WEBVTT - Daybreak Weekend: Bank Earnings, UK Eco Data, Taiwan Election, Biden Polls

0:00:02.440 --> 0:00:04.920
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg day Break Weekend, our global look at

0:00:04.920 --> 0:00:07.240
<v Speaker 1>the top stories in the coming week from our Daybreak

0:00:07.280 --> 0:00:10.160
<v Speaker 1>anchors all around the world, and straight ahead on the program,

0:00:10.360 --> 0:00:13.800
<v Speaker 1>Bank earnings, Wall Street's top burn start reporting this week.

0:00:14.000 --> 0:00:16.360
<v Speaker 1>I'm Tom Busby in New York and I'll have that story.

0:00:16.560 --> 0:00:19.000
<v Speaker 2>I'm Stephen Caroll in London, where we're watching it closely

0:00:19.079 --> 0:00:22.360
<v Speaker 2>for signs of whether or not the UK is in recession.

0:00:22.520 --> 0:00:26.040
<v Speaker 3>I'm Doug Prisoner looking at Taiwan's presidential election, one that

0:00:26.160 --> 0:00:29.760
<v Speaker 3>will help shape the course of US China relations for years.

0:00:29.920 --> 0:00:32.839
<v Speaker 4>I'm Keebie Lines in Washington, where we're looking at pulling

0:00:32.960 --> 0:00:36.000
<v Speaker 4>as election. You're twenty twenty four gets under well.

0:00:37.159 --> 0:00:41.239
<v Speaker 5>That's all straight ahead on Bloomberg Daybreak Weekend. The business

0:00:41.280 --> 0:00:45.240
<v Speaker 5>news you need to wrap up your week, Available on Apple, Spotify,

0:00:45.400 --> 0:00:48.720
<v Speaker 5>the Bloomberg Business Appen everywhere you get your podcasts.

0:00:53.040 --> 0:00:55.000
<v Speaker 1>Good day to you. I'm Tom Busby and we begin

0:00:55.000 --> 0:00:57.840
<v Speaker 1>today's program with the kickoff of the latest earning season.

0:00:58.000 --> 0:01:01.560
<v Speaker 1>Four of Wall Street's biggest banks report their latest quarterly

0:01:01.600 --> 0:01:03.959
<v Speaker 1>results this week, wrapping up a year of some mid

0:01:04.040 --> 0:01:07.160
<v Speaker 1>sized bank failures, rising interest rates, and a dearth of

0:01:07.280 --> 0:01:09.640
<v Speaker 1>deal making. At least for most of the year, but

0:01:09.800 --> 0:01:12.320
<v Speaker 1>we also saw the major averages sore higher, the Dow

0:01:12.480 --> 0:01:14.959
<v Speaker 1>reaching an all time high in late December, and there

0:01:15.080 --> 0:01:19.000
<v Speaker 1>was no real recession. For a preview, we welcome Bloomberg

0:01:19.040 --> 0:01:23.200
<v Speaker 1>Intelligence Senior Analyst Alison Williams and Bloomberg Global Finance correspondent

0:01:23.280 --> 0:01:26.520
<v Speaker 1>Shanali Basik. Now, all the action starts on Friday. We

0:01:26.560 --> 0:01:29.880
<v Speaker 1>hear from JP Morgan, Chase, City Group, Wells Fargo, and

0:01:30.000 --> 0:01:33.280
<v Speaker 1>Bank of America, and we're going to start today with Alison. Alison,

0:01:33.440 --> 0:01:36.520
<v Speaker 1>what are you expecting to see from those major lenders.

0:01:36.720 --> 0:01:38.920
<v Speaker 6>The two key things we're going to be looking at

0:01:39.040 --> 0:01:44.240
<v Speaker 6>are net interest income and expenses. So in the fourth quarter,

0:01:44.800 --> 0:01:47.680
<v Speaker 6>we're going to be looking for further evidence that the

0:01:47.960 --> 0:01:51.840
<v Speaker 6>pressure on deposit pricing is easing a bit and those

0:01:51.840 --> 0:01:53.760
<v Speaker 6>costs are easing a bit. And we think that the

0:01:53.800 --> 0:01:57.360
<v Speaker 6>outlook for next year is going to factor in further

0:01:57.680 --> 0:02:00.760
<v Speaker 6>moderation of that pressure. Just given the fact that the

0:02:00.800 --> 0:02:05.200
<v Speaker 6>markets are pricing in an inflection point for federal reserve hikes.

0:02:05.440 --> 0:02:10.320
<v Speaker 6>As those hikes turn to easing, the pressure for banks

0:02:10.360 --> 0:02:13.040
<v Speaker 6>to raise those prices on deposits. Keep in mind that

0:02:13.040 --> 0:02:17.120
<v Speaker 6>that's their cost of goods sold. That pressure eases, and

0:02:17.160 --> 0:02:19.680
<v Speaker 6>so that will be a positive for the biggest banks.

0:02:19.680 --> 0:02:23.239
<v Speaker 6>We think that JP Morgan's net interest income is going

0:02:23.320 --> 0:02:26.160
<v Speaker 6>to be resilient. We think there could be some upside

0:02:26.160 --> 0:02:29.400
<v Speaker 6>to those numbers. But the second thing that we're looking

0:02:29.440 --> 0:02:32.840
<v Speaker 6>at is the cost guidance, and again JP Morgan will

0:02:32.880 --> 0:02:37.680
<v Speaker 6>be a focus in particular because we get a lot

0:02:37.760 --> 0:02:40.639
<v Speaker 6>of macro clues for all the banks during the quarter,

0:02:41.040 --> 0:02:45.639
<v Speaker 6>but expense guidance always includes an element of investment spending.

0:02:46.440 --> 0:02:50.320
<v Speaker 6>JP Morgan has one in the long term by making

0:02:50.360 --> 0:02:54.679
<v Speaker 6>those investments, but if we look at the consensus forecasts,

0:02:55.080 --> 0:02:56.960
<v Speaker 6>those investments are going to cause the bank to have

0:02:57.080 --> 0:03:01.080
<v Speaker 6>negative operating leverage in twenty twenty four. We'll see what

0:03:01.120 --> 0:03:05.640
<v Speaker 6>we hear from management in terms of what the outlook is.

0:03:05.720 --> 0:03:08.720
<v Speaker 6>Because while there is investment spending, and we do think

0:03:08.720 --> 0:03:11.440
<v Speaker 6>that banks need to invest for the future, there's also

0:03:11.520 --> 0:03:14.519
<v Speaker 6>pressure and cost coming from inflation. There's also going to

0:03:14.560 --> 0:03:17.680
<v Speaker 6>be pressure from what we call the cost to compete,

0:03:17.919 --> 0:03:20.800
<v Speaker 6>and we think the compensation costs could be a little

0:03:20.800 --> 0:03:22.560
<v Speaker 6>bit sticky across the global banks.

0:03:22.720 --> 0:03:26.399
<v Speaker 7>Sonali, Yeah, there's definitely expenses, But to Allison's point, one

0:03:26.400 --> 0:03:30.000
<v Speaker 7>big question is if interest rates start to cool, at

0:03:30.040 --> 0:03:32.960
<v Speaker 7>what point does that not only flow into the notion

0:03:33.320 --> 0:03:37.280
<v Speaker 7>of deposit pricing, but also loan demand. Does loan demand

0:03:37.320 --> 0:03:39.520
<v Speaker 7>start to pick up if interest rates start to cool.

0:03:39.600 --> 0:03:43.160
<v Speaker 7>Now what's interesting too is in recent months you've start

0:03:43.440 --> 0:03:47.640
<v Speaker 7>to see different credit markets open up meaningfully, including leverage finance.

0:03:47.760 --> 0:03:49.720
<v Speaker 7>So we're not just talking about lending for the consumer.

0:03:49.760 --> 0:03:52.720
<v Speaker 7>We're even talking about risky parts of debt markets for

0:03:52.760 --> 0:03:56.960
<v Speaker 7>big corporations, buyouts, things that could start to fuel activity again.

0:03:57.280 --> 0:04:00.880
<v Speaker 7>So you will see a we all need to look

0:04:00.880 --> 0:04:03.680
<v Speaker 7>at the outlook from these bankers because they have come

0:04:03.720 --> 0:04:07.120
<v Speaker 7>in to the prior quarters with so much caution, and

0:04:07.160 --> 0:04:11.680
<v Speaker 7>you really are seeing that caution starting to wane. Jamie Diamond,

0:04:11.880 --> 0:04:14.280
<v Speaker 7>who has been warning that rates could move higher than

0:04:14.320 --> 0:04:17.279
<v Speaker 7>expected for many many months, if he starts to change

0:04:17.279 --> 0:04:19.720
<v Speaker 7>his tone there, it would be a massive bell weather

0:04:19.760 --> 0:04:22.200
<v Speaker 7>for the rest of the industry. Whereas you already had

0:04:22.279 --> 0:04:24.760
<v Speaker 7>James Gorman, who just stepped down as the CEO of

0:04:24.800 --> 0:04:30.680
<v Speaker 7>Morgan Stanley. He had definitely been very sanguine in terms

0:04:30.680 --> 0:04:33.440
<v Speaker 7>of the outlook for interest rates this year, and remember

0:04:33.480 --> 0:04:36.039
<v Speaker 7>he was still leading Morgan Stanley through the end of

0:04:36.080 --> 0:04:36.839
<v Speaker 7>the last quarter.

