26:10.560 --> 0:26:14.119
<v Speaker 12>you have to have positive volume growth because you're not

0:26:14.200 --> 0:26:17.359
<v Speaker 12>getting it from just higher price anymore. And the problem

0:26:17.440 --> 0:26:20.240
<v Speaker 12>for craft tind size right now is that volume is

0:26:20.280 --> 0:26:24.320
<v Speaker 12>still down, price is lower than it's been and they're

0:26:24.359 --> 0:26:27.040
<v Speaker 12>not seeing that bounce back in volume that typically lower

0:26:27.119 --> 0:26:28.280
<v Speaker 12>pricing would encourage.

0:26:28.359 --> 0:26:30.760
<v Speaker 4>Okay, so a couple things to focus on. Let's go

0:26:30.800 --> 0:26:32.440
<v Speaker 4>to the product side then, because you mentioned that a

0:26:32.440 --> 0:26:35.199
<v Speaker 4>few times so volumes are down, it doesn't seem like

0:26:35.240 --> 0:26:37.320
<v Speaker 4>that's just a pricing power thing. Do they not have

0:26:37.400 --> 0:26:38.680
<v Speaker 4>the right products right now?

0:26:39.640 --> 0:26:42.120
<v Speaker 12>Well, I think their portfolio is actually pretty good. It's

0:26:42.160 --> 0:26:45.160
<v Speaker 12>just that the consumer is not buying as much as

0:26:45.200 --> 0:26:48.119
<v Speaker 12>they were before. So if you think back to pre pandemic,

0:26:48.200 --> 0:26:51.199
<v Speaker 12>people had huge pantries and everything was stocked. They had

0:26:51.240 --> 0:26:54.040
<v Speaker 12>lots of boxed goods in there. And now people are

0:26:54.080 --> 0:26:56.119
<v Speaker 12>still a little bit more conservative and buying more on

0:26:56.160 --> 0:26:59.600
<v Speaker 12>a need basis rather than a stockpiling basis. And so

0:27:00.520 --> 0:27:03.600
<v Speaker 12>until people start to bulk up those pantries again, it's

0:27:03.640 --> 0:27:05.800
<v Speaker 12>hard to entice them to buy more than what they

0:27:05.920 --> 0:27:06.879
<v Speaker 12>just need for this week.

0:27:07.240 --> 0:27:09.879
<v Speaker 3>So as I look at the analyst forecast, jen, I

0:27:10.000 --> 0:27:12.000
<v Speaker 3>kind of see the one and a half to two

0:27:12.040 --> 0:27:13.919
<v Speaker 3>to two and a half percent revenue growth in the

0:27:13.920 --> 0:27:18.000
<v Speaker 3>next several years. That really is the story for most

0:27:18.040 --> 0:27:21.080
<v Speaker 3>of these consumer package goods companies, isn't it.

0:27:21.080 --> 0:27:24.159
<v Speaker 12>It really is, especially for companies where the bulk of

0:27:24.160 --> 0:27:26.639
<v Speaker 12>their portfolio are what you would call center of the

0:27:26.680 --> 0:27:30.720
<v Speaker 12>store items, so that's the candle items, the boxed items.

0:27:31.119 --> 0:27:34.240
<v Speaker 12>That type of outlook for top line growth is pretty

0:27:34.280 --> 0:27:36.680
<v Speaker 12>much in line with where you would expect normal inflation

0:27:36.920 --> 0:27:39.879
<v Speaker 12>rates to be, and so that in and of itself

0:27:40.160 --> 0:27:43.479
<v Speaker 12>is probably a reasonable expectation for where these companies can

0:27:43.480 --> 0:27:44.600
<v Speaker 12>go over the next few years.

0:27:44.880 --> 0:27:48.240
<v Speaker 4>Do you think that prices then will come down or

0:27:48.280 --> 0:27:49.640
<v Speaker 4>do you think that they stay sticky?

0:27:50.280 --> 0:27:54.160
<v Speaker 12>Prices will slowly come down. Retailers are looking to pass

0:27:54.200 --> 0:27:56.840
<v Speaker 12>through cost savings to their customers, so there will be

0:27:57.000 --> 0:28:01.040
<v Speaker 12>higher pressure on package food companies to low prices as well.

