Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to the Votes and Verdicts podcast, hosted
Speaker 1: by the Litigation and Policy team here at Bloomberg Intelligence,
Speaker 1: the investment research platform of Bloomberg LP. Bloomberg Intelligence has
Speaker 1: five hundred analysts and strategists working across the globe and
Speaker 1: focused on all major markets. Our coverage includes over two
Speaker 1: thousand equities and credits and have outlooks on more than
Speaker 1: ninety industries, one hundred market industries, currencies and commodities. This
Speaker 1: podcast series examines the intersection of business policy and law.
Speaker 1: I'm Nathan Dean, an analysts with Bloomberg Intelligence covering policy,
Speaker 1: and I'll be the host of today's episode, which we
Speaker 1: are recording on April tenth, twenty twenty five. So today
Speaker 1: we're going to start with two court cases slash hearings
Speaker 1: that we're covering, and then we'll end up with an
Speaker 1: update on what we've seen in the congressional based as
Speaker 1: we can buy. Now, if you're listening to us, you
Speaker 1: know that President Donald Trump has temporarily dodged tariffs for
Speaker 1: He's put it at ten percent for most countries, but
Speaker 1: obviously he's hit China with harder with one hundred and
Speaker 1: twenty five percent. While we're not going to talk about
Speaker 1: tariffs in today's episode, if you do have a Bloomberg terminal,
Speaker 1: we continue to suggest that you type BI tariff or
Speaker 1: BI tariffs go into your turminal to get all the
Speaker 1: updates of what our analysts are thinking in terms of
Speaker 1: tariffs and the upcoming earning seasons and how it will
Speaker 1: all play out. So with that, let's turn back to
Speaker 1: the courts, and I'm going to bring in Jennifer Ree,
Speaker 1: our senior anti trust analyst. Jen when we were talking
Speaker 1: about what to talk about on this call, you said
Speaker 1: in our ib chat, I can preview the upcoming hearing
Speaker 1: on remedies in the DOJ versus Google search matter. So
Speaker 1: let's go with that question first. Can you preview the
Speaker 1: upcoming hearing on remedies and the DOJ Google search matter
Speaker 1: and explain what the case is for those of us,
Speaker 1: including me, that don't know what it's about.
Speaker 2: Yes, sure, Nathan, and right, good to not talk about
Speaker 2: tariffs or think about tariffs for a few minutes. Right,
Speaker 2: So Google is about to go back into court against
Speaker 2: the Department of Justice. That's on April twenty one, for
Speaker 2: about three weeks. So just as the background What this
Speaker 2: is is the second phase of a matter that was
Speaker 2: actually tried back in the end of twenty twenty three,
Speaker 2: and this was the Department of Justice and a group
Speaker 2: of states challenging Google for illegal alleged illegal monopoly maintenance
Speaker 2: of its search engine and search text advertising. That closing
Speaker 2: arguments for that were in May, and then there was
Speaker 2: a decision last August against the DOJ again holding that
Speaker 2: it illegally maintained its monopolies for search and search text advertising.
Speaker 2: All that is are those are the ads that come
Speaker 2: up when you actually do a search on Google, and
Speaker 2: there's some that are text and some that are images.
Speaker 2: These are the ones that are text, and it kind
Speaker 2: of goes hand in hand with search. If you have
Speaker 2: most of the searches, you're going to be selling most
Speaker 2: of the search text advertising. So how did Google do this?