0:04:37.240 --> 0:04:40.920
<v Speaker 1>Well, Shanali, you mentioned James Gorman. You had a one

0:04:40.960 --> 0:04:43.440
<v Speaker 1>on one interview with him last week about his fourteen

0:04:43.520 --> 0:04:46.560
<v Speaker 1>year tenure a CEO of Morgan Stanley. Now he is

0:04:46.640 --> 0:04:50.240
<v Speaker 1>executive chairman. He also spoke about some proposed banking rules

0:04:50.240 --> 0:04:53.080
<v Speaker 1>that would require the biggest lenders to increase to twenty

0:04:53.120 --> 0:04:57.080
<v Speaker 1>percent their capital cushion. Now it's proposed, but let's hear

0:04:57.120 --> 0:04:58.560
<v Speaker 1>a bite from that interview right now.

0:04:58.880 --> 0:05:03.280
<v Speaker 8>It was a proposal that I would say was extremely

0:05:03.320 --> 0:05:07.440
<v Speaker 8>aggressive and set a MARKA. It will not go through

0:05:07.520 --> 0:05:10.240
<v Speaker 8>in that form. If it did, I think it would

0:05:10.279 --> 0:05:14.040
<v Speaker 8>have very very negative consequences for corporate lending across this country,

0:05:14.080 --> 0:05:15.719
<v Speaker 8>which is not what you want. It's not going to

0:05:15.720 --> 0:05:16.719
<v Speaker 8>help the economy growth.

0:05:16.760 --> 0:05:19.919
<v Speaker 7>Well, you've also spoken about the treasury market potential impacts

0:05:19.920 --> 0:05:23.039
<v Speaker 7>from these regulations. We've already seen stresses of late in

0:05:23.080 --> 0:05:25.679
<v Speaker 7>the treasury market. Do you have fears that those stresses

0:05:25.680 --> 0:05:26.680
<v Speaker 7>will be exacerbated?

0:05:27.000 --> 0:05:29.080
<v Speaker 8>I can't tell until I see the actual rules, but

0:05:29.200 --> 0:05:32.960
<v Speaker 8>all I know is what was put out is highly

0:05:33.080 --> 0:05:36.279
<v Speaker 8>highly highly unlikely to be what is ultimately regulated.

0:05:36.440 --> 0:05:39.440
<v Speaker 1>Now, is he right, and what are those proposals and

0:05:39.480 --> 0:05:40.760
<v Speaker 1>what would have to change.

0:05:40.880 --> 0:05:43.480
<v Speaker 7>You saw James Gorman and many of his peers take

0:05:43.520 --> 0:05:46.960
<v Speaker 7>to Washington, DC and address lawmakers about this fact. And

0:05:47.040 --> 0:05:49.040
<v Speaker 7>what they were trying to do is get the lawmakers

0:05:49.040 --> 0:05:53.839
<v Speaker 7>to put pressure on regulatory officials to start to rethink

0:05:54.000 --> 0:05:57.200
<v Speaker 7>the strictness of these capital rules. They were warning that

0:05:57.240 --> 0:06:00.000
<v Speaker 7>it would really restrict lending across different parts of the economy.

0:06:00.000 --> 0:06:03.080
<v Speaker 7>I mean, it would restrict trading activities in certain key

0:06:03.120 --> 0:06:06.400
<v Speaker 7>markets like commodities. It would increase the cost of hedging

0:06:07.120 --> 0:06:11.240
<v Speaker 7>for many big players in commodity markets and farming markets.

0:06:11.600 --> 0:06:15.200
<v Speaker 7>Rural America would be impacted, they warned. Now, what's interesting

0:06:15.279 --> 0:06:18.360
<v Speaker 7>here is we know from a Wall Street perspective that

0:06:18.400 --> 0:06:21.320
<v Speaker 7>those increase in capital rules would be very expensive for

0:06:21.360 --> 0:06:24.960
<v Speaker 7>the banks, and for him to say they're likely to

0:06:25.000 --> 0:06:29.320
<v Speaker 7>be less really starts to draw a question of how

0:06:29.400 --> 0:06:32.560
<v Speaker 7>much these banks can start to recalibrate their expectations on

0:06:32.600 --> 0:06:36.720
<v Speaker 7>how costly it would be, maybe less costly than investors

0:06:36.800 --> 0:06:40.840
<v Speaker 7>initially expected. If James Gorman is right, Alison, what's your

0:06:40.839 --> 0:06:41.320
<v Speaker 7>thoughts on that?

0:06:42.680 --> 0:06:47.280
<v Speaker 6>So if you look at some of these regulations, you

0:06:47.320 --> 0:06:50.479
<v Speaker 6>know two things. First of all, as you said, it

0:06:50.520 --> 0:06:55.440
<v Speaker 6>does require relatively large increases in capital to be held

0:06:55.920 --> 0:06:58.920
<v Speaker 6>across the largest banks, and actually Morgan, Stanley and Gold

0:06:59.000 --> 0:07:01.800
<v Speaker 6>and Sachs are some of the hardest hit because two

0:07:01.839 --> 0:07:05.839
<v Speaker 6>of the key you know, two of the key risk

0:07:05.880 --> 0:07:09.080
<v Speaker 6>factors that the rule aims to address are market risk

0:07:09.480 --> 0:07:15.680
<v Speaker 6>and operational risk. But if you analyze the rules, and

0:07:15.760 --> 0:07:18.960
<v Speaker 6>again we've heard you know, perhaps Jamie Diamond has been

0:07:19.280 --> 0:07:21.480
<v Speaker 6>one of the most vocal about some of the double

0:07:21.520 --> 0:07:27.640
<v Speaker 6>counting of operational risk inherent in this proposal. If we

0:07:27.680 --> 0:07:30.160
<v Speaker 6>look across some of the other regulations, such as the

0:07:30.200 --> 0:07:35.160
<v Speaker 6>Stress capital Buffer, which already penalizes banks for this type

0:07:35.160 --> 0:07:38.120
<v Speaker 6>of risk, and so there is sort of an element

0:07:38.160 --> 0:07:41.160
<v Speaker 6>of double counting. Also, if we look at the rules

0:07:41.280 --> 0:07:44.080
<v Speaker 6>versus some of the other jurisdictions, it does seem that

0:07:44.120 --> 0:07:46.920
<v Speaker 6>there is a fair amount of gold plating, meaning that

0:07:46.960 --> 0:07:49.800
<v Speaker 6>the rules do look a little bit tougher in the

0:07:49.800 --> 0:07:53.520
<v Speaker 6>way that they've been implemented in the US versus jurisdictions

0:07:53.560 --> 0:07:56.560
<v Speaker 6>such as the UK and Europe.

0:07:56.600 --> 0:07:58.200
<v Speaker 1>Well, until we get to that, I want to just

0:07:58.280 --> 0:08:00.560
<v Speaker 1>dial back on what we can look look forward to

0:08:00.560 --> 0:08:03.640
<v Speaker 1>this week and which of those big banks Shanali, I'm

0:08:03.680 --> 0:08:05.720
<v Speaker 1>going to ask you, we have JP Morgan Chase, City Group,

0:08:05.760 --> 0:08:08.520
<v Speaker 1>Wells Fargo, Bank of America. Which ones do you think

0:08:08.560 --> 0:08:11.200
<v Speaker 1>are going to have the results that Wall Street is

0:08:11.200 --> 0:08:11.640
<v Speaker 1>looking for?

0:08:11.720 --> 0:08:13.120
<v Speaker 7>Now? You have to remember that a lot of these

0:08:13.160 --> 0:08:16.360
<v Speaker 7>banks really either sold off or had very weak performance

0:08:16.400 --> 0:08:18.800
<v Speaker 7>last year, except for JP Morgan, which rose more than

0:08:18.800 --> 0:08:21.640
<v Speaker 7>the pack and actually hit a new record high early

0:08:21.720 --> 0:08:24.400
<v Speaker 7>this year in its stock price. But you'd think about

0:08:24.400 --> 0:08:27.360
<v Speaker 7>Goldman for example, and Goldman's analyst that covers the banking

0:08:27.360 --> 0:08:30.560
<v Speaker 7>sector has recently said that JP Morgan and Wells Fargo

0:08:30.800 --> 0:08:34.000
<v Speaker 7>could see more higher could even higher net interest income

0:08:34.080 --> 0:08:36.680
<v Speaker 7>like we've been talking about. It's two of their big

0:08:36.720 --> 0:08:41.200
<v Speaker 7>picks we know. Wells Fargo's Mike Mayo has also pointed

0:08:41.240 --> 0:08:43.640
<v Speaker 7>out that City Group has a lot of growth potential.

