Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Markets Podcast. I'm Paul Sweeney, along
Speaker 1: with my co host of Bonnie Quinn. Every business day
Speaker 1: we bring you interviews from CEO, market pros, and Bloomberg experts,
Speaker 1: along with essential market moving news. Find the Bloomberg Markets
Speaker 1: Podcast on Apple podcast or wherever you listen to podcasts,
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com. Alright, let's take a look
Speaker 1: at bitcoin for something just a little bit different. Why
Speaker 1: not let's move to the digital currency space. We're looking
Speaker 1: at thirty three eight hundred forty six today. It is
Speaker 1: down about three tenths of one after a couple of
Speaker 1: very down days in the last few days. Let's bring
Speaker 1: in somebody who knows a lot about this. Meltham the
Speaker 1: Mirrors is chief strategy officer from coin shares, Google's seven
Speaker 1: hundred fifty million dollars in the digital space. Well to
Speaker 1: thank you for joining. What do you make of the
Speaker 1: flows into the likes of bitcoin over the last few
Speaker 1: days and weeks and the amount of sort of new
Speaker 1: vehicles that have cropped up, including Anthony scaramuci Is new
Speaker 1: Bitcoin ETF. Yeah. Absolutely so great to be back on
Speaker 1: the show, and I want to make a minor correction.
Speaker 1: We actually coin shares hit a record high as three
Speaker 1: point nine billion in a u M, so it's quite
Speaker 1: a step up from the seven hundred fifty million we
Speaker 1: had about a year ago. And actually on the first
Speaker 1: trading day of the year this year, we had a
Speaker 1: new high where we saw over two hundred million dollars
Speaker 1: of our change trader products traded in one single trading
Speaker 1: session January four, big day. So I'll definitely say there's
Speaker 1: a lot of interest in crypto ETPs and crypto vehicles.
Speaker 1: Just melt him. Let's let's carify exactly that you had
Speaker 1: seven fifty million a year ago, you have what now?
Speaker 1: And has it been due to flows or due to
Speaker 1: the you know, the massive gains that we've seen in
Speaker 1: the likes of bitcoin. Absolutely, so we have three point
Speaker 1: nine billion in assets under management in our exchange traded
Speaker 1: products and that is a result of two factors, as
Speaker 1: you alluded to. One factor, obviously, is the price rise.
Speaker 1: That in addition, we've seen a tremendous amount of inflows
Speaker 1: into our et p s as well as other structured products.
Speaker 1: And again what we're seeing is a tremendous amount of
Speaker 1: participation from not just crypto native asset managers like ourselves.
Speaker 1: We are currently the second largest asset manager in the
Speaker 1: world in our industry. But we're also seeing traditional asset managers,
Speaker 1: hedge fund managers Anthony Scaramucci, one River in the UK
Speaker 1: entering into this market and in significant size. We're talking
Speaker 1: about multibillion dollar vehicles here. So new inflows combined with
Speaker 1: the price rally has resulted in a tremendous amount of
Speaker 1: market activity across the board. Talk to us about the
Speaker 1: trading that we've seen melt him in bitcoin just specifically,
Speaker 1: it's had just extraordinary rise up here. I'm just looking
Speaker 1: at it. You know, back in March, when a lot
Speaker 1: of risk assets were melting down, it was about five
Speaker 1: thousand dollars in here. We are, you know, just under
Speaker 1: thirty four thousand after peaking it over forty. Talked us
Speaker 1: about what we've seen in the price of bitcoin, maybe
Speaker 1: even the recent volatility, uh bitcoin absolutely and the trading story.
Speaker 1: You know, we have a large trading desk at our firm.
