WEBVTT - BlackRock Shows Disproportionately Big Passive Gun Ownership: Balchunas

0:00:05.800 --> 0:00:08.720
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg p m L Podcast. I'm pim Fox.

0:00:08.760 --> 0:00:11.520
<v Speaker 1>Along with my co host Lisa Bramowitz. Each day we

0:00:11.640 --> 0:00:15.120
<v Speaker 1>bring you the most important, noteworthy, and useful interviews for

0:00:15.200 --> 0:00:17.840
<v Speaker 1>you and your money, whether you're at the grocery store

0:00:17.960 --> 0:00:20.720
<v Speaker 1>or the trading floor. Find the Bloomberg p m L

0:00:20.840 --> 0:00:33.080
<v Speaker 1>Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and Bloomberg dot com. Following

0:00:33.320 --> 0:00:36.720
<v Speaker 1>the latest school shooting in Florida, there has been a

0:00:36.880 --> 0:00:41.600
<v Speaker 1>spotlight on who owns the shares of the world's biggest gunmakers,

0:00:41.880 --> 0:00:45.440
<v Speaker 1>and it turns out, perhaps not surprisingly, it is the

0:00:45.520 --> 0:00:49.360
<v Speaker 1>largest asset managers that have a lot of passive funds,

0:00:49.479 --> 0:00:52.519
<v Speaker 1>or funds that seek only to track indexes that have

0:00:52.600 --> 0:00:55.000
<v Speaker 1>gained a ton of assets in the past few years.

0:00:55.000 --> 0:00:57.840
<v Speaker 1>Here to talk about the implications of this, Eric Beltunus,

0:00:57.880 --> 0:01:00.840
<v Speaker 1>who is an expert in everything and anything related to funds,

0:01:01.280 --> 0:01:03.640
<v Speaker 1>but he specializes in E t F Senior et F

0:01:03.680 --> 0:01:06.720
<v Speaker 1>analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence, and he happens to be here

0:01:06.760 --> 0:01:09.199
<v Speaker 1>in New York today in our leven three studios. Eric,

0:01:09.360 --> 0:01:15.320
<v Speaker 1>let's start with how significant is passive ownership of gun

0:01:15.440 --> 0:01:19.480
<v Speaker 1>related shares? Okay, so I crunched the numbers before coming

0:01:19.520 --> 0:01:21.600
<v Speaker 1>on air today and I will have a note coming

0:01:21.600 --> 0:01:24.759
<v Speaker 1>out thank you for the inspiration. Um. Yeah, we're looking

0:01:24.800 --> 0:01:27.959
<v Speaker 1>at passive ownership. Let's say if the SMP in general

0:01:28.040 --> 0:01:32.119
<v Speaker 1>is about right, that's the average passive ownership. It's about

0:01:32.200 --> 0:01:36.640
<v Speaker 1>double for some gunstocks. So r g R right, that's

0:01:36.640 --> 0:01:39.720
<v Speaker 1>owned by passive funds. AO b C, which is the

0:01:39.880 --> 0:01:43.679
<v Speaker 1>one everybody's really honing in on, is owned by passive funds.

0:01:44.760 --> 0:01:46.959
<v Speaker 1>VISTA vs. T O is the ticker that one is

0:01:47.960 --> 0:01:50.680
<v Speaker 1>owned by passive, and then half of that is ETF.

0:01:50.760 --> 0:01:54.640
<v Speaker 1>Remember passive is index funds and ETFs combined. So that's

0:01:54.680 --> 0:01:56.640
<v Speaker 1>where you get. So we're looking at a quarter to

0:01:56.720 --> 0:01:59.440
<v Speaker 1>a third of these big gun stocks are owned by

0:01:59.720 --> 0:02:02.320
<v Speaker 1>path of funds. Why why do they own Why do

0:02:02.440 --> 0:02:05.360
<v Speaker 1>passive funds own so much more of these gunstocks than

0:02:05.400 --> 0:02:08.760
<v Speaker 1>they do other stocks. Here's why these gunstocks aren't that big. Right,

0:02:08.800 --> 0:02:11.919
<v Speaker 1>when you're a mid cap, small cap sized stock, you

0:02:12.040 --> 0:02:14.040
<v Speaker 1>end up getting into a lot of e t s.

0:02:14.120 --> 0:02:16.120
<v Speaker 1>Those are the ones that usually have bigger passive ownership

0:02:16.360 --> 0:02:19.799
<v Speaker 1>than say like Apple. Here's why. So like black Rock,

0:02:19.919 --> 0:02:23.120
<v Speaker 1>for example, you look at American outdoor brands, that's the

0:02:23.160 --> 0:02:25.560
<v Speaker 1>one everybody seems to be focusing on. Black Rock owns

0:02:25.600 --> 0:02:27.920
<v Speaker 1>eleven percent of that company, It's by far the biggest owner.

