Speaker 1: Yeah, welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane
Speaker 1: Jay Ley. We bring you insight from the best in economics, finance, investment,
Speaker 1: and international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot Com, and of course, on the Bloomberg Julian
Speaker 1: EMMANUELA b t I G or all we got is
Speaker 1: a stupid hat. Uh, tell us about bt I G
Speaker 1: Charity Day first, So you have us twenty seconds. So
Speaker 1: you guys raised a ton of money. Yeah, we've raised
Speaker 1: forty five million dollars since two thousand and three. And
Speaker 1: the belief is that when Steven Starker and Scott Cavalk
Speaker 1: founded the firm, they wanted to really, you know, create
Speaker 1: a spirit of giving, a culture of giving. And we
Speaker 1: have this day once a year where the firm donates
Speaker 1: all its commissions to charity designated by the clients and
Speaker 1: our celebrity guest traders again Mike Bloomberg and luminaries from
Speaker 1: sports and so on. So John Farroll, I gotta get
Speaker 1: through the month. Charity is one of the donors. Congratulations
Speaker 1: on a on a massive effort, Junio, and good luck today.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Let's talk about the equity markets. Dollars strongth
Speaker 1: is that good or bad for stocks? It's good and
Speaker 1: and people misinterpret it. Um. You know, there's this this
Speaker 1: thing that we call in recency bias. So we saw
Speaker 1: the stock market rise consistently in seventeen alongside a week
Speaker 1: or dollar, and there's this sort of mental dislocation that
Speaker 1: investors have right now that they don't really fully buy
Speaker 1: into the fact that stocks can rise with a strong dollar.
Speaker 1: In fact, the strong dollar is going to increase the
Speaker 1: fled the FEDS flexibility and put a lid on inflation.
Speaker 1: So let's think about the big sector. Where we got
Speaker 1: the leadership from in the in the equity market over
Speaker 1: the last year or so. It came from tech. Tech
Speaker 1: is a growth story. It's also a very international story.
Speaker 1: And the weaker dollars certainly helped down tech over the
Speaker 1: last year. Is it not a headwind for the big
Speaker 1: sector that's led most of this run so far over
Speaker 1: the last year. It is, There's no question about it.
Speaker 1: And that's that's why it's actually neutral for for US
Speaker 1: at b T I g UM. But it isn't an
Speaker 1: unequivocal negative because the flip side of that story is
Speaker 1: that with the stronger dollar, yields on the long end
Speaker 1: seemed to be very tame. The fact that treasury volatility
Speaker 1: is near its all time lows. Imagine if the VIX
Speaker 1: were back to nine or ten, that's the equivalent of
Speaker 1: where treasury volatility is right now. That's a positive for
Speaker 1: high multiple technology. So it's your basic argument that this
Speaker 1: will keep financial conditions looser than that otherwise would be
Speaker 1: because the FED won't have to go that quickly. Yes,
Speaker 1: it's it's gonna be one of those ones where the
Speaker 1: FED gets more leeway to react to incoming data in
Speaker 1: a manner as we heard from Powell earlier today, that
Speaker 1: the markets will be able to anticipate. What did you
Speaker 1: think of the space from Sham and Poal today, The
Speaker 1: idea that people overstate the Fed's influence on global financial conditions.
Speaker 1: I think some people might take issue with that. I
Speaker 1: think that was a bit of modesty. The fact is
Speaker 1: is that the FED has always been a critical player
Speaker 1: in the evolution of financial conditions when you look at
Speaker 1: how the world recovered in two thousand and nine. But
Speaker 1: also the flip side is that history shows that recessions
Speaker 1: start because the FED tightens too much. Well, but how
Speaker 1: far away from too much? I mean, acting is an economist,
Speaker 1: You're gonna tell me we're way way way away from
Speaker 1: too much. Well, we are. And and to the Fed's credit,
Speaker 1: this cycle began with core pc, you know, closer to
Speaker 1: one and a half, then you know, having to react
Speaker 1: to core PC trading to one nine or two where
Speaker 1: we are now. So we've already started building in the
Speaker 1: preconditions for the recovery and growth to continue. Real rates
Speaker 1: are still pretty much negative. This is a still this
Speaker 1: is an accommodative Federal reserve. Still how much longer? Full? Uh?