Speaker 1: We're trading about five to seven billion of notional volume
Speaker 1: every month. What we've really seen last year around this time,
Speaker 1: the majority of bitcoin trading volume was in the bitcoin
Speaker 1: teather trade pair. Teather UM, as some of your listeners
Speaker 1: might know, is a blockchain based digital dollar. So the
Speaker 1: majority of volume we saw was happening during Asia trading
Speaker 1: hours in the Bitcoin teather trading pair. Over the last
Speaker 1: twelve months and particularly in December and the start of
Speaker 1: this year, what we've seen is an uptick in volume
Speaker 1: in the Bitcoin USD pair, which is now the most
Speaker 1: dominant pair, and in addition, a lot of trading activity
Speaker 1: has shifted to US and UK market hours, So to us,
Speaker 1: that's one of the clear indications that volume is starting
Speaker 1: to shift. And then the last piece I'll add that's
Speaker 1: important to note is, as many may know, the CME
Speaker 1: in tween launched a bitcoin derivative market. They have a
Speaker 1: futures contract and an options contract. In December, the Bitcoin
Speaker 1: options contract at Semi hit an all time high of
Speaker 1: one billion in monthly x three, and we're seeing a
Speaker 1: tremendous amount of up kicking volume on that CME venue.
Speaker 1: Whereas historically in the past, the majority of options and
Speaker 1: derivatives volume had been on crypto native platforms, particularly those
Speaker 1: based in the Asia Pacific region, we're now starting to
Speaker 1: see a lot more participation in USD denominated markets tied
Speaker 1: to the legacy banking system and access by institutions through
Speaker 1: their existing scms and their existing brokerag providers. How do
Speaker 1: you take a pair build him, mild him. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, obviously we quote bitcoin in terms of it
Speaker 1: versus the US dollar. You talk about in versus tether
Speaker 1: and others. What what are the what are the options
Speaker 1: I suppose these days? Sure, so tether is a dollar, right,
Speaker 1: Every tether is equal to a dollar. It's just that
Speaker 1: the dollar is on a on a blockchain, so it
Speaker 1: trades natively on chain. It's very similar to the concept
Speaker 1: of the central bank digital currency, except for central bank
Speaker 1: issuing it. In this instance, it's a private company issuing
Speaker 1: it with the dollars held in reserve and collateral. And really,
Speaker 1: I think the importance of the shift from tethered to
Speaker 1: us D is an indication that more of the people
Speaker 1: who are accessing capital markets in crypto are coming from
Speaker 1: a bank accounts rather than being crypto native trading firms.
Speaker 1: So I think that's really the key insight for US there.
Speaker 1: And in terms of trade pairs, you know, bitcoin is
Speaker 1: a very deep, very liquid market at this stage three
Speaker 1: years ago not so deep, not so liquids, and today
Speaker 1: it's a twenty four seven global market. UM is quoted
Speaker 1: primarily in us D, but obviously there are hundreds of
Speaker 1: trade pairs and various currencies, but the us D trade
Speaker 1: pair is really the most prominent one, and that's certainly
Speaker 1: the one we check at our firm. Extraordinary story, Milton,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining us. We really pre
Speaker 1: getting the update and the update on the assets under management. Uh,
Speaker 1: that is just extraordinary. Of the past twelve months. Meltem
Speaker 1: Demere's chief strategy off for Coin Shares Group just really
Speaker 1: Vanni just that the growth in and the depth of
Speaker 1: the marketplace, as Meltem was mentioned to me, that's one
Speaker 1: of the most oppressive things, the depth of the marketplace. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, let's not forget a bitcoin itself
Speaker 1: is up three d thirty percent over the last twelve months,
Speaker 1: so you know that accounts for for some of that.