0:02:28.000 --> 0:02:30.919
<v Speaker 1>Why half of that ownership comes from one tick or

0:02:31.000 --> 0:02:33.560
<v Speaker 1>I t A, which is the Aerospace and Defense ETF,

0:02:34.040 --> 0:02:37.320
<v Speaker 1>which is now a six billion dollar et F. Why Well,

0:02:37.320 --> 0:02:39.880
<v Speaker 1>because it's crushing the SNP. It's up like thirty five

0:02:40.200 --> 0:02:42.160
<v Speaker 1>in the past year, it's doubled in size, and term's

0:02:42.160 --> 0:02:45.000
<v Speaker 1>gotten flows and the asset prices have gone up, which

0:02:45.080 --> 0:02:47.799
<v Speaker 1>begs are really a question for black Rock. You have

0:02:47.840 --> 0:02:50.480
<v Speaker 1>an aerospace and defense ETF, people would buy that. I'm

0:02:50.520 --> 0:02:53.799
<v Speaker 1>assuming hoping you include those companies. Are you going to

0:02:53.919 --> 0:02:55.880
<v Speaker 1>kick out or try to get the index to kick

0:02:55.880 --> 0:02:59.079
<v Speaker 1>out a gunmaker from an aerospace and defense ETF. This

0:02:59.240 --> 0:03:01.440
<v Speaker 1>is a conundral them that Larry Fink will have to

0:03:01.520 --> 0:03:05.440
<v Speaker 1>figure out. I think that you connected that just perfectly

0:03:05.480 --> 0:03:07.200
<v Speaker 1>to where I'm going next to me, Because black Rock

0:03:07.280 --> 0:03:10.720
<v Speaker 1>is saying they're going to engage with gunmakers. What can

0:03:11.000 --> 0:03:15.400
<v Speaker 1>black Rock and other passive managers like Vanguard or you know, Fidelity,

0:03:16.000 --> 0:03:19.639
<v Speaker 1>what can they do if they really aren't going to

0:03:19.840 --> 0:03:22.919
<v Speaker 1>kick a name out of an e t F. They can't.

0:03:23.480 --> 0:03:26.040
<v Speaker 1>What can they do? Yeah, they are married they cannot

0:03:26.040 --> 0:03:29.480
<v Speaker 1>get divorced. It's like the old days. We're not getting divorced.

0:03:29.520 --> 0:03:32.120
<v Speaker 1>We're gonna stay married. Um, so look, you're gonna have

0:03:32.240 --> 0:03:34.480
<v Speaker 1>a black Rock. I'm a big fan of setting the tone.

0:03:34.840 --> 0:03:38.160
<v Speaker 1>Larry Fink's got a big megaphone, right, so just saying

0:03:38.320 --> 0:03:41.320
<v Speaker 1>things out loud, getting people like us to talk about it.

0:03:41.440 --> 0:03:44.480
<v Speaker 1>This helps move the needle in a public relations aspect.

0:03:44.880 --> 0:03:47.040
<v Speaker 1>Does it do anything to the ownership of the stocks

0:03:47.080 --> 0:03:49.960
<v Speaker 1>and the e T F s? No? Will it? Maybe

0:03:50.320 --> 0:03:53.400
<v Speaker 1>will these companies maybe look to imple implement some programs.

0:03:53.560 --> 0:03:56.440
<v Speaker 1>Maybe the bigger thing they can do and what they

0:03:56.480 --> 0:03:58.160
<v Speaker 1>have done in the past. There was a big issue

0:03:58.200 --> 0:04:02.040
<v Speaker 1>with dual class shares that where company basically once your

0:04:02.080 --> 0:04:03.720
<v Speaker 1>money but not your vote. Where they you know, the

0:04:03.920 --> 0:04:07.040
<v Speaker 1>tech companies do it. Black Rock and Vanguard got the

0:04:07.280 --> 0:04:11.440
<v Speaker 1>SMP SMP people to basically ban dual share classes going forward,

0:04:11.480 --> 0:04:13.480
<v Speaker 1>so Snap will never be in the SMP five hundred

0:04:13.800 --> 0:04:16.080
<v Speaker 1>because of that. That was a big win and that

0:04:16.240 --> 0:04:20.160
<v Speaker 1>directly affects a company like Snap and other companies moving forward.

0:04:20.400 --> 0:04:23.240
<v Speaker 1>If they were to want to exclude gunmakers from the

0:04:23.360 --> 0:04:26.599
<v Speaker 1>big indexes, they that would be the way to really

0:04:26.720 --> 0:04:30.080
<v Speaker 1>do it. However, then you've got Larry Fink making political

0:04:30.200 --> 0:04:33.040
<v Speaker 1>decisions for you, and that then is that right? Then

0:04:33.120 --> 0:04:35.680
<v Speaker 1>then you're gonna have that's you know, people worry about

0:04:35.720 --> 0:04:39.240
<v Speaker 1>passive so making the capital markets turn into like socialism.