Speaker 2: Mostly what the judge said was that Google's payment to
Speaker 2: third parties for default positions for Google Search at most
Speaker 2: search access points blocked out its competitors. So what they
Speaker 2: mean is that Google was paying about twenty billion a
Speaker 2: year to Apple so that Google Search was set is
Speaker 2: the default behind Safari. If you open up Safari, you
Speaker 2: do a search you're actually using Google search engine and
Speaker 2: also Android device phone device makers, so they want to
Speaker 2: license Android, they want to make an Android mobile phone. Well,
Speaker 2: Google would say, but you got to put Google Search
Speaker 2: front and center, and you can't install any of our
Speaker 2: search engine competitors, like being our duc dot Go. So
Speaker 2: by doing this, the court said, Google kind of tied
Speaker 2: up the vast majority of search access points. Really, all
Speaker 2: you're left with is Microsoft, because Google's not going to
Speaker 2: get an agreement with Microsoft to put it behind you know,
Speaker 2: Internet Explore. I guess now it's called Edge because Microsoft's
Speaker 2: going to put being there. So now what's happening is
Speaker 2: the next hearing is to say, all right, you're guilty.
Speaker 2: What are we going to do about it? What's the remedy?
Speaker 2: And the Department of Justice has really asked for all
Speaker 2: lot a long list of sort of drastic and complex remedies.
Speaker 2: I think they're very much swinging for the fences. These
Speaker 2: remedies sound scary. I don't believe they expect to get
Speaker 2: quite a few of them, particularly the most drastic. But look,
Speaker 2: when it's a negotiation, you've got to put everything out
Speaker 2: there to be happy with the middle ground. Right, So
Speaker 2: first I think the most obvious one is they're saying, hey,
Speaker 2: no more payments for this default position. You've got to
Speaker 2: open up this market to some of your competitors. And
Speaker 2: that means you also can't make payments or other inducements
Speaker 2: to pro hit it anybody from pre installing as a
Speaker 2: default one of your competitors. And so this would be
Speaker 2: no payments to Apple, no payments to Mozilla for Firefox,
Speaker 2: to telecoms, to Android makers.
Speaker 3: Et cetera.
Speaker 2: And they also can't use their ownership of Android to
Speaker 2: also push for sort of other Google products or the
Speaker 2: bundling of its other products. They also have to give
Speaker 2: prior notice to the DJ. This is what the DJ
Speaker 2: is asking for. This hasn't been decided yet for investments
Speaker 2: or partnerships with IT and any search competitors or company
Speaker 2: that controls a search access point for a generative AI product. Now,
Speaker 2: it doesn't mean that Google won't be able to make
Speaker 2: these investments. It just means they're going to have to
Speaker 2: go to the DJ first and pretty much give it
Speaker 2: the right to approve or disapprove or maybe place conditions
Speaker 2: on the investment. Now, the big one divest Chrome. DJ
Speaker 2: says this is necessary to break up this monopoly and
Speaker 2: to really open up the marketplace and possibly down the
Speaker 2: road Android if Google abuses its ownership of and Android
Speaker 2: in ways that you know, counter the injunction. Now, the
Speaker 2: other options are some data sharing with qualified competitors. This
Speaker 2: includes things like search indexes, add data, some user side
Speaker 2: data so long as user privacy is protected, choice screens,
Speaker 2: which has been used in Europe on existing in New
Speaker 2: Android to Bose devices and in Google Chrome. And then
Speaker 2: last I think, also allowing publishers or content content creators
Speaker 2: to easily opt out from having their content used for
Speaker 2: search index or to train an AI model. So this
Speaker 2: is what they're asking for. I don't think they're going
Speaker 2: to get most of that, Nathan, but that's what the
Speaker 2: hearing is going to be about. It'll be both sides
Speaker 2: presenting evidence as to why these are the necessary remedies
Speaker 2: in Google providing evidence and testimony as to why they
Speaker 2: don't make sense and they could have bad, unintended consequences
Speaker 2: for consumers. I think the most likely remedy will be
Speaker 2: the first one, just saying hey, no more payments for default.
Speaker 2: I think maybe choice screens could be implemented something like that,
Speaker 2: and maybe some data sharing. I'm not so sure about
Speaker 2: that one. I was to say, I primarily think it'll
Speaker 2: be limited because this judge is adhering to Microsoft, which
Speaker 2: sets a precedent forum. It's in hit that circuit, and
Speaker 2: the Microsoft court really counseled against to have caution with
Speaker 2: these kinds of remedies.