Speaker 1: But also these are such tremendously volatile assets, Paul, you know, yeah,
Speaker 1: but as presumably as you talk to the bulls, as
Speaker 1: this market becomes deeper and broader, uh, and and perhaps
Speaker 1: more liquid with more players, that becomes a little bit
Speaker 1: more stable, we'll see, and it's time to talk markets
Speaker 1: once again. Now let's bring in Brent Shooty, chief Investment
Speaker 1: Strategies for North will Western Mutual Wealth Management brand. It's
Speaker 1: been quite a few months. It's been you know, crazy,
Speaker 1: crazy times here in United States. The markets those seem
Speaker 1: to obligely just gone higher and higher, at least equity markets,
Speaker 1: and you know, more recently we've been getting a bit
Speaker 1: of a shift in bond markets. What's that's what's the
Speaker 1: main decision that you've had to make over the last
Speaker 1: day four weeks. Well, I think your earlier comments about
Speaker 1: kind of the markets moving higher and some of the
Speaker 1: issues that are still out there, I want to point
Speaker 1: out that the markets discount more into the future, and
Speaker 1: so the markets are thinking about the end of COVID
Speaker 1: nine king hopefully and I was getting back onto public
Speaker 1: and those brighter days ahead in the future. And I
Speaker 1: think that as you invest money, as you think about
Speaker 1: those things. Um, certainly there has been some troubling data
Speaker 1: out there's been some troubling things happen which have happened
Speaker 1: in the last four weeks. But from an investment perspective,
Speaker 1: I think it's important to point out that you always
Speaker 1: need to be looking ahead, and I think the last
Speaker 1: four weeks we've had to focus on that quite a bit,
Speaker 1: making sure that we're looking ahead into hopefully the next
Speaker 1: few months when the world looks just a bit brighter
Speaker 1: and its operating on multiple centers that you're owth. So
Speaker 1: I guess, in a way to your question, the last
Speaker 1: four weeks, UM certainly looking at the data, but looking
Speaker 1: ahead more so. And that's what the market is doing
Speaker 1: right now. It's looking ahead to what happens in the future,
Speaker 1: and it's seeing a brighter one ahead, all right, So
Speaker 1: a brighter outlook ahead. Where are you going? Where are
Speaker 1: you allocating capital? Brent Well? So, I think for the
Speaker 1: last three years, technology growth stocks have been only game
Speaker 1: in town and kind of ties into my cylinders of
Speaker 1: growth commentary because I do think next year will be there.
Speaker 1: This year, I should say, now we're in the new year,
Speaker 1: um will be the first year in many actually three
Speaker 1: that we've operated both in the US and the globe
Speaker 1: on multiple cylinders of growth. And by that I mean
Speaker 1: back in two thous eighteen we were kind of introduced
Speaker 1: to the trade war that was designed to slow global growth,
Speaker 1: and it was designed to harm manufacturing and exports around
Speaker 1: the around the world, and that actually had a blowback
Speaker 1: into the US. And so if you think about it,
Speaker 1: technology was really unimpacted by that. It was the place
Speaker 1: of earnings growth. Growth was narrow and the market was narrow.
Speaker 1: Those two things were aligned as you look in the
Speaker 1: one um that hopefully will be off the boil um.
Speaker 1: So COVID, I should say, also kept that going. COVID
Speaker 1: actually in the beginning narrowed the economy narrow the market's
Speaker 1: technology was kind of the only game in town. And
Speaker 1: recently you've seen the market broaden out because the economy
Speaker 1: is brought out, and so we continue to think that's
Speaker 1: a backrop in That means that things that haven't done
Speaker 1: as well, like cyclical stocks, like value stocks, like small
Speaker 1: cap stocks which started doing better in Q four, will
Speaker 1: continue to do well into the new year. And that's
Speaker 1: where we're focusing most of our attention on. That's fascinating.