0:04:39.560 --> 0:04:42.479
<v Speaker 1>This seems to be a slippery slope going that direction. Right. Well,

0:04:42.520 --> 0:04:44.800
<v Speaker 1>that's that's what I was going to ask. You know,

0:04:44.880 --> 0:04:47.480
<v Speaker 1>how political can they go? And and you know, do

0:04:47.600 --> 0:04:50.560
<v Speaker 1>we have any inclination of what investors really want? I mean,

0:04:51.279 --> 0:04:54.760
<v Speaker 1>do most investors care? Right? So? I think they care.

0:04:54.880 --> 0:04:56.680
<v Speaker 1>There are options for them, Like there's a host of

0:04:56.760 --> 0:04:58.840
<v Speaker 1>e s g ts that purposely have come along and

0:04:58.920 --> 0:05:01.240
<v Speaker 1>say we can either give stocks that are good for

0:05:01.360 --> 0:05:05.880
<v Speaker 1>E s G or will eliminate government. They need a

0:05:05.920 --> 0:05:07.719
<v Speaker 1>new acronym that that's part of the problem that they

0:05:07.720 --> 0:05:11.360
<v Speaker 1>haven't been a hit. I think the acronym is needs work. Well.

0:05:11.400 --> 0:05:13.200
<v Speaker 1>Impact investing is a big one. I just think they

0:05:13.200 --> 0:05:16.880
<v Speaker 1>should call liberal values because that's who they're appealing to anyway. Um,

0:05:17.120 --> 0:05:19.200
<v Speaker 1>you know there's an e t F that's um the

0:05:19.440 --> 0:05:22.160
<v Speaker 1>GOP stock track or et F that will that will

0:05:22.240 --> 0:05:25.119
<v Speaker 1>hold a bunch of gunstocks. You also have other types

0:05:25.160 --> 0:05:27.719
<v Speaker 1>of e t fs that purposely hold those like industrial

0:05:27.839 --> 0:05:30.280
<v Speaker 1>ct f s. That's fine, you go there for those.

0:05:30.360 --> 0:05:31.599
<v Speaker 1>You can go to E s G if you don't

0:05:31.600 --> 0:05:33.560
<v Speaker 1>want them. The question is this middle ground of like

0:05:33.600 --> 0:05:37.159
<v Speaker 1>the SMP five hundred, and that's where do you want

0:05:37.520 --> 0:05:40.839
<v Speaker 1>Vanguard and and black Rock to basically take up their issues.

0:05:41.440 --> 0:05:44.160
<v Speaker 1>My view on this personally is that when you hire

0:05:44.200 --> 0:05:46.800
<v Speaker 1>a passive manager, I think what you really want them

0:05:46.839 --> 0:05:49.360
<v Speaker 1>to do is just make sure that the uh sort

0:05:49.400 --> 0:05:52.560
<v Speaker 1>of the boundaries and the rules are really set. You

0:05:52.600 --> 0:05:55.480
<v Speaker 1>have an independent board, you're pushing for good E s

0:05:55.520 --> 0:05:58.719
<v Speaker 1>G policies, But do you do you take up an

0:05:58.760 --> 0:06:01.320
<v Speaker 1>issue that's important just to that person and force a

0:06:01.400 --> 0:06:04.240
<v Speaker 1>company out of an index. I probably, I don't know

0:06:04.360 --> 0:06:06.600
<v Speaker 1>if that will happen, but having his voice in there

0:06:06.680 --> 0:06:09.880
<v Speaker 1>definitely affects the public relation aspect of this entire issue.

0:06:10.200 --> 0:06:12.240
<v Speaker 1>Although he has to be careful because, as you said,

0:06:12.440 --> 0:06:13.880
<v Speaker 1>a lot of people are worried the E t F

0:06:13.960 --> 0:06:16.320
<v Speaker 1>so sort of a slippery slope to socialism. So if

0:06:16.320 --> 0:06:21.440
<v Speaker 1>he starts weighing in on big political and politically polarizing issues, uh,

0:06:21.640 --> 0:06:25.000
<v Speaker 1>then he risks some political interference. Thank you so much.

0:06:25.120 --> 0:06:27.560
<v Speaker 1>Eric Belchin is always enlightening. Eric Balcin a senior E

0:06:27.600 --> 0:06:31.040
<v Speaker 1>T F analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence, and black Rock is

0:06:31.080 --> 0:06:35.080
<v Speaker 1>saying that they will engage with gunmakers that they own

0:06:35.120 --> 0:06:51.680
<v Speaker 1>the shares for after the Florida shooting. So it is

0:06:51.760 --> 0:06:53.760
<v Speaker 1>that time we take a look at the municipal bond

0:06:53.839 --> 0:06:56.560
<v Speaker 1>market and it's a particularly interesting time to do so.