Speaker 1: So, just to make sure I got it right, you
Speaker 1: said this was going to be three weeks.
Speaker 2: Three weeks but nonconsecutive, So it'll start April twenty one,
Speaker 2: but it won't wrap up until May, and then closing
Speaker 2: arguments will be later on May thirtieth.
Speaker 1: So how do you advise a Bloomberg client or is
Speaker 1: anybody listening right now if they wanted to try follow this?
Speaker 3: What are you know?
Speaker 1: Is there like a rhythm to this? How are you
Speaker 1: covering this?
Speaker 3: Like?
Speaker 1: How would you advise them that they monitor this?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 2: I think it's really important not to be reactionary because
Speaker 2: the news will be, you know, play by play each
Speaker 2: day saying something happened great, that something happened bad, and
Speaker 2: then the judge will issue is decision, and I think
Speaker 2: the market will react. What everybody should think about is
Speaker 2: the fact that once that decision is issued, no matter
Speaker 2: what it is, Google will appeal both liability and the
Speaker 2: remedy decision, and probably the remedy will be stayed depending
Speaker 2: the appeal. Meaning there's not really going to be an
Speaker 2: impact for another year or two and people need to
Speaker 2: keep that in mind. And our appellate courts tend to
Speaker 2: be conservative. So if this judge does do something drastic,
Speaker 2: I think Google has a shot at getting it pulled back.
Speaker 3: Well that's good insight and good to note.
Speaker 1: Okay, so let's let's turn it over to Justin Treesy,
Speaker 1: our other anti trust analyst. We have a mad A
Speaker 1: trial coming up. What's at stake? What are you looking
Speaker 1: for in the Meida world?
Speaker 4: Yeah? Yes, so I think as far as anti trust
Speaker 4: trials go, Nathan, this one here has got every bit
Speaker 4: of drama and intrigue I think you could want. Right, So,
Speaker 4: what the government here, the FTC is looking for is
Speaker 4: a divestiture of Instagram and WhatsApp two properties of metas
Speaker 4: like closed a long time ago. Right, Whatsappen was closed
Speaker 4: back in twenty fourteen, Instagram back in twenty twelve. So
Speaker 4: really long standing operations here that are now under the
Speaker 4: meta umbrella. Zuckerberg is coming to testify this trial of
Speaker 4: things precede as planned the trials before. Judge James Bosburgh's
Speaker 4: been in the news like crazy lately with regard to
Speaker 4: a lot of things coming out from the administration. So
Speaker 4: all those facets make for a really interesting case. But
Speaker 4: at the end of the day here, like I said,
Speaker 4: these deals closed a long time ago, over over a decade.
Speaker 4: At this point, state claims against Meta around these anti
Speaker 4: trust issues were already dismissed and what the FDC is
Speaker 4: because they were brought too late. But that same requirement
Speaker 4: doesn't apply to the federal government when it's bringing these
Speaker 4: kinds of cases. So what's that issue here is that,
Speaker 4: you know, really what the govern is saying is that
Speaker 4: these purchases made by Meta were done really for anti
Speaker 4: competitive reasons and claus it's anti competitive harm to the
Speaker 4: marketplace and to consumers, basically alleging that the reason behind
Speaker 4: these purchases was to really nip competition in the bud
Speaker 4: before I had a chance to grow and flourish to
Speaker 4: compete against Meta directly. But you know, I think we
Speaker 4: can expect to this trial here, Meta is going to
Speaker 4: really offer all these pro competitive business justifications for why
Speaker 4: these acquisitions were good for the marketplace and the FDC
Speaker 4: from an anti trust law perspective, we really think that
Speaker 4: the claim, the way it's bringing the case about what
Speaker 4: the relevant product market is, it's really discounting a lot
Speaker 4: of realities in the marketplace and how it operates today,
Speaker 4: and that if that market can't be sustained at trial,
Speaker 4: it's pretty much game over for the FTC. So all
Speaker 4: of that's coming to kind of coming together and as
Speaker 4: toue here for the trial beginning next week, and I'll say,
Speaker 4: ultimately from our perspective right now, we really give Meta
Speaker 4: the edge. There's this sixty percent chance we think at
Speaker 4: this point anyway that it is victoria us and all
Speaker 4: the claims in defending all the claims against it. But again,
Speaker 4: you know, it's trial and anything can really roll out
Speaker 4: one way or the other, and you just don't know
Speaker 4: sometimes until things get underway.