Speaker 1: You tell me when the ECB is going to start
Speaker 1: hiking and and I'll tell you when the Fed can
Speaker 1: get less accommodative. Um it is. It's a global picture,
Speaker 1: um And and there are still players out there that
Speaker 1: are creating the conditions for monetary accommodation. So for the
Speaker 1: year end story, Julian, has anything changed for you guys,
Speaker 1: Because I saw a note come across my desk yesterday
Speaker 1: that had a three handle for the SMP five hundred
Speaker 1: you're looking for three thousand. We are, and and that's
Speaker 1: been our base case the entire year. But when we
Speaker 1: looked at the view was that we were going to
Speaker 1: get a lot more volatility than we've gotten in twenty seventeen.
Speaker 1: So by those rights, the correction that we've had for
Speaker 1: the last several months is not a surprise. And in fact,
Speaker 1: what we're doing by this correction, what we're doing by
Speaker 1: sort of the negativity surrounding things like a stronger dollar
Speaker 1: and obsession with inflation and so on, is creating the
Speaker 1: conditions for the wall of worry that stocks always climb
Speaker 1: and that got destroyed in January for higher prices. In
Speaker 1: the second what is the distinctive? We gotta go, darn it?
Speaker 1: Have a charity day, morow Tom. There's a clock on
Speaker 1: your screen, a clock. It's my first day. What can
Speaker 1: I say? Julia, Emmanuel, thank you so much? Into all
Speaker 1: at bt I G. Does Greenfield show up at this thing? Oh? Absolutely,
Speaker 1: Rich is a presence at bt I G. Rich Greenfield,
Speaker 1: bt I G with Walter and a guy named Emmanuel
Speaker 1: is a great team b T I G. Charity Day.
Speaker 1: Who do right now? Folks? We're Sril de Jacques or
Speaker 1: so with us with clear view energy partners. Jacques, you
Speaker 1: have a telling note. Forget about I ran forget about
Speaker 1: the dollar. Forget about all this other bologna. You lead
Speaker 1: with Venezuela. Start with our listeners, coast to coast. Do
Speaker 1: we really care about Venezuelan oil? Why is that? Well,
Speaker 1: oil is such a global market that you really need
Speaker 1: to follow where the supply is coming from. And Venezuela
Speaker 1: has historically been one of the larger supplies of oil
Speaker 1: in the world, and and that started to change, and
Speaker 1: we've seen a significant reduction in overall supply from Venezuela
Speaker 1: and that's causing a major impact on the market right now.
Speaker 1: Are we ready for a pullback in Iranian crude as well?
Speaker 1: Iran is definitely a different situation because because there actually
Speaker 1: hasn't been any volumes of oil taken off the market
Speaker 1: from Iran, and we don't know if there will be
Speaker 1: a lot of new information will come out when the
Speaker 1: President talks later today, and what you should be watching
Speaker 1: for is the level of European cooperation in what the
Speaker 1: U S announces. So with the United States announces that
Speaker 1: they won't extend the waiver on oil sanctions, what will
Speaker 1: that ultimately mean for you, Jack, Well, just by itself,
Speaker 1: that doesn't really mean much. We're going to need to
Speaker 1: know a lot more of the details as to who
Speaker 1: else is going to be involved in which past the
Speaker 1: President is going down in terms of of sanctioning um Iran,
Speaker 1: because there definitely could be a lot of different outcomes. Now. Initially,
Speaker 1: if you look back a few years um, there was
Speaker 1: over a million barrels per day of Iran supply that
Speaker 1: came off the market, and that is not We're not
Speaker 1: in the same game as that as we were a
Speaker 1: few years ago. Well, I know Jenn wants to continue this,
Speaker 1: but I want to be rooting cutting because this is
Speaker 1: so critical this afternoon. Can the President cut off Iranian oil?
