Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Business Week. I'm Karl Masser and I'm
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Quick Takes Tim Stanovik. We're here every day bringing
Speaker 1: you the latest news from the world to business and finance,
Speaker 1: plus technology, politics, economics, all partnising the power of Business
Speaker 1: Week reporters and editors, not to mention our journalists and
Speaker 1: analysts in more than one and twenty countries. You can
Speaker 1: download Bloomberg Business Week and iTunes, SoundCloud, or Bloomberg dot Com.
Speaker 1: You can also listen to our radio show at two
Speaker 1: pm Eastern Time on Bloomberg Radio or watch us on
Speaker 1: YouTube search Bloomberg Global News. So US COVID nineteen cases
Speaker 1: could see a sharp decline by July if nationwide vaccination
Speaker 1: efforts continued to be successful. This was according to the
Speaker 1: CDC President Biden, talking about children being vaccinated. Tim and
Speaker 1: I covered that yesterday. Uh, and not only getting the
Speaker 1: vaccine out to underserved communities here in the US, but
Speaker 1: also around the world. Yeah, and we're also seeing companies
Speaker 1: and businesses organizations start to do different things when it
Speaker 1: comes to people who are vaccinated and not vaccinated. As
Speaker 1: we mentioned just a few minutes ago, baseball stadiums here
Speaker 1: in New York City are going to segregate those who
Speaker 1: have and have not been vaccinated? Right? Or figure it out?
Speaker 1: All right? So and kind of in a world that
Speaker 1: maybe there's gonna be a couple of different tracks. Let's
Speaker 1: get to it though, with our daily check on COVID
Speaker 1: coming to us a few days earlier this week, Dr
Speaker 1: Ian LUs Bader, clinical Professor of Medicine at n y
Speaker 1: U Land, going on the phone in New York City. Ian,
Speaker 1: good to have you back with us. How are you good?
Speaker 1: Always your pleasure, Carol and Tim hope you guys are well.
Speaker 1: We're doing okay, We're feeling I think optimistic, it's safe
Speaker 1: to say, right, Tim, Yeah, we are. You know, it's
Speaker 1: funny we just had this conversation before we came to
Speaker 1: Dr LUs Bader about comfort and doing things that we
Speaker 1: did before the pandemic. And you know, I have been
Speaker 1: driving into work, but I want to start taking the
Speaker 1: subway again, and I'm wondering how we should feel about
Speaker 1: those types of things. Wearing a mask, of course, and
Speaker 1: being two weeks out from that second shot. Sure, I
Speaker 1: think you should feel more confident. I've been on the
Speaker 1: subway and watched it go from literally deserted, maybe a
Speaker 1: few homeless people to really quite crowded. So you do
Speaker 1: need to be a little prepared for possible having people
Speaker 1: sitting next to you a little under six ft, So
Speaker 1: do not expect ideal circumstances, whether it's at the ballfield
Speaker 1: or at the restaurant. But I do think if people
Speaker 1: have had their two vaccines, uh, and they've waited two weeks,
Speaker 1: based on what we're seeing, it's much more reassuring. And
Speaker 1: I think America, unlike other parts of the world, should
Speaker 1: really buy the summer, really be able to return to
Speaker 1: a much more normal lifestyle. Again, barring any new changes
Speaker 1: such as appearance of variants that are resistant and so forth.
Speaker 1: We've really done a pretty good job at getting towards
Speaker 1: We're not quite at herd immunity, but we're certainly getting
Speaker 1: very close to it, and I think that it's all
Speaker 1: really according to plan and going fairly well. How do
Speaker 1: you getting kids vaccinated? We heard the President talk about that,
Speaker 1: waiting for FDA approval on that, But how do you
Speaker 1: getting kids vaccinated? Dr les Bader get us towards that
Speaker 1: hurt immunity. Well, I think getting kids vaccinated still a
Speaker 1: lot of sense, you know, certainly initially, Uh, we want
Speaker 1: to wait for safety data. But kids get many vaccines momps, measles, rebella,
Speaker 1: appatitis B long before they're going to be exposed to it.
Speaker 1: And even though kids generally do very well, in other words,
Speaker 1: if they do get COVID, they bounce back very well,
Speaker 1: we are seeing some evidence that maybe early COVID exposure
Speaker 1: may predisposed to diabetes or other longer term problems that
Speaker 1: we are not you know, that are just beginning to appear.
Speaker 1: So I think not only um, does vaccinating children make
Speaker 1: sense to reduce transmission to older adults, but it may
Speaker 1: protect the kids from further complications from COVID nineteen that
Speaker 1: we're just beginning to see on the horizon. Do you
Speaker 1: expect that a vaccine will be approved for children ages
Speaker 1: two and up by the end of this year. I
Speaker 1: think by the end of this year that's that's quite likely.
Speaker 1: I think that is reasonable. Uh. You know, again, it's
Speaker 1: not an absolute rush, because it's not like kids are
Speaker 1: the most vulnerable. But I think we want to wait
Speaker 1: for the studies and safety data. But I do think
Speaker 1: by the end of the year that should be out
Speaker 1: and I think it will become at least for the
Speaker 1: next two years, part of a routine um vaccination schedule,
Speaker 1: you know, until we really have eliminated worldwide the pandemic,
Speaker 1: which may take more than a year or two to
Speaker 1: work its way through. Unfortunately. So new US guidance for
Speaker 1: children at summer camps is quote stringent, and we heard
Speaker 1: that from Anthony Faucci, of course, the top White House
Speaker 1: medical adviser, saying today suggesting rules maybe loosened as new
Speaker 1: data comes in. Would you send kids to summer camp?