Speaker 3: So two questions for you. One is WhatsApp still thing.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's a good question, you know. And what's really
Speaker 4: interesting here, right is that you know, Meta paid or
Speaker 4: Facebook at the time, paid nineteen billion dollars to close
Speaker 4: that deal to acquire WhatsApp back in twenty fourteen.
Speaker 3: And only one billion.
Speaker 4: Dollars to purchase Instagram, So, you know, really interesting from
Speaker 4: that financial perspective, the way the deal's kind.
Speaker 1: Of rolled out back then.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 4: But I think one other thing, you know, I haven't
Speaker 4: mentioned too is, you know, there's all this talk now
Speaker 4: too about Zuckerberg meeting with President Trump and maybe, you know,
Speaker 4: trying to support the trial from even taking place and
Speaker 4: make some kind of a settlement with the government. I
Speaker 4: think that's still unlikely, but when we're seeing things like
Speaker 4: that in the headlines, obviously, that raises the chances of
Speaker 4: some kind of a deal more than where it was
Speaker 4: even you know, a month ago.
Speaker 1: I would say, you know, and I almost said that,
Speaker 1: I said that in jest, but that was actually a
Speaker 1: really great answer to a question that was said in
Speaker 1: jest by My other question is is that you said
Speaker 1: sixty percent chance. Can you just give us one or
Speaker 1: two things that could potentially happen next week or during
Speaker 1: this trial that would immediately flip you into the forty
Speaker 1: percent category. If there's something like is there like a
Speaker 1: code word the judge would say, or anything that would
Speaker 1: make you go, ohh.
Speaker 3: I got to change this back to my note.
Speaker 4: Yeah, you know, so that's a really great question, and
Speaker 4: I would say, you know, really what's on the line
Speaker 4: here with what I said about the FTC and whether
Speaker 4: it defied the product marketed issue here the right way?
Speaker 4: You know, I think that that's really going to be
Speaker 4: part and parcel to how the case rolls out. And
Speaker 4: last week, you know, I attended a technology tutorial that
Speaker 4: that Meta present different Judge Boseberg, who during that tutorial
Speaker 4: set he's never used any of these social media products
Speaker 4: ever before, and aside from his his kids actually showing
Speaker 4: him posts that they had made using Facebook or Instagram
Speaker 4: over the years, he has no relationship with these technological
Speaker 4: tools at all. So that's going to be interesting to see.
Speaker 4: But during this tutorial that they that they held last
Speaker 4: Friday in DC, you know, Metta really did a great job.
Speaker 4: I think it's showing these similarities between things like feeds
Speaker 4: when you open an app on even YouTube or TikTok
Speaker 4: for example, which the FTC left out of this product
Speaker 4: market as competitors that are operating in this personal social
Speaker 4: media network services space. So that being the case, that's
Speaker 4: what I'm watching for. If it seems like Meta is
Speaker 4: really convincing the court that the property is like that
Speaker 4: that the FTC left out of the product market actually
Speaker 4: are competing with those that are in the product market
Speaker 4: for Facebook. That's really going to push things even further
Speaker 4: into Meta's favor. I think at the trial itself.
Speaker 3: That sounds good.
