Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Business Week inside from the reporters and
Speaker 1: editors who bring you America's most trusted business magazine, plus
Speaker 1: global business, finance and tech news as it happened. Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Business Week with Carol Messer and Bloomberg Quick Takes. Tim
Speaker 1: Stinevin on Bloomberg Radio, Hi, and welcome to the weekend
Speaker 1: edition of Bloomberg Business Week. It is week sixty. Working
Speaker 1: from home. For some Tim felt like a lot more
Speaker 1: people were back in offices throughout New York City, certainly
Speaker 1: in our office at Bloomberg Headquarters. We both were in
Speaker 1: the office again this week. Traffic definitely up in the
Speaker 1: city streets. Yeah, I'm looking forward to when I am
Speaker 1: fully vaccinated taking the subway again so I can get
Speaker 1: off those streets. Whiles the world continued to open up,
Speaker 1: we saw the gaps between the halves and the have
Speaker 1: nots in our economy continue to widen. Coming up this hour,
Speaker 1: two big thinkers tackling the major issues of our time, crises,
Speaker 1: technological powerhouses, and more. We're gonna hear from Bloomberg opinion
Speaker 1: columnist and Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford,
Speaker 1: Neil Ferguson about his book Doom, The Politics of Catastrophe,
Speaker 1: plus n y U professor author entrepreneurs Scott Galloway you
Speaker 1: know him, on breaking up big tech and unlocking value,
Speaker 1: one of my favorite guests this week. All of that
Speaker 1: to come. We begin, though, with one of the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Big takes this week. It's the Bloomberg exclusives that you
Speaker 1: need to be focusing on that only we have. It
Speaker 1: also turned out to be one of our most read
Speaker 1: stories on the Bloomberg this week. It's about how the
Speaker 1: booming US recovery is leaving some communities completely behind. Bloomberg
Speaker 1: News Federal Reserve and economics reporter Katerina survived of philled
Speaker 1: us in Carol on some really interesting data. She gets to,
Speaker 1: you know something Timmy and I have talked about with
Speaker 1: Peter Atwater and others about, you know, the recovery or
Speaker 1: even I was having a conversation with one of my
Speaker 1: brothers saying for some people the pandemic obviously it impacted
Speaker 1: We thought about her help, but they were able to work.
Speaker 1: Some of them made a lot of money if you
Speaker 1: were invested in the stock market or elsewhere, like it
Speaker 1: just didn't impact us all equally. There are other people though,
Speaker 1: that lost their job completely or just scraping to get by.
Speaker 1: And I think what's so important about katerina story is
Speaker 1: it's it's it touches on of course sector and industry,
Speaker 1: but at the same time geography and thinking about different
Speaker 1: responses that different cities have had. Atlanta's decision to have
Speaker 1: a partial reopening earlier than many places, and then Las Vegas,
Speaker 1: for example, the city heavily reliant on tourism, and what
Speaker 1: happens when tourism rise up there. It's a totally different
Speaker 1: thing than what's playing out in Phoenix, for example, where
Speaker 1: a booming home building has been really good for many
Speaker 1: minorities who live there. This is where the granular level
Speaker 1: really makes a difference. Right. You can see we do
Speaker 1: it here, We have stories, we have a big headline.
Speaker 1: But once you start to dig deeper into the data
Speaker 1: and you have to look at those demographics, you have
Speaker 1: to look at your geography. You do sometimes have to
Speaker 1: look at sector breakdowns. That tells you a much more
Speaker 1: complete story. Because at the top level it can feel
Speaker 1: like okay, look we're doing okay, but not necessarily when
Speaker 1: you dig down, hey, Katerina, talk a little about the
Speaker 1: geography here, because what's happening in Atlanta is certainly different
Speaker 1: than than what's happening in Las Vegas. Take us through
Speaker 1: those two examples that you and the team touch on
Speaker 1: in this big take. Yeah. So Las Vegas is really
Speaker 1: interesting because it is an economy that depends so heavily
Speaker 1: on that leisure and hospitality sector. Right. It's a big
Speaker 1: tourism destination. It has a lot of casinos and a
Speaker 1: lot of kind of you know, fun hotels, restaurants that
Speaker 1: people know about. Um. So this is a this is
Speaker 1: a huge component of its economy. And since this sector
Speaker 1: was so um intensely impacted by the pandemic, UM, the
Speaker 1: Las Vegas economy and unemployment there has really suffered. So
Speaker 1: it's it's kind of continued to to feel those effects,
Speaker 1: you know. It's it's not recovering as quickly some other
Speaker 1: parts of the country, like Atlanta, which is seeing a
Speaker 1: stronger recovery. It's it's not as dependent on tourism. Um
Speaker 1: it also um you know it, Georgia is a state
Speaker 1: that reopened very early on, and we're seeing that states
Speaker 1: that did that, you know, I mean, for which which
Speaker 1: could have had a negative implication in terms of COVID cases. Um,
Speaker 1: it did actually help the economic recovery. Talked us about Houston,
Speaker 1: your home state. Have a lot of family in Texas
Speaker 1: throughout the state too. Houston has been one of the
Speaker 1: better performers Houston. Actually, um, it hasn't been doing super
Speaker 1: well right now. Um. Actually, when you break it down,
Speaker 1: there was the energy crisis too. I wasn't thinking exactly, yeah, exactly,
Speaker 1: and that's really what's kind of a drag on the
Speaker 1: Houston economy right now. We look at the different race
Speaker 1: groups and everyone really is still seeing unemployment in the
Speaker 1: double digits. And exactly it's that energy impact. It's it's
Speaker 1: a big sector for the city. Um, a lot of
Speaker 1: jobs to revolve around that, and you know that is
Speaker 1: still suffering a lot. But Phoenix has been somewhat of
Speaker 1: a bright spot, especially when you dig into the data
Speaker 1: and you look at how communities that have been hardest
Speaker 1: hit by this pandemic have actually fared relatively well. And
Speaker 1: key word, they're relatively well. And it's be as a
Speaker 1: housing right right, Yeah, it's it's really seeing a housing boom.
Speaker 1: I mean, of course, a lot of cities in this
Speaker 1: country are um, but that has really boosted the construction
Speaker 1: sector and Phoenix and that in turn is helping Latino
Speaker 1: people there, um with their unemployment rate. You know, it's
Speaker 1: it's yeah, fairly low, right, like no one that no
Speaker 1: one has an excellent unemployment rate right now, but um,
Speaker 1: but it is, yeah, I mean and Phoenix. You know,
Speaker 1: Arizona also kind of like Texas, has a lot of
Speaker 1: people moving into it from places like California, right places
Speaker 1: where housing is more scared. But it's really important what
Speaker 1: you say about looking at local unemployment rates. I know
Speaker 1: you guys include this in your story about especially for
Speaker 1: more than half of minority groups, local unemployment rates have
Speaker 1: not fully recovered to march. We really need to look
Speaker 1: deeper into this to really understand what's going on overall
Speaker 1: in the economy and maybe why certain administration programs kind
Speaker 1: of might make sense going forward. Yeah. Absolutely, And I
Speaker 1: think this is something we're hearing from policymakers that they
Speaker 1: want to start, um, you know, looking more at the breakdowns.
Speaker 1: And this is this is somewhat new at the at
Speaker 1: the high policy level, so I think it will be
Speaker 1: interesting to see how how they do that. Well, that
Speaker 1: was Katerina survived a Federal Reserve and Economics reporter on
Speaker 1: an uneven comeback from COVID taking place across the country,
Speaker 1: doesn't him. We've talked about this so much, we just
Speaker 1: did with Katerina, But it's just about this k shaped recovery.
Speaker 1: Peter atwardever, William and Mary I bring him up a lot,
Speaker 1: but because he was at their front and center very
Speaker 1: early on, talking about how the recovery off of the
Speaker 1: pandemic was different for people, and really starkly different. Some
Speaker 1: people barely felt it, some people felt all of it.
Speaker 1: And what was so interesting about Katerina's story was the
Speaker 1: regional differences when it comes to the recovery. Yeah, really important,
Speaker 1: right to look around the country and just see those
Speaker 1: differences coming up. More on the economic recovery and uneven
Speaker 1: one as you just heard this time from the CEO
Speaker 1: of Siemens Us, who has a global snapshot of our
Speaker 1: world and what's needed specifically to get America back contract.
Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Business Week. This is Bloomberg. This
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg Business Week with Carol Messer and Bloomberg Quick Takes.
Speaker 1: Tim Stinovik from Bloomberg radio. Our listeners and viewers on
Speaker 1: YouTube might recall that we recently caught up with the
Speaker 1: presidency of siemens Us. She is Barbara Humpton and Tim
Speaker 1: She talked with us about how work is shifting. It's
Speaker 1: something you and I talk a lot about because we
Speaker 1: know whether it's hybrid, do people come back to the office,
Speaker 1: to people stay at home. I mean things are changing
Speaker 1: a lot. She is someone who is talking with leaders
Speaker 1: about making their workplaces safe, making school safe, and planning
Speaker 1: for the next crisis. Barbara joined us again this week
Speaker 1: to talk all about President Biden's recent call to arms
Speaker 1: to address today's problems, including cementing the USS position on
Speaker 1: many levels in the future. It includes being self sufficient
Speaker 1: when it comes to semiconductors and other major infrastructure projects.