0:06:56.760 --> 0:06:59.800
<v Speaker 1>Borrowing costs are going up. What does this mean for

0:07:00.279 --> 0:07:03.599
<v Speaker 1>states and local governments that are looking to borrow money?

0:07:03.680 --> 0:07:06.599
<v Speaker 1>And Eric Kazatski is joining us right now, easy municipal

0:07:06.640 --> 0:07:09.680
<v Speaker 1>bond strategist for Bloomberg Intelligence. Thank you so much for

0:07:09.840 --> 0:07:12.480
<v Speaker 1>joining us. Eric, Can you just give us the big

0:07:12.760 --> 0:07:15.600
<v Speaker 1>picture so far this year? What have we seen a

0:07:15.680 --> 0:07:18.200
<v Speaker 1>municipal bond markets and what does it mean uh for

0:07:18.360 --> 0:07:22.040
<v Speaker 1>states and local governments? Sure, good morning, Thanks for having me.

0:07:22.680 --> 0:07:24.240
<v Speaker 1>So we put out a note a couple of weeks

0:07:24.240 --> 0:07:26.760
<v Speaker 1>ago and we equated the mini market this year to

0:07:27.080 --> 0:07:30.080
<v Speaker 1>the upside down from stranger things. You know, it's it's

0:07:30.120 --> 0:07:32.920
<v Speaker 1>almost been a confluence of events where nothing is behaving

0:07:32.960 --> 0:07:36.760
<v Speaker 1>as it really should from an intuitive standpoint. Um, we've

0:07:36.800 --> 0:07:39.480
<v Speaker 1>had consistent flows into the sector this year. We're almost

0:07:39.560 --> 0:07:42.560
<v Speaker 1>up nine nine and a half billion dollars um and

0:07:42.760 --> 0:07:45.360
<v Speaker 1>yet we're looking at losses UM across the board in

0:07:45.400 --> 0:07:48.160
<v Speaker 1>the indicase, and that's more a function of us just

0:07:48.360 --> 0:07:50.880
<v Speaker 1>following where treasuries have been on a rate basis. But

0:07:51.120 --> 0:07:52.880
<v Speaker 1>you know, your original question was what does it mean

0:07:52.920 --> 0:07:55.120
<v Speaker 1>for state and local governments? It means the cost of

0:07:55.200 --> 0:07:58.880
<v Speaker 1>borrowing is going up as rates are taking higher. So

0:07:59.480 --> 0:08:01.239
<v Speaker 1>it's I think that in your note you said about

0:08:01.600 --> 0:08:05.559
<v Speaker 1>half percent higher the yields are on a musable bonds

0:08:05.640 --> 0:08:08.120
<v Speaker 1>right now. And this is interesting because there has been

0:08:08.320 --> 0:08:11.200
<v Speaker 1>such a flood of cash into municipal bond funds. Um.

0:08:11.560 --> 0:08:16.400
<v Speaker 1>Is this enough to derail any financing plans by any

0:08:16.480 --> 0:08:20.560
<v Speaker 1>local governments? Not that we're hearing. I mean, pipelines as

0:08:20.600 --> 0:08:24.240
<v Speaker 1>far as public finance are are still pretty thin right now. UM.

0:08:24.320 --> 0:08:26.480
<v Speaker 1>But I think that borrowers they need to borrow, I

0:08:26.520 --> 0:08:29.200
<v Speaker 1>mean on a on a net basis. The barn and

0:08:29.240 --> 0:08:31.720
<v Speaker 1>cross are still low. When you look across historical rates

0:08:31.880 --> 0:08:34.640
<v Speaker 1>over the last twenty thirty years, UM, they just look

0:08:35.080 --> 0:08:38.640
<v Speaker 1>higher compared to the last let's say twenty four months. UM.

0:08:39.080 --> 0:08:41.199
<v Speaker 1>But you know that goes both ways. You know, for

0:08:41.240 --> 0:08:43.319
<v Speaker 1>people who have cash on the sidelines are looking to

0:08:43.600 --> 0:08:46.640
<v Speaker 1>enter the market. Um. You know there are some decent

0:08:46.760 --> 0:08:48.719
<v Speaker 1>entry points right now because they can take advantage of

0:08:48.840 --> 0:08:50.719
<v Speaker 1>higher rates. All right, So what are you focusing on

0:08:50.920 --> 0:08:54.120
<v Speaker 1>is a possible good entry point. I mean, we're looking

0:08:54.240 --> 0:08:56.319
<v Speaker 1>right now at ratios and double A and single A

0:08:56.440 --> 0:09:00.280
<v Speaker 1>rating classes compared to like graded corporates, and so you

0:09:00.360 --> 0:09:03.600
<v Speaker 1>get further out the YO curve in like ten thirty years, Um,

0:09:03.679 --> 0:09:06.880
<v Speaker 1>you can actually pick up some decent spread over those. Um.