Speaker 1: Would you send your kids to summer camp or if
Speaker 1: they were of that age today, you know, I would
Speaker 1: feel happier if they were vaccinated. UM. I think there's
Speaker 1: a certain benefit to exercise, fresh air, outdoor activities, and
Speaker 1: I think that can be done in a safe way.
Speaker 1: And I think the benefits of school and camp uh
Speaker 1: in a safe environment far outweigh the potential low risk
Speaker 1: of a significant complication from COVID. So I think I'm balanced.
Speaker 1: Everything's a risk, but I think getting kids out and
Speaker 1: socially interacting and learning and all of those benefits I
Speaker 1: think far outweigh the very small risk of actually getting
Speaker 1: COVID over the summer one are the biggest questions that
Speaker 1: you're getting from patients right now about what they can
Speaker 1: and can do in the rest of the year for
Speaker 1: the summer. You know. Unfortunately, there's been a lot of
Speaker 1: conflicting data, and I think people really are confused about, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, do they have to wear masks, do they
Speaker 1: not wear masks? Um And so when I tell my patients,
Speaker 1: may not do what everyone tells their patients. I certainly
Speaker 1: feel that outdoors there's really a minimal risk. Have you've
Speaker 1: been vaccinated, There is no reason to wear a mask outside.
Speaker 1: I mean, we do see that influenza and other respiratory
Speaker 1: diseases are much lower this year, so there is some
Speaker 1: rational and if you want to wear a mask, that's fine,
Speaker 1: but there's really no evidence that you're going to get
Speaker 1: COVID if you're socializing, you know, not too close you know, outdoors.
Speaker 1: I think indoors, if it's your group and your pot
Speaker 1: and people have been vaccinated, I also think that's a
Speaker 1: relatively safe environment. And I think of corporations, for example,
Speaker 1: say you know, if you can prove you've been vaccinated,
Speaker 1: come back to the office. Many people miss the office socially,
Speaker 1: but also from a productivity point of view. I also
Speaker 1: understand people reluctant to go back, and really what I
Speaker 1: tell them is, you may be reluctant, but if you've
Speaker 1: been vaccinated, there's no scientific evidence what you cannot go
Speaker 1: back to the office. Let's get right back to it
Speaker 1: with Dr Ian LUs Beta, clinical professor of medicine at
Speaker 1: and Yu Lango in a medical center. He joins us
Speaker 1: on the phone from New York City. Dr LUs better
Speaker 1: to the point of what Charlie was talking about the
Speaker 1: relationship that companies have with their workers, to what extent
Speaker 1: they play in the inoculation process. And a survey from
Speaker 1: April by Arizona State University and the Rockefeller Foundation found
Speaker 1: that six companies in North America planned offer vaccine incentives
Speaker 1: to workers, would inoculate workers at company facilities, but also
Speaker 1: that of these companies would require vaccinations for workers. UM
Speaker 1: a third of the companies that should not plan to
Speaker 1: encourage vaccines but wouldn't require them. From your perspective, which
Speaker 1: is the right move here? Is it making it mandatory?
Speaker 1: Is it offering incentives? What do you think? I like
Speaker 1: the incentive approach, you know, I think making anything mandatory, UM,
Speaker 1: that is really certainly that's not FDA approved, would would
Speaker 1: be uh challenging. But I think we need to educate
Speaker 1: and incentivize people. The more things you make mandatory, h,
Speaker 1: I think there's always a potential risk of pushback. We
Speaker 1: do a number of things that don't always make complete sense.
Speaker 1: For example, in many communities, children before in kindergarten or
Speaker 1: first grade have to take hepatitis B vaccine. That's a
Speaker 1: potential std the actual incident, so that is fairly low. Um.
Speaker 1: Yet in many communities that's required and they're not even
Speaker 1: going to need that for twelve years so or or
Speaker 1: more you know when when people become sexually active, or
Speaker 1: you know, it's possibly even longer. So I think it's
Speaker 1: we have to really think carefully before we make something mandatory.
Speaker 1: I think educating people, incentivizing people, reassuring people makes a
Speaker 1: lot of sense. Um. Certainly in the healthcare community, we
Speaker 1: do have to have flu shots really unless we have
Speaker 1: a whole variety of effort to get an excuse when
Speaker 1: we're seeing patients. I think the COVID vaccines that we
Speaker 1: have makes sense. I think they're effective, I think they're
Speaker 1: low risk. Uh. Making them mandatory, that's that's more of
Speaker 1: a challenge, and I would definitely try and incentivize people. First. Hey,
Speaker 1: so I gotta ask you, Dr Les Paider, a loyal
Speaker 1: listener and someone on the Bloomberg saying to me, okay,
Speaker 1: so what is low risk? Can you quantify it when
Speaker 1: you say something is low risk or taking this vaccine
Speaker 1: is low Ask whether it's for adults, whether it's for kids.
Speaker 1: What is low risk in the medical world? Is it temporary?