Speaker 1: Okay, So let's say goodbye to our New York based
Speaker 1: friends and let's move to one of our Washingtonian based analysts,
Speaker 1: Matt Schattenhelm. Matt, you were watching Congress this week, you
Speaker 1: were watching the Senate Commerce Committee. We saw action on
Speaker 1: two Trump nominees, one for the National Telecommunications and Information
Speaker 1: Administration that you may have to explain to our listeners
Speaker 1: what the NTIA actually does, and there for the Federal
Speaker 1: Communications Commission. So can you walk us through what happened
Speaker 1: and what does that mean for the TMT cover companies.
Speaker 3: That you're covering. Yeah, thanks Nathan.
Speaker 5: Yeah, So to development Wednesday of April ninth on Trump
Speaker 5: nominees that are important in the TMT space. So, yeah,
Speaker 5: nt i A is the federal agency, a small federal
Speaker 5: agency that's responsible for managing the federal government spectrum. But
Speaker 5: it's also particularly important because it's managing a broadband funding
Speaker 5: program A forty two billion dollar broadband funding program that
Speaker 5: the that that started under the Biden administration but never
Speaker 5: got around actually passing out the money. And the Trump
Speaker 5: nominee who was before the Senate Commerce Committee, aar L Roth,
Speaker 5: has been appointed to lead that agency and one of
Speaker 5: the big projects on her plate is finishing the distribution
Speaker 5: of the forty two billion dollars in funding. And there's
Speaker 5: been a big push from Republicans to revamp how the
Speaker 5: Biden administration structured that program, and instead of prioritizing fiber projects,
Speaker 5: there's been a push to make it more technology neutral.
Speaker 5: And what that would mean as a practical matter is
Speaker 5: that a much larger percentage of that forty two billion
Speaker 5: dollars could go to satellite companies like Elon, Musk, Starlink,
Speaker 5: and so it would be a likely and negative for
Speaker 5: fiber based companies like cable operators who would be going
Speaker 5: after that money. So Ariel Roth, the nominee, has championed
Speaker 5: that cause of being technologically neutral as opposed to simply
Speaker 5: prioritizing fiber. She got a vote from the Senate Commerce
Speaker 5: Committee on Wednesday that cleared her from that important first step,
Speaker 5: and so now she awaits a final vote on the
Speaker 5: Senate floor. As soon as that happens, she can move
Speaker 5: ahead with this important work on the broadband funding project.
Speaker 5: So and the other one that also in the same
Speaker 5: hearing the Senate Commerce Committee took up was the FCC
Speaker 5: nominee from President Trump, Olivia Trustee. Right now, the FCC
Speaker 5: is divided two to two, two Republicans to two Democrats,
Speaker 5: and she would break that tie and make it three
Speaker 5: to two for Republicans. And why that's really important is
Speaker 5: because none of the controversial stuff can get through until
Speaker 5: the Republicans have a majority. And high on the list
Speaker 5: of potential importance controversial things is broad broadcast deregulation. Uh
Speaker 5: TV broadcasters have been subject to strict ownership limits for
Speaker 5: decades that other competing companies in the video space internet
Speaker 5: streamers don't face, and broadcasters have said, look, this is
Speaker 5: crazy that we're still subject to these limits.
Speaker 3: UH you should ease them.
Speaker 5: And I think Brendan Kahr at the FCC is going
Speaker 5: to be on board with that, and we're going to
Speaker 5: see some pretty significant rule makings from the FCC to
Speaker 5: ease those rules. Olivia trust is likely going to be
Speaker 5: a vote in support of those rulemakings.
Speaker 3: She had.
Speaker 5: She had a question yes at the hearing that that
Speaker 5: touched on that and she and she seemed generally supportive
Speaker 5: of a deregulatory approach. So the hearing before the committee
Speaker 5: on Wednesday went well for her. Uh, some pushback from
Speaker 5: from Democrats on some issues, but not real strong. So
Speaker 5: she shouldn't have a lot of trouble getting through.