0:28:01.440 --> 0:28:04.720
<v Speaker 12>And as their input costs and packaging costs come down,

0:28:04.840 --> 0:28:07.720
<v Speaker 12>it's harder for them to justify holding prices at a

0:28:07.800 --> 0:28:10.760
<v Speaker 12>higher level and not passing through some of those savings.

0:28:11.040 --> 0:28:13.400
<v Speaker 12>So while prices may never come back down to where

0:28:13.400 --> 0:28:16.000
<v Speaker 12>they were pre pandemic, they should come down a little

0:28:16.040 --> 0:28:18.119
<v Speaker 12>bit from where they were in terms of peak pricing

0:28:18.160 --> 0:28:19.160
<v Speaker 12>in the last eighteen months.

0:28:19.160 --> 0:28:19.640
<v Speaker 4>A little bit.

0:28:20.080 --> 0:28:21.640
<v Speaker 3>I don't know if we like a little bit, No,

0:28:21.680 --> 0:28:24.080
<v Speaker 3>we don't, And that's and that's what the problem. That's

0:28:24.080 --> 0:28:26.159
<v Speaker 3>a problem for a lot of people and it's a

0:28:26.160 --> 0:28:28.840
<v Speaker 3>problem for the politicians who are saying inflation is still

0:28:28.880 --> 0:28:31.199
<v Speaker 3>a bad story here. So all right, So Jen, with

0:28:31.240 --> 0:28:34.240
<v Speaker 3>these names like Craft Hids and General Mills and Kellogg's,

0:28:34.440 --> 0:28:36.560
<v Speaker 3>I got a you know, low single digit revenue growth.

0:28:36.960 --> 0:28:40.400
<v Speaker 3>I'm looking. I got dividend yields for Craft Highs about

0:28:40.440 --> 0:28:42.880
<v Speaker 3>four point seven percent. I mean, what am I owning

0:28:42.920 --> 0:28:45.320
<v Speaker 3>this thing for? Am I owning it for single digit

0:28:45.480 --> 0:28:48.520
<v Speaker 3>kind of maybe stock price return plus some dividend yield

0:28:48.600 --> 0:28:49.560
<v Speaker 3>And that's my game.

0:28:50.160 --> 0:28:52.560
<v Speaker 12>That's probably the value play at the moment, right, Meaning

0:28:52.800 --> 0:28:55.280
<v Speaker 12>you've got steady kind of slow and steady growth, you've

0:28:55.280 --> 0:28:59.360
<v Speaker 12>got a reasonable dividend. They do do share buybacks, you know,

0:28:59.400 --> 0:29:02.480
<v Speaker 12>so there's some some shareholder benefit there, and you know,

0:29:02.640 --> 0:29:05.520
<v Speaker 12>as consumers start to pick up their spending, then we

0:29:05.600 --> 0:29:07.760
<v Speaker 12>may see a better outlook for these companies as well.

0:29:07.960 --> 0:29:10.920
<v Speaker 4>Who does Craft compete with, like the cokem PEPSI I

0:29:10.960 --> 0:29:12.680
<v Speaker 4>know that PEPs was all like snack snack snacks, but

0:29:12.680 --> 0:29:15.080
<v Speaker 4>they have the soft dam business. Who's like a straight

0:29:15.160 --> 0:29:16.200
<v Speaker 4>up Craft competitor.

0:29:16.560 --> 0:29:20.160
<v Speaker 12>Someone like Canagra would be, you know, or Campbell Soup.

0:29:20.320 --> 0:29:22.360
<v Speaker 12>You know, those would be kind of those center type

0:29:22.400 --> 0:29:26.480
<v Speaker 12>store companies. That would compete most directly with the Craft Times.

0:29:26.720 --> 0:29:28.960
<v Speaker 3>Hey, Jen, I look at the at the holder's list

0:29:29.000 --> 0:29:31.840
<v Speaker 3>here and I forgot about this. Berkshire Hathway Warren Buffett

0:29:32.040 --> 0:29:35.320
<v Speaker 3>by far the biggest shareholder of this company with about

0:29:35.320 --> 0:29:38.520
<v Speaker 3>twenty six twenty seven percent ownership. What is Berkshire Hathway

0:29:38.520 --> 0:29:40.960
<v Speaker 3>publicly said about this investment? How long have they owned it?

0:29:41.000 --> 0:29:42.880
<v Speaker 3>What do they say about their stake here?