Speaker 1: Give me an idea. No, I think that's great. And
Speaker 1: you know, we often sort of hedge when we talk
Speaker 1: about this, and they sound like a loyal listener and
Speaker 1: and probably have called in before, which is great. It's
Speaker 1: great to get, you know, audience feedback on and they
Speaker 1: like you. They like you. They just want to know
Speaker 1: what is low risking. So in any individual, it's hard
Speaker 1: to state your specific risk right because we don't know
Speaker 1: your underlying immune system, your underlying disease, your underlying clotting issues.
Speaker 1: But we know when we look at really now hundreds
Speaker 1: of millions of vaccines, we know the the number of
Speaker 1: cases of same mortality very very we're talking you know,
Speaker 1: perhaps you know a hundred people out of you know,
Speaker 1: a couple of hundred million vaccines, and part of the
Speaker 1: other problem with that is there's some more cality that happens,
Speaker 1: and it's sometimes hard to tie someone who dies of
Speaker 1: a heart attack two days after a shot, what's the
Speaker 1: would they have died from that anyway, So really getting
Speaker 1: some of this data down is very challenging. We also
Speaker 1: know the effectiveness. Again, out of a few hundred million
Speaker 1: vaccines in the United States, only about five or six
Speaker 1: thousand people get COVID, so we know it's, you know,
Speaker 1: quite effective. So when I say low risk, we're talking
Speaker 1: certainly in in single percentages of complications. If you're that
Speaker 1: one percent or two percent who develops fever or dion beret,
Speaker 1: which is a paralytic condition. But we see that with
Speaker 1: a flu shot, we see that with other vaccines, and
Speaker 1: sometimes we see it even unrelated to a vaccine. So
Speaker 1: I think all we can say is we are not
Speaker 1: seeing a real predominance or worrisome numbers that would say, hey,
Speaker 1: this this is a dangerous shot that unfortunately for an individual.
Speaker 1: It's very hard to say what one person specific risk is.
Speaker 1: All right, but you gave us some guidelines, which is
Speaker 1: good to know that it's under ten percent like it's
Speaker 1: a low single you know percentage right, Um, did you
Speaker 1: have another Christ? Well no, I just think you know,
Speaker 1: from my own experience, it's just changed a lot about
Speaker 1: how I feel about what's safe and what's not. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Oh absolutely, And I think the more specific week can
Speaker 1: be we can kind of understand exactly what we're dealing with.
Speaker 1: Dr ian Los Beader, have a good rest of the week.
Speaker 1: I really appreciate it, Clinical professor of Medicine and why
Speaker 1: you lend Go Medical Center on the phone in New York.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Business Week with Carol Masser and Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Quick Takes Tim Stinovic on Bloomberg Radio. So Bloomberg's Bradstone
Speaker 1: is no doubt about the go to voice when it
Speaker 1: comes to Amazon. Wrote a book about the company, you
Speaker 1: might recall the Everything Store. Lucky for us, he went
Speaker 1: back to do more, resulting in his new book, Uh
Speaker 1: just coming out Amazon on Bound, Jeff Bezos and the
Speaker 1: Invention of a Global Empire. Been looking forward to this
Speaker 1: chat for all week, or actually for weeks. Let's get
Speaker 1: more from Bradstone, Senior Executive Editor up Global Technology here
Speaker 1: at Bloomberg News. He is with us from Bureau in
Speaker 1: San Francisco, along with Bloomberg business Week, get it or
Speaker 1: Joel Weber, And I gotta tell you you guys, I
Speaker 1: think we're just gonna do this for ten hours because
Speaker 1: I just want to talk about everything Jeff Bezos and
Speaker 1: everything Brad's book. I'm just gonna put that out there. Job.
Speaker 1: I don't know if we can have Brad. I don't
Speaker 1: know if we can have Brad for ten hours, but
Speaker 1: but we'll take them for what we get. Isn't isn't
Speaker 1: this a family program. I don't know if we're if
Speaker 1: we're really able to talk about the ex for ten hours. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it might be a little moro. So this story, um, Brad,
Speaker 1: that that you know, we excerpted from your book is
Speaker 1: one that kind of broke the internet when it happened,
Speaker 1: but we we only really knew, Um the part that
Speaker 1: came out at the moment, and what you brought to
Speaker 1: the book and into the pages of Business Week is
Speaker 1: a lot of color behind the scenes and and the
Speaker 1: great untold story of how Jeff Bezos basically took probably
Speaker 1: what was a low moment in his life and used
Speaker 1: it to turn the tables. And we're talking about the
Speaker 1: National enquired National Choir story that um was basically about
Speaker 1: his affair. Um, so, so how did you approach a
Speaker 1: writing this this story? And then like how did you
Speaker 1: how does that tie into the book itself? Right? Yeah,
Speaker 1: thanks Joel. Well, first of all, just to put it
Speaker 1: into a little bit of context, I was about a
Speaker 1: year into writing this book, as Carol said, a sequel
Speaker 1: to The Everything Store, which I thought was gonna be
Speaker 1: a nice, boring business book about the last ten years
Speaker 1: and the rise of the continued rise and domination of Amazon,
Speaker 1: with a little you know, ominous antitrust specter hanging over it,
Speaker 1: and you know, and then Jeff tweets his divorce from
Speaker 1: Mackenzie and the medium post and the National Enchoir package
Speaker 1: and what was left from you know, that moment, Joel,
Speaker 1: where you which you described as kind of breaking the
Speaker 1: internet was a little bit of a sense of ambiguity.
Speaker 1: It was like, well, wait, did the brother do it?