Speaker 1: Because he probably wants to say that, but can he
Speaker 1: really do that? Uh No? I mean Iran exports over
Speaker 1: two million barrels per day of oil to Asia and
Speaker 1: that that supply is unlikely to change. There's about six
Speaker 1: thousand barrels per day that goes to Europe and that
Speaker 1: could potentially change, but not right away. That's something that
Speaker 1: could be later in the year, next year, or even
Speaker 1: not at all. And so that's what we need to
Speaker 1: figure out from what the President says today. What's your
Speaker 1: base case today, Jack, I think that the European Union
Speaker 1: is unlikely to cooperate with what the President is coming
Speaker 1: out with. So I think you're going to see the
Speaker 1: us UM allow the waiver to lapse on May twelve.
Speaker 1: But initially that's not going to cause any sort of
Speaker 1: supply disruption. So what can the president do ultimately that
Speaker 1: pleases both allies in the Middle East, the likes of
Speaker 1: Israel and Sally Arabia that would like the President to
Speaker 1: pull out of this deal, and at the same time
Speaker 1: appease European allies that wanted him to stay in. Is
Speaker 1: there any middle ground, Jack, That's that's a great question,
Speaker 1: and I think, um, we're going to have to get
Speaker 1: our policy. Analyst Kevin booked on to go through the
Speaker 1: um complex maze of outcomes that could take place here.
Speaker 1: But from my perspective, looking at supply demand, I do
Speaker 1: not expect any supply to come off the market this
Speaker 1: year from iron Well, that's a really important point, and
Speaker 1: I guess we can sort of take that point and
Speaker 1: draw out our thoughts on what we think is going
Speaker 1: to happen ultimately with the deal. Jack, looking at oil
Speaker 1: prices right now through seventy on w t I yesterday,
Speaker 1: a move that we hadn't seen in many, many years,
Speaker 1: And I'm just looking at the situation the all market
Speaker 1: and trying to work out is this a supply disruption
Speaker 1: story with a geopolitical risk premium injected back into the market,
Speaker 1: or are we under appreciating the demand side to this
Speaker 1: rally over the last year. That's a great question, and
Speaker 1: there's definitely the opponents of all of those that are
Speaker 1: involved in the market um with the OPEC supply cut.
Speaker 1: I think the way I'd like to think about this
Speaker 1: is if Venezuela was producing at its normal quota level,
Speaker 1: the oil market would be balanced, supply equals demand, and
Speaker 1: I think oil price would probably be twenty dollars lower.
Speaker 1: But because we've seen such a massive amount of oil
Speaker 1: from Venezuela leave the market, that is what's causing the
Speaker 1: major problem and the spike and oil. This is just fascinating.
Speaker 1: You're telling me we'd be a you know, not to
Speaker 1: take it to a dollar, but we'd be at fifty
Speaker 1: it's fifty five or fifty eight dollar West Texas Intermediate
Speaker 1: X Venezuela exactly. This is a significant amount of oil.
Speaker 1: They've taken more oil off the market than Saudi Arabia
Speaker 1: has So this is a big number, and then you
Speaker 1: have to say, when is this actually going to get
Speaker 1: any better? All the data flow coming out of Venezuela
Speaker 1: continually gets worse. So do you model eight eight five
Speaker 1: dollar oil? Can you even twenty four months back to
Speaker 1: a hundred dollars a barrel? No? I don't think we
Speaker 1: will get up that high. And so the way you
Speaker 1: have to think about it is there's a significant amount
Speaker 1: of oil that's voluntarily being taken off the market, and
Speaker 1: as prices drift up, a lot of that oil is
Speaker 1: likely to start to move back onto the market and
Speaker 1: then flipping over to the demand side of the equation.
Speaker 1: As oil prices rise, we do see a sensitivity and
Speaker 1: the demand starts to go down. So there's there's a
Speaker 1: natural balancing that occurs. Jack, I want to spend a
Speaker 1: little bit of time talking about the politics of OPEC
Speaker 1: at the moment and begin with the question on Saudi Arabia.