Speaker 3: And like then Ariel Roth.
Speaker 5: She'll get a vote from the full Senate and she
Speaker 5: should be on board at the FCC in the second
Speaker 5: quarter of the year.
Speaker 3: No, that sounds good.
Speaker 1: And you know, I was watching a couple of hearing
Speaker 1: myself this week. You know, we had obviously the US
Speaker 1: Trade Representative Jamison Greer testifying to Senate Finance in the
Speaker 1: House fin Ways and Means Committee, but it was on tariffs,
Speaker 1: and obviously lots of things happening on tariffs.
Speaker 3: I'll just leave it that.
Speaker 1: But just today we saw Senate in the Senate Banking
Speaker 1: Committee Michelle Bowman, who is President Trump's nominee to be
Speaker 1: the next FED Vice Chair for supervision. She testified with
Speaker 1: along with four other individuals. She actually only got a
Speaker 1: couple of questions, nothing really groundbreaking or that would dramatically
Speaker 1: change her outlooks. So I anticipate she'll get confirmed in
Speaker 1: the next couple of weeks, and I think the Senate's
Speaker 1: going to be spending a lot of time to try
Speaker 1: and get a lot more of these regulatory leaders into
Speaker 1: office over the next few weeks once they come back
Speaker 1: from their Easter recess.
Speaker 3: On April twenty eighth, Son, thank you very much for
Speaker 3: your piece. Really appreciate it.
Speaker 1: And I'm going to end here by talking a little
Speaker 1: bit about what we just saw this morning, again recording
Speaker 1: this on April tent in terms of the House adoption
Speaker 1: of the Senate Budget resolution plan to extend the Trump
Speaker 1: era tax cuts. So the situation is this is that
Speaker 1: here we are April tenth. Now the House and the
Speaker 1: Senate have both passed the Senate Resolution for extending the
Speaker 1: Trump era tax cuts to in order to extend these
Speaker 1: tax cuts, this was originally from twenty seventeen, which used reconciliation.
Speaker 3: That's time to do that.
Speaker 1: You're looking around four to four and after trillion dollars,
Speaker 1: you know, the Senate resolution calls for an additional one
Speaker 1: point five trillion dollars in terms of additional tax cuts.
Speaker 1: So four point three to four point five current status
Speaker 1: status quo extensions one point five and additional tax cuts.
Speaker 3: But then under the.
Speaker 1: Idea of reconciliation, these tech cuts, these tax extensions have
Speaker 1: to be offset. Now, if you are on the Senate
Speaker 1: Republican side, you know they're adopting this new procedural process,
Speaker 1: if you will, we're rather than trying to offset it
Speaker 1: and pass it in terms of trying to find like
Speaker 1: for like moneies, they're essentially saying that the current policy
Speaker 1: is the current policy, and therefore the cost of it
Speaker 1: is essentially zero. So you go from four point three
Speaker 1: to four point five trillion dollars to zero. Now, the
Speaker 1: House wasn't exactly on board with this idea because in
Speaker 1: terms of the cost estimates for both of these plans,
Speaker 1: the House originally wanted to cut two trillion dollars worth
Speaker 1: of things, so think of things like Medicaid that benefits
Speaker 1: the Inflation Reduction Act, and the Senate plan had four
Speaker 1: billion with a B as a floor for cuts, meaning
Speaker 1: they would cut at least four billion, but mostly higher. Now,
Speaker 1: this was somewhat challenging for a lot of the House
Speaker 1: Republicans to come on board with. They weren't too thrilled
Speaker 1: about this. We saw President Trump on April ninth, way in,
Speaker 1: we saw Speaker John sin s way in just this
Speaker 1: morning on April tenth. But the House ultimately did adopt
Speaker 1: the vote. The budget had one Republican voting against it,
Speaker 1: and it was two hundred and sixteen to two hundred
Speaker 1: and fourteen due to the fact that there were two
Speaker 1: Democratic lawmakers who have passed over the last couple of months.