Speaker 1: It seemens we're really deeply engaged with all of the
Speaker 1: critical elements of infrastructure you're hearing discussed today. Earlier this year,
Speaker 1: I actually wrote an open letter to government leaders outlining
Speaker 1: some suggestions that we have a broader vision for America's
Speaker 1: infrastructure because this is a moment to to make those investments,
Speaker 1: and I shared our support in UM investing in manufacturing,
Speaker 1: enabling a new era of electric vehicles, UM, getting cleaner
Speaker 1: and more resilient energy systems, and transforming America's buildings. And
Speaker 1: I was pleased to see so much of this aligns
Speaker 1: with where the federal at the Executive Office is going
Speaker 1: and where the federal government is likely to head UM
Speaker 1: with the support of our legislators. So you know, here
Speaker 1: we are at this moment of deciding what shall we
Speaker 1: invest in? And this week I decided is the right
Speaker 1: time for me to raise my voice more clearly on
Speaker 1: the subject of manufacturing. This idea that manufacturing in and
Speaker 1: of itself is a key element of our infrastructure and
Speaker 1: key to developing the workforce of the future. And I'll
Speaker 1: tell you at SEMENS, we've got this perspective, not only
Speaker 1: as a manufacturer ourselves with twenty four manufacturing sites across
Speaker 1: the US and forty people all across the nation, a
Speaker 1: supply chain with twenty four thousand US suppliers supporting this
Speaker 1: backbone of the US economy. But we're also helping of
Speaker 1: the Fortune five industrial companies with our hardware and software
Speaker 1: that's helping America really adapt to the new digital revolution
Speaker 1: that's underway. This is our moment, where do we get
Speaker 1: it wrong in the United States when it comes to manufacturing.
Speaker 1: As you said, twenty four manufacturing sites nationwide for semens.
Speaker 1: So what do we do wrong here in the United
Speaker 1: States when it comes to manufacturing or making it more
Speaker 1: hospitable to more places? You know, I think our incentives
Speaker 1: have changed. If you had looked back over the last
Speaker 1: two decades, you would have seen American businesses making decisions
Speaker 1: on a global scale, where can we find the lowest
Speaker 1: cost location for the bulk production and the supply side
Speaker 1: economies of scale that are going to drive costs down
Speaker 1: by the way, all of those are very useful goals
Speaker 1: to have. But what we've seen now, especially due to
Speaker 1: the coronavirus crisis, is the fact that we need not
Speaker 1: globalization so much as glocalization, the idea that we need
Speaker 1: to produce things closer to where they're needed so that
Speaker 1: we're not dependent on single points of failure in a
Speaker 1: global supply chain. We have an opportunity to turn that around.
Speaker 1: And people have been asking me, are we going to
Speaker 1: be on shoring or re shoring? And what I keep
Speaker 1: reminding people is I think what needs to happen for
Speaker 1: many manufacturers is more of an and than an ore.
Speaker 1: We do need to serve people around the world close
Speaker 1: to where they are, but we also need to ring
Speaker 1: the ability to manufacture right here close to where we
Speaker 1: need the goods and services. Ultimately, so I'm gonna play
Speaker 1: Devil's advocate a little bit, but I can see companies
Speaker 1: gearing up already to say, but wait a minute. Now,
Speaker 1: you want us to tax more, but you want us
Speaker 1: to build plants in the United States and provide jobs.
Speaker 1: And the present makes the case that a lot of
Speaker 1: corporations get off easy when it comes to paying corporate taxes.
Speaker 1: And if you look at the data we've certainly reported
Speaker 1: on it here at Bloomberg, that is often the case
Speaker 1: where companies, through you know, various maneuvers and loopholes, are
Speaker 1: able to pay a pretty low rate. What do you
Speaker 1: say to that? What I say to that is, this
Speaker 1: is a moment when business needs to show that we
Speaker 1: are responsible. We have to step up and have a
Speaker 1: mature dialogue about this. Semans. For our own part, we
Speaker 1: are responsible taxpayers, and we are really advocating that our
Speaker 1: tax code represent a regiment that will put us on
Speaker 1: a level playing field with the rest of the world.
Speaker 1: So we of course are not going to be advocating
Speaker 1: for off the charts tax rates for corporate rations when
Speaker 1: it would actually cause investment to flee the company. But
Speaker 1: let's say we can work with other nations find tax
Speaker 1: code levels that are going to be equitable, provide that
Speaker 1: kind of level playing field, and then also really incentivize
Speaker 1: investment in the US. At Siemens, we've invested forty billion
Speaker 1: dollars over the last two decades in America, and what
Speaker 1: we're finding is that if we make these investments, then
Speaker 1: the growth comes, the health, the prosperity comes after. These
Speaker 1: are good investments for us to be making, particularly in
Speaker 1: a time of transformation like this one. So, Barbara, we
Speaker 1: were talking about the President's American Jobs Plan manufacturing here
Speaker 1: in the United States, and I'm thinking after a week
Speaker 1: like we've had so many different earnings and hearing from
Speaker 1: so many different companies, whether it's Apple, BMW, Ford when
Speaker 1: it comes to the global chip ter out, and you know,
Speaker 1: we know specifically that company ease like Apple and Samsung
Speaker 1: talking about production cuts and lost revenue because of the
Speaker 1: global chip shortage. Tell us about the situation in the US.
Speaker 1: You guys have a great vantage point. How bad is
Speaker 1: it and how quickly or what will it take for
Speaker 1: us to ramp up production so that we can address
Speaker 1: some of these shortages significantly. This is a real issue because,
Speaker 1: as you know, semiconductors are used in everything, cars, planes, computers, batteries,
Speaker 1: I mean the toothbrush that use exactly, So there may
Speaker 1: be a few in me I'm not quite sure. At
Speaker 1: any given time. We are highly dependent on this technology.
Speaker 1: And back in the nineties, the US had about a
Speaker 1: market share of the worldwide market, but now we're down
Speaker 1: to a mere twelve percent. So this is one of
Speaker 1: those areas where this would be a wise investment. It's
Speaker 1: a matter of national security, and by the way, the
Speaker 1: US security is key to global security, so an investment
Speaker 1: here is critical for all of US. And and so
Speaker 1: one of the things we're promoting at Siemens is support
Speaker 1: to the chip set, the idea that there would be
Speaker 1: incentives for local manufacturing. The Department of Commerce is putting
Speaker 1: their full weight behind us to to locate key semiconductor
Speaker 1: manufacturers here. I know there's work already going on in Phoenix. Truly,
Speaker 1: this digital economy rides on this technology. That was the
Speaker 1: president and CEO of Siemens US Barbara Humptons. I love
Speaker 1: what she said, digital economy rides on this technology. I
Speaker 1: feel like it's not just the digital economy, it's completely
Speaker 1: our economy. Some great reporting throughout the week on the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg and at Bloomberg dot com just about why you're
Speaker 1: seeing the semiconductor shortage, what it's going to take to
Speaker 1: ramp up. I mean, it's a global problem. It is,
Speaker 1: and it's one that might not end anytime soon. Exactly.
Speaker 1: Still ahead on Bloomberg Business Week, there was though some
Speaker 1: optimism from Barbara there. We just heard it. Our next guest,
Speaker 1: full of doom and glue. He certainly is more specifically
Speaker 1: doom the politics of catastrophe. It's the title of Neil
Speaker 1: Ferguson's new book. All Right, everybody, brace yourself, do it,
Speaker 1: do it? All right? That's coming up. This is Bloomberg
Speaker 1: broadcasting from the financial capital of the World, Bloomberg Eleve
Speaker 1: in Frio in New York to Washington, d C. Bloomberg
Speaker 1: to Boston, Bloomberg one oh six one to San Francisco,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg nine sixty to the country Sirius XM Chado one
Speaker 1: nine team and around the globe. The Bloomberg Business app
Speaker 1: and Bloomberg Radio dot Com. This is Bloomberg Business Week Tim.
Speaker 1: Next up, someone who gets to the bigger, broader issues
Speaker 1: that are facing our society. We're talking about Neil Ferguson.
Speaker 1: He's Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.
Speaker 1: He's also Bloomberg Opinion columnist and well known to our
Speaker 1: Bloomberg audience. Author of many books including Colossus, The Great Degenerations,
Speaker 1: and The Square and the Tower. He looks at the
Speaker 1: cracks in the American system how we got there, including
Speaker 1: his newest book, it's called Doom, The Politics of Catastrophe,
Speaker 1: and he says, the tragedies of the past year are
Speaker 1: ones we should have seen coming. But it was a
Speaker 1: year like many others, actually, and that's part of the
Speaker 1: point of the book. It's not like this was the
Speaker 1: first pandemic to strike humanity, and indeed, if you compare
Speaker 1: it with other disasters like World Wars, this is not
Speaker 1: the top twenty catastrophe. So I actually found that this
Speaker 1: gave me an opportunity to take a step back and
Speaker 1: try to contextualize what was happening. There is a strong
Speaker 1: predisposition in our media today to say that everything is unprecedented,
Speaker 1: which just means we don't really know the history. The
Speaker 1: point of writing Doom was to remind people that, for example,
Speaker 1: the influenza pandemic was far, far worse, killed a far
Speaker 1: larger share of the world's population. Actually today this one
Speaker 1: is closer to the influenza pandemic, which not many people remember.
