Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg p m L Podcast. I'm pim Fox.
Speaker 1: Along with my co host Lisa Bramowitz. Each day we
Speaker 1: bring you the most important, noteworthy, and useful interviews for
Speaker 1: you and your money, whether you're at the grocery store
Speaker 1: or the trading floor. Find the Bloomberg p m L
Speaker 1: Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and Bloomberg dot com. The
Speaker 1: tone is more positive in markets today and a lot
Speaker 1: of people are saying that this because the trade tensions
Speaker 1: between US and China have eased. Why, well, it all
Speaker 1: has to do with this company, ZTE Corporation. And here
Speaker 1: to tell us what happened and what the significance of
Speaker 1: this is is Leland Miller, chief executive of the China
Speaker 1: Beige Book International in New York. Leland, thank you so
Speaker 1: much for being with us. So just lay out in
Speaker 1: broad strokes what happened and why this is a huge
Speaker 1: deal in your opinion. Well, there's a lot of things
Speaker 1: that are going on on the on the trade side,
Speaker 1: and you've got the tariff list, multiple tariff lists. We've
Speaker 1: got investment protection regimes that have been rumored for a
Speaker 1: long time. Uh. You also have a crackdown on on
Speaker 1: certain corporates, and the one that China is really really
Speaker 1: upset about is this recent crackdown on z T, which
Speaker 1: is one of their major telecom firms. It's one of
Speaker 1: the two big ones along with Huawei. And what essentially
Speaker 1: was done over the past month until potentially UH pulled
Speaker 1: reversed by a tweet over the over the weekend, was
Speaker 1: a um A near life almost a ban UH lifetime
Speaker 1: ban of of the z T equipment. ZT was not
Speaker 1: gonna be sold United States. They were being punished for
Speaker 1: violation of US law. Essentially, the US was gonna put
Speaker 1: z T out of business and and now well hold on.
Speaker 1: So the Commerce Department enforced certain bands on z T
Speaker 1: products and the reason why was because they had been
Speaker 1: selling to Iran and North Korea. Is that right it is?
Speaker 1: And then they lied about it and were caught lying
Speaker 1: about it, and so this was a particularly egregious example
Speaker 1: of the Chinese cheating. You know, if the if the
Speaker 1: entire the entire U S. China trade push is about
Speaker 1: cutting down on China's cheating, then this was the ultimate
Speaker 1: example of brazenness and UH and cheating that hurt US
Speaker 1: consumers in U S. NAH security and so the reversal
Speaker 1: of this has significant repercussions beyond just a concession or
Speaker 1: a chip that the President is offering up. Z t
Speaker 1: E uses components that are made by Qualit, Common Intel correct. Correct,
Speaker 1: and those companies cannot sell those products to z T
Speaker 1: E because of current regulations. That was that was the
Speaker 1: recent decision. Yes, okay, so the President would have to
Speaker 1: reverse that in order to allow that that take place. Correct.