Speaker 1: If the Saudis could pick an oil price right now,
Speaker 1: what would it be. Well, that's a good question. Um,
Speaker 1: you know the numbers that have been thrown out in
Speaker 1: the media or somewhere in the neighborhood of eighty dollars
Speaker 1: a barrel. The I m F has put out a
Speaker 1: number of thaying that their budget is balanced a dollars
Speaker 1: a barrel, So I think that's the direction they want
Speaker 1: to go. Um. The way I think about it is
Speaker 1: that they want to keep oil prices relatively high for
Speaker 1: the Saudia, Ramco I p O. That is probably going
Speaker 1: to take place in about a year from now from
Speaker 1: media reports I've heard. So that's the direction they're moving towards.
Speaker 1: Felt that into the politics of OPEC at the moment,
Speaker 1: because as far as I understand, the Iranians are quite
Speaker 1: sensitive about the oil price getting too high on what
Speaker 1: that could mean for for demand. Jack and the Saudi's
Speaker 1: on their own pushing for a higher role price and
Speaker 1: can they take the rest of OPEC with them. Well,
Speaker 1: if you think about where the oil is actually coming
Speaker 1: off the market, h Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia, Mexico, that
Speaker 1: comprises the bulk of the oil that's actually been removed
Speaker 1: from the market. So Um, I think the other people
Speaker 1: are mostly along for the ride and had made minor adjustments.
Speaker 1: So I don't think you could see a big boom
Speaker 1: and supply coming out of different parts of OPEC. I
Speaker 1: just triangulated John the extrapolation of oil to a hundred
Speaker 1: dollars of barrel. And you know, it's a real rough thing.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to put it out across to or
Speaker 1: from Bloomer Radio, but it's autumn of two thousand. If
Speaker 1: the trend continues autumn of two th November of two
Speaker 1: thousand nineteen, is is where you get too hundred dollars barrel?
Speaker 1: When you say they take the oil off the market,
Speaker 1: what do they do with it? Oh, they just lower
Speaker 1: their production levels, so just not making it. So you
Speaker 1: have to question. There's always the question is how much
Speaker 1: of this could come back on and how fast? In
Speaker 1: general thinking is that Saudi Arabia is the one that
Speaker 1: has the spare capacity that could put put a significant
Speaker 1: amount of oil back onto the market, you know, upwards
Speaker 1: of half a million to a million barrels per day.
Speaker 1: The other players are fairly small. Do you one final question,
Speaker 1: do you have a dollar barrel amount where Saudi pulls
Speaker 1: a trigger on that? I mean there's got to be
Speaker 1: a point where they throw in the proverbial towel. No.
Speaker 1: I think they look at it as um In case
Speaker 1: of emergency. So if if we did see some sort
Speaker 1: of massive drop and supply somewhere else, then they could
Speaker 1: put some of their oil back on the market. But
Speaker 1: as we mentioned before, I think the key thing for
Speaker 1: them is to keep oil prices high for the around
Speaker 1: co I p O brilliant Juckers, So thank you so much,
Speaker 1: clear View Energy of Partners with us A let us beginner.
Speaker 1: This is a important conversation because it goes to the
Speaker 1: mid term elections and where we go from here. We've
Speaker 1: been talking a lot on the around announcement today, John
Speaker 1: Hudeck with US with Brookings Institution working in governance but
Speaker 1: also working and how we do our elections. John, if
Speaker 1: you were to have a cup of coffee with one
Speaker 1: of our global audience today, how would you describe the
Speaker 1: mid term election process in America? The midterm election process
Speaker 1: in America is extremely complicated. It's multi tiered in the
Speaker 1: sense there are multiple different uh times and places that
Speaker 1: people will vote. I think most people across the world
Speaker 1: are actually shocked at how often Americans end up voting.