Speaker 1: So what kind of value plays are out there that
Speaker 1: you see them well from a broad perspective. I we
Speaker 1: we we use broad based et f s and mutual
Speaker 1: funds for the most part, so we are investing along
Speaker 1: the lines of just value stocks and some of those
Speaker 1: sectors that have been harmed a lot. So I think
Speaker 1: the financial stink energy UM think stocks that are just
Speaker 1: cheaper than some of the growth stocks that have been
Speaker 1: um bit up kind of because rates are low and
Speaker 1: because their story. Stocks with a compelling future. I'm not
Speaker 1: suggesting that future doesn't come to fruition. I just think
Speaker 1: a year when you kind of get back to some
Speaker 1: of the things are a bit more boring, like perhaps industrials, financials,
Speaker 1: things where UM things that have been impacted for the
Speaker 1: past few years because of some of these things that
Speaker 1: are out there that have kept global growth from hiring
Speaker 1: on all cylinders, which, as I mentioned before, I think
Speaker 1: that alleviates so Brent, I guess the you know, one
Speaker 1: of the issues for a lot of people as a
Speaker 1: think about equity markets is market cap. The big cap
Speaker 1: names you talked about have been such good stories for
Speaker 1: a long time. And as we broaden out our view,
Speaker 1: how are you viewing small cap mid cap stocks? Do
Speaker 1: you do you still see UM? Is there opportunity there? Yes,
Speaker 1: I mean I think they've certainly. I mean so in
Speaker 1: the fourth quarter small and mid cap stocks and the
Speaker 1: indextins we look at we're up twenties four and respectively.
Speaker 1: I'm not suggesting that large caps aren't a bad story.
Speaker 1: I think the SMP was up twelve. So it's not
Speaker 1: that there isn't still opportunities within some of those other segments.
Speaker 1: It's just that I think in all in mid cap
Speaker 1: stocks and value stocks to that matter, have further room
Speaker 1: to run. Look, growth versus value is at all time extremes,
Speaker 1: and I think that's been logical for the reasons that
Speaker 1: I mentioned. But as you think about think about more
Speaker 1: monetary policies that that is not going to stop. They
Speaker 1: have to have credibility in the future. They need to
Speaker 1: persent inflation. The feds QUEI is designed to make you
Speaker 1: take risk. Fiscal policymakers are not going to stop UM.
Speaker 1: You have COVID hopefully alleviating its impact on the rest
Speaker 1: of the economy. You have an inventory rebuild that has
Speaker 1: to happen, and you have some pent up demand from
Speaker 1: consumers who actually UM certainly in the aggregate, have saved money.
Speaker 1: There's still are people who are in trouble and hopefully
Speaker 1: stimulist gets them through and then they get jobs back.
Speaker 1: But you have an economy that's going to be operating
Speaker 1: on all cylinders, and to us, that means this recent
Speaker 1: rotation that we have seen continues in because earnings growth
Speaker 1: will broaden out and technology won't be the only game
Speaker 1: in town. And so UM, that's where we're kind of focused.
Speaker 1: Would you go so far then Brenda's to be short
Speaker 1: some of these growth stocks, like a test for example. Now, UM,
Speaker 1: that's not our ore. We are long term investors. We
Speaker 1: take a long term approach and a long term out,
Speaker 1: but we still own large cap stocks. Well, I suppose
Speaker 1: what I'm really asking is do you think they're going
Speaker 1: to settle off massively? You may not take a position
Speaker 1: on it given what you do you know, but but
Speaker 1: do you think they're going to sell off? No, I
Speaker 1: don't know that there's a massive sell off out there.
Speaker 1: And I think, and I've equated this in the past,
Speaker 1: to let me make a caveat, I don't think things
Speaker 1: in some of those stocks are anywhere near they were.
Speaker 1: There are earnings, there are UM stories that are there
Speaker 1: that are real versus what I think happened. I'm just
Speaker 1: suggesting that investors a UM don't lose diversification because I
Speaker 1: think right now the temptation is high to do so
Speaker 1: because they've been emboldened by the past and be nudge
Speaker 1: their portfolios UM in that direction because I think there's
Speaker 1: the opportunity to add incremental performance above and beyond UM
Speaker 1: what they would get by just taking you know, a
Speaker 1: steady hold, buy and hold kind of perspective. Hey, Brent,
Speaker 1: thanks so much for joining us again. We always appreciate
Speaker 1: your perspective. Brent Shooty, chief investment strategist for the Northwestern
Speaker 1: Mutual Wealth Management giving us his bullish call on the
Speaker 1: markets for talking about that rotation trade, allocating a little
Speaker 1: bit more to some of those UM growth I mean
Speaker 1: the value stories cyclical names, maybe small caps as well.