Speaker 3: And they have open seats. So where are we going
Speaker 3: right now? Well, this is not a bill, This is
Speaker 3: not legislation.
Speaker 1: This doesn't have any specific language in this, but this
Speaker 1: does allow the momentum to keep going, and this does
Speaker 1: allow for both parties to negotiate on the specifics. Now,
Speaker 1: if you ask me, and because you're listening to this episode,
Speaker 1: you are asking me, you know, what do I think
Speaker 1: is going to happen? I think Congress and by means
Speaker 1: the Republicans, are going to pass this resolution sometime between
Speaker 1: June and September. In that the Trump era tax cuts
Speaker 1: will be extended, and in that I think there will
Speaker 1: be one point five trillion dollars worth of tax cuts.
Speaker 1: Think of things like no taxes on tips, no taxes
Speaker 1: on over time. Maybe additional changes we'll see as the
Speaker 1: committees come up with their work. But I also think
Speaker 1: that there's going to be minimal changes to the current
Speaker 1: programs that are outlined earlier, like Medicaid, which is very
Speaker 1: important for the healthcare companies that benefits, very important for
Speaker 1: Walmart and Kroger and Albertson's, and the Inflation Reduction Act
Speaker 1: very important for those solar companies. I just don't think
Speaker 1: that there is much going to be much in the
Speaker 1: way of changes Medicaid. We saw Senator Josh Holly come
Speaker 1: out and say, don't touch this that benefits. We saw
Speaker 1: House ad Committee Chairman Glenn Thompson come out and say
Speaker 1: very few changes here, and then for the IRA. Just
Speaker 1: this morning, for Republicans including Senator Tom Tillis of North Carolina,
Speaker 1: sent the letter saying don't touch the Inflation Reduction Act.
Speaker 1: Where I'm going with this and where I'm going on
Speaker 1: this eight minute ramble is that I do think that
Speaker 1: there's a big chance you're going to see a deficit
Speaker 1: inducing bill at the end of this year. Because even
Speaker 1: though the House Republicans there's about thirty of them, are
Speaker 1: not comfortable with increasing the deficit. I do believe President
Speaker 1: Trump's message of economic growth plus money coming in from tariffs,
Speaker 1: plus you just better do this, because I'm going to
Speaker 1: say you better do this is going to eventually convince
Speaker 1: them to get past the line. So I originally thought
Speaker 1: September October would be the timeframe of this. But the
Speaker 1: last thing to keep in mind is that embedded in
Speaker 1: this is five billion dollars to increase the debt ceiling,
Speaker 1: and if you believe Treasury, the X date for that
Speaker 1: debt ceiling is most likely going to be in July
Speaker 1: and August, so this would have to wrap up before that.
Speaker 1: So Congress is now out until.
Speaker 3: The April twenty eighth.
Speaker 1: They'll come back and then you'll start to see the
Speaker 1: specifics of exactly how they're going to do this. But again,
Speaker 1: there's really nothing here saying you have to do something
Speaker 1: except for the debt ceiling and then the increase at
Speaker 1: the end of this year. So I know that was
Speaker 1: a lot, but with that, I'm just going to say
Speaker 1: thank you very much for listening. Let's end it there.
Speaker 1: We really appreciate it, and if we can ever be
Speaker 1: of service, please don't hesitate to reach out to us
Speaker 1: on the Bloomberg Terminal instant Bloomberg US.
Speaker 3: We call it IB.
Speaker 1: Send us an IB, send us a message, reach out
Speaker 1: to us on social media like LinkedIn.
Speaker 3: UH.
Speaker 1: We're always here to help you and we'd love to assist.
Speaker 3: So thank you again and have a wonderful day.