0:08:43.880 --> 0:08:46.280
<v Speaker 7>There's a lot of divergence here, but what we've seen

0:08:46.440 --> 0:08:48.520
<v Speaker 7>in the trends is that the bigger get bigger. What's

0:08:48.520 --> 0:08:51.960
<v Speaker 7>going to get interesting after the biggest banks report is

0:08:52.160 --> 0:08:55.040
<v Speaker 7>the regional banks, and the week after also is the

0:08:55.320 --> 0:08:58.880
<v Speaker 7>big investment banks. You were talking about the weak deal volumes,

0:08:59.080 --> 0:09:02.319
<v Speaker 7>right stinct thing here is in the third the fourth

0:09:02.360 --> 0:09:05.160
<v Speaker 7>quarter of last year, you saw deal volumes jump by

0:09:05.200 --> 0:09:07.840
<v Speaker 7>one hundred and sixty billion dollars just from the third

0:09:07.880 --> 0:09:09.200
<v Speaker 7>to the fourth quarter after.

0:09:09.000 --> 0:09:10.599
<v Speaker 1>Being stagnant all year pretty.

0:09:10.360 --> 0:09:12.720
<v Speaker 7>Much, it's been the worst year in a decade for deals.

0:09:12.800 --> 0:09:14.640
<v Speaker 7>And so what happens is the bankers get paid when

0:09:14.640 --> 0:09:18.320
<v Speaker 7>those deals close, not upon announcement typically, So those deals

0:09:18.320 --> 0:09:22.000
<v Speaker 7>that are announced lead to fees tomorrow. And so those

0:09:22.080 --> 0:09:25.559
<v Speaker 7>banks Morgan Stanley, Goldman, Sachs and JP Morgan, which can

0:09:25.600 --> 0:09:29.400
<v Speaker 7>start to also see those deal fees start to impact

0:09:29.440 --> 0:09:32.400
<v Speaker 7>their bottom line, they could become very interesting this year

0:09:32.760 --> 0:09:36.760
<v Speaker 7>if their predictions come true and they finally see deals

0:09:36.800 --> 0:09:38.720
<v Speaker 7>pick up like they've been expecting for so long.

0:09:39.160 --> 0:09:40.599
<v Speaker 1>Alison, the final word.

0:09:40.440 --> 0:09:43.760
<v Speaker 6>I would say that on Friday, well, we'll see JP

0:09:43.840 --> 0:09:48.160
<v Speaker 6>Morgan and Bank of America continuing to execute despite some

0:09:48.240 --> 0:09:52.280
<v Speaker 6>challenges in the environment. Wells Fargo and City Group are

0:09:52.960 --> 0:09:56.559
<v Speaker 6>more longer term stories where they're restructuring, and I think

0:09:56.600 --> 0:09:58.640
<v Speaker 6>investors are going to want to hear from, you know,

0:09:58.720 --> 0:10:00.960
<v Speaker 6>City Groups sort of where they are are in the

0:10:01.000 --> 0:10:04.360
<v Speaker 6>path of that restructuring somewhere. Wells Fargo, what is going

0:10:04.400 --> 0:10:07.720
<v Speaker 6>to be the outlook for costs, Are we getting closer

0:10:07.920 --> 0:10:12.199
<v Speaker 6>any kind of news related to some of their regulatory challenges.

0:10:12.640 --> 0:10:16.440
<v Speaker 6>We'll also be looking for any big legal costs, because

0:10:16.480 --> 0:10:19.080
<v Speaker 6>we do tend to get those kitchen thinks for some

0:10:19.160 --> 0:10:22.400
<v Speaker 6>of the banks in the quarter. But again it is

0:10:22.480 --> 0:10:25.839
<v Speaker 6>all about the expectations and what is in the stock.

0:10:26.000 --> 0:10:30.000
<v Speaker 6>JP Morgan is likely to generate the highest return we expect,

0:10:30.760 --> 0:10:31.840
<v Speaker 6>but that's no secret.

0:10:32.280 --> 0:10:34.599
<v Speaker 1>Well, a lot to look forward to our thanks to

0:10:34.600 --> 0:10:38.920
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Intelligence Senior Analyst Alison Williams and Bloomberg Global Finance

0:10:38.920 --> 0:10:42.760
<v Speaker 1>Correspondent Shanali Bossic, and coming up on Bloomberg day Break weekend,

0:10:42.760 --> 0:10:44.679
<v Speaker 1>we take you to London and a look ahead to

0:10:44.760 --> 0:10:48.199
<v Speaker 1>a busy week on the economic calendar. I'm Tom Busby

0:10:48.320 --> 0:10:54.840
<v Speaker 1>and bloom This is Bloomberg day Break Weekend, our global

0:10:54.840 --> 0:10:56.960
<v Speaker 1>look ahead at the top stories for investors in the

0:10:56.960 --> 0:11:00.679
<v Speaker 1>coming week. I'm Tom Busby in New York. Hey's economic

0:11:00.720 --> 0:11:03.760
<v Speaker 1>trajectory back in focus in the coming days as a

0:11:03.760 --> 0:11:06.680
<v Speaker 1>batch of data will help tell us whether Britain could

0:11:06.800 --> 0:11:10.720
<v Speaker 1>avoid a recession. A recent survey of company executives highlighted

0:11:10.720 --> 0:11:15.240
<v Speaker 1>their pessimism about the outlook, despite encouraging science from some quarters.

0:11:15.280 --> 0:11:17.240
<v Speaker 1>Now for more, let's go to London and bring in

0:11:17.240 --> 0:11:19.600
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Daybreak. Europanker Stephen Carroll.

0:11:20.040 --> 0:11:23.600
<v Speaker 2>Tom, it's twenty twenty four and we're still asking questions

0:11:23.600 --> 0:11:26.280
<v Speaker 2>about whether or not the UK will fall into recession,

0:11:26.400 --> 0:11:29.120
<v Speaker 2>when it might happen, and how bad it could be.

0:11:29.240 --> 0:11:31.559
<v Speaker 2>We'll get an update on the monthly GDP numbers in

0:11:31.600 --> 0:11:33.520
<v Speaker 2>the coming days. It'll give us some more clues, along

0:11:33.559 --> 0:11:36.480
<v Speaker 2>with other indicators we're watching too. There have been some

0:11:36.640 --> 0:11:40.200
<v Speaker 2>positive signals, the latest Composite PMI survey showing an uptake

0:11:40.240 --> 0:11:42.440
<v Speaker 2>and activity to a reading a fifty two point one

0:11:42.559 --> 0:11:46.040
<v Speaker 2>in December. Thinking more long term, a recent forecast from

0:11:46.080 --> 0:11:49.080
<v Speaker 2>the Center for Economics and Business Research predicted the UK's

0:11:49.080 --> 0:11:51.880
<v Speaker 2>growth trajectory over the next decade or so will help

0:11:51.920 --> 0:11:55.120
<v Speaker 2>it retain its position as the world's sixth largest economy.

0:11:55.400 --> 0:11:57.920
<v Speaker 2>There's gloom in other quarters, though. The Institute of Directors

0:11:58.000 --> 0:12:01.320
<v Speaker 2>Economic Confidence survey fell into too close to its lowest

0:12:01.559 --> 0:12:04.080
<v Speaker 2>point in the year. So are we hurtling towards a

0:12:04.080 --> 0:12:06.880
<v Speaker 2>recession or is growth getting back on track? To discuss,

0:12:06.920 --> 0:12:09.280
<v Speaker 2>we've got our UK Economy reporter Tom Reese, and for

0:12:09.320 --> 0:12:11.000
<v Speaker 2>a look at how the consumer is faring, our UK

0:12:11.120 --> 0:12:13.920
<v Speaker 2>retail reporter Katie Lindsell. Tom, I'd like to start with

0:12:14.000 --> 0:12:16.480
<v Speaker 2>you were due to receive some economic date in the

0:12:16.480 --> 0:12:19.360
<v Speaker 2>coming days, including figures on UK manufacturing and the monthly

0:12:19.400 --> 0:12:21.959
<v Speaker 2>GDP figures. I mentioned what might they tell.