Speaker 1: It is time for Bloomberg Opinion. We're joined today by
Speaker 1: Jonah Sarah. He's a Bloomberg Opinion columnist joining us. Joe's
Speaker 1: out with a fascinating column today on a very important topic,
Speaker 1: and that is what liability should the social media companies
Speaker 1: like Twitter, like Facebook and others have for the content
Speaker 1: that appears on their platform. And of course that is
Speaker 1: absolutely front of in center right here. As President Trump
Speaker 1: uh has been uh temporarily at least taken off of
Speaker 1: both Facebook and Twitter for some issues as it relates
Speaker 1: to last week's uprising. Uh in the Capital Joe, thanks
Speaker 1: so much for joining us here. Love to get your
Speaker 1: thoughts here, UM about this very important topic. UM well,
Speaker 1: I've pretty brought a question. Um My, my core, my
Speaker 1: core feeling is that, um, we just should not live
Speaker 1: in a world where for Silicon Valley bros, you know
Speaker 1: Tim named Tim and Mark and and and uh Jack
Speaker 1: and and Sundar get to decide you know, who who
Speaker 1: gets to be on their platform and who doesn't get
Speaker 1: to be on their platform, or what kind of speech
Speaker 1: I should say, gets to be on their platform. So
Speaker 1: you know, there's a there's a fundamental problem there that
Speaker 1: hasn't been solved. And um, you know, Facebook has fifteen
Speaker 1: thousand content moderators and yet there's still all kinds of
Speaker 1: hate speech on there. Obviously, this uprising was was in
Speaker 1: no small part planned on Facebook, um and and Facebook
Speaker 1: is always behind the curve and trying to get these things.
Speaker 1: These things often in many cases leaves demand because they
Speaker 1: don't violate their terms of service, and we barely know
Speaker 1: what their terms of service are, so so continue No, no, no,
Speaker 1: you go, you go your turn, All right, my turn.
Speaker 1: I was going to say, what responsibility exactly does the
Speaker 1: likes of Mark Zuckerberg and his company, which is in
Speaker 1: the private sector, it's not a government company, it's a
Speaker 1: private company. How much responsibility does he and the company have? Well,
Speaker 1: do you mean from a legal standpoint or do you
Speaker 1: mean from a societal and moral standpoint? From a societal
Speaker 1: and moral standpoint first, because I imagine some of the
Speaker 1: reasons we saw these actions being taken in the last
Speaker 1: few days is actually from a legal standpoint, not from
Speaker 1: a societal standpoint. But that's you know, opinion aside. I
Speaker 1: don't I don't think that's true. You don't think I mean,
Speaker 1: the key thing is, see, they have no legal liability
Speaker 1: because of section to thirty of the nineteen Communications Now
Speaker 1: excuse me, the the Communications Decency Act of So they
Speaker 1: have no legal responsibility because they are they they have
Speaker 1: they have immunity. They're just viewed as a platform and
Speaker 1: anybody can put anything on there and the person who
Speaker 1: puts it on has the liability. Now, you know, I
Speaker 1: think this is a huge, huge problem because it doesn't
Speaker 1: give these guys any incentive to take off the incendiary
Speaker 1: kind of uh posts that, on the one hand, are
Speaker 1: been very damaging to American to our politics, and to
Speaker 1: our cultural norms. But on the other hand, they drive traffic,
Speaker 1: they make money for the companies, so the companies don't
Speaker 1: have a ton of incentive to take that stuff off.