0:29:43.800 --> 0:29:46.480
<v Speaker 12>They've been involved for a very very long time. Haven't

0:29:46.520 --> 0:29:50.680
<v Speaker 12>made a lot of public comments lately. But when Kraft

0:29:50.720 --> 0:29:53.720
<v Speaker 12>Times began its transformation plan, which was now a little

0:29:53.760 --> 0:29:57.040
<v Speaker 12>over three years ago, Berkshire Hathway was very positive on

0:29:57.080 --> 0:30:00.520
<v Speaker 12>that transformation story. And to be fair, Kraft Times has

0:30:00.560 --> 0:30:04.280
<v Speaker 12>executed on that transformation plan and generally ahead of schedule

0:30:04.440 --> 0:30:08.680
<v Speaker 12>when it comes to cost savings initiatives, streamlining things, rebalancing

0:30:08.680 --> 0:30:11.400
<v Speaker 12>their portfolio. So they really have been sticking to that

0:30:11.440 --> 0:30:14.120
<v Speaker 12>plan and delivering ahead of schedule. It's just that it's

0:30:14.120 --> 0:30:15.800
<v Speaker 12>a multi year process. Jen.

0:30:15.920 --> 0:30:18.560
<v Speaker 3>In your coverage area, you know you got to Staples,

0:30:18.600 --> 0:30:21.600
<v Speaker 3>the package food companies. What's the kind of the best idea.

0:30:21.600 --> 0:30:23.880
<v Speaker 3>What do you talk to clients about most often?

0:30:24.320 --> 0:30:27.080
<v Speaker 12>Well, right now, we're talking to people about you know,

0:30:27.200 --> 0:30:30.000
<v Speaker 12>who is it that has taken the least amount of

0:30:30.040 --> 0:30:33.280
<v Speaker 12>price increases over the last say, eighteen months, and where

0:30:33.320 --> 0:30:36.960
<v Speaker 12>are volumes holding up? Because to be successful over twenty

0:30:37.040 --> 0:30:39.800
<v Speaker 12>twenty four and into twenty twenty five, it really is

0:30:39.840 --> 0:30:42.680
<v Speaker 12>that question of how are you going to actually drive

0:30:43.320 --> 0:30:46.880
<v Speaker 12>overall growth and profitability? And so the companies that have

0:30:47.080 --> 0:30:51.000
<v Speaker 12>been more conservative and been more prudent in that approach

0:30:51.560 --> 0:30:53.720
<v Speaker 12>are the ones who are positioned right now to maybe

0:30:53.800 --> 0:30:54.520
<v Speaker 12>benefit from that.

0:30:54.640 --> 0:30:57.320
<v Speaker 3>So you haven't benefit from those Actually, what's a representative

0:30:57.400 --> 0:30:57.800
<v Speaker 3>name there?

0:30:58.880 --> 0:31:01.959
<v Speaker 12>So a good example there would be Mandolies where they

0:31:01.960 --> 0:31:05.840
<v Speaker 12>took a lot less price than and actually the spinoff

0:31:05.880 --> 0:31:10.720
<v Speaker 12>from Craft Times. Yeah, they've been a little bit more

0:31:10.720 --> 0:31:13.520
<v Speaker 12>prudent in terms of their price increases, and what we've

0:31:13.520 --> 0:31:15.640
<v Speaker 12>also seen is that their volume has held up better.

0:31:16.000 --> 0:31:19.240
<v Speaker 4>Hey, Jen, what's something you really don't like right now?

0:31:19.320 --> 0:31:22.000
<v Speaker 4>Like what sort of a negative trend? Because I'm also

0:31:22.000 --> 0:31:24.960
<v Speaker 4>trying to understand for some of these names and normalization

0:31:25.240 --> 0:31:27.960
<v Speaker 4>that we've seen sort of backtrack the last four years

0:31:28.520 --> 0:31:30.480
<v Speaker 4>and erase that, and that's where we have to kind

0:31:30.480 --> 0:31:31.560
<v Speaker 4>of pick up and go from there.