Speaker 1: And as for world wars, which you know, my grandparents
Speaker 1: lived through. This is actually, although it might not seem
Speaker 1: that way on on TV, this is really getting off
Speaker 1: lightly by historical standards. What certainly doesn't feel like it
Speaker 1: right now living through this because I think for a
Speaker 1: lot of people, and this is our first pandemic, even
Speaker 1: those who were alive during the one in the nineteen
Speaker 1: fifties and the very few people who are still around
Speaker 1: from the one in the you know, a hundred years
Speaker 1: ago at this point. But I wonder about the response,
Speaker 1: especially from governments like the UK in the US, because
Speaker 1: early on in the book you say it's kind of
Speaker 1: too simple to to say that populous leaders were early
Speaker 1: on were the reason why those responses from those countries
Speaker 1: weren't the right Why isn't the right way to look
Speaker 1: at it? Because you compare the case with Belgium, and
Speaker 1: Belgium didn't have a great response either. Right, the excess
Speaker 1: mortality in Belgium last year was higher than in the
Speaker 1: US or the UK. I think the narrative that the
Speaker 1: excess mortality in the US was Donald Trump's foults, or
Speaker 1: in Brazil JayR ball Cinaros the UK. Now in India's
Speaker 1: it's all norandramdes Well. This is a very tempting narrative
Speaker 1: because we want to kind of pin the blame on
Speaker 1: the person at the top. But when you look at
Speaker 1: the global picture, it's not quite so clear cut because
Speaker 1: there were plenty of countries with non populous leaders that
Speaker 1: did disastrously. Peru has had about as bad uh and
Speaker 1: experience as any country, and the guy who's was in
Speaker 1: president there was not a populace. He only became president
Speaker 1: almost by by accident. So I think there's a kind
Speaker 1: of temptation to simplify this story, and the way I
Speaker 1: would put it is this, In the U s. Donald
Speaker 1: Trump made a whole succession of mistakes. It's tedious almost
Speaker 1: to list them all. He clearly misjudged the problem in
Speaker 1: multiple ways. There's nothing in my book that says he
Speaker 1: did a great job. But if we think it was
Speaker 1: old Donald Trump's fault that CDC completely screwed up testing
Speaker 1: in the first months of the pandemic, that we had
Speaker 1: no contact racing system of the sort that they were
Speaker 1: able to do in Taiwan and in South Korea, and
Speaker 1: then we utterly failed to quarantine the people that were
Speaker 1: likely to be infected. That can't all be attributed to
Speaker 1: the President United States, who presides over a huge and
Speaker 1: conflict of bureaucracy, part of which has more or less
Speaker 1: one job, which is to deal with the crisis like this.
Speaker 1: And I think one has to say that the public
Speaker 1: health bureaucracies on both sides of the Atlantic did very
Speaker 1: badly compared with say Taiwan or South Korea. The fact
Speaker 1: that they managed to contain the pandemic so successfully tells
Speaker 1: us that there was a much better playbook than the
Speaker 1: one that we used, and yet we told ourselves that
Speaker 1: we had very high levels of pandemic preparedness. Well, the
Speaker 1: other side of this coin is the country that did
Speaker 1: respond well, Taiwan and South Korea, among others. What ties
Speaker 1: down together? Why did they respond well well? One answer
Speaker 1: is approximate answer they learned the lessons of Stars and Mars,
Speaker 1: previous outbreaks of a new coronavirus that we kind of
Speaker 1: didn't pay enough attention to. But I think that's a
Speaker 1: better answer, which is that these are countries that have
Speaker 1: good reasons to be generally paranoid. If you're Taiwan, you're right, Nix,
Speaker 1: the People's Republic of China claims it. You. If your
Speaker 1: South of Korea, you've got the crazies and the North
Speaker 1: to worry about. So I think the lesson that I
Speaker 1: learned from Doom is that it's better to be generally
Speaker 1: paranoid and worried about every potential contingency and so have
Speaker 1: one very detailed plan for a specific crisis that doesn't
Speaker 1: actually work when the crisis strikes. Thanks to Neil Ferguson
Speaker 1: for joining us giving us insight into the long term
Speaker 1: impact of the pandemic on both the population and also
Speaker 1: the global power structure. But this whole idea of a
Speaker 1: lot of this, if you look back in history, kind
Speaker 1: of gives you clues of maybe some of the things
Speaker 1: we need to be worried about in the future. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the explanations for who has fared well and who hasn't
Speaker 1: fared so well during the pandemic. They're not as simple
Speaker 1: as everybody thought. No, exactly loved that conversation. You're listening
Speaker 1: to Bloomberg Business Week. From one big thinker to another.
Speaker 1: We're talking Scott Galloway, also a familiar name to the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Business Week audience. I'm just gonna put it out there.
Speaker 1: It's a conversation I've been looking forward to for a
Speaker 1: long time. He tackles Facebook and Apple both as you
Speaker 1: know in the news this week, and which of the
Speaker 1: four need to be broken up to unlock value. You'll
Speaker 1: find out which war he's talking about. This is Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Business Week with Carol Messer and
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Quick Takes Tim Stinovich from Bloomberg Radio. So this
Speaker 1: was a conversation Tim that you and I were looking
Speaker 1: forward to for a long time in our world, and
Speaker 1: we know this. There are just some folks that need
Speaker 1: no introduction, and that includes Scott Galloway, author of a
Speaker 1: bunch of books, including the New York Times bestseller The
Speaker 1: for the Hidden DNA of Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google,
Speaker 1: and most recently Post Corona, From Crisis to opportunity. He
Speaker 1: writes a lot he does. He's also, of course, a
Speaker 1: professor of marketing at n y U Stern School of Business.
Speaker 1: Some people know him as Prof G. He's also founded
Speaker 1: several companies, including rent Envelope and Profit He Never Holds Back.
Speaker 1: Also host of the upcoming The Prop G Show on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Quicktake. We had a lot to get to with him,
Speaker 1: including the news this week of Facebook's oversight board uphold
Speaker 1: a ban on former President Donald Trump using their platform
Speaker 1: at least for now. Anyone who is responsible for a
Speaker 1: third of misinformation around a specific domain, in this case
Speaker 1: election interference should be banned from the platform. So this
Speaker 1: is Facebook's attempt to abdicate responsibility. This oversight board, I
Speaker 1: think has got the charm of the Legal of Nations,
Speaker 1: with the effectiveness of the United Nations. I think it's
Speaker 1: a total abdication of responsibility. And what they said was
Speaker 1: we're going to hurry up and do nothing. We're going
Speaker 1: to make them. It's kind of the mother of all
Speaker 1: non decisions. I'm glad he's not back on the platform.
Speaker 1: It's typical Facebook. It's it's kind of just more delay
Speaker 1: an obcusation. Well, Scott how has it been so easy
Speaker 1: for Twitter and Snap to make their decisions about President Trump,
Speaker 1: but it's been so tortured for Facebook and for Google's YouTube.
Speaker 1: That's a really interesting question. I think Google and Facebook
Speaker 1: to a certain extent, are still trying to hold onto
Speaker 1: this myth that they're just a platform. I think that
Speaker 1: they aren't niche companies. What's interesting is that there's definitely
Speaker 1: sort of a purity trade. And what do I mean
Speaker 1: by that? If you look at pinterestome Snap, they've outperformed
Speaker 1: their peer group and they're largely seen as having less noxious,
Speaker 1: toxic content, and Twitter, since kicking Trump off the platform
Speaker 1: had sort of the strongest run in several years. So
Speaker 1: it appears there's sort of an immunity trade or a
Speaker 1: purity trade. I think Facebook and Google still want to
Speaker 1: try and cling to the notion that we want all content,
Speaker 1: all the time, anyone, regardless of the damage it does,
Speaker 1: and they're still kind of holding to that kind of
Speaker 1: zeitgeist there. Um, they don't see themselves as niche players.
Speaker 1: I think they're they're more they're they're less less focused
Speaker 1: on pleasing anyone audience, just don't want to just they'll
Speaker 1: be mildly upsetting to everybody you know. Sarah Fryar Bloomberg
Speaker 1: News putting out a story saying that maybe Facebook has
Speaker 1: to provide more options for Donald Trump types, saying that
Speaker 1: there should be way for Donald Trump, his thoughts and
Speaker 1: other Trump like figures to exist on social media with
Speaker 1: out kind of all the amplification that many of these
Speaker 1: platforms provide. These are sours words to be fair. Um,
Speaker 1: do you agree with that that there needs to be
Speaker 1: another option? If we believe in freedom of speech and
Speaker 1: I understand your point about misinformation, but how do we
Speaker 1: treat this? Scott? Yeah, that's a tough problem. But I
Speaker 1: think we can inflate freedom of speech with freedom of reach,
Speaker 1: and that is the conversation around anti vac is a
Speaker 1: worthwhile conversation we should have. There are people who want
Speaker 1: to have a conversation around white supremacy, and those conversations
Speaker 1: should be had. The question is whether for profit entities
Speaker 1: should have algorithms that purposely seek out that type of controversial,
Speaker 1: very upsetting content and elevate it exponentially beyond what it
Speaker 1: would get organically. Because it is so noxious, because it
Speaker 1: is so heinous, it creates enragement an arrangement equals engagement,
Speaker 1: which equals more Nissan ads, which means that Facebook gets wealthier.
Speaker 1: So the question is, should we have business models that
Speaker 1: purposely link profits to the enragement, division and polarization of
Speaker 1: our society. Should there be some sort of tax but
Speaker 1: there's notions somehow that everybody deserves voice. These firms have,
Speaker 1: these individuals have massive voice. The question is, should we
Speaker 1: the most profitable companies in the world be engaged in
Speaker 1: a business model with end up being handmads this edition
Speaker 1: or where a capital police officer is bludgeon to death
Speaker 1: with a fire extinguisher because these algorithms are amplifying the
Speaker 1: most controversial content. Let's talk about Apple versus Epic and
Speaker 1: really a lot of big app developers and even small
Speaker 1: ones too. It's playing out in court Epic Games accusing
Speaker 1: Apple in the App Store of cheating developers and consumers
Speaker 1: with fees and onerous rules. Scott Galloway, Um, is Apple
Speaker 1: taking too much? Does Does Epic have a point here?