Speaker 1: Um and, So you know, my argument really is comes
Speaker 1: down to this. You know, if you're a farmer company,
Speaker 1: one of the reasons you want your drugs to work,
Speaker 1: not the only reasons, but one of them is because
Speaker 1: if they don't, you're gonna get sued to smithereen and
Speaker 1: and and that helps keep companies in line. Um and
Speaker 1: and and if Facebook and Twitter, and Apple and Amazon
Speaker 1: all had the same um uh, the possibility of of
Speaker 1: of of lawsuits, it would I believe change the way
Speaker 1: they think and act about um about what they have online. Joe,
Speaker 1: what do you think the appetite is within Washington to
Speaker 1: eliminate Section to thirty of the Communications Act. I think
Speaker 1: it's pretty high. Actually, um all the Republicans wanted, although
Speaker 1: they wanted for a stupid reason. Um. They want it
Speaker 1: because they think of it as a way to punish
Speaker 1: the tech companies, especially Facebook and Twitter, because they claim
Speaker 1: that you know, the conservative views don't get are censored,
Speaker 1: which is bologny, which is just bologny. Um uh. But
Speaker 1: but you know, there are a lot of Democrats who
Speaker 1: have come around to this, to it too. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's not it's not a slam dunk, but um uh.
Speaker 1: There is a sense that something has to change and
Speaker 1: that you can't keep pounting on Twitter and Spacebook to
Speaker 1: to do this themselves because they just they don't have
Speaker 1: the manpower and they don't really have the They're not
Speaker 1: they don't have the willingness. So um so that's that's
Speaker 1: what the issue is. Maybe. I mean, if somebody could
Speaker 1: figure out a way to modify Section to thirty so
Speaker 1: it creates some legal liability liability, um without getting rid
Speaker 1: of it entirely, I think that would be a great solution. Well,
Speaker 1: here's one for you. Don't go ahead. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: not unlimited this immunity. It's specifically accept federal criminal liability.
Speaker 1: So what if someone gets up there and argues that,
Speaker 1: you know, across states people were planning to meet and
Speaker 1: carry out violence on members of Congress last Wednesday? Is
Speaker 1: that I mean, there's potential federal liability there they there is,
Speaker 1: absolutely that's a very very narrow slice of the stuff.
Speaker 1: That's on Twitter and Facebook. That's wrong. Um, for instance,
Speaker 1: you know you can you can put anti Semitic slurs
Speaker 1: on their kingdom. Come you can? You could until until
Speaker 1: this year, you could be a holocaust and I are
Speaker 1: on Facebook, so you know, and those things. There's there's
Speaker 1: no there's no legal liability. The amount of legal liability,
Speaker 1: you know, is very very narrow for these companies. You're right,
Speaker 1: if a crime is being planned on Facebook and Facebook
Speaker 1: don't do anything about it, that's the problem. But but
Speaker 1: as a general rule, there's no legal liability. Joe, what
Speaker 1: do you expect the response from Silicon valid to be
Speaker 1: to some of this mounting pressure for regulating speech. Well,
Speaker 1: I think they actually they're not going to be a
Speaker 1: favorite eliminating to thirty, but they if you actually there's
Speaker 1: a company called Axios, which I'm sure you've heard of,
Speaker 1: which is an online site that's very aimed at the
Speaker 1: water intend movers and shakers. Facebook advertises on that side
Speaker 1: all the time, and their advertisements always say we want
Speaker 1: to be regulated, it needs to be further regulated. What
Speaker 1: they really want is for the federal government to take
Speaker 1: this problem off their hands so that there are you know,
Speaker 1: so that it becomes a government mandate that certain certain
Speaker 1: speech has to be removed. So they don't they don't
Speaker 1: feel like, you know, there there it's on them that
Speaker 1: it's their decision. Um. So actually is the appetite is
Speaker 1: higher than it's It's higher than you might think. Joe,
Speaker 1: it's a great column. There's so much nuance in here,
Speaker 1: and I urge everybody to rush out there and read