0:09:07.120 --> 0:09:10.040
<v Speaker 1>We're seeing that in both revenue and geo bonds, um.

0:09:10.200 --> 0:09:11.760
<v Speaker 1>You know. And what we do is we compare the

0:09:11.920 --> 0:09:16.160
<v Speaker 1>ratios of the tax exemple rates to the actual corporate,

0:09:16.360 --> 0:09:19.360
<v Speaker 1>just like buyer would deal if they're evaluating tax exemptly

0:09:19.400 --> 0:09:22.240
<v Speaker 1>inssible to treasury um, you know, just to sort of

0:09:22.320 --> 0:09:24.640
<v Speaker 1>lease as a litmus test of you know, are they cheap?

0:09:24.679 --> 0:09:26.959
<v Speaker 1>Are they rich? And most of the ratios that we're

0:09:26.960 --> 0:09:29.720
<v Speaker 1>looking at her above their fifty two week averages. UM.

0:09:30.120 --> 0:09:32.120
<v Speaker 1>You know. One thing that I'm struck by as you

0:09:32.280 --> 0:09:34.920
<v Speaker 1>talk is that you're saying there is a flood of

0:09:34.960 --> 0:09:39.000
<v Speaker 1>money coming in from investors. There isn't that much issuance

0:09:39.160 --> 0:09:43.920
<v Speaker 1>from local governments, and yet still yields are rising. That

0:09:44.120 --> 0:09:46.920
<v Speaker 1>seems odd and it seems like a red flag. Can

0:09:47.000 --> 0:09:50.120
<v Speaker 1>you speak to that. Yeah, I mean yields are rising

0:09:50.320 --> 0:09:54.120
<v Speaker 1>to a much lesser degree than where treasury rates are going. UM.

0:09:54.240 --> 0:09:56.160
<v Speaker 1>And we've seen this particularly in the short end of

0:09:56.200 --> 0:09:58.800
<v Speaker 1>the curve. And you know, in my opinion, that's where

0:09:58.880 --> 0:10:00.719
<v Speaker 1>the investors are sort of be the rotating out of

0:10:00.760 --> 0:10:03.280
<v Speaker 1>long duration bonds or they're sort of finding out in

0:10:03.360 --> 0:10:05.640
<v Speaker 1>that short area of the curve. You know, just with

0:10:05.720 --> 0:10:09.520
<v Speaker 1>all this interest rate uncertainty. So you've seen rates you

0:10:09.679 --> 0:10:11.480
<v Speaker 1>really sort of take off in the two year treasury

0:10:11.640 --> 0:10:14.120
<v Speaker 1>and demand has been so high in the muni sector

0:10:14.280 --> 0:10:15.719
<v Speaker 1>that if you sort of look at where rates have

0:10:15.800 --> 0:10:18.520
<v Speaker 1>been in a two year space, they've been fairly flat.

0:10:18.640 --> 0:10:21.080
<v Speaker 1>Over the last let's say two three weeks, so UM,

0:10:21.280 --> 0:10:24.880
<v Speaker 1>the ratios have ticked down UM. And so you've seen

0:10:25.400 --> 0:10:27.280
<v Speaker 1>that reflective and spun flows as well as some of

0:10:27.320 --> 0:10:29.800
<v Speaker 1>the money market funds have seen a nice uptick in

0:10:30.320 --> 0:10:33.640
<v Speaker 1>cash coming in. You know, I'm struck by the end

0:10:33.840 --> 0:10:37.440
<v Speaker 1>of last year when people were talking about how are

0:10:37.480 --> 0:10:39.880
<v Speaker 1>actually the year before, the end of the year before,

0:10:39.880 --> 0:10:41.920
<v Speaker 1>and people are saying, well, you know, tax reform is

0:10:41.920 --> 0:10:44.000
<v Speaker 1>going to come and it's going to cut taxes on people,

0:10:44.160 --> 0:10:45.840
<v Speaker 1>and then they're not going to want to buy municipal

0:10:45.920 --> 0:10:49.319
<v Speaker 1>bonds because that a lot of people go into this

0:10:49.559 --> 0:10:54.240
<v Speaker 1>debt for the tax benefit. And I'm wondering what happened

0:10:54.280 --> 0:10:55.800
<v Speaker 1>to that narrative, because we did get a taxed, we

0:10:55.840 --> 0:10:57.920
<v Speaker 1>did get a tax overall. Yeah, I mean, I think

0:10:57.960 --> 0:11:01.520
<v Speaker 1>on the margin for individual and ushers, the tickdown in