Speaker 1: Because at the end of the day, you know, Apple's
Speaker 1: argument is, Hey, we are giving you access to the customers,
Speaker 1: and we're making this a safe place for our customers
Speaker 1: to to access your apps. Yeah. I think that's the
Speaker 1: argument that they've made a staggering investment to ensure safety,
Speaker 1: and they've made a huge investment in laying down the rails,
Speaker 1: and they should be able to charge what they want
Speaker 1: to access those rails. The question is if you start
Speaker 1: seeing everything that's being transported on those rails, and you
Speaker 1: see that certain goods are going to a certain area,
Speaker 1: and you decide wow, based on that inside, we'd like
Speaker 1: to start a competitive business Apple Music, and we're going
Speaker 1: to tax our competitor and maybe promote our own products.
Speaker 1: Are you, in fact in a monopoly position? The app
Speaker 1: Store really is their regulatory achilles heel. I think they're
Speaker 1: gonna lose on this one. I would have gone further
Speaker 1: than this, but this is it's very difficult to argue
Speaker 1: that they're not imposing or not taking advantage of the
Speaker 1: fact they own the rails to compete with the with
Speaker 1: the other products that access those rails. So if in
Speaker 1: fact there's monopoly power here at the scale, and an
Speaker 1: argument that they need to have one player and that
Speaker 1: size is good for everybody, then there a utility and
Speaker 1: their prices should be regulated. I think they're all wet
Speaker 1: on this one, all right, play a little bit of
Speaker 1: Devil's Advocate, and maybe it's not Apples to Apple, Scott,
Speaker 1: But what about a Walmart that you know how it
Speaker 1: squeezes its suppliers or an Amazon where it gets a
Speaker 1: piece of everything that's sold on its platform. Um, I
Speaker 1: know it's not, like I said, maybe an equal comparison,
Speaker 1: but is it that much different? Yeah? I think it is, Carroll,
Speaker 1: because I think Walmart is about eight or nine percent
Speaker 1: of retail and the app store on iOS is about
Speaker 1: eight of all dollar volume that goes through apps. So
Speaker 1: if you want to be a player in the app economy,
Speaker 1: there really is only one place, an iOS is where
Speaker 1: the majority of people go to actually spend money on apps.
Speaker 1: So if Walmart gets market share of all retail, then
Speaker 1: it's Apples to Apples, all right? So listen, one thing
Speaker 1: you know. I wanted to ask you, Tim and I
Speaker 1: both wanted to We were thinking about coming off of
Speaker 1: Warren Buffett and Brickshire Hathaway's annual meeting this past weekend,
Speaker 1: and Warren Buffett put up a slide. It was the
Speaker 1: top twenty market cap global companies in it was named
Speaker 1: like Toyota, General Motors, x on, IBM, six u S companies,
Speaker 1: fourteen from other countries. He pointed out Scott that none
Speaker 1: of the twenty are on today's list of the top
Speaker 1: twenty market cap companies, and he says it's a reminder
Speaker 1: of extraordinary things that happen in nine not the dark Age.
Speaker 1: Is not a backward time. So I'm curious, how do
Speaker 1: you think about today's top me market cap companies, whether
Speaker 1: it's Apple, Google, Amazon, you wrote about them in the
Speaker 1: four Should we think in twenty years from now or
Speaker 1: I don't know, ten years they're not going to be
Speaker 1: the juggernauts that they are. Well, look, a basic truism
Speaker 1: is that everything everywhere eventually ends, and at some point
Speaker 1: these companies will be dethroned. The question is what kind
Speaker 1: of damage do they do between here and now by
Speaker 1: not returning to our proud legacy of anti trust? And
Speaker 1: that is a T and T eventually would have been unseated,
Speaker 1: but we went in and broke it up into seven
Speaker 1: companies and we on unleash tremendous innovation, Cell Data five
Speaker 1: or each of those seven companies ended up being worth
Speaker 1: more than the original within ten years. So my argument
Speaker 1: is sure at some point, everyone is dethroned. But between
Speaker 1: now and then, is there an opportunity to oxygen eight
Speaker 1: the economy, to increase job growth, increased taxation, increase M
Speaker 1: and A by doing what we have always done, and
Speaker 1: that is when a company becomes an invasive species, we
Speaker 1: go in and we break it up. It's overdue. Anti
Speaker 1: trust is absolutely overdue. Here which companies need to be
Speaker 1: broken up right now? The answer is yes, But like
Speaker 1: I mean, well, except for Apple. Apple would be hard
Speaker 1: to break up because elegant anti trust means you unlock value.
Speaker 1: It's not a punishment, it's a liberation for all stakeholders.
Speaker 1: All stakeholders except the CEO who wants to sit on
Speaker 1: the iron throne of Olive westro It's not just the
Speaker 1: king of the North. Apple would be tough because who
Speaker 1: would get rights to the brand? So Apple ends up.
Speaker 1: You regulate the app store. But Amazon gets broken up,
Speaker 1: as does Facebook and Google. And by the way, I
Speaker 1: owned shares and all those companies except Facebook, and we're
Speaker 1: all going to make money on the day of their breakups.
Speaker 1: Talk about that, though, is it? Because you know a
Speaker 1: w S by itself is more more than a w
Speaker 1: S as part of Amazon. That's exactly the correct question.
Speaker 1: In two the most valuable company in the world will
Speaker 1: be an AWS. It was prophylactically the fastest growing, largest player,
Speaker 1: and the most profitable, most fastest growing sector in history.
Speaker 1: The cloud will be the stock that every hedge fund manager,
Speaker 1: every girl who gets her bombits that gets as a gift,
Speaker 1: everyone will own a w stock. Most valuable company in
Speaker 1: the world in four years is AWS. It'll be an
Speaker 1: n f T though right it's not going to be
Speaker 1: an actual certificate. We's back at it, Carroll. I know,
Speaker 1: I know, well, you know you wrote about these four companies.
Speaker 1: I mean, who are the companies? Who? Who are there?
Speaker 1: What's the technologies that you think are going to be
Speaker 1: kind of the replacement for the Apples and Google? Today
Speaker 1: you talked about the cloud. I get that. Are there
Speaker 1: other things on your radar that you're thinking Listen, we're
Speaker 1: just not talking about it enough. But these are the
Speaker 1: ones that are going to be the big market cap
Speaker 1: companies of the future. There's a lot of incredible companies
Speaker 1: an incredible technology is The unfortunate thing is it's usually
Speaker 1: the same players that we're the biggest unlock coming out
Speaker 1: of the pandemic is we might have an opportunity. Virtual
Speaker 1: visits to doctors went from less than one percent. There's
Speaker 1: an incredible opportunity to start pushing out primary healthcare to
Speaker 1: hundreds of millions Americans and take healthcare from the disease driven,
Speaker 1: defensive industry to a sense of health driven industry. That's
Speaker 1: a good news. It's going to create trillions of dollars
Speaker 1: in value. The bad news, the company that will be
Speaker 1: the fastest ground healthcare company in the world will be Amazon.
Speaker 1: The voice is the most exciting technology. Who dominates that? Amazon?
Speaker 1: The cloud? Who dominates that? Microsoft? Amazon? And oh e
Speaker 1: a Google. So there's some incredible companies just off the list.
Speaker 1: The shopifies, the rope wus, the salesforces, the Ali Baba.
Speaker 1: But these companies continue to outpace all the rest. A
Speaker 1: lot of big numbers doesn't seem to apply to these guys.
Speaker 1: I don't know. If we've watched Apple's earnings up fifty
Speaker 1: plus per cent, the revenues the iPhone of sixty plus
Speaker 1: percent sales in China, when they increase their margins and
Speaker 1: their services revenue, it's just it's just staggering. That's got
Speaker 1: Galloway and why you professor, best selling author. If you
Speaker 1: missed any of our conversation, you can find it on
Speaker 1: our podcast feed at Bloomberg dot com. That wraps up
Speaker 1: the first hour of the weekend edition of Bloomberg Business
Speaker 1: Week from Bloomberg Radio. I'm Tim Stanovic and I'm Carol Masser.
Speaker 1: Ahead in our next hour, we're gonna continue kind of
Speaker 1: our focus on big tech, including the cover story this week,
Speaker 1: it's on Jeff Bezos because it's all about a new
Speaker 1: book by our own Bradstone. Yeah. This is a good one,
Speaker 1: just chock full of amazing anecdotes and nuggets. Plus, as
Speaker 1: we just heard from Scott Galloway, Apple locked in a
Speaker 1: legal battle with Epic Games, the maker of Fortnite. Why
Speaker 1: a once close corporate relationship has turned into a battleground?