Speaker 1: Jona Sarah's column today in bloom Reig Opinion. He is,
Speaker 1: of course that the Jonah Sarah, but he's also a
Speaker 1: bloom Big opinion columnists these days. Under today's column is
Speaker 1: revoke social media's shield. But for the right reasons to
Speaker 1: their Facebook and other platforms won't get serious about cleaning
Speaker 1: up content until they face liability. It makes a great point,
Speaker 1: Paul about how you know it's only now twelve days
Speaker 1: before the end of the Tom presidency that you know
Speaker 1: Twitter and Facebook are actually booting him off. You know,
Speaker 1: it does seem the timing is not lost on a
Speaker 1: lot of people. Yeah, yeah, it could definitely be a
Speaker 1: little bit cynical about it. All right, it is time
Speaker 1: to have a conversation about the climate. And you can
Speaker 1: be absolutely sure that under John Kerry. Assuming that he
Speaker 1: is the next climates are and that that all goes
Speaker 1: ahead without any problems, we will have a very different
Speaker 1: approach in this country to climate. Remy really was one
Speaker 1: of the negotiators for the Paris Climate Agreement and he
Speaker 1: joins us now. Remy, first of all, what's your anticipation
Speaker 1: for when John carry takes office and how it will
Speaker 1: manifest itself. It's a new post hivony hipole Yes from France.
Speaker 1: Pleasure to be to be with you and to see
Speaker 1: the momentum growing in the US behind climate. John ker
Speaker 1: was the key actor of the Paris Agreement. I clearly
Speaker 1: remember when I was the chief negotiater on finance back
Speaker 1: in in twenty fifteen, and so a lot of of course,
Speaker 1: a lot of expectations to see the US back on
Speaker 1: board and very active domestically of course, but also on
Speaker 1: the international stage. So, Remy, give us a sense, as
Speaker 1: one of the negotiators and architects of the Paris Agreement,
Speaker 1: why is it so important disagreement for climate change? And
Speaker 1: what's really the focus right now for uh this agreement? Well,
Speaker 1: we all know we have to do our homework in
Speaker 1: each and every country for energy transition to change the
Speaker 1: way we invest in housing, but that the emissions are
Speaker 1: going everywhere and so we we need absolutely need to
Speaker 1: common framework and way more international cooperation with the Chinese, is, Europeans,
Speaker 1: with African countries. And that's what the Paris Agreement was about,
Speaker 1: a common framework with a clear mechanism, with a ratchet
Speaker 1: close never expanding ambition. And this is what we will
Speaker 1: discuss this year in Glasgow by November, headed by the
Speaker 1: UK Government with CUP twenty six, five years after the
Speaker 1: Paris Agreement, we will take stock of where we stand
Speaker 1: and hopefully increase ambition. And that's for the voice of
Speaker 1: John Kerry, the voice of Brian D's, the voice of
Speaker 1: Jonathan Pershing, the whole team that is back in business
Speaker 1: will be so important. Are they speaking to corporate America,
Speaker 1: Corporate France, corporate Germany and whatever country you know we
Speaker 1: might be talking about, or are they actually speaking to
Speaker 1: the governments. What can governments do? Um An interesting point
Speaker 1: in the Paris Agreement and the way the French Monment
Speaker 1: at that time organized the discussion is that it was
Speaker 1: not a classic inter governmental UN discussion. We tried to
Speaker 1: expand and you're financial Radio, so we tried to light
Speaker 1: up each segment of the financial sectors at that time
Speaker 1: and then we can measure what is happening. So see
Speaker 1: what the green ball market became in five years, and
Speaker 1: we certainly will go away farther in the coming months
Speaker 1: and years. And so yes, the private sector, private financiers,
Speaker 1: private corporations are key in this effort. But you need
Speaker 1: the instruments to lenk public and private, of course, and
Speaker 1: that's that's what public development banks are about, remy. One
Speaker 1: of the first moves from President Trump and his administration
Speaker 1: was to pull the U S out of the Parish agreement.