Speaker 1: Did MBS do it? Who? How did the inquiry get
Speaker 1: the story? Was Trump involved? And Bezos and his his
Speaker 1: advocates were very clever, I think, in in casting sort
Speaker 1: of political aspersions, wrapping themselves up in the mantle of
Speaker 1: the Washington Post and the journalistic mission. And so my
Speaker 1: goal as I got into it was, you know, to
Speaker 1: try to avoid I guess some of the sensationalism and
Speaker 1: and but but described you know what happened? How did
Speaker 1: Bezos really come out on top? As the cover says,
Speaker 1: Jeff wins he always seems to win. Um, and what
Speaker 1: does it say about his kind of tactics? And so,
Speaker 1: you know, I just tried to talk to everyone, get
Speaker 1: close to the investigation into the whole thing by the
Speaker 1: FBI and the Southern District of New York and figure out, Okay,
Speaker 1: you know what what happened and and um, you know,
Speaker 1: as as Jeff maneuvered through it, what can we learn
Speaker 1: from that? So what did happen? Did it it didn't
Speaker 1: actually have anything to do with Saudi Arabia or or
Speaker 1: or President Trump? Right, that is the question. And what
Speaker 1: I say in the book is, and it's represented in
Speaker 1: the in the Business Week story this week, is that
Speaker 1: based on the evidence that we have at the current moment,
Speaker 1: and based on the conclusions of federal prosecutors in New York,
Speaker 1: that it seems like Akham's razor applies here. The simplest
Speaker 1: solution was was the was the right one? Which is
Speaker 1: that um, you know, the brother Michael Sanchez gave the
Speaker 1: story to the National Enquirer. UM. And there's really no evidence,
Speaker 1: um to suggest that there were any political motives involved,
Speaker 1: UM or that any any international conspiracy was involved. There
Speaker 1: there is I wouldn't say there's evidence. I would say
Speaker 1: there's circumstantial evidence that MBS hacked bezos phone. UM. But
Speaker 1: there are a lot of questions about the f T
Speaker 1: I UH, the the the agency that did that investigation,
Speaker 1: that Bezos is camp hired to do that investigation. UM.
Speaker 1: You know, the spy where that was involved is very
Speaker 1: very hard to detect. So really they were looking at
Speaker 1: the increase in data that came from his phone and
Speaker 1: at the time, and and there's and there's no evidence,
Speaker 1: and there's a lot of evidence to the contrary. There.
Speaker 1: They're sworn statements that were filed in part of these cases,
Speaker 1: and there was evidence email evidence that shows the inquiry
Speaker 1: getting the story from from Michael Sanchez and FIG trying
Speaker 1: to piece together the mystery. Who was he even talking
Speaker 1: about discovering it was Jeff Bezos and so you know
Speaker 1: where I net it out again, may maybe something comes
Speaker 1: out and this story so bizarre. Who knows what could happen,
Speaker 1: but from the evidence we have, it really doesn't seem like,
Speaker 1: you know, there were there were political winds blowing around
Speaker 1: this thing at all, other than the fear that a
Speaker 1: m I had that because of its, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: the resolution of the Michael Cohen case and it's a
Speaker 1: peace treaty with the Southern District of New York. They
Speaker 1: worried about being accused of having political motives, and that
Speaker 1: did play a role because it forced him into into
Speaker 1: trying to negotiate a settlement, which Bezos the accused them
Speaker 1: of of extorting him. But other than that, I think
Speaker 1: all that stuff was just noise. I think it's remarkable
Speaker 1: is that I can just imagine the PR team behind
Speaker 1: it say no, Jeff, don't anything or whatever, denied it,
Speaker 1: and like he just comes out, you know, fighting really hard,
Speaker 1: and as the cover says, he wins like it's just
Speaker 1: from workaball Brad. And the question Carol is is like,
Speaker 1: was it And I don't know the answer to this,
Speaker 1: but was he deliberately manipulating kind of the world, wrapping
Speaker 1: himself up? As I said in the Mantle of Them
Speaker 1: Washington Post imputing political motives to the Inquirer. Was that
Speaker 1: a deliberate and somewhat disingenuous defensive shield or did they
Speaker 1: really think, uh, you know that that there could have
Speaker 1: been these political this political or international conspiracy. I tend
Speaker 1: to think that they genuinely thought, um that maybe you
Speaker 1: know that maybe his enemies and he does have enemies
Speaker 1: on the Washington Post, particularly during the age of Trump
Speaker 1: made a lot of enemies. Um. I think they genuinely
Speaker 1: thought that there might be more to it. Um. But
Speaker 1: you have to look back and not your head. You know,
Speaker 1: it was super effective, right we all when you think
Speaker 1: about sort of what he did and the personal sort
Speaker 1: of trajectory there, people ended up sympathizing with him. He
Speaker 1: took a stand, and he brought down the editor Dylan
Speaker 1: Howard of the National Enquirer. So it was it was
Speaker 1: super effective. Brad, what is this episode? What do you
Speaker 1: feel like it illuminates about Jeff Bezos as a as
Speaker 1: a business person and Jeff just got about forty seconds
Speaker 1: or so left, right, Yeah, yeah, feel free to confuse,
Speaker 1: you know, Joel, I just quickly go back to when
Speaker 1: the Everything store came out, and do you remember they
Speaker 1: didn't like the book, and they gave me a bunch
Speaker 1: of one star reviews and and and mackenzie left one
Speaker 1: at the time. And what struck me there is, Wow,
Speaker 1: he found a totally unique way thinking outside the box
Speaker 1: to try to throw an asterix next to next to