Speaker 1: And what's happening right now is is that the Commerce
Speaker 1: Department came out with a very strong language about how
Speaker 1: much ZT had transgressed over the past few years. Wilbur
Speaker 1: Ross had headed that up. And now what the tweet
Speaker 1: suggests is that President Trump has ordered Secretary Ross to
Speaker 1: reevaluate his conclusion on this and to find a way
Speaker 1: to get around it. So it puts Secretary Ross in
Speaker 1: a very difficult position here because some of the stuff
Speaker 1: he said is really impossible to walk back. All Right,
Speaker 1: So let's zoom out a little bit, because a lot
Speaker 1: of people are looking at this deal and saying, well,
Speaker 1: this is This shows that President Trump has taken a
Speaker 1: softer line with China, is perhaps not as interested in
Speaker 1: having a trade war that a lot of people say nobody,
Speaker 1: nobody can win. This is a good thing for world
Speaker 1: peace and world commerce. Why why is that not the case? Well,
Speaker 1: the question is, you know, what is the US side
Speaker 1: pushing for. I mean, that's been the question from day
Speaker 1: one and has not yet been answered. If this is
Speaker 1: pushing towards a more equal relationship, if this is pushing for, um,
Speaker 1: a reckoning on the trade theft to eliminate hurdles for
Speaker 1: the future, then all of this is good. Nobody wants
Speaker 1: a terror for nobody wants a trade war. But if
Speaker 1: you're if you're showing, if you're from the US perspective,
Speaker 1: if you're showing weakness that a foreign company can exert
Speaker 1: some economic leverage over you and have you reverse Nash
Speaker 1: security decisions, it's a problem. It's also a problem if
Speaker 1: you go into a trade negotiation thinking that the trade
Speaker 1: deficit is what you should be negotiating instead of market
Speaker 1: access or intellectual property theft or some of these other
Speaker 1: important things that really do affect businesses and consumers. So
Speaker 1: the question is what have we done this all for,
Speaker 1: And if it ends up being something that sort of
Speaker 1: dwindles out over the course of the next few weeks,
Speaker 1: and months, which which I don't think will happen. Then
Speaker 1: then you you're basically telling China that they've that they
Speaker 1: have a ready made formula for putting this behind them,
Speaker 1: and um, they don't have to to worry about these
Speaker 1: things which just a few weeks ago were worthy of
Speaker 1: a trade war. So it's it's it's all very bizarre.
Speaker 1: Does it also matter that it coincides with the visit
Speaker 1: to the United States and the Vice Premier Leu the
Speaker 1: Chinese trade negotiator, so that what was told by the
Speaker 1: Chinese to the U. S side was that they wouldn't
Speaker 1: have the delegation unless CT was taken care of. So
Speaker 1: the President wanted to make sure this trade delegation happened,
Speaker 1: not mostly because there was trade stuff to discuss to discuss,
Speaker 1: but also because North Korea is playing into this, and
Speaker 1: so you've got a few different issues at play here.
Speaker 1: You don't want disruption in front of the North Korea summit.
Speaker 1: You don't want any of this trade war stuff to
Speaker 1: blow up before the U. S has a plan in place,
Speaker 1: and they've been very slow getting the documents for three
Speaker 1: oh one ready, So the President apparently did not want
Speaker 1: to lose steam on this and and decided to to
Speaker 1: make the ZT decision. Um that said, all of this
Speaker 1: is part of a long process. And whether Leoho visits
Speaker 1: this week and they come to a mini bargain many
Speaker 1: many deal, not a bargain um, then you know this.
Speaker 1: This is something that's going to go on for a
Speaker 1: long time. I want to thank you very much for
Speaker 1: joining us. Leland Miller is the chief executive of China
Speaker 1: beige Book International. You can follow their work on Twitter
Speaker 1: at China beige Book. Talking about the President of the
Speaker 1: United States, Donald Trump and his tweet regarding ZTE Corp.
Speaker 1: And perhaps easing trade sanctions against the company. I want
Speaker 1: to pick up on what Dave mentioned, Scientific Games rising
Speaker 1: more than ten percent, so the shares also avoid Gaming
Speaker 1: and GM and several other gaming companies also rising significantly
Speaker 1: on the news that the Supreme Court struck down a
Speaker 1: federal law that bars gambling on individual sporting events. Joining
Speaker 1: US now, I am pleased to say Brian Eager, he
Speaker 1: is senior gaming and lodging analyst with Bloomberg Intelligence. Brian,
Speaker 1: how big of a deal is this decision by the U. S.
Speaker 1: Supreme Court? So if you think of the pool um
Speaker 1: of basically would have to date been illegal sports bets
Speaker 1: that have been taking place, and you you assign a
Speaker 1: reasonable wind whole rate to that, there's probably about a
Speaker 1: seven and a half billion dollar UH newly released revenue
Speaker 1: opportunity across h the across the states that would now
Speaker 1: have an opportunity to have legalized sports betting. Among those,
Speaker 1: New Jersey and Pennsylvania are kind of front of the line,
Speaker 1: New Jersey being the petitioner here in Pennsylvania having recently
Speaker 1: legalized on sports betting, but certainly an opportunity that both
Speaker 1: casino operators and the back end operators of sports books
Speaker 1: would all likely capitalize on. So who are some of
Speaker 1: the big winners? I mean, Lisa was mentioning some of
Speaker 1: the stocks, also adding BOYD Gaming, as she mentioned up
Speaker 1: a little bit more than three ten, National Gaming up
Speaker 1: four and a half percent, Empire Resorts higher by ten percent.