Speaker 1: But it also is determinative of what the next two
Speaker 1: years of Washington politics and policy will be like. So
Speaker 1: it's tremendously important. Is it normal that whoever the president is,
Speaker 1: the other party does better in a mid term. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Since the nineteen fifties, that rule has been true in
Speaker 1: every mid term except two of them, around the time
Speaker 1: that Republicans were working to impeach President Clinton. Uh, and
Speaker 1: in two thousand two, just um, you know, fourteen months
Speaker 1: after the September eleventh terrorist attacks. But otherwise, the out party,
Speaker 1: the party that it does not hold the White House,
Speaker 1: picks up seats in mid terms. How is the out
Speaker 1: party doing this time around? Right now? There's really two
Speaker 1: stories to tell. In the in the House the U
Speaker 1: S House, UH, the Democrats are looking good. That every
Speaker 1: indicator and every UH sort of signal and UH data
Speaker 1: bit that political scientists look at show good things for Democrats.
Speaker 1: Republicans are retiring. There are a lot of Republicans who
Speaker 1: are holding seats in districts that Hillary Clinton one enthusiasm
Speaker 1: is on their side. The general a generic ballot numbers
Speaker 1: on their side, and so it looks good in the House.
Speaker 1: The Senate is a different story because the numbers are
Speaker 1: more difficult for Democrats in the Senate because there are
Speaker 1: a lot of UH seats held held in states that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump did quite well and held by Democrats and
Speaker 1: states donald Trump did quite well, and so they're on
Speaker 1: the defensive in the Senate. John, you explore this concept
Speaker 1: of nominating the embarrassing versus nominating the electable. Walk me
Speaker 1: through that concept and perhaps to find what is embarrassing
Speaker 1: well embarrassing inen is the type of ended it who
Speaker 1: we're seeing right now in West Virginia. A candidate who's
Speaker 1: injecting racial slurs into his rhetoric. Who is um a
Speaker 1: convicted felon responsible for the deaths of twenty nine miners
Speaker 1: in UM an accident UH in West Virginia which the
Speaker 1: company cut corners around UM. That is not the type
Speaker 1: of individual who most people would want to see running
Speaker 1: for the United States Senate or sitting in the United
Speaker 1: States Senate. And we have a variety of different uh
Speaker 1: hues of that kind of embarrassing and Republicans have fallen
Speaker 1: victim to these types of candidates before, and it's a
Speaker 1: real problem. Part of your study of governance, John, who
Speaker 1: Deck with his folks with Brookings and were the real
Speaker 1: focus on governance is I believe about money as well?
Speaker 1: Is everybody got money up to the eyeballs this time around,
Speaker 1: or is one of the parties are selected races running
Speaker 1: on fumes, or they just don't have the million dollars
Speaker 1: you need. Well, the parties are well funded um, depending
Speaker 1: on which campaign accounts you're looking at. In some places,
Speaker 1: Democrats are doing quite well. In other places, Republicans are
Speaker 1: doing quite well. Candidates are raising money um exceptional levels.
Speaker 1: In fact, we have UH an unprecedented number of Democrats
Speaker 1: running for congressional seats in this midterm election, and an
Speaker 1: unprecedented number of those as a percentage, are raising significant
Speaker 1: sums of money. And while UH, money doesn't always determine
Speaker 1: the outcome, that is, it's not always true that the
Speaker 1: person who raises more money wins. You do need some
Speaker 1: level of funding to be legitimate. You're not going to
Speaker 1: be if you're running against someone who has five million
Speaker 1: dollars in the bank and you raised five thousand dollars, Yeah,
Speaker 1: you're probably not going to win that race. But but
Speaker 1: money is being raised hand over fist in American elections
Speaker 1: this time, John, let's talk about the message on the
Speaker 1: campaign trail. The lazy sort of one oh one kind
Speaker 1: of approach to Trump journalism is to look at whatever
Speaker 1: he does or whatever he's about to do and say,
Speaker 1: this is about playing to the base. Um, we see
Speaker 1: that with Iran at two pm today, this is about
Speaker 1: playing to the base. Does the base really care about
Speaker 1: the j c pl A. Uh No, they really don't. Um.