Speaker 1: that work. And I, you know, frankly, I don't think
Speaker 1: it was effective. But that's also what he did in
Speaker 1: this case. He thought outside the box, outmaneuvered everyone. Um
Speaker 1: you know, came up with this, this direct medium post
Speaker 1: um one, the sympathist, came out on top. He's retiring
Speaker 1: now as an icon of business. He The thing that
Speaker 1: you learned from this is he always does things a
Speaker 1: little it differently, and often it is ingenious. All right, Well,
Speaker 1: our thanks to brad Stone, a k. Jeff Bezo. Sorry
Speaker 1: you got me so immersed in it, so just like
Speaker 1: lost myself. It's incredible, wishy great look luck with it
Speaker 1: and it's the cover of the magazine this week. Brad Stone,
Speaker 1: Senior Executive Veditor Global Tech. Check out his book, The
Speaker 1: Untold Story of How Jeff Bezos Beat the Tabloids. It's
Speaker 1: incredible and of course our thanks to Joe Webber Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Business Week editor also Amazon on Bound It's coming out.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Radio. You're listening to Bloomberg Business Week
Speaker 1: with Carol Masser and Bloomberg Quick Takes. Tim Stinovic on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Radio. All right, you are listening to Bloomberg Business
Speaker 1: Week and just about sixty minutes to go until the
Speaker 1: close of trading. Top story at this hour news hit
Speaker 1: this morning Donald Trump remaining banned from posting on Facebook
Speaker 1: for now, the company's independent Content oversight board ruling that
Speaker 1: Tim leaving really the former US present with that is
Speaker 1: most powerful tools for fundraising and you know, really kind
Speaker 1: of leaves them out of the kind of political conversation
Speaker 1: in a big way. It does. The Facebook Oversight Board
Speaker 1: announcing that this morning, right at nine o'clock Wall Street time,
Speaker 1: Kurt Wagner, who's based in San Francisco, was up early
Speaker 1: and he was following every move from the company. He's
Speaker 1: technology reporter for Bloomberg News and he joins us on
Speaker 1: the phone from San Francisco. Kurt I sent out a
Speaker 1: tweet this morning with a pull on it. It said,
Speaker 1: is Trump going to be banned or not? You know what? What?
Speaker 1: What is Facebook? Due to Trump, does it ban him
Speaker 1: or or does it allow him back on the platform.
Speaker 1: Now I realized I should have had a third option,
Speaker 1: because this is kind of like punting it back to Facebook. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you should have, and I guess I should have too,
Speaker 1: because I I was definitely a little surprised by this
Speaker 1: decision as well. I mean, I guess. The very short
Speaker 1: summary is the board basically said Facebook made the right
Speaker 1: choice on January six when it suspended Trump in the
Speaker 1: moment with you know, this riot going on. But they
Speaker 1: said that Facebook's decision to make that suspension in definite
Speaker 1: without any end in sight, without any kind of guidance
Speaker 1: to him on when that would come to a close,
Speaker 1: was not the right choice because that's not something that
Speaker 1: Facebook actually has and it's rules or its terms of
Speaker 1: service right now. So they're now kicking that decision back
Speaker 1: to Facebook to say, Okay, we agree with your decision
Speaker 1: to suspend them, but you can't just do it indefinitely.
Speaker 1: You gotta put a timetable on this. And now it's
Speaker 1: up to Facebook to decide whether that's a permanent ban
Speaker 1: or if they're going to bring him back at some point.
Speaker 1: And the former president coming out and calling them move
Speaker 1: a total disgrace and embarrassment to our country. He says
Speaker 1: free speech has been taken away from the president of
Speaker 1: United States because the radical left lunatics are afraid of
Speaker 1: the truth. He said this in a statement. What's interesting
Speaker 1: what he didn't say it on Twitter because he couldn't
Speaker 1: exactly well, and you know, what are your colleagues. Sarah
Speaker 1: Fryar here at Bloomberg News put out a column and
Speaker 1: she said, you know, we've got to maybe Facebook has
Speaker 1: to expand its options on trumpet. You know, this is
Speaker 1: not a black and white issue. And there I guess
Speaker 1: many would argue that there needs to be If we
Speaker 1: believe in free speech, that means everyone has a voice,
Speaker 1: and so do we need to just a s book
Speaker 1: to other social media platforms have to figure out a
Speaker 1: way to allow these voices to be held to herd
Speaker 1: rather hear. Yeah. I think Sarah had a good point
Speaker 1: in her column, and and I actually agreed. I think
Speaker 1: her conclusion at the end was basically, hey, you know,
Speaker 1: let Facebook, excuse me, let Donald Trump back on Facebook,
Speaker 1: but don't give him the kind of way to go
Speaker 1: viral that a lot of people have. Don't let people
Speaker 1: like his stuff. Don't let people share his stuff, like
Speaker 1: let him post there. If you want to go seek
Speaker 1: it out, you can find it, But we're not going
Speaker 1: to use Facebook technology to promote that necessarily to people.
Speaker 1: I thought that could be potentially be a good common ground,
Speaker 1: but really, I mean this, this is the same battle
Speaker 1: Facebook faces in every country they operate, Right, How do
Speaker 1: you write one set of rules that applies to everyone
Speaker 1: in the world, including world leaders like you know, former
Speaker 1: President Trump. So I think this is a really really
Speaker 1: challenging issue, and we didn't really get the answer this
Speaker 1: morning that maybe we had all hoped would kind of
Speaker 1: clear things up. Ker what are the repercussions of this?