Speaker 1: So I would kind of breaking it down at least
Speaker 1: additionally into three categories. First, you've got operators like MGM
Speaker 1: and Caesars that have existing operations in Nevada and also
Speaker 1: an Atlantic city. Those are the two major public companies
Speaker 1: that have operations in the Atlantic City market, which is
Speaker 1: the petitioners here which be likely to benefit. Another subgroup
Speaker 1: which we used to kind of touched upon our companies
Speaker 1: like Churchill Downs, Boyd Gaming, National Gaming, El Dorado Resorts,
Speaker 1: which either have or are in the process of acquiring
Speaker 1: assets in the Pennsylvania market that stayed also legalized sports
Speaker 1: betting subject to the Supreme Courts repeal of pasta which
Speaker 1: happened today. And then the third group, Tim and Lisa
Speaker 1: is the operators of the various gaming systems of sports
Speaker 1: book operators. A couple comes to mind. William Hill, the
Speaker 1: British company operates of all the Vada based retail sports books.
Speaker 1: You've got the Stars group that acquired Sky Betting, and
Speaker 1: then you've got Scientific Game which Lisa mentioned, which recently
Speaker 1: acquired m i X Gaming, which has an open bet
Speaker 1: platform which has the ability although right now UH takes
Speaker 1: place in the UK to operate kind of the back
Speaker 1: end of the sports betting platforms. So you basically got
Speaker 1: you know, the Jersey operators, You've got the operators in
Speaker 1: other regional states, and then you've got the operators of
Speaker 1: the equipment and systems that could benefit from the expansion
Speaker 1: of sports books nationwide. Just to give a sense of
Speaker 1: how big a business this is. According to one research unit,
Speaker 1: Americans place a hundred and fifty billion dollars a year
Speaker 1: in illegal sports bets. Other research firms put that at
Speaker 1: a much lower amount. But I'm just wondering, from your
Speaker 1: perspective or most of these online do most people like
Speaker 1: to go to a venue? What's sort of the look
Speaker 1: of the most popular place to bet on individual teams? So,
Speaker 1: the sports books in Nevada, although they only generate about
Speaker 1: two of the total gaming revenue in that state, are
Speaker 1: big traffic generators. They're not necessarily a sizeable casino ways
Speaker 1: or generator, but they generate excitement that makes its way
Speaker 1: by way of casino play into the gaming portions of
Speaker 1: the casinos. You've got that portion right now. Gaming sports
Speaker 1: betting only legal on an unrestricted basis uh A Nevada.
Speaker 1: The hundred fifty billion dollar number you mentioned, that's the
Speaker 1: American Gaming Association estimate of that amount currently wagered illegally
Speaker 1: on sports betting. And so you put a five percent
Speaker 1: hold rate on that, you get that the seven and
Speaker 1: a half billion dollar revenue opportunity I mentioned. And to
Speaker 1: answer your other question, you know physical venues actual sports
Speaker 1: books UH where a lot of the action takes place.
Speaker 1: But all these companies, among them William Pill and others
Speaker 1: have kind of the mobile platforms UH the other ways,
Speaker 1: where within the state's legal bounds, you could use a
Speaker 1: mobile device, smartphone device, etcetera to place your bets. So
Speaker 1: certainly mobile is the direction of the future, even though
Speaker 1: there's there's a large physical presence of these sports books.
Speaker 1: I want to thank you very much for joining us
Speaker 1: and shedding light on this issue. Brian Edgar is our
Speaker 1: expert when it comes to gaming and lodging for Bloomberg Intelligence.