Speaker 1: It certainly has. This is Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg Business
Speaker 1: Week inside from the reporters and editors who bring you
Speaker 1: America's most trusted business magazine, plus global business, finance and
Speaker 1: tech news as it happened. Sloomberg Business Week with Carol
Speaker 1: Messer and Bloomberg Quick Takes. Tim Stinovic on Bloomberg Radio. Hi,
Speaker 1: I'm Carol Masser and I'm Tim Stanovic Plennyhead in our
Speaker 1: second hour of the weekend edition of Bloomberg Business Week,
Speaker 1: including how the world's richest man beat the tabloids. We've
Speaker 1: got the story behind the National Enquirers failed the tempt
Speaker 1: to get the best of Jeff Bezos. It's from an
Speaker 1: exclusive excerpt in a new book that's coming out next week,
Speaker 1: but there is a sneak peek in this edition of
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Business Week. It is a good one reading the excerpt,
Speaker 1: I just want more. Plus Andy Rackliffe, the CEO at
Speaker 1: Wealth Front, on the launch of some new products in
Speaker 1: the robo Advisor. We're talking fintech disruption. First up this hour,
Speaker 1: Silicon Valley once again in the news this week. It
Speaker 1: involved the beginning of a court case, and one that's
Speaker 1: considered to be one of the biggest threats to Apple
Speaker 1: in years. It's a trial that pits the makers of
Speaker 1: the iPhone in Fortnite against one another, and it's in
Speaker 1: the current issue of Bloomberg Business Week magazine. We got
Speaker 1: more from Business Week editor Joe Webber and Bloomberg News
Speaker 1: technology reporter Mark German. The battle could be a new
Speaker 1: video game, I'm thinking, or like a series or a series.
Speaker 1: Listen up, everyone, Let's go back to two thousand eleven,
Speaker 1: about a month after Tim Cook became CEO, taking over
Speaker 1: for Steve Jobs. In his first announcement, it was time
Speaker 1: to announce the iPhone for us. This was at the
Speaker 1: height of the beginning of the App Store. This is
Speaker 1: at the top of the Apple versus Google rivalry, and
Speaker 1: the big new feature besides Sirie for the iPhone for
Speaker 1: US that year was this more powerful processor focused on gaming.
Speaker 1: So what better developer to have on stage to prove
Speaker 1: why you should buy the iPhone for us tim Cook's
Speaker 1: first product, Well, at the Games they came on stage
Speaker 1: to show their new game, Infinity Blade two, to show
Speaker 1: the power of both the App Store and that new processor.
Speaker 1: And now today, obviously circumstances between the two companies are
Speaker 1: much much different. Mark, where did things go south? So
Speaker 1: you started to go south around two thousand seventeen, two
Speaker 1: thousand eighteen at the beginning of Fortnite. Fortnite was this
Speaker 1: new key game coming from Epic. It quickly became extraordinarily
Speaker 1: popular and Epic was really, you know, minting cash from
Speaker 1: this game and they were making close to part actually
Speaker 1: a billion dollars a year, or they projected they would
Speaker 1: be making a billion dollars a year from from the
Speaker 1: app store on Fortnite. And when you're making that kind
Speaker 1: of money, you're starting to give Apple commissions well north
Speaker 1: of potentially two to three hundred million dollars a year. Now,
Speaker 1: Epic is a big company, but even for a company
Speaker 1: of the size of Apple, I think to pay out
Speaker 1: of pocket three hundred billion dollars sorry, three hundred million
Speaker 1: dollars before attack for that, for that income, that's pretty significant.
Speaker 1: And that's really where the relationship began. Interrupture, Mark, who's
Speaker 1: got the tougher case here to prove? Oh, for sure, Epic.
Speaker 1: I think this is an uphill battle for epic Um,
Speaker 1: not because of you know, my opinion or because of
Speaker 1: what consumers might believe, because of legal paperwork and signatures.
Speaker 1: You know, I learned very early on contracts are important,
Speaker 1: signatures are important, And your opinion of how horrible Apple
Speaker 1: might be in this situation if you have signatures on paper,
Speaker 1: if it's a legal document in the eyes of the court,
Speaker 1: right in the eyes of this judge, doesn't really matter,
Speaker 1: you know, for all intentsive purposes, is Apple probably charging
Speaker 1: developers too much. Yes, is Apple probably going a little
Speaker 1: too far by requiring people to use its payment system
Speaker 1: and blocking alternative app stores. Yes, some more open platform
Speaker 1: like Android whilst stelf preserving privacy and a good user
Speaker 1: experience would be wonderful, But all that is not really
Speaker 1: relevant for this particular case. I still think though, that
Speaker 1: Apple will have to make some changes to really appease
Speaker 1: developers and users alike into the future. You know, what
Speaker 1: are you going to be watching for in this case?
Speaker 1: Obviously there's going to be the outcome, but along the way,
Speaker 1: there might be some other things that, um, we'll catch
Speaker 1: everyone's attention. What what could some of those end up
Speaker 1: looking like? Yeah, so, actually have been going through some
Speaker 1: of the filings a different discovery and pieces of evidence,
Speaker 1: And one that I'm actually working on a story right
Speaker 1: now about is that Phil Schiller, who now runs the
Speaker 1: app Store and was previously Apple's marketing chief course firing
Speaker 1: about a year ago, sent an email to Eddie q
Speaker 1: who's head of the App Store ten years ago in
Speaker 1: two eleven, sort of floating the idea of needing to
Speaker 1: reduce the app store commission. Now, this was in two
Speaker 1: thousand eleven. If they wanted. They were talking about reducing
Speaker 1: the commission from because they were getting super profitable. Well,
Speaker 1: Apple didn't really make any real change to the commission
Speaker 1: structure until a few months ago in stating a fift
Speaker 1: reduction for developers who generate under a million and revenue, which,
Speaker 1: of course, as we all know, it's not relevant to
Speaker 1: ethics because they don't make under a million a year.
Speaker 1: You make feel over a billion a year potentially. So
Speaker 1: what are the repercussions if if Apple ends up winning
Speaker 1: this Because it's not just Epic that wants to Apple
Speaker 1: to take a smaller cut and wants more freedom to
Speaker 1: do what they want to do within the App store
Speaker 1: and on their own apps. Who else would would benefit
Speaker 1: if if Apple ends up losing this case. Yeah, if
Speaker 1: a Apple ends up losing the this case, You're going
Speaker 1: to see the floodgates open. You're gonna see Spotify wanting
Speaker 1: a very similar deal to Epic. You'll probably see that
Speaker 1: motion for that nearly immediately. Other big developers to generate
Speaker 1: that kind of money, you know, Netflix, Spotify, Pandora, all
Speaker 1: these big players. They would be using Apple's payment system
Speaker 1: for sure, because it's a so much better user experience
Speaker 1: if they didn't have to give that commission to Apple.
Speaker 1: So that's really what all the big guns want. They
Speaker 1: want the ability to use, you know, a built in
Speaker 1: payment network without giving Apple a commission. If Apple wins
Speaker 1: the lawsuit, you're going to see a lot of developers
Speaker 1: up in arms that you might be you know, a
Speaker 1: stronger regulatory push from you know, antitrust officials. I really
Speaker 1: think that even if Apple, you know, wins this war, right,
Speaker 1: there's so much more to come, I know, exactly get ready. Hey,
Speaker 1: is Tim cooking to testify? Should we anticipate that at all? Mark?
Speaker 1: You should? Yeah? Tim Cook is likely to testify. Well,
Speaker 1: that was our guru for all things Apple, Mark German
Speaker 1: and a business We get it to Joel Webber. Really
Speaker 1: interesting to see, Carol, all of this play out in
Speaker 1: court as Apple's dominance gets put to the test. And
Speaker 1: remember it's his wide ranging implications that go beyond Epic,
Speaker 1: the maker of Fortnite, could affect companies like Spotify and
Speaker 1: even smaller apps. Yeah, and really the first test of
Speaker 1: Apple's dominance when it comes to their own app store.
Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Business Week coming up, We're staying
Speaker 1: with technology. We're moving from Apple to Amazon and the
Speaker 1: man behind it all, Jeff Bezos, who seems tim to
Speaker 1: win just about everything. Yeah, he really does. It's the
Speaker 1: cover story in the magazine this week, all about a
Speaker 1: new book, Amazon Unbound, Jeff Bezos and the Invention of
Speaker 1: a Global Empire. This is Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg Business
Speaker 1: Week with Carol Masser and Bloomberg Quick Takes Tim Stinnoby
Speaker 1: from Bloomberg Radio. So Bloomberg's Bradstone is no doubt about
Speaker 1: the go to voice when it comes to Amazon. Wrote
Speaker 1: a book about the company, you might recall the Everything Store.
Speaker 1: Lucky for us, he went back to do more, resulting
Speaker 1: in his new book, Uh just coming out, Amazon on Bound,
Speaker 1: Geff Bezos and the Invention of a Global Empire. Let's
Speaker 1: get more from Bradstone, Senior Executive Editor up Global Technology
Speaker 1: here at Bloomberg News. He is with us from our
Speaker 1: bureau in San Francisco, along with Bloomberg Business Week editor
Speaker 1: Joel Weber. And I gotta tell you you guys, I
Speaker 1: think we're just gonna do this for ten hours because
Speaker 1: I just want to talk about everything Jeff Bezos and everything.
Speaker 1: Brad's book I'm just gonna put that out there. Job.