0:12:21.840 --> 0:12:25.240
<v Speaker 9>Us, So while it's quite hard to read signals from

0:12:25.240 --> 0:12:29.120
<v Speaker 9>one month's data, November's GDP figures could be a bit

0:12:29.160 --> 0:12:32.360
<v Speaker 9>more significant than the usually just because it may show

0:12:32.440 --> 0:12:37.160
<v Speaker 9>that the UK was on track for technical recession in

0:12:37.200 --> 0:12:40.959
<v Speaker 9>the second half of last year. We had some revised

0:12:41.000 --> 0:12:44.640
<v Speaker 9>data from just before Christmas that show GDP contracted zero

0:12:44.640 --> 0:12:48.560
<v Speaker 9>point one percent in the third quarter, and then that

0:12:48.679 --> 0:12:51.160
<v Speaker 9>was followed by a zero point three percent falling GDP

0:12:51.240 --> 0:12:54.400
<v Speaker 9>in October, so that that leaves some catching up to

0:12:54.400 --> 0:12:56.319
<v Speaker 9>do in November December if we're going to avoid a

0:12:56.360 --> 0:13:00.559
<v Speaker 9>technical recession I two straight quarters of fall output. I

0:13:00.760 --> 0:13:03.160
<v Speaker 9>think the main thing to take away from the second

0:13:03.160 --> 0:13:06.240
<v Speaker 9>half of last year it was a real diverging picture

0:13:07.040 --> 0:13:09.800
<v Speaker 9>between the sectors. You know, we have services that have

0:13:09.880 --> 0:13:13.600
<v Speaker 9>been relatively resilient despite you know the extreme pressure on

0:13:14.160 --> 0:13:16.480
<v Speaker 9>consumers from the cost of living crisis and you know,

0:13:16.559 --> 0:13:20.719
<v Speaker 9>higher mortgage paints to everything, but the manufacturing sector is struggling.

0:13:21.559 --> 0:13:24.160
<v Speaker 9>We've seen that in the survey data, seen lower demand

0:13:24.160 --> 0:13:27.600
<v Speaker 9>from overseas and domestically, factories are feeling, you know, the

0:13:27.640 --> 0:13:31.000
<v Speaker 9>pain from higher interest rates and they're starting to cut

0:13:31.080 --> 0:13:33.720
<v Speaker 9>employment and so it's it's it's quite it's quite a

0:13:33.720 --> 0:13:37.720
<v Speaker 9>complicated picture, but it's all it all looks quite stagnant

0:13:37.760 --> 0:13:40.880
<v Speaker 9>from from from the second half of you.

0:13:41.240 --> 0:13:42.880
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, and as you say, it's it's that question of

0:13:43.200 --> 0:13:45.880
<v Speaker 2>where we are in that last quarter GDPs and we

0:13:45.880 --> 0:13:47.880
<v Speaker 2>get the monthly figures just giving us a piece of

0:13:47.920 --> 0:13:50.679
<v Speaker 2>that picture and whether or not that we will have

0:13:50.800 --> 0:13:53.800
<v Speaker 2>for those two quarters of negative growth. Katie. I wanted

0:13:53.800 --> 0:13:55.079
<v Speaker 2>to bring you in here because one of the figures

0:13:55.080 --> 0:13:56.480
<v Speaker 2>we're going to be getting is one of the retail

0:13:56.480 --> 0:13:59.600
<v Speaker 2>sales measures and the British Retail Consortium. This is going

0:13:59.640 --> 0:14:02.640
<v Speaker 2>to for a period which is very important for retailers,

0:14:02.640 --> 0:14:05.040
<v Speaker 2>towards the end of the year, that pre Christmas shopping period.

0:14:05.040 --> 0:14:06.320
<v Speaker 2>What are you expecting?

0:14:06.480 --> 0:14:09.840
<v Speaker 10>Absolutely, you're right, I mean that Christmas period is so important,

0:14:09.920 --> 0:14:12.680
<v Speaker 10>so crucial for many retailers. If we look at the

0:14:12.679 --> 0:14:15.720
<v Speaker 10>figures that we saw in November from the British Retail Consortium,

0:14:15.960 --> 0:14:18.480
<v Speaker 10>they were actually quite weak. They did show growth, but

0:14:18.559 --> 0:14:22.400
<v Speaker 10>much weaker growth compared to a year earlier. So what

0:14:22.440 --> 0:14:24.800
<v Speaker 10>we have to be hoping is that many consumers pushed

0:14:24.800 --> 0:14:28.360
<v Speaker 10>their Christmas spend into December rather than relying on that

0:14:28.400 --> 0:14:32.920
<v Speaker 10>earlier November shopping period. But I think it's really yet

0:14:32.960 --> 0:14:36.160
<v Speaker 10>to be seen. From what we hear so far, online

0:14:36.280 --> 0:14:39.560
<v Speaker 10>has had a better performance the Christmas just gone compared

0:14:39.600 --> 0:14:43.440
<v Speaker 10>to twenty twenty two. Many shoppers were put off by

0:14:43.640 --> 0:14:47.400
<v Speaker 10>career delays and postal strikes in that earlier Christmas season,

0:14:47.920 --> 0:14:50.160
<v Speaker 10>which meant they visited more stores to be sure they

0:14:50.200 --> 0:14:52.560
<v Speaker 10>could get hold of items. I think online will have

0:14:52.600 --> 0:14:56.080
<v Speaker 10>had a much better time in Christmas twenty three, but

0:14:56.160 --> 0:14:59.760
<v Speaker 10>really it's still it's still to be seen how this goes.

0:15:00.080 --> 0:15:02.360
<v Speaker 10>From what we've seen from retailers, it's a mixed bag,

0:15:02.480 --> 0:15:05.440
<v Speaker 10>you know, some performing better than the Christmas before, others

0:15:05.480 --> 0:15:07.960
<v Speaker 10>having a bit of a difficult time, So it's still

0:15:07.960 --> 0:15:09.000
<v Speaker 10>to be seen how it will go.

0:15:09.440 --> 0:15:11.480
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, Katie, I'm always very interested to see when we

0:15:11.520 --> 0:15:14.320
<v Speaker 2>get the split from grocers on this, because I mean

0:15:14.320 --> 0:15:17.960
<v Speaker 2>grocers are very competitive. Marcus in the UK and seeing

0:15:18.000 --> 0:15:21.120
<v Speaker 2>the discounters coming out and talking about having their best

0:15:21.240 --> 0:15:23.440
<v Speaker 2>Christmas as ever, is that something that we've heard from

0:15:23.440 --> 0:15:26.320
<v Speaker 2>many retailers In what we've heard so far from them

0:15:26.320 --> 0:15:27.640
<v Speaker 2>about their pre Christmas period.

0:15:27.880 --> 0:15:28.080
<v Speaker 6>Yeah.

0:15:28.080 --> 0:15:30.440
<v Speaker 10>Absolutely. So as you say, we've had Aldi and Liddle

0:15:30.520 --> 0:15:32.440
<v Speaker 10>come out very quickly in the new year saying they

0:15:32.480 --> 0:15:37.040
<v Speaker 10>had record Christmas sales, and Cantar, which actually tracks sales

0:15:37.040 --> 0:15:40.440
<v Speaker 10>figures across supermarkets, so that there was a record thirteen

0:15:40.480 --> 0:15:43.760
<v Speaker 10>point seven billion pounds spent in the run up to Christmas.

0:15:44.120 --> 0:15:46.920
<v Speaker 10>I think it's fair to say that most supermarkets did well.

0:15:47.640 --> 0:15:51.479
<v Speaker 10>We're going to be getting both Sainsbury and Tesco reporting

0:15:52.080 --> 0:15:55.440
<v Speaker 10>next week and I think both those have probably done

0:15:55.480 --> 0:15:59.000
<v Speaker 10>pretty well over that Christmas season. I mean, food inflation

0:15:59.160 --> 0:16:03.320
<v Speaker 10>has come down a bit, it's still at nearly seven percent,

0:16:04.520 --> 0:16:07.640
<v Speaker 10>so I think that that the higher prices do have

0:16:07.680 --> 0:16:10.160
<v Speaker 10>a role to play in these big, chunky sales figures

0:16:10.160 --> 0:16:13.840
<v Speaker 10>we're seeing. But at the same time, hopefully shoppers are

0:16:13.840 --> 0:16:16.040
<v Speaker 10>feeling more encouraged to spend all food than they did,

0:16:16.080 --> 0:16:19.240
<v Speaker 10>say a year ago. So yeah, supermarkets have been a

0:16:19.360 --> 0:16:23.359
<v Speaker 10>very very comfortable part of retail these past few weeks.

0:16:23.760 --> 0:16:26.240
<v Speaker 2>Tom and we think to looking back at the data

0:16:26.280 --> 0:16:28.760
<v Speaker 2>we have already and thinking about where the trajectory we're

0:16:28.840 --> 0:16:29.200
<v Speaker 2>going in.

0:16:29.280 --> 0:16:30.880
<v Speaker 1>Yet, it feels like we've.

0:16:30.720 --> 0:16:33.320
<v Speaker 2>Been hearing about warnings of a recession in the UK

0:16:33.520 --> 0:16:35.720
<v Speaker 2>for I mean at least a year now at this day,

0:16:36.000 --> 0:16:38.600
<v Speaker 2>Let's be honest, are we overdue a recession here?