Speaker 1: He's our senior industry analysts and just taking a look
Speaker 1: once again at some of the stocks making moves as
Speaker 1: a result of the Supreme Court decision avoiding the ban
Speaker 1: on national sports. But well, just last week we learned
Speaker 1: that Alliance Bernstein is going to relocate about a thousand
Speaker 1: of its employees to UH to Memphis, Nashville, Tennessee. I
Speaker 1: beg your pardon, and perhaps it has to do with
Speaker 1: compensation levels and making the money go a little bit further.
Speaker 1: Here to tell us more about compensation and incentive pay
Speaker 1: in the financial industry is Alan Johnson, President Managing director
Speaker 1: and founder of Johnson Associates, Alan, thanks very much for
Speaker 1: being with us. What is the current trend in terms
Speaker 1: of compensation and head count in the financial services industry?
Speaker 1: Will get into the specifics later, but what is the
Speaker 1: general trend that you're seeing. Compensation is projected to be
Speaker 1: higher in two thousand and eighteen, and sentives are probably
Speaker 1: going to be up five or ten percent. Um Uh,
Speaker 1: it's probably more of a mixed bag. And um in
Speaker 1: recruiting and employment, probably more outside the traditional money centers,
Speaker 1: more more in other parts of the country of the world. Um,
Speaker 1: So it's got that's a little bit more of a
Speaker 1: mixed bag. But clearly compensation is trending up for two
Speaker 1: thousand and eighteen. Yeah. Alan, Well, if it weren't, I'd
Speaker 1: be shocked because pretty much across the board we've seen
Speaker 1: gains over the past twelve months. And Allen, I'm so
Speaker 1: glad you could join us, because really, if you want
Speaker 1: to know what's going on in Wall Street, just check
Speaker 1: the bonuses and that will tell you everything you need
Speaker 1: to know. And I was looking just to dig into
Speaker 1: the details. I noticed that hedge funds, the average bonus
Speaker 1: was a zero to five increase from last year, whereas
Speaker 1: private equity was five to ten higher than last year.
Speaker 1: Can you talk a little bit about that and sort
Speaker 1: of what this tells you as far as private equity
Speaker 1: being more of the place to be right now. Well,
Speaker 1: private equity is continuing its momentum from the last three
Speaker 1: or four years, the up the the higher markets. They
Speaker 1: have had great realizations of prior investments. They have been
Speaker 1: able to go out in fund raise. So private equity
Speaker 1: is clicking on all cylinders. Hedge funds have had a
Speaker 1: very difficult run in the last several years. There we're
Speaker 1: projecting they're going to be up only slightly, perhaps zero
Speaker 1: to five incentives for this year, and again it's their
Speaker 1: fundamental business model of trying to beat the markets is
Speaker 1: much harder UM, so they're one of the two different ends.
Speaker 1: Private equity continues to be on a roll of hedge funds.
Speaker 1: Hopefully the volatility will help them, but it's a question mark. Well, Alan,
Speaker 1: maybe shift your attention now to investment in commercial banking
Speaker 1: and UM you say that the incentive pay would be
Speaker 1: generally in line with the entire firm's performance. Correct, Yes,
Speaker 1: the the banks have done better. They don't get the
Speaker 1: attention that they once did on their pay, but they
Speaker 1: continue to do well. What's different than the past that
Speaker 1: we all remember is that today it's somewhat of the
Speaker 1: boring parts of the commercial banking, which is commercial lending, retail,
Speaker 1: credit cards, cars, things that are steady and profitable um,
Speaker 1: but not as much of their business is the more
Speaker 1: um risky parts of the business that they used to
Speaker 1: do so well ahead. One thing I'm wondering is how
Speaker 1: the bonuses at US banks compared to those at European
Speaker 1: banks and whether you've seen in a pretty big attrition
Speaker 1: out of European banks and into into the US ones. Now,
Speaker 1: that's a very good question. The US banks continue to
Speaker 1: not only a business but all pay perspective, continue to
Speaker 1: move ahead. The European banks have kind of been in
Speaker 1: lembo now for a number of years. We saw Deutsche
Speaker 1: Bank cutting back and others, so they have not had
Speaker 1: the progress that the US banks have had in the
Speaker 1: last five or so years, either from a business results,
Speaker 1: stock price, or pay um. They are lagging UM significantly well.