Speaker 1: I don't know if we can have Brad. I don't
Speaker 1: know if we can have Brad for ten hours, but
Speaker 1: but we'll take them for what we get. Isn't isn't
Speaker 1: this a family program? I don't know if we're we're
Speaker 1: really able to talk about for ten hours. Yeah, it
Speaker 1: might be a little much. So this story, um, Brad,
Speaker 1: that that you know, we excerpted from your book is
Speaker 1: one that kind of broke the internet when it happened,
Speaker 1: but we we only really knew. Um the part that
Speaker 1: came out at the moment, and what you brought to
Speaker 1: the book and to the pages of Business Week is
Speaker 1: a lot of color behind the scenes and and the
Speaker 1: great untold story of how Jeff Bezos basically took probably
Speaker 1: what was a low moment in his life and used
Speaker 1: it to turn the tables. And we're talking about the
Speaker 1: the National enquir National Choir story that was basically about
Speaker 1: his affair. Um, so, so how did you approach a
Speaker 1: writing this this story and then like how did you
Speaker 1: how does that tie into the book itself? Right? Yeah,
Speaker 1: thanks Joel. Well, first of all, just to put it
Speaker 1: into a little bit of context, I was about a
Speaker 1: year into writing this book, as Carol said, a sequel
Speaker 1: to The Everything Store, which I thought was gonna be
Speaker 1: a nice, boring business book about the last ten years
Speaker 1: and the rise of the continued rise and domination of Amazon,
Speaker 1: with a little you know, ominous antitrust specter hanging over it,
Speaker 1: and you know, and then Jeff tweets his divorce from
Speaker 1: Mackenzie and the Medium Post and the National enquire package
Speaker 1: and what was left from you know, that moment Jill,
Speaker 1: where you which you described as kind of breaking the
Speaker 1: internet was a little bit of a sense of ambiguity.
Speaker 1: It was like, well, wait, did the brother do it?
Speaker 1: Did MBS do it? Who? How did the Inquiry get
Speaker 1: the story? Is Trump involved? And Bezos and his his
Speaker 1: advocates were very clever, I think, in in casting sort
Speaker 1: of political aspersions, wrapping themselves up in the mantle of
Speaker 1: the Washington Post and the journalistic mission. And so my
Speaker 1: goal as I got into it was, you know, to
Speaker 1: try to avoid I guess some of the sensationalism and
Speaker 1: and but but described you know what happened, How did
Speaker 1: Bezos really come out on top? As the cover says,
Speaker 1: Jeff wins he always seems to win, UM, and what
Speaker 1: does it say about his kind of tactics? And so
Speaker 1: you know, I just tried to talk to everyone, get
Speaker 1: close to the investigation into the whole thing by the
Speaker 1: FBI and the Southern District of New York and figure out, Okay,
Speaker 1: you know what what happened and and UM, you know,
Speaker 1: as as Jeff maneuvered through it, what can we learn
Speaker 1: from that? So? What did happen? Did it? It didn't
Speaker 1: actually have anything to do with Saudi Arabia or or
Speaker 1: or President Trump, Right, that is the question. And what
Speaker 1: I say in the book is and it's represented in
Speaker 1: the in the Business Week story this week, is that
Speaker 1: based on the evidence that we have at the current moment,
Speaker 1: and based on the conclusions of federal prosecutors in New York,
Speaker 1: that it seems like Acam's razor applies here. The simplest
Speaker 1: solution was the was the right one? Which is that UM,
Speaker 1: you know, the brother Michael Sanchez gave the story to
Speaker 1: the National Enquirer, UM. And there's really no evidence, um,
Speaker 1: to suggest that there were any political motives involved, UM,
Speaker 1: or that any any international conspiracy was involved. There there is.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't say there's evidence. I would say there's circumstantial
Speaker 1: evidence that MBS hacked bezos phone. Um, but there are
Speaker 1: a lot of questions about the f t i UH,
Speaker 1: the the agency that did that investigation, that Bezos is
Speaker 1: Camp hired to do that investigation. The spyware that was
Speaker 1: involved is very very hard to detect. So really they
Speaker 1: were looking at the increase in data that came from
Speaker 1: his phone and at the time, and there's no evidence
Speaker 1: and there's a lot of evidence to the contrary their
Speaker 1: sworn statements that were filed in part of these cases,
Speaker 1: and there was evidence email evidence that shows the inquiry
Speaker 1: getting the story from from Michael Sanchez and trying to
Speaker 1: piece together the mystery. Who was he even talking about
Speaker 1: discovering it was Jeff Bezos And so you know where
Speaker 1: I net it out again, may maybe something comes out
Speaker 1: that this story so bizarre. Who knows what could happen,
Speaker 1: But from the evidence we have, it really doesn't seem like,
Speaker 1: you know, there were there were political winds blowing around
Speaker 1: this thing at all, other than the fear that a
Speaker 1: m I had that because of its UH you know,
Speaker 1: the resolution of of the Michael Cohen case and it's
Speaker 1: a peace treaty with the Southern District of New York.
Speaker 1: They worried about being accused of having political motives, and
Speaker 1: that did play a role because it forced him into
Speaker 1: into trying to negotiate a settlement which Bezos and accused
Speaker 1: him of of extorting him. But other than that, I
Speaker 1: think all that stuff was just noise. I think it's
Speaker 1: remarkable is that I can just imagine the PR team
Speaker 1: behind it saying no, Jeff, don't anything, or whatever denied it,
Speaker 1: and like he just comes out, you know, fighting really hard,
Speaker 1: and as the cover says, he wins. Like it's just remarkable.
Speaker 1: And the question, Carol is is like, was it And
Speaker 1: I don't know the answer to this, but was he
Speaker 1: deliberately manipulating kind of the world, wrapping himself up, as
Speaker 1: I said in the Mantle of Them Washington Post imputing
Speaker 1: political motives to the Inquirer. Was that a deliberate and
Speaker 1: somewhat disingenuous defensive shield or did they really think that
Speaker 1: there could have been this political or international conspiracy. I
Speaker 1: tend to think that they genuinely thought that maybe you
Speaker 1: know that maybe his enemies and he does have enemies,
Speaker 1: and the Washington Post, particularly during the age of Trump
Speaker 1: made a lot of enemies. Um. I think they genuinely
Speaker 1: thought that there might be more to it. Um, But
Speaker 1: you have to look back and not your head. You know,
Speaker 1: it was super effective, right we all when you think
Speaker 1: about sort of what he did and the personal sort
Speaker 1: of trajectory there, people ended up sympathizing with him. He
Speaker 1: took a stand and he brought down the editor Dylan
Speaker 1: Howard of the National Choir. So it was it was
Speaker 1: super effective. Brad, what is this episode? What do you
Speaker 1: feel like it illuminates about Jeff Bezos as a as
Speaker 1: a business person, Joel, I just quickly go back to
Speaker 1: when the Everything Store came out, and do you remember
Speaker 1: they didn't like the book and they gave me a
Speaker 1: bunch of one star reviews and and and mackenzie left
Speaker 1: one at the time. And what struck me there is, Wow,
Speaker 1: he found a totally unique way, thinking outside the box
Speaker 1: to try to throw an asterix next to next to
Speaker 1: that work. And I, you know, frankly, I don't think
Speaker 1: it was effective, but that's also what he did in
Speaker 1: this case. He thought outside the box, outmaneuvered everyone. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, came up with this this direct medium post
Speaker 1: um One, the Sympathist came out on top. He's retiring
Speaker 1: now as an icon of business. He the thing that
Speaker 1: you learned from this is he always does things a
Speaker 1: little bit differently, and often it is ingenious. That's brad
Speaker 1: Stone on his new tewel Amazon Unbound, along with the
Speaker 1: editor of the magazine, Joel Webber. Brad's laid his book
Speaker 1: on the e commerce Giant goes on sale May eleven,
Speaker 1: and you've got a special coming up this week on
Speaker 1: Quick Take with him. Yeah, we're going to do a
Speaker 1: deep dive into the book. You do not want to
Speaker 1: miss it, all right, looking forward to that coming up.
Speaker 1: One of the early fintech companies that turned upside down
Speaker 1: the way we invest but the environment, there's more competition.
Speaker 1: You've got robin Hood, You've got so much more out
Speaker 1: there that are going after younger investors. The world is changing. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it really is. I mean the mantra of said it
Speaker 1: and forget it. It doesn't really resonate with the robin
Speaker 1: Hood crowd exactly, which is probably why the co founder
Speaker 1: and CEO Well Front, which stopped by. They're introducing new
Speaker 1: programs for their users. That conversation that's coming up next.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg broadcasting from the financial capital of the world,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg eleven Frio in New York to Washington, d C.
Speaker 1: Bloomberg to Boston, Bloomberg one oh six one to San Francisco,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg nine sixty to the country Sirius XM Chado one
Speaker 1: nine team and around the globe the Bloomberg Business app
Speaker 1: and Bloomberg Radio dot Com. This is Bloomberg Business Week.
Speaker 1: Robin Hood founded seven years ago. Can we know this?
Speaker 1: It's exploded in popularity millions of Americans looking to make
Speaker 1: some money during a pandemic that has sent stock prices swinging. Listen,
Speaker 1: this was the year, the past year that we all
Speaker 1: started talking about robin Hood. Yeah, it's it's disrupting the
Speaker 1: financial industry. It's a huge fintech player. But but one
Speaker 1: of the earlier fintech firms to really change the way
Speaker 1: that people thought about investing was Wealth Front. It changed
Speaker 1: how investors managed their investment and thought about retirement by
Speaker 1: taking it online. It introduced the word robo advisor to
Speaker 1: our world. I remember we all of a sudden, we're
Speaker 1: talking about, well, what's a robo advisor? We caught up
Speaker 1: with Andy rack Left, co founder and CEO of Wealth Front,
Speaker 1: he had some news to tell us about and talked
Speaker 1: about the changing demands of young investors. So what we
Speaker 1: trust them now is the ability to customize our portfolios.