0:16:39.320 --> 0:16:41.000
<v Speaker 9>It has felt like we've been on the brink of

0:16:41.080 --> 0:16:45.360
<v Speaker 9>recession basically since that post lockdown Surgeon GDP wharf and

0:16:45.440 --> 0:16:48.320
<v Speaker 9>the cost of living crisis began. But I mean, this

0:16:48.440 --> 0:16:52.200
<v Speaker 9>economy has shown incredible ability to muddle through, to be

0:16:52.240 --> 0:16:56.720
<v Speaker 9>stagnant but resilient against some pretty massive headwinds and double

0:16:56.760 --> 0:17:00.400
<v Speaker 9>digit inflation and the Surgeon interest rates you said that

0:17:00.480 --> 0:17:02.840
<v Speaker 9>date we got just before Christmas. It did show that

0:17:02.880 --> 0:17:06.040
<v Speaker 9>we may have suffered a technical recession, but I mean,

0:17:06.359 --> 0:17:09.200
<v Speaker 9>the difference between the technical recession and very slight growth

0:17:09.240 --> 0:17:11.359
<v Speaker 9>at the moment is pretty tiny. But it also showed,

0:17:11.400 --> 0:17:13.920
<v Speaker 9>and I think this is crucial for the outlook, it

0:17:14.000 --> 0:17:16.399
<v Speaker 9>showed that inflation came down a lot more than the

0:17:16.440 --> 0:17:19.560
<v Speaker 9>Bank of England was expecting, down to below four percent.

0:17:19.600 --> 0:17:21.840
<v Speaker 9>And I think for the outlook that is the key

0:17:21.880 --> 0:17:24.760
<v Speaker 9>really because that not only affects you know, you know,

0:17:24.880 --> 0:17:28.040
<v Speaker 9>real wages for consumers, but also what we might see

0:17:28.040 --> 0:17:29.159
<v Speaker 9>on interest rates.

0:17:29.280 --> 0:17:31.680
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, and of course the fact that we had the

0:17:31.760 --> 0:17:34.080
<v Speaker 2>run of fourteenth strake hights in the Bank of England

0:17:34.440 --> 0:17:36.960
<v Speaker 2>still feeling acrourse the effects of that feeding into the market,

0:17:37.000 --> 0:17:39.119
<v Speaker 2>partly due to the way that the mortgage market structured. Here,

0:17:39.240 --> 0:17:41.600
<v Speaker 2>not everyone has actually had the interest rate increase, although

0:17:41.880 --> 0:17:45.480
<v Speaker 2>we're getting closer to that position now. What should we

0:17:45.520 --> 0:17:47.720
<v Speaker 2>be thinking about when it comes to where the Bank

0:17:47.720 --> 0:17:50.520
<v Speaker 2>of England goes from here? Of course, speculation abound about

0:17:50.760 --> 0:17:53.239
<v Speaker 2>central banks around the world and when they're going to

0:17:53.280 --> 0:17:56.840
<v Speaker 2>cut interest rates. What sort of scenario is the Bank

0:17:56.840 --> 0:17:59.520
<v Speaker 2>of England facing when we look into twenty twenty four.

0:18:00.040 --> 0:18:04.920
<v Speaker 9>Stressing because after that inflation print just before Christmas that

0:18:05.440 --> 0:18:09.360
<v Speaker 9>showed inflation coming down much faster than we expecting. Obviously,

0:18:09.400 --> 0:18:12.719
<v Speaker 9>markets took that as the green light for early interest

0:18:12.760 --> 0:18:15.159
<v Speaker 9>rate cuts and they're are currently they're pricing in the

0:18:15.200 --> 0:18:18.679
<v Speaker 9>first cut from May and then a further four or

0:18:18.720 --> 0:18:22.760
<v Speaker 9>five after that over the by the end of the year.

0:18:23.320 --> 0:18:25.479
<v Speaker 9>But the Bank of England, you know, it had its

0:18:25.560 --> 0:18:29.280
<v Speaker 9>latest policy meeting just after that those inflation figures and

0:18:29.480 --> 0:18:32.920
<v Speaker 9>it was it was still holding this high for longer message.

0:18:32.920 --> 0:18:35.320
<v Speaker 9>It's still trying to tell markets that you know, don't

0:18:35.359 --> 0:18:38.080
<v Speaker 9>expect us to pivot to cuts anytime soon, which was

0:18:38.200 --> 0:18:41.120
<v Speaker 9>quite in quite sharp contrast with what we're hearing from

0:18:41.200 --> 0:18:45.639
<v Speaker 9>the Fed around that time as well. So although you

0:18:45.680 --> 0:18:48.440
<v Speaker 9>know the Bank of England's trying to you know, ward

0:18:48.480 --> 0:18:51.480
<v Speaker 9>off markets and tell them to you know that they're

0:18:51.480 --> 0:18:53.840
<v Speaker 9>going to hold path for quite quite some time, that

0:18:54.040 --> 0:18:56.040
<v Speaker 9>markets are running away with it now, and that they

0:18:56.080 --> 0:18:59.480
<v Speaker 9>are expecting cuts to come sometime in the first half

0:18:59.520 --> 0:18:59.960
<v Speaker 9>of this year.

0:19:00.320 --> 0:19:02.119
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I'm just looking at the market pricing for that

0:19:02.160 --> 0:19:04.240
<v Speaker 2>as well. Market's currently pricing in a first rate cut

0:19:04.240 --> 0:19:07.280
<v Speaker 2>from the Bank of England in around May of this year,

0:19:07.320 --> 0:19:09.679
<v Speaker 2>and around one hundred and just over one hundred and

0:19:09.680 --> 0:19:12.280
<v Speaker 2>thirty five basis points of cuts by the end of

0:19:12.320 --> 0:19:14.320
<v Speaker 2>twenty twenty four as well. So it's certainly a very

0:19:14.320 --> 0:19:17.280
<v Speaker 2>interesting year for the Bank of England. Okay, Katie Linsel,

0:19:17.320 --> 0:19:20.639
<v Speaker 2>our UK Retail reporter and our UK Economy reporter, Tom Reese,

0:19:20.640 --> 0:19:22.480
<v Speaker 2>thank you so much for joining us and giving us

0:19:22.520 --> 0:19:24.600
<v Speaker 2>your analysis on that subject. We will of course have

0:19:24.680 --> 0:19:28.280
<v Speaker 2>coverage of those GDP and other economic indicators on the

0:19:28.320 --> 0:19:31.359
<v Speaker 2>program in the coming days. I'm Stephen Carroll in London.

0:19:31.400 --> 0:19:34.720
<v Speaker 2>You can catch us every weekday morning here for Bloomberg Daybreak.

0:19:34.760 --> 0:19:37.200
<v Speaker 2>You're at beginning at six am in London and one

0:19:37.240 --> 0:19:39.160
<v Speaker 2>am on Wall Street, Tom.

0:19:39.200 --> 0:19:41.919
<v Speaker 1>Our thanks to Bloomberg Daybreak. You're a banker, Stephen Carroll,

0:19:42.040 --> 0:19:44.360
<v Speaker 1>And coming up on Bloomberg day Break weekend, we head

0:19:44.359 --> 0:19:48.320
<v Speaker 1>to Asia and preview a key presidential election in Taiwan.

0:19:48.960 --> 0:20:02.359
<v Speaker 1>I'm Tom Busby, and this is Bloomberg. I'm Tom Busby

0:20:02.359 --> 0:20:04.040
<v Speaker 1>in New York with your global look ahead at the

0:20:04.040 --> 0:20:07.720
<v Speaker 1>top stories for investors in the coming week. Taiwan's presidential

0:20:07.760 --> 0:20:11.320
<v Speaker 1>election is set for January thirteenth, and the results will

0:20:11.320 --> 0:20:13.879
<v Speaker 1>help shape the course of US China relations for years

0:20:13.920 --> 0:20:18.639
<v Speaker 1>to come. Bloomberg Daybreak Asia anchor Doug Krisner looks ahead Tom.

0:20:18.640 --> 0:20:21.879
<v Speaker 3>The election is a competitive three way race, and the

0:20:22.000 --> 0:20:26.080
<v Speaker 3>ruling Democratic Progressive Party is seeking to maintain Taiwan's de

0:20:26.200 --> 0:20:29.840
<v Speaker 3>facto political independence. Now to help us set up the contest,

0:20:29.880 --> 0:20:34.800
<v Speaker 3>we have Bloomberg Samson. Elyssy is our Taipei bureau chief. Samson,

0:20:35.200 --> 0:20:37.240
<v Speaker 3>thank you for being with us. As I mentioned, it's

0:20:37.240 --> 0:20:39.960
<v Speaker 3>a three way race. Can you quickly kind of help

0:20:40.040 --> 0:20:44.240
<v Speaker 3>sketch out who the candidates are, what their perspective parties

0:20:44.320 --> 0:20:47.639
<v Speaker 3>stand for, particularly in relation to the government in Beijing.

0:20:47.800 --> 0:20:51.840
<v Speaker 11>Well, first of all, you have the current Vice President Laichinda.