Speaker 1: But I have to wonder just you know, with Deutch
Speaker 1: a bank, for example, I'd heard a while back that
Speaker 1: they were actually offering some huge bonuses to try to
Speaker 1: get talented people to come join them, given how much
Speaker 1: bad press they've gotten. And I wonder if you do
Speaker 1: see more sort of one off huge compensation offers from
Speaker 1: banks that are looking to sort of revive their franchise.
Speaker 1: You certainly don't see that as much in the United
Speaker 1: States because they don't need to to do the have
Speaker 1: and they don't want to. I think they don't need
Speaker 1: you because sorry to break in, but they don't need
Speaker 1: to because there are so many people looking for jobs
Speaker 1: that they can hire. Uh, most of them are got
Speaker 1: a pretty stable um cadre of senior people. They don't
Speaker 1: really need. They don't need the savior at this point.
Speaker 1: They're they're they're certainly looking for really good people, and
Speaker 1: they're certainly going to pay a lot for expensive people,
Speaker 1: but they don't need the savior you mentioned. If you're
Speaker 1: more troubled or more um in a in a fall,
Speaker 1: you're more likely to go out and spend an awful
Speaker 1: lot of money a free agent um and perhaps overpay um.
Speaker 1: The U S banks historically have always done that, but
Speaker 1: it certainly in the last five years or more they
Speaker 1: have not felt the need to or weren't allowed to
Speaker 1: do that. Um, So you know you're right if you're
Speaker 1: If you're going to hear an outsized number, it's not
Speaker 1: likely to be a brand name US Bank. It's likely
Speaker 1: to be somebody from probably from Europe. All Right, just
Speaker 1: really quickly, about thirty seconds. I don't know if you
Speaker 1: saw the news, Goldman Sachs is just announcing that to
Speaker 1: heads out of the three that lead the securities division
Speaker 1: are planning to retire. Just really quickly. Is this is
Speaker 1: this a significant thing? Um? I think it's a significant
Speaker 1: move for those two individuals. But certainly Goldman traditionally has
Speaker 1: had duel heads and a lot of businesses to give
Speaker 1: them a deeper bench. Um So, I don't think it
Speaker 1: tells you anything that they continue to rotate quality people
Speaker 1: through these jobs, and they've been I think the biggest
Speaker 1: practitioner of having dual heads, which they have. Their view
Speaker 1: is we need a deeper bench than relying on a
Speaker 1: you know, just a single person most of the time.
Speaker 1: So they still have somebody left from that team. Allan Johnson,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining us today. Always a
Speaker 1: pleasure and always important to take a look at what
Speaker 1: those bonuses are showing us about Wall Street Allan Johnson,
Speaker 1: managing director and founder of Johnson Associates, the shares of
Speaker 1: n XP Semiconductor. They are hired by about nine and
Speaker 1: a half percent after Chinese regulators have restarted their review
Speaker 1: of Quacom's application to acquire an XP Semiconductors. They previously
Speaker 1: had shelved this work in reaction to growing trade tensions
Speaker 1: with the United States. This according to people familiar with
Speaker 1: the matter, So better who better than Victoria Espinel, the
Speaker 1: president and the chief executive of the Business Software Alliance
Speaker 1: b s a UH to tell us a little bit
Speaker 1: more about what's going on when it comes to trade,
Speaker 1: intellectual property and technology between the United States and China.
Speaker 1: She's also the president of Software dot org and she
Speaker 1: can be followed on Twitter at Victoria Espinel. She joins
Speaker 1: us in our eleven three oh studios. Victoria, thank you
Speaker 1: very much for being with us UM. Just to give
Speaker 1: people the background prior to being the head of the
Speaker 1: the b s a UM, you or the United States
Speaker 1: in Collectual Property Enforcement Coordinator for the White House UH,
Speaker 1: and you were appointed by President Barack Obama back in
Speaker 1: September of two thousand nine. So what is your take
Speaker 1: on the back and forth over intellectual property and technology
Speaker 1: issues between the United States and China that currently are
Speaker 1: in the headlines. So this has been a long standing
Speaker 1: issue UM. In fact, before my time at the White House,
Speaker 1: I was a trade negotiator UM under the President Bush's
Speaker 1: administration from two thousand and one to two thousand seven,
Speaker 1: and I was the chief Intellectual property trade negotiator for
Speaker 1: the United States. But these concerns between the United and
Speaker 1: United States and China have predated even my time at USTR.