Speaker 1: So traditionally, what we offered was a diversified and rebalanced
Speaker 1: portfolio of low cost index funds, but we specified what
Speaker 1: those index funds would be based on your particular level
Speaker 1: of risk. Now, what we allow you to do is
Speaker 1: to add and subtract ets based index funds, or you
Speaker 1: can even build your own portfolio from scratch. So we're
Speaker 1: starting with dozens of etf well, seeing Nick row that too,
Speaker 1: hundreds our et s even include socially responsible et F
Speaker 1: so that you can express your values. And we hope
Speaker 1: later this year to be able to add cryptocurrencies to
Speaker 1: that divers spike portfolio as well. Andy, you founded this back.
Speaker 1: I think it was like just around it was at
Speaker 1: two thousand eight, just around the financial crisis, two thousand eleven.
Speaker 1: Actually we launched our first product in December of eleven.
Speaker 1: How has things changed in terms of what investors, maybe
Speaker 1: a younger investor, maybe all investors, in terms of what
Speaker 1: they're looking in terms of how they manage their investments
Speaker 1: in their portfolio, especially in an arrow where it's not
Speaker 1: like my dad who had investments of pension, sencier security
Speaker 1: VA benefits. It's going to be very different for people. Well,
Speaker 1: let's see. On the positive side, I think that index
Speaker 1: investing or passive investing has grown to become much much
Speaker 1: more popular. I think in two thousand and nineteen over
Speaker 1: half the funds in mutual funds were passively managed. When
Speaker 1: we started, that was not apparent. So that's a really
Speaker 1: big positive change. Every ten years or so, there's a
Speaker 1: day trading crates, and it happens whenever the market goes
Speaker 1: up by a very large amount in a short period
Speaker 1: of time. It happened in the Internet bubble, it happened
Speaker 1: around the financial crisis, and it happened last year. And
Speaker 1: so that drives people who have not lost money through
Speaker 1: day trading to try it, which means people so And
Speaker 1: you don't think this one is different, because there is
Speaker 1: the access to apps, commission free trading. You can do
Speaker 1: it like playing a game on your iPhone. You don't
Speaker 1: think this one is different, Well, I don't because everyone
Speaker 1: loses money when they day trade, and so ultimately they
Speaker 1: realize it's like putting touching our hand to a burner.
Speaker 1: When you get burned on a stove, you don't do
Speaker 1: it again. So everyone, I think wants to try that,
Speaker 1: and then they're probably going to move away from it.
Speaker 1: And then the other biggest difference is the explosion in
Speaker 1: the value of bitcoin and other andy what what what
Speaker 1: do you give us an update on the on wealth
Speaker 1: fronts business? Because I'm there. Fintech is so hot right now.
Speaker 1: As I mentioned earlier in the show, Um, what's the
Speaker 1: plan for the company? Are you guys are going to
Speaker 1: I p O? Are you gonna get acquired? Well? I
Speaker 1: was in the venture capital business for over twenty five years.
Speaker 1: I co founded a very well known firm called Benchmark Capital.
Speaker 1: And one of the things that made Benchmark so successful
Speaker 1: was a focus on companies that had a good chance
Speaker 1: of building a large independent company, which requires you that
Speaker 1: you go public. So that's been the desire from day one,
Speaker 1: and unfortunately we're growing very rapidly. We have over billion
Speaker 1: dollars of ussets now under management, and March was our
Speaker 1: biggest month ever in terms of investment net deposits. What's
Speaker 1: the demo is it still kind of skewing younger, Yes,
Speaker 1: while it's intentionally skewing younger, we focus on millennials and
Speaker 1: Gen Z, so people forty and under. And the reason
Speaker 1: that we appeal to them is that everything that we
Speaker 1: do is delivered via software rather than through an advisor.
Speaker 1: Our clients literally tell us, we pay you not to
Speaker 1: talk to us, so we don't appeal to baby boomers
Speaker 1: who have been conditioned to want to talk to someone.
Speaker 1: We're fantastic if you want everything delivered via your app.
Speaker 1: Do you think that this is the right approach for everybody? Well,
Speaker 1: I don't think it's a function of the amount of
Speaker 1: money you have, because the academic research is incredibly clear
Speaker 1: that that attempting to outperform the market through active management
Speaker 1: is a fool's area. That net of fees that you
Speaker 1: are going to underperform and the only three things that
Speaker 1: you can control or diversification, fees and taxes, which are
Speaker 1: software is really really good at that's Andy Ratcliffe of
Speaker 1: Wealth Front look as a venture capitalist. It was so
Speaker 1: interesting to hear him, with his background in venture capital,
Speaker 1: talk about how the company is going to ultimately I
Speaker 1: p O Yeah, exactly right. We kind of pushed him
Speaker 1: like So where are you going with this because the
Speaker 1: company has been around for its quite a while and
Speaker 1: your in Silicon Valley startup terms, right, yeah, exact, exactly.
Speaker 1: It's all perspective. You're listening to Bloomberg Business Week, coming
Speaker 1: up from staying up on your finances to dressing down
Speaker 1: for the pandemic, or at least wearing a lot of sweats,
Speaker 1: yoga pants, and as it turns out, joggers. We've got
Speaker 1: the lowdown on the Jogger Juggernaut at Vori from the
Speaker 1: co founder and CEO. This is Bloomberg. You wearing joggers?
Speaker 1: Not right now, you're listening to Bloomberg Business Week with
Speaker 1: Carol Messer and Bloomberg Quick Takes. Tim Stinovich from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: All right, everyone, hands up, Tim, you took. His hand
Speaker 1: is up in the air. Who has been living in sweats, leggings,
Speaker 1: yoga pants, you know, those comfy clothes in the past year?
Speaker 1: Up my hand, my hand up. I mean, obviously not
Speaker 1: when I'm at work, and we've been coming to the
Speaker 1: office for the last few months, but as soon as
Speaker 1: I get home, I throw on those comfy paths. Well,
Speaker 1: there's one company that is a maker of the types
Speaker 1: of clothes we've all been living in. It's the active
Speaker 1: where at leisure company. Viori, which sales skyrocket in the
Speaker 1: past year, is founder and CEO Viory. We began our
Speaker 1: chat like we often do, with a look back to March. Well,
Speaker 1: it's been a roller coaster. I will never forget March thirteenth,
Speaker 1: we gathered our leadership team together and we decided we
Speaker 1: needed to close our stores. We had five retail stores
Speaker 1: at the time. UM. We were getting calls from a
Speaker 1: lot of our wholesale partners saying hold shipments, don't send
Speaker 1: us any any more inventory. And by the way, we
Speaker 1: don't think we can pay our bills. Um. And so
Speaker 1: it was a rough time. You know. We made some
Speaker 1: tough decisions. You know. At the time, we decided to
Speaker 1: keep all of our We had over fifty retail employees.
Speaker 1: We decided to keep them fully employed with the company
Speaker 1: and reinvest in training. UM. But I was so proud
Speaker 1: with how our team came together in that time and
Speaker 1: we got really creative and we thought about how can
Speaker 1: we make this business better during this momentary pause. And
Speaker 1: what we found out was that there was a big
Speaker 1: gravitation towards comfortable clothing, and we we were very fortunate
Speaker 1: to benefit from that. UM. So it was it was
Speaker 1: a bit of a rollercoaster at the beginning, a lot
Speaker 1: of worry, a lot of doubt about what was going
Speaker 1: to happen, and then we we learned quickly that our
Speaker 1: customer was coming to us. They trusted us for delivering
Speaker 1: really comfortable clothes during a pretty tough and traumatic time.
Speaker 1: I'm guilty for those comfortable clothes working from home for
Speaker 1: I don't know, eight months for me, are so a
Speaker 1: lot of yoga ware and the like. UM, tell me
Speaker 1: about some of the metrics. I had read somewhere that
Speaker 1: you guys nearly tripled your revenue last year. Is that right?
Speaker 1: Or give me some idea of the metrics you saw. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we did. We we came in in the year to
Speaker 1: UM with a plan to double the business, and before
Speaker 1: we were really close to writing it to zero, as
Speaker 1: we're a lot of folks, you know, in that early
Speaker 1: March timeframe, but we learned that there was again that
Speaker 1: big gravitation towards our our category, and we ended up
Speaker 1: tripling our business, with a large majority of that being
Speaker 1: direct to consumer and so hats off to our team,
Speaker 1: Hats off to our supply chain for being able to
Speaker 1: react so quickly to meet the demand. What was your
Speaker 1: supply chain like, because that's something that we've had a
Speaker 1: lot of conversations about over the past year, where we
Speaker 1: know when it came to certainly some of those essentials. Um,
Speaker 1: it was difficult. But what was your supply chain like
Speaker 1: during the pandemic. Well, we're fortunate to have great partners,
Speaker 1: so I'll first say that, but it was challenged, you know. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, one day we called our factory partners and
Speaker 1: we said, look, guys, we need to hold um all
Speaker 1: new production until we get a better picture of what
Speaker 1: was going to happen. And literally two weeks later we
Speaker 1: called them and asked them to triple the volume of production.
Speaker 1: And so, you know, we were working with everybody from
Speaker 1: our text all mills all the way through to our
Speaker 1: cut and sow factories to manage capacity and kind of
Speaker 1: an ever changing environment. You know, one minute we thought
Speaker 1: we were on one trajectory, and then the next minute
Speaker 1: we would get more data, putting more demand and pressure
Speaker 1: on supply chain. But we were able to rise to
Speaker 1: the occasion. And I think part of that was because
Speaker 1: we had adopted nimble um supply chain models that um,
Speaker 1: we're where we where. We partner with some of our
Speaker 1: vendors to manage inventory and to meet that that kind
Speaker 1: of fluctuation in demand. So Joe, a friend of mine,
Speaker 1: when I saw that we were having you on to
Speaker 1: like really cool guest, I hear their joggers are the best,
Speaker 1: tell me what's going on with jogger sales? Because this
Speaker 1: has been a big momentum play for you guys. The
Speaker 1: jogger has been an incredible product across all channel, the distribution.