Speaker 1: What the base cares about, oftentimes is what the President
Speaker 1: tells them they should care about. Because for a lot
Speaker 1: of them, that's not a criticism of those voters. For
Speaker 1: a lot of those voters, they truly believe that the
Speaker 1: direction the President has led them so far has been
Speaker 1: a good one. And while they don't care, like you
Speaker 1: said about the j c p o A, they do
Speaker 1: care about America winning, America, cutting better deals, America positioning
Speaker 1: itself better in the global setting than it has in
Speaker 1: the past. And what the President is conveyed to those
Speaker 1: voters is that the Iran deal is bad for them
Speaker 1: and something different will be better. What will you look
Speaker 1: for tonight at ten p m. Well, I think all
Speaker 1: eyes are on West Virginia. UM. West Virginia has an
Speaker 1: opportunity tonight to end this Senate race and deliver that
Speaker 1: race to the incumbent democrat. If West Virginia voters UM
Speaker 1: nominate blanket shift. It will be a disaster for the party.
Speaker 1: It will be a missed opportunity for the party UM
Speaker 1: to really challenge a vulnerable Democrat, and it will be
Speaker 1: I think a signal to other Republican voters in the
Speaker 1: country that there are consequences for voting for just bad,
Speaker 1: outrageous candidates. John, Thank you so much. John Hudak withings
Speaker 1: here on the midterm elections. Kevin Surley, I know, is hugely,
Speaker 1: hugely focused on that as well. This is a joy
Speaker 1: and it is a joy because as we talked to
Speaker 1: people like and Richards of M ANDG and London, or
Speaker 1: Sally Crawcheck, where there was steam work at Sanford Bernstein
Speaker 1: years ago in securities analysis, it is one thing to
Speaker 1: speak on employment and diversity with someone with first order
Speaker 1: academic chops. Barbara why is out of the prestigious combine
Speaker 1: of the South Carolina University University of Carolina Electrical Engineering.
Speaker 1: You were double e back there and one day you
Speaker 1: wandered into essentials of physics one p H Y S
Speaker 1: two eleven and you how lonely were you? How many
Speaker 1: women were in physics one at South Carolina a few
Speaker 1: years back, so not very many. But what I'll say
Speaker 1: is I grew up in the Carolinas, in a tiny
Speaker 1: little dirt road town near Myrtle Beach, and I had
Speaker 1: five brothers and young as of eight kids, two sisters.
Speaker 1: Uh So, I entered into Carolina with a lot of
Speaker 1: courage and strength just surviving dinner with all those I
Speaker 1: don't like, the Brussels Strouds. Good I'll lead them good bye.
Speaker 1: Exactly so, uh So, I would say my my parents,
Speaker 1: neither of whom graduated from high school, yet they had
Speaker 1: instilled in us that education was the path to empowerment.
Speaker 1: Is the loneliness you know as a woman at South
Speaker 1: Carolina double E the same as the loneliness today in engineering,
Speaker 1: I would suggest there's not much change. Even with all
Speaker 1: the efforts. We got a long way to go where
Speaker 1: women are inclusive in stem So, I would say, if
Speaker 1: you look at women and underrepresented minorities in engineering today,
Speaker 1: we haven't made a ton of progress. And this is
Speaker 1: why the diversity and inclusion initiative work that Intel is
Speaker 1: driving is so paramount to really move in the needle.
Speaker 1: And what I will say is our CEO, Brian Krezana,
Speaker 1: he announced a three dred million dollar initiative to really
Speaker 1: drive critical progress in this area. UM, and since that
Speaker 1: launch of the initiative, we've reduced our market availability gap
Speaker 1: by a yet let me tell you, I'm excited to
Speaker 1: tell you all about it. So, uh, you mentioned this
Speaker 1: in terms of representations, So we know women roughly represent
Speaker 1: about of the workforce today, but not all those women,
Speaker 1: to your great point, are entering into STEM careers. So
Speaker 1: Intel's goal and the metric is around the market that
Speaker 1: is available with women in STEM careers as well as
Speaker 1: African Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans. And we desire to
Speaker 1: be at that market availability metric are higher and willing
Speaker 1: as we increase our initiatives and investments earlier in K
Speaker 1: through twelve in college. As that market availability number increases,
Speaker 1: we want to increase with that. Now, Barbara, you're here, uh,
Speaker 1: not only just to speak with us, but also to
Speaker 1: attend Bloomberg's Equality Summit and Diversity in the Workplace. What
Speaker 1: do you want people to take away from your presentation?