Speaker 1: And so this is I think we're seeing what may
Speaker 1: becoming close to the culmination of a long history of
Speaker 1: concerns where some things in China have gotten better, but
Speaker 1: other things have have gotten worse potentially. And I think
Speaker 1: speaking from the respective of the software industry, well, we
Speaker 1: definitely have concerns about intellectual property in China. I think
Speaker 1: there are a are types of market access barriers that
Speaker 1: are potentially even more concerning, so for example, joint venture
Speaker 1: rules or the cybersecurity regulations that China has in place.
Speaker 1: All that said, China is an incredibly important, perhaps the
Speaker 1: most important bilateral trading partner that we have with the
Speaker 1: United States, and so what I think is important for
Speaker 1: everyone to remember at this point is what we really
Speaker 1: need is for the United States in China to be
Speaker 1: having a constructive dialogue and be working together on solutions
Speaker 1: that are going to benefit both of us. I don't
Speaker 1: think it's it is it's not beneficial for China or
Speaker 1: the United States to be harmed in this process. Um.
Speaker 1: And the second point I would make is it's about
Speaker 1: the United States in China, but it's also about the
Speaker 1: global economy. And so one thing that I think would
Speaker 1: be very helpful that we're not seeing that much of
Speaker 1: at the moment is for the United States to be
Speaker 1: working with other countries as well. This is not just
Speaker 1: about the United States in China. This is about making
Speaker 1: the global economy work well. And I think, um, while
Speaker 1: it has been hardening to see the administration working through
Speaker 1: organizations like the World Trade Organization to a certain extent, um,
Speaker 1: I think the more that we the United States can
Speaker 1: be building alliances and we the United States can be
Speaker 1: working constructively with a range of countries, including with China,
Speaker 1: that's ultimately that's going to be helpful for everyone. So
Speaker 1: one sort of battle that's being waged between China and
Speaker 1: the US aside from the very clear headlines about trade
Speaker 1: tensions is over artificial intelligence, and China has made a
Speaker 1: real concerted effort to push forward any new technology on
Speaker 1: that front. The White House had a meeting last week
Speaker 1: where it had the executive of some of the leading
Speaker 1: tech companies in the US, and White House officials said, listen,
Speaker 1: if you want to experiment develop artificial intelligence, go crazy.
Speaker 1: We are going to have a very light touch with
Speaker 1: respect to regulating this. What is the cutting edge of
Speaker 1: artificial intelligence? And how important is this sort of lazy,
Speaker 1: fair at tude by US representatives. So I think artificial
Speaker 1: intelligence is already and will become even more important to
Speaker 1: our economy. So then the same way that trans software
Speaker 1: transformed every sector of the economy. I mean, software is
Speaker 1: like electricity, It is used by literally everyone, I think
Speaker 1: eventually artificial intelligence is going to rise to that same
Speaker 1: level of being a truly transformative technology in terms there
Speaker 1: are a lot of different kinds of artificial intelligence. And
Speaker 1: so one of the things that you're reading the headlines
Speaker 1: in terms of China's investments and research, um, you know,
Speaker 1: China is investing significant amounts of money, not just at
Speaker 1: the central level, but at the prevential level. At the
Speaker 1: same time, in the United States, more through the private
Speaker 1: sector and through UM we are also having significant investments
Speaker 1: in artificial intelligence. And speaking for the software industry, I
Speaker 1: think what we are most focused on is how you
Speaker 1: can use artificial intelligence to try to help people make
Speaker 1: decisions better, So decisions that people are already making, how
Speaker 1: to make how to give them the tools that they
Speaker 1: are making those decisions more quickly and with more information.