Speaker 1: And I mean in Washington, d C. What are the
Speaker 1: political repercussions of this? Because if there is something that
Speaker 1: unites Democrats and Republicans right now, it is a disdain
Speaker 1: for you know, quote unquote big tech. Well, Facebook is
Speaker 1: obviously facing some real threats of regulation at the moment,
Speaker 1: and I think the issue here is that had the
Speaker 1: board simply said, hey, you know, Trump should his account
Speaker 1: should come down or stay up, they could kind of
Speaker 1: say listen, we're just following the advice of this outside group. Now,
Speaker 1: suddenly Facebook has to make this decision again, right, and
Speaker 1: so when they do, they're going to be held accountable
Speaker 1: for that decision in the same way that they are
Speaker 1: for all their content. And so I think if you're
Speaker 1: a Republican and they choose to leave Trump's countdown, you're
Speaker 1: gonna say, hey, this is you know, censorship, this is overstepping.
Speaker 1: And if you're a liberal and they do the opposite,
Speaker 1: you know you're gonna have issues with that as well.
Speaker 1: So I really just think just put them right smack
Speaker 1: in the middle of their content issues and forgive me
Speaker 1: just who is on that oversight board. This is a
Speaker 1: collection of lawyers, former journalists, form or politicians. Um, it's
Speaker 1: it's kind of an impressive group of academics and and
Speaker 1: folks who I guess think about this stuff in some
Speaker 1: ways for a living. But they are not Facebook employees.
Speaker 1: They're meant to be independent on Facebook, even though the
Speaker 1: company did set up this board and does actually pay
Speaker 1: them through a different funds that they have. Well, and
Speaker 1: it's interesting too because we know that political, uh, social
Speaker 1: media content, I mean this has become fairly lucrative right
Speaker 1: for social media platforms. Yes, and no, I mean I
Speaker 1: think political content brings a lot of people to them
Speaker 1: to these platforms to discuss this kind of stuff. But
Speaker 1: in terms of you know, political advertising money for example,
Speaker 1: it's a very very small part of the overall revenue
Speaker 1: that these companies make. I do think though, if you
Speaker 1: simply said, hey, you can't talk politics on on these
Speaker 1: social networks. I mean, that's just a huge part of
Speaker 1: any cultural conversation. So I feel like that is where
Speaker 1: they would be hurt more than the actual you know,
Speaker 1: ad revenue for example. So okay, so what's the next
Speaker 1: date we're waiting? Mean, is the clock ticking once again
Speaker 1: on a decision by Facebook about whether or not he's
Speaker 1: banned forever or he gets to come back? There is, Yes,
Speaker 1: the board basically challenge Facebook to make this decision in
Speaker 1: the next six months. Doesn't mean that it will be
Speaker 1: six months from now. It just means it has to
Speaker 1: happen sometime in that next six months. It could happen
Speaker 1: in theory next week. My guesses that will take a
Speaker 1: little bit longer than that. But yes, sometime within the
Speaker 1: next six months, we should have a second answer to
Speaker 1: whether this account should stay up, go back up, or
Speaker 1: stay down. So Kurt what's the message to everybody else
Speaker 1: who's out there thinking Twitter, I'm taking other social media?
Speaker 1: I mean, are they just kind of watching to see
Speaker 1: how Facebook ultimately handles it and that they will determine
Speaker 1: their policies, or like I just do wonder, is everybody
Speaker 1: going to act kind of as a group to group here? Well,
Speaker 1: both Twitter and Snapchat had said that their bands as
Speaker 1: President Trump are permanent no matter what happens is Facebook,
Speaker 1: so we can set them aside. They taking the ground
Speaker 1: and said we're not going to change. I think, you know,
Speaker 1: YouTube and others are probably looking closely here because you're right.
Speaker 1: I think a lot of these companies oftentimes we see
Speaker 1: with you know, Q and on or with other troublemaker users,
Speaker 1: they often kind of work in unison um and there's
Speaker 1: a lot of public opinion. I think that weighs into that.
Speaker 1: So I think whatever Facebook ultimately decides will probably set
Speaker 1: a standard of sorts for a lot of others. But again,
Speaker 1: Twitter's Twitter has already banned the president no matter what,
Speaker 1: so you know they've already made their decision. It's funny
Speaker 1: because smile. It's it's funny because we all thought the
Speaker 1: story would be over you know, either yes or no,
Speaker 1: and then here we are. Clock is taking six months
Speaker 1: another decisions. Yeah right, I mean what we've learned President
Speaker 1: Trump's presidency is never over, apparently, and it will just
Speaker 1: continue to linger. So in the world of social media,
Speaker 1: he's just got a huge he's got a huge tale here. Yeah,
Speaker 1: absolutely all right. Hey, good stuf. Kurt Wagner Technology put
Speaker 1: up Bloomberg News on the phone in San Francisco, the Journal. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but you let me drive. Oh no, no, no no, no, home, honey, please,
Speaker 1: I'll do the right rivel. I want to drive the question.