0:20:52.359 --> 0:20:55.400
<v Speaker 11>So he is the candidate for the as you said,

0:20:55.480 --> 0:20:58.560
<v Speaker 11>the Democratic Progressive Party the DPP. So this is a

0:20:58.560 --> 0:21:03.320
<v Speaker 11>party that holds as one of its foundational tenets that

0:21:03.920 --> 0:21:08.640
<v Speaker 11>Taiwan is a sovereign, independent nation. The only problem is

0:21:08.640 --> 0:21:11.119
<v Speaker 11>is that it's not widely recognized by the rest of

0:21:11.160 --> 0:21:15.920
<v Speaker 11>the world. So they are pushing for a permanent separate

0:21:16.000 --> 0:21:21.160
<v Speaker 11>status for Taiwan, separate from China. Obviously, So right now

0:21:21.160 --> 0:21:24.720
<v Speaker 11>he's the current vice president and he is looking to

0:21:24.760 --> 0:21:30.200
<v Speaker 11>succeed his current boss president signing one then running against him.

0:21:30.400 --> 0:21:33.840
<v Speaker 11>You have the largest opposition party in Taiwan, the gormin

0:21:33.880 --> 0:21:37.600
<v Speaker 11>dang or the KMT, and this is a party that

0:21:38.160 --> 0:21:43.199
<v Speaker 11>holds that Taiwan is actually a part of a China

0:21:43.320 --> 0:21:46.119
<v Speaker 11>of slightly more vaguely defined China, not necessarily the People's

0:21:46.160 --> 0:21:49.760
<v Speaker 11>Republic of China, but a some kind of China, and

0:21:49.800 --> 0:21:54.920
<v Speaker 11>that Taiwan's eventual future lies with China and in some

0:21:55.000 --> 0:21:59.679
<v Speaker 11>form of unification with the mainland. And their candidate is

0:22:00.160 --> 0:22:04.720
<v Speaker 11>former policeman, Taiwan's former top policeman Ho Yoi, who is

0:22:04.800 --> 0:22:08.040
<v Speaker 11>running against Lie. And then this year, which makes this

0:22:08.160 --> 0:22:14.040
<v Speaker 11>election slightly unique, as you have a third competitive candidate,

0:22:14.320 --> 0:22:19.680
<v Speaker 11>and this is a Kerwanza from the new relatively young

0:22:20.040 --> 0:22:24.360
<v Speaker 11>at Taiwan's People's Party. So Kerr is something of a

0:22:24.520 --> 0:22:27.840
<v Speaker 11>left field candidate, a very non traditional politician. So he

0:22:27.960 --> 0:22:31.680
<v Speaker 11>was a surgeon in one of Taiwan's top hospitals for

0:22:31.720 --> 0:22:35.119
<v Speaker 11>a long time until one day he decided that he

0:22:35.119 --> 0:22:37.480
<v Speaker 11>couldn't stand the state of politics in Taiwan and ran

0:22:37.520 --> 0:22:40.840
<v Speaker 11>for mayor of Taipei as an independent and surprisingly won

0:22:41.800 --> 0:22:44.919
<v Speaker 11>around ten years ago. He was then a mayor for

0:22:44.960 --> 0:22:48.440
<v Speaker 11>eight years, and then after he stepped down, he set

0:22:48.520 --> 0:22:51.000
<v Speaker 11>up his own party and since then he's been teasing

0:22:51.080 --> 0:22:52.919
<v Speaker 11>that he could run for president, and this year he

0:22:52.960 --> 0:22:57.080
<v Speaker 11>actually did it, and so he has proved to be

0:22:57.359 --> 0:23:01.480
<v Speaker 11>quite popular with voters who were are tired of the

0:23:01.560 --> 0:23:05.000
<v Speaker 11>duopoly of Taiwan politics, the traditional either the the DPP

0:23:05.200 --> 0:23:08.080
<v Speaker 11>or the KMT, and now a KA has given this

0:23:08.200 --> 0:23:09.800
<v Speaker 11>effective vote as something of an option.

0:23:10.040 --> 0:23:13.480
<v Speaker 3>Recently, we had a President chi with his New Year address,

0:23:13.560 --> 0:23:15.919
<v Speaker 3>and one of the things he reiterated was that China

0:23:15.960 --> 0:23:19.720
<v Speaker 3>will be surely unified, maybe a reference to the aim

0:23:19.800 --> 0:23:22.760
<v Speaker 3>here of eventually bringing Taiwan back under the control of

0:23:22.800 --> 0:23:26.119
<v Speaker 3>the mainland if forced by necessary, and I'm based on

0:23:26.160 --> 0:23:29.880
<v Speaker 3>what you just said, I'm imagining that the KMT candidate

0:23:29.960 --> 0:23:31.840
<v Speaker 3>would be Beijing's preferred choice.

0:23:32.080 --> 0:23:32.600
<v Speaker 1>Is that fair?

0:23:33.320 --> 0:23:38.960
<v Speaker 11>Yes? Absolutely so. They do share this one overarching goal

0:23:39.160 --> 0:23:45.720
<v Speaker 11>that eventually Taiwan should be formally unified as part of China.

0:23:45.840 --> 0:23:48.600
<v Speaker 11>What they do disagree on is what that China should be.

0:23:48.680 --> 0:23:52.560
<v Speaker 11>So obviously, from Sijinping's perspective, it's the People's Republic of China,

0:23:52.600 --> 0:23:55.879
<v Speaker 11>the China that we all know now. But for the

0:23:55.960 --> 0:23:59.080
<v Speaker 11>KMT in Taiwan, really important part of their history was

0:23:59.119 --> 0:24:02.960
<v Speaker 11>there fighting the Tiny Civil War against the Communist Party,

0:24:03.800 --> 0:24:07.040
<v Speaker 11>and so theoretically they many people in the party still

0:24:07.119 --> 0:24:09.719
<v Speaker 11>view the Chinese Communist Party as an enemy, and if

0:24:09.960 --> 0:24:12.400
<v Speaker 11>you meet them, you know, privately, they'll quite happily tell

0:24:12.440 --> 0:24:16.119
<v Speaker 11>you that, you know, the Communists in Beijing are still

0:24:16.160 --> 0:24:22.080
<v Speaker 11>their mortal enemy. But at least they do have one

0:24:22.080 --> 0:24:24.959
<v Speaker 11>thing in common is that they feel Taiwan would be

0:24:24.960 --> 0:24:26.960
<v Speaker 11>better off eventually being part of China.

0:24:27.520 --> 0:24:29.480
<v Speaker 3>I think the US probably is going to be watching

0:24:29.560 --> 0:24:31.800
<v Speaker 3>this race very closely. I think that's fair to say.

0:24:31.920 --> 0:24:33.920
<v Speaker 3>At the end of last year, near the end, I

0:24:33.960 --> 0:24:36.480
<v Speaker 3>think it was in November that presidents Biden and she

0:24:36.640 --> 0:24:39.000
<v Speaker 3>were at the APEX summit in San Francisco, and it

0:24:39.040 --> 0:24:42.399
<v Speaker 3>was then that she told Biden that the issue of

0:24:42.440 --> 0:24:45.240
<v Speaker 3>Taiwan was the most important and dangerous issue for the

0:24:45.359 --> 0:24:49.040
<v Speaker 3>US and China and their relationship. How do you think,

0:24:49.600 --> 0:24:52.359
<v Speaker 3>and I'm not asking you to speculate, but based on

0:24:52.400 --> 0:24:56.199
<v Speaker 3>what you know of US Taiwan relations, how might the

0:24:56.320 --> 0:24:59.879
<v Speaker 3>US kind of be watching this contest? And not that

0:25:00.080 --> 0:25:03.080
<v Speaker 3>it would put its finger on the scale in any way,

0:25:03.200 --> 0:25:05.480
<v Speaker 3>but is there something that the US would kind of

0:25:05.520 --> 0:25:08.760
<v Speaker 3>communicate to Beijing to make sure that there is no

0:25:09.080 --> 0:25:13.280
<v Speaker 3>interference or let's say, a reduction in the degree of

0:25:13.400 --> 0:25:16.320
<v Speaker 3>influence Beijing may like to have over these elections.