0:31:32.320 --> 0:31:34.400
<v Speaker 12>I think one of the things that is an issue

0:31:34.400 --> 0:31:37.080
<v Speaker 12>for the industry is that everyone still believes that they

0:31:37.120 --> 0:31:39.800
<v Speaker 12>can optimize their portfolio and that they're going to find

0:31:39.800 --> 0:31:42.320
<v Speaker 12>a buyer for the products and the product lines that

0:31:42.360 --> 0:31:45.239
<v Speaker 12>they don't want at a good multiple. At the end

0:31:45.280 --> 0:31:47.120
<v Speaker 12>of the day, there aren't a lot of buyers out

0:31:47.160 --> 0:31:51.280
<v Speaker 12>there for you know, categories that are slow growth or declining,

0:31:52.080 --> 0:31:54.200
<v Speaker 12>and so there's maybe a little bit of a mismatch

0:31:54.200 --> 0:31:57.680
<v Speaker 12>in terms of the belief that they can streamline their portfolio,

0:31:57.920 --> 0:31:59.560
<v Speaker 12>get up you know, all the value that they think

0:31:59.600 --> 0:32:02.320
<v Speaker 12>they deserve out of it, and yet I don't see

0:32:02.360 --> 0:32:05.400
<v Speaker 12>a whole, you know, a whole suite of buyers lining

0:32:05.480 --> 0:32:06.959
<v Speaker 12>up to look at those products.

0:32:07.240 --> 0:32:12.320
<v Speaker 3>Hershey, this company went public in nineteen twenty seven. Oh boy,

0:32:12.480 --> 0:32:15.080
<v Speaker 3>they did one follow on offering m HM, and then

0:32:15.320 --> 0:32:19.360
<v Speaker 3>for about a period about twelve months in nineteen ninety

0:32:19.400 --> 0:32:22.720
<v Speaker 3>three or four, we pitched them hard on doing another

0:32:22.720 --> 0:32:24.760
<v Speaker 3>follow on. We actually had a good analyst on the

0:32:24.840 --> 0:32:27.160
<v Speaker 3>name in the company. Like this, We went to Hershey

0:32:27.200 --> 0:32:29.360
<v Speaker 3>probably six or seven times in a space of a year,

0:32:29.600 --> 0:32:33.160
<v Speaker 3>pitching a following off, pitching a nothing, didn't get paid,

0:32:33.160 --> 0:32:35.040
<v Speaker 3>but got the Hershey and got a lot of Hershey

0:32:35.120 --> 0:32:39.200
<v Speaker 3>chocolate there's that, So, Jen, what does a company like

0:32:39.240 --> 0:32:41.200
<v Speaker 3>Hershey do. It's one of those things. I know they've

0:32:41.240 --> 0:32:44.480
<v Speaker 3>gotten bigger through some acquisitions, but there's still relatively a

0:32:44.520 --> 0:32:46.560
<v Speaker 3>small player relative to some of the other big names.

0:32:47.000 --> 0:32:49.320
<v Speaker 3>But is there a brand so good that they can

0:32:49.440 --> 0:32:51.400
<v Speaker 3>kind of remain independent?

0:32:52.480 --> 0:32:55.400
<v Speaker 12>Yeah, I believe that the Hershey brand is really iconic,

0:32:55.440 --> 0:32:58.840
<v Speaker 12>and if you think about some of their biggest chocolate lines,

0:32:58.920 --> 0:33:03.720
<v Speaker 12>there really aren't a lot of mass targeted competitors out there.

0:33:03.880 --> 0:33:05.960
<v Speaker 12>When it comes to kind of that mass market. It's

0:33:05.960 --> 0:33:08.640
<v Speaker 12>hard for an external brand to come in and get

0:33:08.640 --> 0:33:11.400
<v Speaker 12>the kind of penetration that her She has. And in addition,

0:33:11.480 --> 0:33:14.200
<v Speaker 12>Hershey has really done a good job of diversifying into

0:33:14.320 --> 0:33:17.040
<v Speaker 12>the broader snacking. So they own you know, they own

0:33:17.080 --> 0:33:20.320
<v Speaker 12>popcorn brand, they own you know, pretzel brand. They've done

0:33:20.360 --> 0:33:22.720
<v Speaker 12>a good job of diversifying and that'll help them with

0:33:22.720 --> 0:33:23.920
<v Speaker 12>their long term growth as well.

0:33:24.040 --> 0:33:26.920
<v Speaker 3>Our thanks to Jennifer Bartash is Bloomberg Intelligence Senior Animals.