Speaker 1: This is the drive to the globe COMMUNI thanks. We'll
Speaker 1: try us down on Bloomberg Radio just about not in
Speaker 1: a half minutes left today's trading session. Let's get to
Speaker 1: it with Michael Sheldon, executive director and chief investment Officer
Speaker 1: at High Tower r d M Financial Group based in Westport, Connecticut,
Speaker 1: and that's where he joins us once again. Michael, good
Speaker 1: to have you back with us. How's it going very much? Yeah,
Speaker 1: how's it going? No, thanks very much. So talk to
Speaker 1: us a little bit about because it's been an interesting
Speaker 1: two days. Yesterday we saw pressure on the tech community
Speaker 1: and I think once again, everybody's like, oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: what's happening with technologies? Talks? And today it seems like
Speaker 1: everything is fine. So if you slept through yesterday, you
Speaker 1: would have never even known the problems that everybody was
Speaker 1: talking about yesterday. How do you see kind of what
Speaker 1: is truly guiding the trades? Is it earnings? Is it
Speaker 1: economic data? Is it inflation concerns? Is it uh, the
Speaker 1: economic recovery? How do you see it? Well? I think
Speaker 1: what's right. I think the important thing is that we're
Speaker 1: in the early stages of a new economic expansion that
Speaker 1: started after the downturn in early two thousand twenty. And
Speaker 1: the markets have certainly staged a fairly strong advanced over
Speaker 1: the past year or though, and that's certainly clear. There
Speaker 1: certainly maybe some sectors or companies that are a little
Speaker 1: bit ahead of themselves. But I think if you look
Speaker 1: at some of the economic data, if you look at
Speaker 1: things like retail sales, jobless claims are finally starting to improve,
Speaker 1: some of the housing data, the I S M indices,
Speaker 1: you can see they all point to a surge in
Speaker 1: economic activity. I looked at today, for example, the Atlanta
Speaker 1: said forecast, what GDP will be each quarter, and their
Speaker 1: early read for second quarter g d P is a
Speaker 1: whopping thirteen points in So I think we all sort
Speaker 1: of knew that GDP was going to really jump after
Speaker 1: last seeing some of the recent data. But that's certainly
Speaker 1: an eye popping number, right, But it also dropped off
Speaker 1: a cliff, you know, in the shutdown. So I always
Speaker 1: think we have to be smart in terms of the
Speaker 1: perspective here. Now, Yeah, I know that's important. So you know,
Speaker 1: I was looking at some of the GDP data, and
Speaker 1: the question is we all know that we're going to
Speaker 1: see a pretty strong surgeon economic activity this summer and
Speaker 1: probably into the fall. Uh. The one thing we were
Speaker 1: looking at when GDP came out last quarter, just a
Speaker 1: couple of weeks ago. I think it was six point
Speaker 1: four for the first quarter. One of the things that
Speaker 1: we always look at as inventory levels, and the thing
Speaker 1: that caught our eyes inventories were actually drawn down, So
Speaker 1: inventories decreased by two points six percent. And what that means,
Speaker 1: or the way to interpret that is the economy is expanding,
Speaker 1: but inventories were drawn down, drawn down, so that basically
Speaker 1: leads us to think that there's sort of growing pent
Speaker 1: up demand. Manufacturers are going to have to continue to
Speaker 1: inc priests increased production in order to meet demand, and
Speaker 1: that should keep the economy humming. That along with the
Speaker 1: fact that consumer savings rates are over right now and
Speaker 1: and you see many states starting to open up, so
Speaker 1: we have a significant amount of strong growth over the
Speaker 1: next few quarters. But then from there, the crystal ball
Speaker 1: gets a little cloudy, Mike, Michael McKee mentioned that about
Speaker 1: the inventory rates being drawn inventory levels being drawn down,
Speaker 1: and that means that you're going to have to see
Speaker 1: people hire and ramp up activity. And Michael, it's not
Speaker 1: just you, um, I think that a lot of CFOs
Speaker 1: right now are thinking that that crystal ball is a
Speaker 1: little foggy. We do see companies in the midst of
Speaker 1: earning season not necessarily giving guidance much the disdain of
Speaker 1: investors because they don't know exactly what is going to
Speaker 1: happen when we think about and when when you think
Speaker 1: about this recovery and this growth in GDP, to what
Speaker 1: extent is the recovery priced into US equities right now
Speaker 1: and where are the opportunities because there there has been
Speaker 1: sort of a shrug, collective shrug with some pretty good
Speaker 1: earnings numbers. Right, You're absolutely right. Fortunately we're not allowed
Speaker 1: to to mention individual stocks, but I you know which
Speaker 1: these companies are. So I was looking at some of
Speaker 1: the large cap technology stocks and the leaders the top
Speaker 1: four names, for example, produced some very strong growth of
Speaker 1: in year over year sales last quarter, which are some
Speaker 1: pretty strong numbers. And you know, we have a certain
Speaker 1: amount of growth and technology in our portfolios because we
Speaker 1: think you want to have that in order to meet
Speaker 1: your long term investment goals since we're investment advisors. But
Speaker 1: I think even though a lot of these technology companies
Speaker 1: had very strong results, they were kind of met with
Speaker 1: a little bit of a shrug from the markets. And
Speaker 1: I think what you're seeing as investors are sort of
Speaker 1: rotating into some of the areas of the market that
Speaker 1: haven't really participated over the last several years. Um one
Speaker 1: of the differences in this market versus the last several years,
Speaker 1: it's not just technology this year. There are other parts
Speaker 1: of the market participating. So, for example, we were not
Speaker 1: giving up on technology, but we also have some exposure
Speaker 1: in healthcare for example, which is a growth at a
Speaker 1: reasonable price, and industrials as well. You want to be
Speaker 1: a little more diversified this year as opposed to the
Speaker 1: past several years, I think, well, and you kind of
Speaker 1: can be right in an economic recovery, but that's correct.