0:25:16.920 --> 0:25:19.000
<v Speaker 11>Well, there's no doubt that the US is watching this

0:25:19.040 --> 0:25:24.680
<v Speaker 11>election very very closely. Taiwan has become this pivotal point

0:25:24.760 --> 0:25:29.560
<v Speaker 11>in the geopolitical standoff between the United States and China,

0:25:29.600 --> 0:25:33.280
<v Speaker 11>and as Hujinping said there, as you mentioned, you know,

0:25:33.359 --> 0:25:36.440
<v Speaker 11>it is one of the most important issues in relations

0:25:36.440 --> 0:25:39.480
<v Speaker 11>between Washington and Beijing. And so one of the things

0:25:39.480 --> 0:25:43.680
<v Speaker 11>the US has repeatedly reiterated so that number one, they

0:25:43.720 --> 0:25:47.520
<v Speaker 11>have no preferred winner of the Taiwanese election. They've been

0:25:47.600 --> 0:25:51.240
<v Speaker 11>very clear that, you know, they respect the choice of

0:25:51.560 --> 0:25:56.440
<v Speaker 11>Taiwanese voters, and they have also urged other parties. I

0:25:56.520 --> 0:25:59.720
<v Speaker 11>think we can further largely talking to Beijing here. The

0:25:59.760 --> 0:26:01.919
<v Speaker 11>other parties should stay out of the race. They should

0:26:01.920 --> 0:26:05.280
<v Speaker 11>not meddle in this election. Beijing, for its part, it

0:26:05.280 --> 0:26:07.720
<v Speaker 11>has made it absolutely clear that they would prefer the

0:26:07.800 --> 0:26:11.560
<v Speaker 11>KMT candidate to win this election. To be honest, there's

0:26:11.560 --> 0:26:14.240
<v Speaker 11>a bit of a you know, who would the US

0:26:14.320 --> 0:26:18.639
<v Speaker 11>prefer to win? You hear different voices out of the

0:26:18.760 --> 0:26:21.359
<v Speaker 11>United States on this. On the one hand, if the

0:26:21.440 --> 0:26:24.440
<v Speaker 11>DPP stays in power, the US can be fairly sure

0:26:24.480 --> 0:26:28.200
<v Speaker 11>they have a reliable, steady partner who is on board

0:26:28.240 --> 0:26:33.200
<v Speaker 11>with the United States and their more broader regional goals

0:26:33.200 --> 0:26:36.880
<v Speaker 11>when it comes to standing up against China, and also

0:26:36.920 --> 0:26:40.359
<v Speaker 11>they have a more willing recipient for US arms sales.

0:26:41.480 --> 0:26:43.680
<v Speaker 11>But on the other hand, if the KMT were to win,

0:26:43.800 --> 0:26:46.640
<v Speaker 11>some in the US do point out that this could

0:26:47.119 --> 0:26:49.840
<v Speaker 11>take a little bit of the temperature out of the

0:26:50.800 --> 0:26:53.199
<v Speaker 11>cross rate relations in this part of the world and

0:26:53.240 --> 0:26:57.000
<v Speaker 11>therefore make US China relations a little bit easier.

0:26:57.160 --> 0:26:59.720
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, I understand the notion of supporting democracies from the

0:26:59.800 --> 0:27:02.399
<v Speaker 3>US side. But I'm understanding also that there is a

0:27:02.560 --> 0:27:05.360
<v Speaker 3>little bit of a national security concern if you consider

0:27:05.400 --> 0:27:10.160
<v Speaker 3>the fact that Taiwan is basically the leader in semiconductor production.

0:27:10.240 --> 0:27:13.720
<v Speaker 3>I'm thinking in particular of Taiwan semi. If that were

0:27:13.760 --> 0:27:16.760
<v Speaker 3>not the case, would the US stance be slightly different?

0:27:16.760 --> 0:27:17.240
<v Speaker 3>Do you think?

0:27:17.359 --> 0:27:19.320
<v Speaker 11>I think it's a question of degrees. I think there's

0:27:19.359 --> 0:27:23.879
<v Speaker 11>no doubt that the United States, as you said, supports

0:27:24.520 --> 0:27:27.159
<v Speaker 11>a fellow democracy, and it's a very bad look for

0:27:27.200 --> 0:27:32.399
<v Speaker 11>the United States if they're seen throwing a democracy to

0:27:32.440 --> 0:27:35.320
<v Speaker 11>the wolves in Asia, so to speak. And also, you know,

0:27:35.359 --> 0:27:37.320
<v Speaker 11>there is the Taiwan Relations Act in the United States.

0:27:37.359 --> 0:27:40.600
<v Speaker 11>You know, the US has committed itself to providing for

0:27:40.680 --> 0:27:44.040
<v Speaker 11>Taiwan's own self defense, and so there is a legal

0:27:44.119 --> 0:27:48.199
<v Speaker 11>basis for the US to continuing to support Taiwan. So

0:27:48.200 --> 0:27:51.000
<v Speaker 11>I don't think that would be something the US could

0:27:51.040 --> 0:27:55.359
<v Speaker 11>easily abandon. Plus, within the United States, I mean, you

0:27:55.400 --> 0:28:00.119
<v Speaker 11>look at Congress, there's an enormous amount of support on

0:28:00.160 --> 0:28:02.919
<v Speaker 11>both sides of the Aisle for Taiwan. There So, even

0:28:02.960 --> 0:28:07.760
<v Speaker 11>if the executive were to decide that supporting Taiwan is

0:28:07.760 --> 0:28:11.399
<v Speaker 11>no longer in America's best interests. I think they'd find

0:28:11.440 --> 0:28:16.840
<v Speaker 11>a lot of pushback from Congress on anything that would

0:28:17.080 --> 0:28:18.200
<v Speaker 11>disadvantage Taiwan.

0:28:18.520 --> 0:28:21.640
<v Speaker 3>It was January first, nineteen seventy nine. I believe that

0:28:21.800 --> 0:28:25.439
<v Speaker 3>Washington officially cut diplomatic ties with Taipei in favor of

0:28:25.480 --> 0:28:28.959
<v Speaker 3>recognizing Beijing. How well do you think the US has

0:28:29.000 --> 0:28:31.919
<v Speaker 3>been doing it? It kind of balancing the situation.

0:28:32.080 --> 0:28:38.520
<v Speaker 11>It's underappreciated exactly how successful the Taiwan's Relations Act and

0:28:39.160 --> 0:28:44.320
<v Speaker 11>strategic ambiguity has worked over the past forty plus years

0:28:44.320 --> 0:28:48.080
<v Speaker 11>forty five years now at maintaining the peace in this

0:28:48.160 --> 0:28:48.840
<v Speaker 11>part of the world.

0:28:48.880 --> 0:28:50.880
<v Speaker 3>Samson's so good of you to stop by and help

0:28:50.960 --> 0:28:54.600
<v Speaker 3>us set up the Taiwan presidential election that will happen

0:28:54.640 --> 0:28:58.520
<v Speaker 3>on January thirteenth. Samson Ellis is Bloomberg's Taipei bureau chief.

0:28:58.960 --> 0:29:01.280
<v Speaker 3>I'm Doug Krisner, and you can join Brian Curtis and

0:29:01.360 --> 0:29:04.320
<v Speaker 3>myself weekdays here for Bloomberg day Break Asia beginning at

0:29:04.360 --> 0:29:08.600
<v Speaker 3>seven am in Hong Kong six pm on Wall Street tom.

0:29:08.240 --> 0:29:10.920
<v Speaker 1>Our thanks to Bloomberg day Break Asia anchor Doug Krisner,

0:29:10.920 --> 0:29:13.640
<v Speaker 1>and coming up here on Bloomberg day Break Weekend, we

0:29:13.680 --> 0:29:16.440
<v Speaker 1>look ahead to the presidential election right here in the

0:29:16.520 --> 0:29:21.040
<v Speaker 1>US with Gallup editor in chief Mohammed Unics. Next, I'm

0:29:21.080 --> 0:29:27.520
<v Speaker 1>Tom Busby, and this is Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg day

0:29:27.560 --> 0:29:29.800
<v Speaker 1>Break weekend, our global look ahead at the top stories

0:29:29.800 --> 0:29:32.640
<v Speaker 1>for investors in the coming week. I'm Tom Busby in

0:29:32.680 --> 0:29:36.480
<v Speaker 1>New York. New polling from Gallup shows President Joe Biden

0:29:36.520 --> 0:29:39.800
<v Speaker 1>finishing twenty twenty three with a job approval rating of

0:29:40.000 --> 0:29:43.400
<v Speaker 1>just thirty nine percent. That's the lowest of recent presidents

0:29:43.720 --> 0:29:47.360
<v Speaker 1>at the same point in their presidency. Gallup Editor in

0:29:47.400 --> 0:29:50.680
<v Speaker 1>chief Mohammed Unis tells Bloomberg's Kaylee Lines and our Bloomberg

0:29:50.760 --> 0:29:53.840
<v Speaker 1>ninety nine one news from in Washington about trends to

0:29:53.960 --> 0:29:57.479
<v Speaker 1>follow heading into the twenty twenty four presidential election.

0:29:57.800 --> 0:30:01.040
<v Speaker 4>I'm not sure that President Biden is feeling particularly happy

0:30:01.080 --> 0:30:03.320
<v Speaker 4>as he comes into this new year, knowing he ended

0:30:03.400 --> 0:30:06.960
<v Speaker 4>last year twenty twenty three, according to Gallups figures, with

0:30:07.040 --> 0:30:09.960
<v Speaker 4>an approval rating of just thirty nine percent. Can you

0:30:10.000 --> 0:30:12.840
<v Speaker 4>give us some context around that number? It's quite low.