0:11:01.600 --> 0:11:03.520
<v Speaker 1>top tax straight from thirty nine point six to thirty

0:11:03.520 --> 0:11:05.640
<v Speaker 1>seven percent UM. I don't want to say it was

0:11:05.679 --> 0:11:07.840
<v Speaker 1>in nothing burger, but you know, based on the cash

0:11:08.000 --> 0:11:10.480
<v Speaker 1>is coming in, it didn't really seem to deter the

0:11:10.559 --> 0:11:13.800
<v Speaker 1>investor appetite UM. And and there's still benefit there when

0:11:13.800 --> 0:11:16.520
<v Speaker 1>you look across some other asset classes and that you know,

0:11:16.600 --> 0:11:19.200
<v Speaker 1>coming in and buying meanings UM on a comparative basis.

0:11:19.760 --> 0:11:22.559
<v Speaker 1>So I think that the biggest change we've seen from

0:11:22.640 --> 0:11:25.360
<v Speaker 1>a tax reform basis is just the dearth of supply

0:11:25.480 --> 0:11:27.400
<v Speaker 1>that we have right now. We pulled so much supply

0:11:27.559 --> 0:11:31.600
<v Speaker 1>into seen based on the fear factor that we didn't

0:11:31.600 --> 0:11:33.240
<v Speaker 1>know what was going to happen with the final version

0:11:33.280 --> 0:11:36.280
<v Speaker 1>of tax reform, and now the market, which is a

0:11:36.320 --> 0:11:39.160
<v Speaker 1>supply drive, the market is sitting around looking for where

0:11:39.200 --> 0:11:42.400
<v Speaker 1>that supply is going to come from. Now, so, uh,

0:11:42.800 --> 0:11:45.800
<v Speaker 1>just a real quick do anyone care anymore about the

0:11:45.840 --> 0:11:50.960
<v Speaker 1>pension deficits? I do? Good, I just want to, I mean, honestly,

0:11:51.000 --> 0:11:53.600
<v Speaker 1>there is a tweet by a former Cowper's board member

0:11:54.200 --> 0:11:57.439
<v Speaker 1>basically saying that Cowper's is heading towards insolvency. CalPERS the

0:11:57.520 --> 0:12:01.920
<v Speaker 1>biggest public pension plan. You care about this? Of course

0:12:02.000 --> 0:12:05.640
<v Speaker 1>we do, UM and one of the things we look at, obviously,

0:12:05.720 --> 0:12:08.520
<v Speaker 1>when we looked at UM, the individual credit ratios of

0:12:08.559 --> 0:12:09.959
<v Speaker 1>a bar where is one of the things we look

0:12:09.960 --> 0:12:12.760
<v Speaker 1>at is obviously they're their leverage ratios and pensions are

0:12:12.800 --> 0:12:15.040
<v Speaker 1>one of the things that factors into that. UM. I

0:12:15.080 --> 0:12:17.120
<v Speaker 1>think California has some issues coming up as far as

0:12:17.160 --> 0:12:20.040
<v Speaker 1>some some court cases which UM, depending on the outcome,

0:12:20.120 --> 0:12:22.719
<v Speaker 1>and I'm certainly not a legal expert. UM, you know,

0:12:22.800 --> 0:12:26.520
<v Speaker 1>might have ratifications across pension plans, you know, across the US.

0:12:42.360 --> 0:12:45.240
<v Speaker 1>We are listening to President Trump. He is speaking at

0:12:45.400 --> 0:12:51.400
<v Speaker 1>the Conservative Political Action Conference in Maryland. His speech sounds

0:12:51.880 --> 0:12:54.000
<v Speaker 1>like it is sounding a lot of the notes that

0:12:54.160 --> 0:12:57.880
<v Speaker 1>he sounded during his campaign. Talked about coming through with

0:12:58.080 --> 0:13:01.040
<v Speaker 1>a lot of his campaign prom us. Is one of

0:13:01.160 --> 0:13:03.959
<v Speaker 1>his comments that drew the most applause was when he

0:13:04.040 --> 0:13:06.800
<v Speaker 1>asked the crowd, which would you rather, tax cuts or

0:13:06.920 --> 0:13:10.599
<v Speaker 1>the Second Amendment? Uh, And they seem to cheer for

0:13:10.679 --> 0:13:13.200
<v Speaker 1>the Second Amendment and say they take away the Second Amendment,

0:13:13.280 --> 0:13:16.240
<v Speaker 1>which we will not allow to happen again. A standing

0:13:16.840 --> 0:13:19.720
<v Speaker 1>ovation right now. I want to bring in to Lou Oloronipa,

0:13:19.760 --> 0:13:23.160
<v Speaker 1>our White House correspondent for Bloomberg, to Lou what stood

0:13:23.160 --> 0:13:26.839
<v Speaker 1>out to you the most so far with the speech? Well,

0:13:26.880 --> 0:13:29.439
<v Speaker 1>it's how much the president is comfortable and willing to

0:13:29.520 --> 0:13:31.760
<v Speaker 1>go off script when he's in a friendly environment. That

0:13:31.920 --> 0:13:34.360
<v Speaker 1>the president has very low poll numbers, but when he

0:13:34.400 --> 0:13:37.640
<v Speaker 1>gets in front of his most ardent supporters and the

0:13:37.760 --> 0:13:40.560
<v Speaker 1>conservative movement, he really lets loose and he talked about

0:13:40.800 --> 0:13:42.920
<v Speaker 1>a number of things that were red meat for the base.