Speaker 1: What were the practical ramifications for that? Uh move? What
Speaker 1: good news is that it takes two years to really
Speaker 1: come out of such an agreement. So the real so
Speaker 1: there was still the US team in the negotiation for
Speaker 1: for for the last few years, and since the President
Speaker 1: elect Biden decided to come back, there will be no
Speaker 1: no interruption in the US in the negotiation. But of
Speaker 1: course the decision had a lot of consequence on the
Speaker 1: on the momentum, and hopefully there was the American pledge
Speaker 1: with the cities, with NGOs, with corporations taking the home
Speaker 1: and and doing more and now we expect the government
Speaker 1: to come back. So you were just offering us a
Speaker 1: little opening there. Ramy. You are a chair of the
Speaker 1: International Development Finance Club, and you just mentioned how you
Speaker 1: know international banks and into governmental banks are very necessary
Speaker 1: when it comes to things like climate agreements and so on.
Speaker 1: How does your International Development Finance Club play a part
Speaker 1: in all of this. Well, in the way Europe, Asia,
Speaker 1: Latin America, Africa developed and is now fighting against climate
Speaker 1: change and against inequalities, you have at the center of
Speaker 1: our economic system a public financial body, public development banks.
Speaker 1: Remember in the US during the thirties you had this
Speaker 1: Reconstruction Finance Corporation that was the instrument the federal public
Speaker 1: instruments at the end of President Roosevelt to come out
Speaker 1: of the crisis. And so we decided last November to
Speaker 1: gather them all. There are four hundred and fifty public
Speaker 1: development banks in the world. It amounts to two point
Speaker 1: three trillion dollar investments each year, so that's ten percent
Speaker 1: of global total investments that are public and to work collectively.
Speaker 1: And so we we are expecting, we are dreaming and
Speaker 1: having again us counterpart Senator Mark here. You know so
Speaker 1: active behind the Green New deal was present at this
Speaker 1: Finance in Common summit, and he supported the Finance in
Speaker 1: Common coalition and we will pursue in twenty one and
Speaker 1: certainly a liaise with all US colleagues to do more Remy,
Speaker 1: how has the pandemic, the global pandemic, impacted the mission
Speaker 1: of the Paris Agreement. Uh, well, the pandemic, of course
Speaker 1: is slowing down international cooperation and that's where it's so
Speaker 1: important to rely on national forces. So of course, now
Speaker 1: we have the global framework, the Paris Agreement, that is
Speaker 1: still alive and very active and probably more vibrant than
Speaker 1: in the previous years. But we need to have a
Speaker 1: lives we need to afforce is, we need to have
Speaker 1: institutions in each and every constituency. Because the DSDGS, the
Speaker 1: Sustainable Development Goals, the Paris Agreement, it's not about international affairs.
Speaker 1: It's really about the way we produce, the way we consume,
Speaker 1: the way we live and what we have to change.
Speaker 1: And you well, we know we have to do it
Speaker 1: in France. You know you have to do it in
Speaker 1: the US. And certainly that was part of the debate
Speaker 1: in the discussion. And now we have to join forces
Speaker 1: and do it together. Remy Reyou, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for joining us. Remy Reyu Chair International Development Finance Club,
Speaker 1: also a Paris Agreement negotiator and UM a vantage to
Speaker 1: be very eating to see how quickly the U s
Speaker 1: re engages in this Paris Agreement. UM when the President
Speaker 1: elect takes office on January twoine clearly as a big
Speaker 1: part of uh Mr Biden's campaign to re engage with
Speaker 1: on a global scale of our partners to fight climate change.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Markets podcast. You can
Speaker 1: subscribe and listen to interviews at Apple Podcasts or whatever
Speaker 1: a podcast platform you prefer. I'm Bonnie Quinn. I'm on
Speaker 1: Twitter at Bonnie Quinn, and I'm Paul Sweeney. I'm on
Speaker 1: Twitter at pt Sweeney. Before the podcast, you can always
Speaker 1: catch us worldwide at Bloomberg Radio.