Speaker 1: So two things I would highlight, uh for you about
Speaker 1: this diversity inclusion work. And I know we're in New
Speaker 1: York and this is UH Congress Roman Shirley Chisman World,
Speaker 1: and she said boldness is required, and you need the
Speaker 1: same level of boldness in doing this kind of work.
Speaker 1: I believe as the first person that decided to eat oysters,
Speaker 1: you need just that level of courage to do diversity
Speaker 1: and inclusion work and drive the progress that you need.
Speaker 1: The second thing that I think is important that Intel
Speaker 1: has gotten right is this work is a performance metric
Speaker 1: that is measured by what has done and as a
Speaker 1: part of our employee bonus structure, I think far too
Speaker 1: often people uh set goals, but they aren't held accountable
Speaker 1: to those goals. So what we're trying to drive inside
Speaker 1: of the Intel culture is no different than what I
Speaker 1: would be doing if I was on an engineering project
Speaker 1: for Intel with the deadline. We set goals, we try
Speaker 1: and achieve those goals, we hit them, and then we
Speaker 1: set bigger goals. As someone who's a veteran of Silicon Valley,
Speaker 1: you've often heard about goals that Silicon Valley company set.
Speaker 1: But and when you take a look at those people
Speaker 1: who are actually running the companies, does it make you
Speaker 1: feel that it is really an uphill battle. Yeah. I
Speaker 1: can't really speak to the other companies, but what I
Speaker 1: can tell you about Intel is this has been a
Speaker 1: very serious commitment for us. Is very much integrated into
Speaker 1: all of the systems and our leadership processes. We have
Speaker 1: strong commitment from our senior leaders, are middle managers, and
Speaker 1: my employees. They hold me accountable. But I want to
Speaker 1: get down to the nitty gritty here. We think New
Speaker 1: Jersey Institute of Technology, which has been a huge support
Speaker 1: of our STEM report here at Bloomberg Surveillance. How do
Speaker 1: you get a woman in fifth grade or first grade,
Speaker 1: or eighth grade or whatever to sustain the social pressure
Speaker 1: of getting through math. You go through LP calculus, you're
Speaker 1: doing well, and then you get into Calculus one itself Carolina,
Speaker 1: how do we handle that social negativity upon women? It's tangible. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna live an example of that. So I would
Speaker 1: say the key things if I had to extract out
Speaker 1: what was so important for me to start at the
Speaker 1: University of South Carolina, attend uh an electrical and engineering program,
Speaker 1: pursue a Masters in Business administration, and now I'm currently
Speaker 1: working on a PhD. The key things that are important
Speaker 1: there is good question. First, females and unrepresented minorities need
Speaker 1: access and exposure. So the quota, get him in the classroom.
Speaker 1: Then you also need sponsorship as well as role models,
Speaker 1: because it's difficult for you to be what you can't see.
Speaker 1: And this is the role that my siblings played so
Speaker 1: critically important with in my life because I could look
Speaker 1: at an older brother who's major in chemistry and say, hey,
Speaker 1: I can do that as well. Can you come back? Okay,
Speaker 1: we're run out of time. We've got to have you
Speaker 1: back as well. You'd love to come that we look
Speaker 1: forward to. Can you bring a slide roll? Next up?
Speaker 1: You're too young to Intel Corps, said Chief Diversity Inclusion
Speaker 1: Officer Vice President Human Resources, attending Bloomberg's Equality Summit and
Speaker 1: Diversity in the Workplace. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and listen to interviews on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: or whichever podcast platform you prefer. I'm on Twitter at
Speaker 1: Tom Keane before the podcast, you can always catch us worldwide.
Speaker 1: I'm Bloomberg Radio.