0:13:43.000 --> 0:13:46.520
<v Speaker 1>Talked about the national anthem, talked about the Second Amendment

0:13:46.559 --> 0:13:49.679
<v Speaker 1>and how you know, beating Hillary Clinton and helped to

0:13:49.720 --> 0:13:53.040
<v Speaker 1>save the Second Amendment from being eliminated. The president is

0:13:53.080 --> 0:13:55.160
<v Speaker 1>really reverting to a lot of his old ways. You're

0:13:55.160 --> 0:13:56.800
<v Speaker 1>hearing a lot of the stories that he told on

0:13:56.840 --> 0:13:59.600
<v Speaker 1>the campaign trail and shortly after winning the presidency, even

0:13:59.640 --> 0:14:03.760
<v Speaker 1>talking about, uh, the Yellow Electoral College versus a popular vote.

0:14:03.800 --> 0:14:06.880
<v Speaker 1>So we're not really seeing a president that has changed

0:14:07.080 --> 0:14:10.080
<v Speaker 1>very much and really grown into the presidency. We're seeing, uh,

0:14:10.280 --> 0:14:13.920
<v Speaker 1>the vintage Donald Trump that we've long talked about and

0:14:14.160 --> 0:14:16.559
<v Speaker 1>and and seen on the on the on the you know,

0:14:16.720 --> 0:14:18.800
<v Speaker 1>on the world stage. He hasn't really changed very much.

0:14:18.840 --> 0:14:20.640
<v Speaker 1>It seems like he's very much doubling down on a

0:14:20.720 --> 0:14:23.360
<v Speaker 1>lot of the policies and strategies that he's used in

0:14:23.440 --> 0:14:27.520
<v Speaker 1>the past. Uh. And this gun debates, he's recently talking about,

0:14:28.160 --> 0:14:30.160
<v Speaker 1>you know, wanting to arm more teachers and get rid

0:14:30.200 --> 0:14:32.320
<v Speaker 1>of gun free zones. He's really talking about it in

0:14:32.400 --> 0:14:35.440
<v Speaker 1>a way that it's more plaudible to his base. He's

0:14:35.480 --> 0:14:37.720
<v Speaker 1>not talking about the gun control measures that he wants

0:14:37.760 --> 0:14:41.240
<v Speaker 1>to implement, including, you know, raising the age first, you know,

0:14:41.320 --> 0:14:44.200
<v Speaker 1>the purchase of some firearms from eighteen to twenty one,

0:14:44.680 --> 0:14:47.880
<v Speaker 1>expanding background checks and even taking on mental illnesses and

0:14:47.960 --> 0:14:51.160
<v Speaker 1>maybe making it harder for some people, uh to get

0:14:51.640 --> 0:14:53.720
<v Speaker 1>to get guns. Can you give us a sense of

0:14:53.800 --> 0:14:56.720
<v Speaker 1>who is at SPACK? I mean, who is the audience there?

0:14:58.360 --> 0:15:04.040
<v Speaker 1>These are very servatives, activists, members, a lot of young people, uh,

0:15:04.160 --> 0:15:06.240
<v Speaker 1>people who are from the right wing of the party.

0:15:06.320 --> 0:15:08.520
<v Speaker 1>So members of the House Freedom Caucus that would be

0:15:08.680 --> 0:15:11.440
<v Speaker 1>very at home among this crowd. These are people who

0:15:12.240 --> 0:15:14.360
<v Speaker 1>like the red meat that the president throws out. They're

0:15:14.480 --> 0:15:17.560
<v Speaker 1>very active on social media and and they want to

0:15:18.080 --> 0:15:20.400
<v Speaker 1>you know, sort of the Donald Trump from the campaign

0:15:20.440 --> 0:15:22.600
<v Speaker 1>trail who talked about building the wall and you heard

0:15:22.640 --> 0:15:24.680
<v Speaker 1>the pants of block her up during the speech. So

0:15:24.760 --> 0:15:28.000
<v Speaker 1>these are the President's that this is really the president's space,

0:15:28.080 --> 0:15:30.320
<v Speaker 1>the people that he's really been catering to for the

0:15:30.800 --> 0:15:33.880
<v Speaker 1>majority of his presidency. And you said that it is

0:15:34.040 --> 0:15:37.080
<v Speaker 1>interesting that he feels really comfortable able to go off script.