0:30:13.040 --> 0:30:16.520
<v Speaker 12>The real context is compared to every other president in

0:30:16.600 --> 0:30:20.640
<v Speaker 12>modern history who has sought reelection, he's far behind where

0:30:20.680 --> 0:30:24.160
<v Speaker 12>they were traditionally speaking what we've seen in our numbers

0:30:24.200 --> 0:30:27.480
<v Speaker 12>is that a president going into a reelection campaign at

0:30:27.520 --> 0:30:30.640
<v Speaker 12>that fifty point mark is a really critical number to

0:30:30.680 --> 0:30:34.400
<v Speaker 12>be at. And obviously President Biden is far behind that,

0:30:34.520 --> 0:30:38.160
<v Speaker 12>but he's also significantly behind where Barack Obama was and

0:30:38.200 --> 0:30:41.640
<v Speaker 12>where Donald Trump was, which is pretty important to note.

0:30:41.680 --> 0:30:44.120
<v Speaker 12>I think during the Trump campaign there was so much

0:30:44.160 --> 0:30:47.400
<v Speaker 12>focus on how low and steady the number stayed, and

0:30:47.560 --> 0:30:50.640
<v Speaker 12>President Biden right now is behind where President Trump was.

0:30:50.880 --> 0:30:54.000
<v Speaker 4>Well, and you talk about the number staying low and

0:30:54.040 --> 0:30:56.600
<v Speaker 4>being pretty steady, isn't that the case with Biden? I mean,

0:30:56.640 --> 0:30:58.800
<v Speaker 4>he's been in and around that kind of forty percent

0:30:58.840 --> 0:31:01.080
<v Speaker 4>figure or below for some time now, and it doesn't

0:31:01.080 --> 0:31:04.080
<v Speaker 4>seem like that that needle has moved to any real

0:31:04.120 --> 0:31:04.760
<v Speaker 4>degree at all.

0:31:04.920 --> 0:31:05.440
<v Speaker 1>It hasn't.

0:31:05.480 --> 0:31:08.240
<v Speaker 12>He started off like most presidents do in a honeymoon phase.

0:31:08.280 --> 0:31:10.680
<v Speaker 12>He has that fifty seven percent approval, which is pretty

0:31:10.920 --> 0:31:14.520
<v Speaker 12>high in our era. Another thing Kaylee, to always keep

0:31:14.520 --> 0:31:16.720
<v Speaker 12>in mind with these numbers specifically, is we are in

0:31:16.960 --> 0:31:21.240
<v Speaker 12>what it truly is a hyperpartisan era. So since President Obama,

0:31:21.720 --> 0:31:25.400
<v Speaker 12>the difference between people's views on the president and how

0:31:25.480 --> 0:31:29.480
<v Speaker 12>closely it's tied to their party ID is stronger than ever.

0:31:29.840 --> 0:31:34.200
<v Speaker 12>So presidents have had flatter sort of frequencies on their

0:31:34.200 --> 0:31:37.640
<v Speaker 12>approval ratings. But I think what's concerning about President Biden's

0:31:37.680 --> 0:31:40.880
<v Speaker 12>situation is that even compared to Obama and Trump, who

0:31:41.040 --> 0:31:44.560
<v Speaker 12>also face that reality, he's significantly behind. Right now.

0:31:44.680 --> 0:31:46.760
<v Speaker 4>Okay, well, let's talk about the options. I mentioned that

0:31:46.800 --> 0:31:50.120
<v Speaker 4>we're seeing in pretty consistently in polls that the majority

0:31:50.160 --> 0:31:52.160
<v Speaker 4>of voters would prefer it not to be a Biden

0:31:52.240 --> 0:31:55.320
<v Speaker 4>Trump rematched like twenty twenty all over again. And yet

0:31:55.320 --> 0:31:57.920
<v Speaker 4>that's likely what they're going to get unless there is

0:31:58.360 --> 0:32:00.640
<v Speaker 4>a viable alternative. What are you say seeing a round

0:32:00.680 --> 0:32:03.479
<v Speaker 4>support for a third party candidate, whoever that is?

0:32:03.680 --> 0:32:05.560
<v Speaker 12>Well, I can tell you who we see in terms

0:32:05.600 --> 0:32:07.600
<v Speaker 12>of favorables. Of all the folks that are out there

0:32:07.680 --> 0:32:10.680
<v Speaker 12>right now, President Biden and Trump are basically tied at

0:32:10.720 --> 0:32:12.960
<v Speaker 12>forty one percent of a favorable rating. And this is

0:32:12.960 --> 0:32:15.080
<v Speaker 12>do you have a favorable or unfavorable view of the

0:32:15.080 --> 0:32:19.200
<v Speaker 12>following person? Desantus Haley in specific Sarty are at their

0:32:19.240 --> 0:32:23.520
<v Speaker 12>thirty so really low thirty percent favorable rating. It's important

0:32:23.600 --> 0:32:26.160
<v Speaker 12>to note that this tends to happen with new names.

0:32:26.200 --> 0:32:29.440
<v Speaker 12>People don't know who they are. Kennedy, on the other hand,

0:32:29.480 --> 0:32:31.760
<v Speaker 12>is already breaking the fifty point mark, but that's probably

0:32:31.760 --> 0:32:35.080
<v Speaker 12>because of that name recognition factor that he has in

0:32:35.120 --> 0:32:38.440
<v Speaker 12>his favor. So looking at the favorable ratings, which is

0:32:38.480 --> 0:32:40.680
<v Speaker 12>really a really good proxy, I think at this point

0:32:40.760 --> 0:32:43.760
<v Speaker 12>of the contest to see who's graining traction with the public,

0:32:44.200 --> 0:32:46.800
<v Speaker 12>really none of them are. Nobody's really shot through the

0:32:46.920 --> 0:32:51.280
<v Speaker 12>roof and impressed or wowed. Of course, January fifteenth is

0:32:51.400 --> 0:32:55.000
<v Speaker 12>just down the street. A lot can change, particularly when

0:32:55.000 --> 0:32:57.440
<v Speaker 12>those first results start coming out from the caucuses, But

0:32:57.560 --> 0:32:59.160
<v Speaker 12>right now, nobody's dominating.

0:32:59.320 --> 0:33:01.280
<v Speaker 4>All right, we only have about a minute left, Muhammad,

0:33:01.320 --> 0:33:03.120
<v Speaker 4>But we've discussed we've covered a lot of ground here

0:33:03.120 --> 0:33:05.560
<v Speaker 4>in what twenty twenty four may bring, how people are feeling.

0:33:05.600 --> 0:33:08.800
<v Speaker 4>What is one other trend or something that you'll be

0:33:08.880 --> 0:33:10.280
<v Speaker 4>focusing on in twenty twenty four.

0:33:10.720 --> 0:33:12.960
<v Speaker 12>I think for us it'll be the election. It'll be

0:33:13.040 --> 0:33:17.840
<v Speaker 12>what people are really tuning into for making that decision

0:33:17.840 --> 0:33:20.480
<v Speaker 12>to cast their vote. One thing we really know right

0:33:20.480 --> 0:33:23.240
<v Speaker 12>now is most Americans are still totally checked out. They're

0:33:23.280 --> 0:33:26.360
<v Speaker 12>not focused on political news as unlike you and I

0:33:26.600 --> 0:33:28.760
<v Speaker 12>night and day. I know it hurts my feelings too,

0:33:29.200 --> 0:33:32.920
<v Speaker 12>but as it gets closer to November, that number is

0:33:32.960 --> 0:33:34.840
<v Speaker 12>going to rise, and we're going to start asking people

0:33:35.040 --> 0:33:37.320
<v Speaker 12>what do you bring into mind when you cast that vote.

0:33:37.440 --> 0:33:38.960
<v Speaker 4>It's a good point. I feel like we've been living

0:33:39.000 --> 0:33:41.520
<v Speaker 4>and breathing this for a year now, but really it's

0:33:41.560 --> 0:33:44.760
<v Speaker 4>still early days. Mohammed Unis joining us. Gallups editor in chief.

0:33:44.800 --> 0:33:47.200
<v Speaker 4>Thank you so much as always for being here. It's

0:33:47.240 --> 0:33:48.680
<v Speaker 4>going to be a doozy of the year, guys.

0:33:48.880 --> 0:33:51.400
<v Speaker 1>Thank you, Kaylee. That was Bloomberg sound On co host

0:33:51.480 --> 0:33:54.560
<v Speaker 1>Kaylee Lines reporting from our Bloomberg ninety nine one newsroom

0:33:54.560 --> 0:33:57.640
<v Speaker 1>in Washington, and you can hear sound on weekdays one

0:33:57.680 --> 0:34:00.440
<v Speaker 1>to three pm on Bloomberg Radio. And that does it

0:34:00.520 --> 0:34:02.840
<v Speaker 1>for this edition of Bloomberg day Break Weekend. Join us

0:34:02.840 --> 0:34:05.320
<v Speaker 1>again Monday morning, five am Wall Street Time for the

0:34:05.400 --> 0:34:08.319
<v Speaker 1>latest on markets overseas and the news you need to

0:34:08.320 --> 0:34:11.479
<v Speaker 1>start your day. I'm Tom Busby. Stay with us. Top

0:34:11.520 --> 0:34:14.640
<v Speaker 1>stories and global business headlines are coming up right now.