Speaker 1: There are more areas where you're seeing a rebound in
Speaker 1: in sales and profits over the past compared with the
Speaker 1: past several years. And the other thing I would just
Speaker 1: point out is one of the differences we see in
Speaker 1: this environment also is unlike the past several years where
Speaker 1: you really wanted to be massively overweight the US versus
Speaker 1: foreign markets, we think this is ultimately going to turn
Speaker 1: into a global recovery. So if you've been missing out
Speaker 1: on foreign that's that's sort of a not a bad thing,
Speaker 1: but you may want to take a look at your
Speaker 1: foreign exposure and maybe start to think about adding to
Speaker 1: that a little bit. Hey, what did you think of
Speaker 1: everything that happened yesterday with with Janet Yellen? She later
Speaker 1: clarified that she wasn't forecasting interest rate rises, but it
Speaker 1: seemed to send some sort of message to the markets,
Speaker 1: to the equity markets. Yeah, I mean that was certainly
Speaker 1: on the surface, that's certainly looked like a misstep um
Speaker 1: interest rate policy. And she should know better than everyone
Speaker 1: else and she used to leave the FED. I wonder
Speaker 1: I was kind of joking around. I was kind of
Speaker 1: joking around yesterday, Michael. I was saying to Carol in
Speaker 1: the studio, do you think she has fomo? Like, you know,
Speaker 1: she's kind of like really misses. As soon as I
Speaker 1: saw that headline, sort of, I think it was late
Speaker 1: in morning. I really thought the markets were going to
Speaker 1: sell off in the afternoon. But when you think about it,
Speaker 1: it almost nothing. Nothing is by chance, and so that
Speaker 1: was probably a trial balloon, just the sort of you know,
Speaker 1: the FED and the Treasury are working together. The FED
Speaker 1: has been pumping out a hundred and twenty or hundred
Speaker 1: forty billion dollars in debt and the treasures. The Treasury
Speaker 1: has been buying some of that, so the two are
Speaker 1: working together closely. But I think the interpretation is that
Speaker 1: was probably maybe an early trial balloon, even though we're
Speaker 1: not likely to see any change in FED policy anytime soon,
Speaker 1: not quite a temper or our taper tantrum um. But nonetheless,
Speaker 1: that's interesting and that's an interesting take on it. Where
Speaker 1: don't you want to be in this market environment right now? Michael, Well,
Speaker 1: keep in mind the economy is still expanding once that.
Speaker 1: I was just looking at his earnings per share growth
Speaker 1: at the beginning of this quarter that were forecasting about
Speaker 1: twenty four percent growth, and now with about more than
Speaker 1: two thirds of companies having reported earnings estimates for the
Speaker 1: first quarter up at fort so you're going to continue
Speaker 1: to see probably better than expected growth and better than
Speaker 1: expected economic data for a while. And in that environment,
Speaker 1: you probably you probably want to underweight some of the
Speaker 1: more defensive parts of the market, like utilities and consumer staples.
Speaker 1: Those are the areas you want to favor more once
Speaker 1: the economy hits its peak and then starts to gradually
Speaker 1: slow down, which is somewhere down the road. Yeah, which
Speaker 1: is what the market is doing today. You're seeing some
Speaker 1: of those interest rate sensitive those are some of your
Speaker 1: drags on the market today, real estate, utilities there down,
Speaker 1: consumer discretionary UH as well. Um, it's very interesting your
Speaker 1: focal point right now at this point, is it just
Speaker 1: the job's report come Friday. Yeah. I think Friday's jobs
Speaker 1: report is certainly important. We're gonna get a big number.
Speaker 1: The question is doesn't live up the expectations. We could
Speaker 1: get a pullback or a correction. I think at any time,
Speaker 1: but the direction of the economies towards stronger growth, and
Speaker 1: we're still constructive looking ahead, although there maybe some bumps
Speaker 1: in the road as we look ahead. Friday, Job's Day.
Speaker 1: How are you reading into it? Very briefly, just about
Speaker 1: thinking about, like what happens if if you miss it?
Speaker 1: I think you want to look at a few things. Well,
Speaker 1: if we missed the number it, even if it comes
Speaker 1: in around eight hundred thousand, nine d thousand, I think
Speaker 1: you want to look at the which is very crazy
Speaker 1: to say that it's a miss, but you know the
Speaker 1: context rough right, it could be a It could We
Speaker 1: could be in a period of time looking ahead where
Speaker 1: earnings and economic growth is very strong, but maybe a
Speaker 1: meet expectations or misses expectations just a little bit, and
Speaker 1: that will be interesting to see what the market's reaction
Speaker 1: to that is. But I think I think we do
Speaker 1: have we will have some continued strong economic growth fork
Speaker 1: probably for several months ahead. Got it? Michael Sheldon over
Speaker 1: at High Tower r D and Financial Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to Bloomberg Business Week. Download the podcast
Speaker 1: on iTunes, SoundCloud, or Bloomberg dot com, and you can
Speaker 1: also Listen to our radio show at two pm Eastern
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg Radio, or watch us on YouTube search Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Global News m