0:33:27.000 --> 0:33:28.760
<v Speaker 3>She covers retail, stables and packaged food.

0:33:28.960 --> 0:33:30.960
<v Speaker 4>We turn out to earnings from deer so the world's

0:33:31.040 --> 0:33:34.000
<v Speaker 4>biggest farm machinery producer trimmed its profit outlook for this

0:33:34.120 --> 0:33:36.680
<v Speaker 4>year and this comes as crop prices are giving farmers

0:33:36.800 --> 0:33:40.080
<v Speaker 4>less money to use on those equipment purchases to help recap.

0:33:40.280 --> 0:33:43.160
<v Speaker 3>We were joined by Christopher Cilino, Bloomberg Intelligence Senior US

0:33:43.200 --> 0:33:47.080
<v Speaker 3>machinery analyst. We first asked Chris his take on Deer's earnings.

0:33:47.120 --> 0:33:50.080
<v Speaker 11>The quarter was great, really much better than we anticipated

0:33:50.160 --> 0:33:53.080
<v Speaker 11>across the board, beats both top line and margins for

0:33:53.160 --> 0:33:56.360
<v Speaker 11>most of the businesses, but the outlook was the disappointment

0:33:56.400 --> 0:33:58.760
<v Speaker 11>of the quarter. They cut knit income guidance by about

0:33:58.840 --> 0:34:02.880
<v Speaker 11>five percent, and that's largely reflective of incremental weakness in

0:34:02.920 --> 0:34:07.000
<v Speaker 11>the ag business, specifically the largejag business. And there's really

0:34:07.000 --> 0:34:10.239
<v Speaker 11>two components to that. One Europe Year now plans to

0:34:10.400 --> 0:34:13.400
<v Speaker 11>underproduce retail demand due to some weakness in Central and

0:34:13.440 --> 0:34:16.279
<v Speaker 11>Eastern Europe given the conflict there, so they're going to

0:34:16.360 --> 0:34:18.840
<v Speaker 11>try to bring down inventories. They're already under producing in

0:34:18.840 --> 0:34:21.400
<v Speaker 11>Brazil as well. And then the second component of the

0:34:21.440 --> 0:34:25.600
<v Speaker 11>cut was really some additional softness beginning to transpire here

0:34:25.640 --> 0:34:28.719
<v Speaker 11>in North America. We saw some of the order velocity

0:34:28.800 --> 0:34:31.600
<v Speaker 11>start to moderate, so demand seems to kind of be

0:34:31.640 --> 0:34:34.279
<v Speaker 11>trending towards the low end of their down ten to

0:34:34.280 --> 0:34:37.840
<v Speaker 11>fifteen percent. Industry outlook when it comes to LARGEAG equipment.

0:34:37.920 --> 0:34:40.000
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, let's get through some of these here. Production precision

0:34:40.000 --> 0:34:43.600
<v Speaker 4>AGNET sales for their yearly forecast, they're looking down twenty

0:34:43.640 --> 0:34:46.759
<v Speaker 4>percent worse. An estimated construction and forestry net sales down

0:34:46.760 --> 0:34:49.320
<v Speaker 4>five to ten percent, small EG and turf net sales

0:34:49.360 --> 0:34:53.480
<v Speaker 4>down ten to fifteen percent. Yiki, is this a early cycle,

0:34:53.560 --> 0:34:55.800
<v Speaker 4>mid cycle or late cycle read on the economy.

0:34:56.000 --> 0:34:58.920
<v Speaker 11>We're early in an AG downturn. Last year was a

0:34:59.000 --> 0:35:03.080
<v Speaker 11>peak production level. You know, historically you don't have one

0:35:03.120 --> 0:35:05.560
<v Speaker 11>year downturn, so I would suspect this is kind of

0:35:05.600 --> 0:35:08.520
<v Speaker 11>the beginning of a multi year downturn. And some of

0:35:08.560 --> 0:35:10.799
<v Speaker 11>the numbers that you're seeing that your reference on their

0:35:10.840 --> 0:35:16.200
<v Speaker 11>guidance are well below you know, market retail demand expectations,

0:35:16.239 --> 0:35:18.600
<v Speaker 11>suggesting that you know, they have some more work to

0:35:18.600 --> 0:35:22.239
<v Speaker 11>do on bringing down inventory levels. Values continue to kind

0:35:22.280 --> 0:35:24.680
<v Speaker 11>of come down here over the last twelve months, and

0:35:24.760 --> 0:35:28.359
<v Speaker 11>I suspect you'll see further pressure on the use side.