0:15:37.120 --> 0:15:40.240
<v Speaker 1>Even made a note that his scripted speech was too boring. Um,

0:15:40.320 --> 0:15:43.440
<v Speaker 1>I'm wondering from your perspective, did he say anything that

0:15:43.600 --> 0:15:47.240
<v Speaker 1>you think will be controversial among congressmen who are part

0:15:47.320 --> 0:15:51.880
<v Speaker 1>of the Republican Party. Yeah. One thing that we we

0:15:51.960 --> 0:15:55.480
<v Speaker 1>saw and this isn't too shocking for the President Trump,

0:15:55.520 --> 0:15:58.720
<v Speaker 1>but uh, he took a swipe at the Senator John McCain,

0:15:58.800 --> 0:16:01.560
<v Speaker 1>who is back in theres a fighting against brain cancer,

0:16:01.680 --> 0:16:03.480
<v Speaker 1>has been fighting for his life for the better part

0:16:03.560 --> 0:16:06.560
<v Speaker 1>of uh four or five months now, and President Trump

0:16:06.640 --> 0:16:10.600
<v Speaker 1>attacked him over his vote on Obamacare last year. Uh,

0:16:10.720 --> 0:16:13.400
<v Speaker 1>this is something that it really has rubbed a lot

0:16:13.440 --> 0:16:15.680
<v Speaker 1>of senators the wrong way, and we've become a little

0:16:15.680 --> 0:16:18.760
<v Speaker 1>bit desensitized to it. But the President really went after

0:16:18.880 --> 0:16:23.920
<v Speaker 1>Senator McCain, who is trusted and very revered member of

0:16:23.960 --> 0:16:27.760
<v Speaker 1>the Republican Party. Uh. He attacked him by not by name,

0:16:27.840 --> 0:16:29.800
<v Speaker 1>but everyone knew what he was talking about. And I

0:16:29.840 --> 0:16:33.080
<v Speaker 1>think that's something that Republicans UH are are are going

0:16:33.160 --> 0:16:35.720
<v Speaker 1>to really not be too happy about, because this is

0:16:35.800 --> 0:16:38.280
<v Speaker 1>someone who's really struggling and really going through a tough

0:16:38.400 --> 0:16:41.880
<v Speaker 1>time and there thinking about him and positive ways. And

0:16:41.960 --> 0:16:43.880
<v Speaker 1>here you have a president sort of getting up the

0:16:43.920 --> 0:16:47.640
<v Speaker 1>crowd to boo uh Senator McCain, who has long been

0:16:47.680 --> 0:16:49.800
<v Speaker 1>known as an American hero for his time in Vietnam

0:16:49.920 --> 0:16:51.720
<v Speaker 1>and for all of his time serving the public in

0:16:51.760 --> 0:16:54.520
<v Speaker 1>the Senate. So I think you'll hear more coverage of

0:16:54.640 --> 0:16:57.320
<v Speaker 1>that and the days to come, maybe even here some

0:16:57.520 --> 0:17:01.640
<v Speaker 1>senators UH talk nealy about the President's decision to go

0:17:01.720 --> 0:17:05.159
<v Speaker 1>against one of their own, and it'll be interesting to

0:17:05.200 --> 0:17:07.879
<v Speaker 1>see what the reaction is to that. Tolu laurinovall let

0:17:07.920 --> 0:17:09.720
<v Speaker 1>you go and listen to the render of the speech

0:17:09.760 --> 0:17:12.960
<v Speaker 1>to Lu Laarnova, White House correspondent for Bloomberg coming to

0:17:13.080 --> 0:17:17.040
<v Speaker 1>us from Washington, d C. Speaking about President Trump's comments

0:17:17.119 --> 0:17:20.240
<v Speaker 1>at the Conservative Political Action Conference. We will bring you

0:17:20.320 --> 0:17:23.320
<v Speaker 1>headlines if he says anything that you need to be

0:17:23.520 --> 0:17:30.080
<v Speaker 1>aware of. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg P and

0:17:30.160 --> 0:17:33.200
<v Speaker 1>L podcast. You can subscribe and listen to interviews at

0:17:33.240 --> 0:17:37.680
<v Speaker 1>Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whatever podcast platform you prefer. I'm

0:17:37.720 --> 0:17:41.159
<v Speaker 1>Pim Fox. I'm on Twitter at pim Fox. I'm on

0:17:41.200 --> 0:17:44.480
<v Speaker 1>Twitter at Lisa Abramo. It's one before the podcast. You

0:17:44.520 --> 0:17:47.000
<v Speaker 1>can always catch us worldwide on Bloomberg Radio