Speaker 1: And I can give you a couple of examples of that.
Speaker 1: But I will also tell you I think this is
Speaker 1: going to be present in every sector, healthcare, finances, manufacturing, agriculture.
Speaker 1: I think, you know, five to ten years from now,
Speaker 1: we're going to see the ripple effects of this across
Speaker 1: the industry. Give us, though, one concrete example, just so
Speaker 1: we have a picture in our head. Sure, I'll give
Speaker 1: you one that's personally important to me. UM. So, I
Speaker 1: have two boys, six and ten. UM And for a
Speaker 1: very short period of time, Uh, my eldest son was
Speaker 1: in the natal intensive care unit the nick you after
Speaker 1: he was born. Uh And and happily he he was
Speaker 1: and is fine. But one of the things that's happening
Speaker 1: in artificial intelligence right now that I think is really
Speaker 1: is really amazing as a mother, UH is that doctors
Speaker 1: are using artificial intelligence to monitor the vital signs for
Speaker 1: babies that are in nick u's and one of the
Speaker 1: things that they have found in doing that at is
Speaker 1: that it is actually a danger sign for for very
Speaker 1: small babies when they're vital signs stabilized, which is completely counterintuitive,
Speaker 1: right you would think the vital signs are stabilized, that
Speaker 1: means um that that child is doing better and therefore
Speaker 1: care should move to another baby. In fact, that is
Speaker 1: not the case. In fact, when vital signs stabilized, that
Speaker 1: is actually a very good predictor that a crash is coming,
Speaker 1: and so monitoring of that babies should be increased rather
Speaker 1: than decreased or the amount of care and attention to
Speaker 1: it um. Doctors still don't know exactly why this is,
Speaker 1: but one of the things with artificial intelligence is it
Speaker 1: can be great to know why, but sometimes it also
Speaker 1: just mataged to know that it is. And this is UH.
Speaker 1: This is changing the way that doctors are treating UH
Speaker 1: babies that are in native and that are in the
Speaker 1: nick us and I think it's really important that that
Speaker 1: is one example, you can look at almost any hairry
Speaker 1: of health care right now and see the advances that
Speaker 1: are being made in artificial intelligence, and most of them
Speaker 1: go to to be more specific, they go to increasing
Speaker 1: the accuracy of diagnoses, increasing the speed of diagnosis, and
Speaker 1: then coming up with treatment plans that may not have
Speaker 1: been as obvious to the doctors without the ability to
Speaker 1: use artificial intelligence tools. I'm just wondering if you could
Speaker 1: just give us maybe a twenty second update. In the
Speaker 1: world of piracy and the piracy of either stealing software
Speaker 1: code or intellectual property, it can be anything from movies
Speaker 1: to music. But that's also a big concern for technology companies. So,
Speaker 1: you know, I think for software, I don't like the
Speaker 1: term piracy and I don't use it. You know. I
Speaker 1: think we encourage We think all companies should use software
Speaker 1: within the terms of their licenses. But I don't think
Speaker 1: it's company that isn't is not an organization that I
Speaker 1: would call a pirate. UM. I think there are, particularly
Speaker 1: in counterfeit pharmaceuticals, there are organizations involved in criminal distribution UM,
Speaker 1: and I think that's reprehensible behavior because of the public
Speaker 1: safety impacts that it can have. UM. You know, I
Speaker 1: think There's there's a lot of progress that's been made
Speaker 1: in terms of trying to address intellectual property issues, and
Speaker 1: I think that's going to continue. Victoria Espinel, thank you
Speaker 1: so much for being with us. Victoria Espinel as President
Speaker 1: and chief executive officer of the Business Software Alliance based
Speaker 1: in Washington, d C. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: p m L podcast. You can subscribe and listen to
Speaker 1: interviews at Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whatever podcast platform you prefer.
Speaker 1: I'm pim Fox. I'm on Twitter at pim Fox. I'm
Speaker 1: on Twitter at Lisa abramoits one before the podcast. You
Speaker 1: can always catch us worldwide on Bloomberg Radio.