0:35:29.400 --> 0:35:31.840
<v Speaker 11>New equipment pricing, you know, deers kind of guiding to

0:35:32.760 --> 0:35:34.880
<v Speaker 11>one and a half percent, which is kind of below

0:35:35.080 --> 0:35:37.960
<v Speaker 11>historical averages. And remember we're coming off of you know,

0:35:38.080 --> 0:35:42.359
<v Speaker 11>three years of really strong phenomenal pricing, So returning to

0:35:42.719 --> 0:35:45.520
<v Speaker 11>I would say below normal historical trend, which will also

0:35:45.600 --> 0:35:46.720
<v Speaker 11>be a drag on margins.

0:35:47.480 --> 0:35:49.760
<v Speaker 4>Caterpillar had a different kind of read, and I appreciate

0:35:49.800 --> 0:35:51.520
<v Speaker 4>they also do metals and mining and stuff. So is

0:35:51.560 --> 0:35:53.960
<v Speaker 4>it going to be the diversified players that are going

0:35:54.000 --> 0:35:54.680
<v Speaker 4>to really win on this?

0:35:55.520 --> 0:35:55.759
<v Speaker 2>Yeah?

0:35:55.800 --> 0:35:59.759
<v Speaker 11>So, I you know, constructions holding up certainly better than

0:36:00.200 --> 0:36:03.040
<v Speaker 11>the farmer and then the ag economy A couple of

0:36:03.080 --> 0:36:05.279
<v Speaker 11>different moving pieces there. I mean, you still have a

0:36:05.320 --> 0:36:09.279
<v Speaker 11>tremendous amount of infrastructure related funds and government stimulus coming

0:36:09.280 --> 0:36:12.080
<v Speaker 11>through the system that will not only be kind of

0:36:12.080 --> 0:36:14.640
<v Speaker 11>a tail wind here in twenty four, but even twenty

0:36:14.640 --> 0:36:17.800
<v Speaker 11>five and twenty six. So I think that certainly helps

0:36:17.840 --> 0:36:21.760
<v Speaker 11>offset some of the cyclical headwinds facing both the rezie

0:36:21.800 --> 0:36:24.719
<v Speaker 11>or non residential markets. But if you look at the

0:36:24.719 --> 0:36:27.960
<v Speaker 11>farm economy almost kind of a completely different story. You

0:36:28.000 --> 0:36:30.719
<v Speaker 11>look at crop prices, which are ultimately the biggest driver

0:36:30.840 --> 0:36:34.719
<v Speaker 11>of farm income and equipment purchases, corn, soy, wheat down

0:36:34.760 --> 0:36:37.520
<v Speaker 11>you know, twenty five thirty five percent plus, So that's

0:36:37.560 --> 0:36:40.359
<v Speaker 11>beginning to trickle through to farm incomes. Farmer incomes are

0:36:40.360 --> 0:36:43.040
<v Speaker 11>going to be down twenty six percent this year, and

0:36:43.080 --> 0:36:45.520
<v Speaker 11>I suspect will be under further pressure as we exit

0:36:45.560 --> 0:36:46.000
<v Speaker 11>the year.

0:36:45.880 --> 0:36:49.239
<v Speaker 4>Too our thanks to Chris Gillino, a Bloomberg Intelligence Senior

0:36:49.360 --> 0:36:50.560
<v Speaker 4>US Machinery analyst.

0:36:50.960 --> 0:36:55.480
<v Speaker 2>This is the Bloomberg Intelligence Podcast, available on Apples, Spotify,

0:36:55.680 --> 0:36:58.600
<v Speaker 2>and anywhere else you will get your podcasts. Listen live

0:36:58.680 --> 0:37:02.320
<v Speaker 2>each weekday, ten am to noon Eastern on Bloomberg dot com,

0:37:02.400 --> 0:37:05.800
<v Speaker 2>the iHeartRadio app tune In, and the Bloomberg Business app.

0:37:05.920 --> 0:37:08.880
<v Speaker 2>You can also watch us live every weekday on YouTube

0:37:09.120 --> 0:37:11.000
<v Speaker 2>and always on the Bloomberg terminal