Speaker 1: But yeah, we've become famous for the jogger, and I
Speaker 1: think it's a combination of great fit and comfort. Comfort
Speaker 1: being king this past year. Um, we have a famous
Speaker 1: fabric called the dream Knit and our dream Knit extile.
Speaker 1: It's a technical fabric. It's brushed very uniquely to give
Speaker 1: it this incredibly soft hand and once you put them on,
Speaker 1: you have a hard time taking them off. So where
Speaker 1: do you go with all of this? And I think
Speaker 1: about I've been doing yoga for twenty years and yoga
Speaker 1: clothes have gone from you know, ty tyed yoga pants too.
Speaker 1: They actually look pretty nice with the jacket and it's
Speaker 1: pretty amazing how like this stuff has evolved and has
Speaker 1: infiltrated kind of our regular wardrobe. How do you continue
Speaker 1: to see the evolution of your brand and the type
Speaker 1: of offerings that you put out there. Yeah, that's a
Speaker 1: great question, you know. I really feel that part of
Speaker 1: the reason Jory has been successful is we've intentionally tried
Speaker 1: to blur the lines between fitness clothing and everyday life clothing.
Speaker 1: And I really feel that the term at leisure is
Speaker 1: just going to evolve into clothing. I think some of
Speaker 1: the best sportswear everyday clothing, whether you're wearing it around
Speaker 1: the house or you're traveling, or you're going to the office.
Speaker 1: I think a lot of that product is being made
Speaker 1: and conceived today by activewear brand. And I think that
Speaker 1: a lot of our offering, you know, is extending beyond
Speaker 1: product you're just going to take to the gym, but
Speaker 1: it's a product that you know you'll travel in your
Speaker 1: ware to the office. It's it's closed that you'll you'll
Speaker 1: go hike and be active outdoors in and it's just
Speaker 1: transitioning into you know, clothing. It's it's the new definition
Speaker 1: of clothing because it's more comfortable, It moves with your
Speaker 1: body and it just functions better. How are you and
Speaker 1: you guys write about sustainability on your website. That's a
Speaker 1: big deal and we have been increasingly certainly on our
Speaker 1: program here looking at the fashion industry and the use
Speaker 1: of water and you know what it does to our environment.
Speaker 1: You guys are focusing on recycled and also organic materials.
Speaker 1: You're committed to sustainability in terms of your materials by two.
Speaker 1: It's a big part of your ethos. Does it cost more?
Speaker 1: Tell me about getting there, because we are increasingly seeing
Speaker 1: more and more companies doing it. Is it hard to
Speaker 1: do it? Is it costlier? Tell me about that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it costs money, so it requires investment. Um. But we
Speaker 1: believe that's it's a great r o I. But that's
Speaker 1: not the reason for doing it. We did it because
Speaker 1: the natural world was what inspired the brand and we
Speaker 1: want to make sure we're doing everything we can to
Speaker 1: protect it. And so yes, you you mentioned recycled and
Speaker 1: organic materials by two, we're on path to meet that,
Speaker 1: um that goal, but we also invested in a lot
Speaker 1: of different green initiatives talks that of our carbon footprint
Speaker 1: for the past two years UM, and yeah, those those
Speaker 1: that requires dollars to do that. We're also investing in
Speaker 1: in going plastic neutral, so UM we calculate all the
Speaker 1: plastic that we put into the environment and we take
Speaker 1: equal if not more plastic out of the ocean. So
Speaker 1: all of these require effort and require energy. It required dollars,
Speaker 1: but we believe it's the right thing to do. And
Speaker 1: you know, building a brand in alignment with a value
Speaker 1: system is really important to us and I think it's
Speaker 1: really important to our customers as well. And where do
Speaker 1: you mostly manufacture? Well, there we work with a supply
Speaker 1: chain that's that's mobile at this point, Asia, Cambodia, Vietnam,
Speaker 1: Sri Lanka, So we're we're diversified globally well. And it's
Speaker 1: interesting And I do wonder too about UM. That's certainly
Speaker 1: part of the E s G kind of framework that
Speaker 1: we are increasingly looking at when it comes to companies
Speaker 1: and certainly investments. UM. Are you gearing towards places where
Speaker 1: workers are treated more equitably and and get a fair wage.
Speaker 1: We have a whole sourcing team UM that spends a
Speaker 1: lot of time on our code of conduct UM and
Speaker 1: and being very clear with the value system that we
Speaker 1: expect our factories to operate within. And it's exciting because
Speaker 1: the more brands that are taking this next step in
Speaker 1: terms of E s G, the more the supply chain
Speaker 1: is being responsive because the best factories in the world
Speaker 1: want to work with the best brand. If the best
Speaker 1: brands are caring about this stuff, then they are as well.
Speaker 1: And so the more more energy, the more we vote
Speaker 1: with our dollars, the more the factory pay attention. UM.
Speaker 1: And so we're not only demanding it, but we're also
Speaker 1: seeing some of the best factories coming to us with
Speaker 1: really cool new program um. And that's really inspiring to see. Yeah,
Speaker 1: definitely interesting to hear, and it is inspiring. Hey, one
Speaker 1: thing I wanted to ask you after a year of
Speaker 1: many of us being kind of casual, I'm still wearing.
Speaker 1: Also some genes at work I do change for when
Speaker 1: I have to be on air. But um, there is
Speaker 1: a thing we talked about revenge buying where everybody can't
Speaker 1: wait to spend money. But there is also something like
Speaker 1: sweatpant fatigue that you guys are noticing. How is that
Speaker 1: shifting Maybe some of the things that you want to
Speaker 1: put up in terms of product offerings in the next
Speaker 1: few months, especially the world reopens. Yeah, it's a great point.
Speaker 1: I mean we are already seeing our product UM focus evolved.
Speaker 1: UM sweatpants are still growing for us as a category,
Speaker 1: but it's contribution to the overall businesses shrinking. So we're
Speaker 1: seeing people move into athletic shorts, you know, our technical
Speaker 1: sports where for traveling products that you can wear on
Speaker 1: the golf course or to the office. They're trending really
Speaker 1: strong right now, and we don't see that slowing down.
Speaker 1: But I don't think in general the movement towards healthy,
Speaker 1: active living is going anywhere. And I believe that the
Speaker 1: clothing that we make UM is very much aligned and
Speaker 1: supports that lifestyle. And so while the products that we
Speaker 1: buy might evolve a little bit out of say kind
Speaker 1: of sweatpants relying on the couch, UM into other forms
Speaker 1: of active where I think in general people are still
Speaker 1: looking for comfort, versatility, UM and performance. Yeah. I think
Speaker 1: you're right. I think people are whittling down to and
Speaker 1: and really want kind of a wardrobe that just makes
Speaker 1: sense with kind of who they are and and their work.
Speaker 1: Are you guys going to stay private? Do you want
Speaker 1: to go public? There's a lot of money out there,
Speaker 1: there's SPACs. Is that part of the timetable at all
Speaker 1: in the next year or so. You know, we're paying attention,
Speaker 1: we're getting we're getting educated on the public market, but
Speaker 1: you know, we have not made any kind of UM statement,
Speaker 1: intor or initiative to move in that direction at this point.
Speaker 1: We're so focused on growing the business. The business is
Speaker 1: going to double again this year. We're getting to a
Speaker 1: pretty sizable scale. We have four hundred and fifty employees
Speaker 1: UM and so we have our work cut out with
Speaker 1: for us building kind of a back end engine that
Speaker 1: can support the front and we're very excited about what
Speaker 1: we're doing with our product pipeline. We're going to be
Speaker 1: expanding nationally with our bory retail stores UM and continue
Speaker 1: to invest in sustainability. So we have our work cut
Speaker 1: out for us. That's Joe Coodlave, the founder and CEO
Speaker 1: of Theory Joggers. I do have joggers, Carol their joggers.
Speaker 1: I don't have their joggers. My wife got me a
Speaker 1: pair a few years ago from my birthday. They are
Speaker 1: comfy and you love them. I do. I gotta put
Speaker 1: that on my two buy list. That wraps up the
Speaker 1: weekend edition of Bloomberg Business Week from Bloomberg Radio. Thanks
Speaker 1: so much for joining us. I'm Carol Masser and I'm
Speaker 1: Tim Stanovak. Be sure to tune into our Bloomberg Business
Speaker 1: Week Daily show Monday through Friday. It starts at two
Speaker 1: pm Wall Street Time on Bloomberg Radio. You can also
Speaker 1: watch us on our daily broadcast on YouTube. Just search
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Global News and check out our Bloomberg Business Week podcast.
Speaker 1: You can find it at Bloomberg dot com, Apple, or
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts. You can also find Carol's
Speaker 1: recent chat with Nancy Wilson of Heart out now with
Speaker 1: her first solo album, I Loved It, Carol, it was
Speaker 1: we fund to catch up with her. I gotta say
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Business Week. It's available on newstands now, at Bloomberg
Speaker 1: dot com and on the Bloomberg Terminal. You can also
Speaker 1: see me at Bloomberg Quick Take available at Bloomberg dot com,
Speaker 1: slash qt, and streaming platforms like Roku, Apple TV, Samsung TV,
Speaker 1: and more. Have a great weekend. Stay safe everyone. This
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg