Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Penel podcast. I'm Paul swing you
Speaker 1: along with my co host Lisa Brahma Waits. Each day
Speaker 1: we bring you the most noteworthy and useful interviews for
Speaker 1: you and your money, whether at the grocery store or
Speaker 1: the trading floor. Find a Bloomberg Penl podcast on Apple
Speaker 1: podcast or wherever you listen to podcasts, as well as
Speaker 1: at Bloomberg dot com. Right now, let's turn to Maria today.
Speaker 1: Oh she is an E. M. E. A reporter for
Speaker 1: Bloomberg News and Bloomberg Television. She joins us on the
Speaker 1: phone from Brussels. Maria, thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 1: Give us your thoughts on what we heard from uh
Speaker 1: speaker bark How this morning. That's right, So essentially there
Speaker 1: was a lot of hype build into this, but I
Speaker 1: think it's not been surprising that he's decided the vote
Speaker 1: cannot happen today, just purely on the basis that is
Speaker 1: so similar to what was presented and delayed on Saturday,
Speaker 1: and therefore there is no meaningful vote today, which, to
Speaker 1: kind of distripboy the jargon, it basically means the Brexit
Speaker 1: deal which was agreed between the UK and the EU
Speaker 1: last week Thursday, after a very long, very difficult negotiation,
Speaker 1: cannot be voted today. And of course the tricky bit
Speaker 1: on this is that that deal between the EU and
Speaker 1: the UK is worth nothing unless it can clear the
Speaker 1: House of Commons. We've been here before many times, It's
Speaker 1: been rejected many times. And the issue here, of course
Speaker 1: is that we're running up against a very hard deadline,
Speaker 1: which is thirty one for the UK to crash out
Speaker 1: without a deal. Indeed, this does seem like the expected outcome,
Speaker 1: as the pound is now basically unchanged from before the vote.
Speaker 1: So I guess that Maria, what will it take for
Speaker 1: markets to be surprised here? Because it seems to be
Speaker 1: baked in that Parliament will debate this, some people might
Speaker 1: raise a couple issues, it might get tweaked, and then
Speaker 1: people will vote and it will go through as planned exactly.
Speaker 1: And I think there's a number of things, um that
Speaker 1: are being priced in and to sterling now. And based
Speaker 1: on the analysts that I've spoken to today, they point
Speaker 1: to two things. And want is the fact that it
Speaker 1: does seem that the Prime Minister UH may not have
Speaker 1: the votes he needs now, but they do feel he
Speaker 1: will get them at one point, So this is the
Speaker 1: closest we've actually ever been to the deal passing. And
Speaker 1: then the other issue, which is also very apparent now
Speaker 1: is the fact that the threat of a no deal
Speaker 1: brexit also seems very unlikely because the Europeans could deny time,
Speaker 1: they could deny an extension, and principle they all have
Speaker 1: to agree to it, and if they didn't want to,
Speaker 1: they would say, well, I'm sorry, but you don't get
Speaker 1: more time and you crash out. But the reality is,
Speaker 1: when you look at every single European summit that we've
Speaker 1: covered every time we've been here, the Europeans don't want
Speaker 1: to be blamed for a no deal breakfit. They don't
Speaker 1: want to push a prime minister who's close to perhaps
Speaker 1: getting this deal and force everyone into a chaotic exit
Speaker 1: from the EU. They Alvays said the best way to
Speaker 1: leave is with a deal. So the market is looking
Speaker 1: at those two things. The prime minister that is edge
Speaker 1: and closer to winning the vote, even if it was
Speaker 1: delayed on Saturday, is then delayed again today, but also
Speaker 1: the fact that the EU will probably give more time
Speaker 1: and they don't want to go no deal either. So Marian,
Speaker 1: what we did not get a vote today, clearly, Um,
Speaker 1: what our next steps would you say over the next
Speaker 1: several days. Well, there's a huge bill that the government
Speaker 1: needs to put forward, which is all the legislation going
Speaker 1: into Brexit, and then's also a possibility for other MPs
Speaker 1: to try to amend that deal, and that's perhaps when
Speaker 1: it gets difficult for the government because one of the
Speaker 1: things that the poor Johnson said is that he does
Speaker 1: not want to be put in a position where his
Speaker 1: deal gets amended so many times that it becomes meaningless.
Speaker 1: So that is perhaps a source of tension there. And
Speaker 1: of course we also know that he's trying to push
Speaker 1: for a general election, and that is again another factor
Speaker 1: that the market has priced in and to stern, which
Speaker 1: is the fact that if we do go to a
Speaker 1: new election, although the situation is very volatile, the polls
Speaker 1: would suggest that he would increase his majority and that
Speaker 1: makes passing anything much more easy. So I want to
Speaker 1: talk about the theatrics of this, because John Burco is
Speaker 1: a genius when it comes to the theatrics. His voice
Speaker 1: absolutely has the inflections. I loved how right before he
Speaker 1: made the decision, he paused, he castigated someone for for
Speaker 1: for for for delaying him, but he paused, and he
Speaker 1: you know, really laid it out. Uh and and you
Speaker 1: know with perfect timing. How how has this sort of
Speaker 1: event risen him in a way that he hadn't previously
Speaker 1: been I mean, who is John Burko? I mean he
Speaker 1: he has definitely become a star and and and everyone
Speaker 1: knows who this man is. But also I think the
Speaker 1: fact that he has become so well known has also
Speaker 1: put him on the spot. And there is a lot
Speaker 1: of criticism in terms of what is driving his decisions
Speaker 1: and his motivations. And I'm sure you know just as
Speaker 1: well as I do that in many occasions he has
Speaker 1: been criticized for being seen as to remaining is allowing
Speaker 1: the remaining side of the parliament. You should, by the way,
Speaker 1: you should trademark that remaining but go on. But um
Speaker 1: and and that has become an istion and and it's
Speaker 1: and it's obviously an obstacle today for the premise to
Speaker 1: put this vote um quickly to vote, which he wants
Speaker 1: to do. But it was also an issue for the
Speaker 1: reason may And you're right, there's a lot of optics.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of theatrical moves that we see and
Speaker 1: we saw also a lot of UM optics on Saturday
Speaker 1: when the Prime Minister sent out three letters which essentially
Speaker 1: contradicted each other to the EU, one of which he
Speaker 1: asked for more time than another one which he said
Speaker 1: I actually don't want more time, and then a third
Speaker 1: one in which he said if I do get an extension,
Speaker 1: it's going to be bad for us both. So I
Speaker 1: think we're used to this, and what it highlights is
Speaker 1: aid this is still a country is very divided, but
Speaker 1: to h there's many scenars that could still play out,
Speaker 1: and of course you have the the the general alection,
Speaker 1: which is still very much looming on everyone. So everyone
Speaker 1: wants to be seen as fighting for something and for
Speaker 1: the EU. I guess at this point, after three years
Speaker 1: of a lot of back and forth, they're just not
Speaker 1: surprised by any of this anymore. They do think that
Speaker 1: this is almost a country that has become so difficult
Speaker 1: to read and there is no clarity coming out of
Speaker 1: UM the Parliament. Which is interesting for for the EU side, however,
Speaker 1: is that the perception around Brexit has really changed. At
Speaker 1: the start of the year, you could hear many voices
Speaker 1: is still felt Brexit could be undone who's still pushed
Speaker 1: for a second referendum. But at this point you do
Speaker 1: get a sense that the Europeans just want to get
Speaker 1: it done with, especially because there is a new Commission,
Speaker 1: there is a different set of priorities and in a
Speaker 1: different agenda, and they feel like right now is probably
Speaker 1: the time to move on. All right, Finally, Maria, just quickly,
Speaker 1: is a couple thirty one a real date or do
Speaker 1: you think there will be an extension beyond that? Well,
Speaker 1: the truth is when you look at Brexit, all of
Speaker 1: these UH deadlines have become completely meaningless. They every time
Speaker 1: we've been in a make or break moment, there's been
Speaker 1: more time. Granted, if you look at the legislation now
Speaker 1: and if you look at the UK law, well, the
Speaker 1: UK would crash out without a deal in a week's
Speaker 1: time if it doesn't get that extension. The question is,
Speaker 1: with that extension, which has now been asked, would it
Speaker 1: would that be rejected by the Europeans. Well, you heard
Speaker 1: from Eminuel Macron and Jean Call do you occur the
Speaker 1: head of the European Commission last week that they do
Speaker 1: not see a need for more time because there is
Speaker 1: a new deal that We're for everyone, but the reality
Speaker 1: is if you don't give more time, the UK would
Speaker 1: crash out, and that's something that nobody wants. I guess
Speaker 1: the debate is around the length of the extension. Do
Speaker 1: you just go for a short technical extension and the
Speaker 1: hope that that can focus everyone's minds and get the
Speaker 1: legislation you need in order to leave, or do you
Speaker 1: actually go, well, you know, we need more time, and
Speaker 1: then that opens many other scenarios, which, as you know,
Speaker 1: the vote, the people's vote, second referendum and so on.
Speaker 1: But it's tricker for the Europeans because they do not
Speaker 1: want to be seen as interfering in the politics. Maria today,
Speaker 1: I thank you so much for joining us, and you're
Speaker 1: very busy in Brussels right now with all that's going on.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. Maria covers the Europe for Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Television and Bloomberg News. She joins us on the phone
Speaker 1: from Brussels. Well, it looks like the US and miner
Speaker 1: are making some headway on what is being coined Phase
Speaker 1: one type of trade deal. To get the latest we
Speaker 1: welcome Troy Gaski, Partner co Chief Investment Officer, Senior Portfolio
Speaker 1: manager at Skybridge. So Troy again, it looks like there
Speaker 1: is sub movement. We're having trade delegations go back and forth.
Speaker 1: What is your sense of how the US China trade
Speaker 1: negotiations are going right now? Well, the good news is
Speaker 1: it looks like there's at least a short term to
Speaker 1: ton and that was really being priced into market. So
Speaker 1: a week ago, in terms of the left tail, the
Speaker 1: probability of escalation or a significantly negative outcome went down
Speaker 1: and that's why I saw markets rally because we think
Speaker 1: what's going on here is markets are trying to focus
Speaker 1: on the fact that both for the US and China
Speaker 1: UH clearly they're both interested in having some type of
Speaker 1: uh lack of deterioration and at least a face saving
Speaker 1: deal focused on agriculture and energy and then pushing back
Speaker 1: the thornier issues of IP STAFT and s SO support
Speaker 1: into the post election and so we don't think the
Speaker 1: coast is necessarily clear, but the probability of dramatic escalation
Speaker 1: has gone down significantly, which we think has led to
Speaker 1: the rallying markets late last week. Are you buying or
Speaker 1: selling anything based on that development? Well, yeah, so from
Speaker 1: our perspective on the margin. You know, a trade reconciliation
Speaker 1: or at least lack of escalation should lead to a
Speaker 1: steeper yel curve, which should lead to better NIM, which
Speaker 1: should lead to better bank credit quality. So we have
Speaker 1: a significant exposure in regional community bank credit. And when
Speaker 1: we're looking into next year, a lot of the focus
Speaker 1: on the outcome will be do interest rates continue to
Speaker 1: drop or to at least stabilize here And so certainly
Speaker 1: a right tail outcome or at least less escalation will
Speaker 1: lead to better growth, better earnings, better NIM, which means
Speaker 1: will more than likely continue to run those exposures as
Speaker 1: opposed to cutting them. So try from the perspective of China,
Speaker 1: what do you think the calculus is for China right now?
Speaker 1: That seems like, you know, we were close to a
Speaker 1: deal earlier in the year that might have had a
Speaker 1: little bit of meat on the bone, but now both
Speaker 1: sides seem to have pulled back. You think that they
Speaker 1: are let's do a deal now, even if it's a
Speaker 1: light deal, or let's just push it. Well, look from
Speaker 1: there's two calculus, right, There's the Trump calculus and the
Speaker 1: China perspective, right, and you know, as time has gone on.
Speaker 1: We think it's become clear and clear to China that,
Speaker 1: you know, if Trump loses reelection, right then they're gonna
Speaker 1: have to deal with Warren, Pelosi and Schumer, who are
Speaker 1: far more hawkish on China than even Trump. And to
Speaker 1: give Pelosi and Humor credit their entire political careers, they've
Speaker 1: been hawkish on China in terms of trade and the
Speaker 1: impact on the middle of the working class. And now
Speaker 1: you know, there's basically a non elite bipartisan consensus that
Speaker 1: China has to be addressed. It's one of the few
Speaker 1: areas of bipartisan consensus that we see, you know, whether
Speaker 1: you're in the Bay Area of California or in the Midwest,
Speaker 1: um and that China has to be addressed. So as
Speaker 1: China's economy continues to deteriorate in the contract election, you know,
Speaker 1: start to come into sharp relief, it's become more apparent,
Speaker 1: we think, to China that's in their best interests to
Speaker 1: de escalate the conflicts sooner rather than later. That doesn't
Speaker 1: mean we have a sweeping agreement on s o E
Speaker 1: support and I p SF, but it seemed like earlier
Speaker 1: in the year they were willing to roll the dice
Speaker 1: that if enough pain was inflicted on the U. S economy,
Speaker 1: particularly the farm belt and the rust belt, that would
Speaker 1: cause Trump in the American political system to capitulate. But
Speaker 1: as time's gone on, they're realizing that what lurks around
Speaker 1: the corner maybe a more severe confrontation if the folks
Speaker 1: like Marco Rubio or Elizabeth Warren or Human Pelosi are
Speaker 1: driving the policy discussions. So one thing that you knowed
Speaker 1: is that just simply a Phase one kind of deal
Speaker 1: that de escalates isn't really enough at this point to
Speaker 1: undo some of the damage of the uncertainty that we've
Speaker 1: seen around trade. What would it take to reverse some
Speaker 1: of the economic damage that you see being in lected
Speaker 1: by how long the trade scribblers has carried been carried out? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think it's at this point it's going to be
Speaker 1: more comprehensive. So we need phase one right where at
Speaker 1: least you addressed the trade balance in ways that have
Speaker 1: teeth that markets can actually analyze. It's not some vague
Speaker 1: promise coming out of a White House meeting. And then
Speaker 1: you need to see some contours of how whether it's
Speaker 1: reconciliation panels or some type of w T O in
Speaker 1: internal w t O mechanism, meaning it would be outside
Speaker 1: the w t O but just focused on the China
Speaker 1: and US administration to address ongoing trade conflict. UM. And
Speaker 1: then from there I think we would need some Brexit
Speaker 1: resolution and then also a better understanding of how the
Speaker 1: contours of the one policy coming out of DC will
Speaker 1: look like. UM, So it's not just a trade reconciliation
Speaker 1: at this point. UM, it would also be Brexit plus
Speaker 1: some idea of policy coming from one. If we got
Speaker 1: all three of those, which again at this stage looks unlikely,
Speaker 1: and next month or so you could see CAPEX bounce
Speaker 1: back up to roughly five percent, maybe three to five,
Speaker 1: which is a healthy growth rate, certainly much better than
Speaker 1: the contraction we're seeing today. But it's you're really hard
Speaker 1: pressed to see what would lead to the high single
Speaker 1: digit growth rates that we enjoyed very briefly in late
Speaker 1: seventeen early eighteen, given the dramatic slowing a global growth. So,
Speaker 1: you know, I think, for the time being is a
Speaker 1: market participant. The best you can hope for us the escalation,
Speaker 1: a gradual return of investor and CEO confidence, and then
Speaker 1: some chance to grow it close to two percent again
Speaker 1: over the next six to nine months. More than likely
Speaker 1: that will be stuck in this one and a half
Speaker 1: to two percent range for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, Troy,
Speaker 1: I ask you, thank you so much for being with us.
Speaker 1: Troy Gayski is a partner, co chief investment Officer and
Speaker 1: senior portfolio manager at Skybridge Capital. All Right, well, the
Speaker 1: costs for the drugmakers associated with the opioid crisis are
Speaker 1: really starting to add up. We had some more news today,
Speaker 1: some more fines. Let's get the latest from Max Neeson,
Speaker 1: Max's biotech, farm and healthcare calumnist for Bloomberg Opinion. Joins
Speaker 1: us here in our Bloomberg Interactive Broker studio. So another
Speaker 1: set of fines coming down, some litigation still out there, Max,
Speaker 1: what's the latest year? Yeah? Absolutely, So. This was a
Speaker 1: settlement for the three largest distributor drug distributors in the
Speaker 1: country and have with two Ohio counties. This is the
Speaker 1: first federal trial of you know, trying to assigned blame
Speaker 1: and extract damages over the opioid crisis. Basically, what this
Speaker 1: does is delay a trial that that was would have
Speaker 1: been potentially um troublesome or or led to a large
Speaker 1: verdict UM and and lets them work on a large
Speaker 1: your settlement works. That's still going on, I think for
Speaker 1: for other drug makers have already settled with these two counties.
Speaker 1: It just sort of kicks the can so they can
Speaker 1: try to come up with a broader resolution that you know,
Speaker 1: there's still thousands upon thousands of these suits out there
Speaker 1: and they still need to work that out. It seemed
Speaker 1: like they were getting close to a deal that might
Speaker 1: have been valued at as much as fifty billion dollars,
Speaker 1: but UM that kind of fell apart due to apparently
Speaker 1: some objections from from local and county governments. Do we
Speaker 1: have a sense of how big the settlement has to
Speaker 1: be to sort of remove the uncertainty? I mean, what
Speaker 1: sort of the brank breakpoint of when the settlement doesn't
Speaker 1: necessarily get received as good news by simply taking away
Speaker 1: the uncertainty of these opioid cases. You know, I think
Speaker 1: there's there's still a good amount of room before we
Speaker 1: get there, just because I think UM shareholders are just
Speaker 1: sort of so hungry for relief when it gets to
Speaker 1: the point for some of these drug makers that have
Speaker 1: heavy debtloads that you know, it starts to make solvency
Speaker 1: or our meeting credit evidence a little little risky, then
Speaker 1: then you might see a break point. But but I
Speaker 1: think there's some wiggle room, especially when it comes to
Speaker 1: the distributors and and uh, a company like Johnson and Johnson,
Speaker 1: which can afford pretty much anything. I think you've got
Speaker 1: a way to go before it would be seen as
Speaker 1: anything but relief. So, Max, are we at this stage
Speaker 1: now where we want to get all these thousands of
Speaker 1: suits together, wrap them all up, and then get all
Speaker 1: the companies that are on the hook here and then
Speaker 1: assigned blame and get one massive global settlement. Is that
Speaker 1: kind of the goal here? That's exactly the goal. And
Speaker 1: and that that was sort of one of the explicit
Speaker 1: goals of the judge that they've consolidated all of these
Speaker 1: suits under just because you know, then you actually get
Speaker 1: money into communities more rapidly. Um, you know, you resolve
Speaker 1: this uncertain instead of dragging it out over you know,
Speaker 1: years and years in many cases, which there's a lot
Speaker 1: of variation and um generally you know, not not all
Speaker 1: that productive for anybody involved. So that that's the hope,
Speaker 1: and there still seems to be a chance of it happening.
Speaker 1: It just isn't gonna come this morning, is I think
Speaker 1: some investors were hoping, which is why you see shares
Speaker 1: of the distributors and Inteva down today. So far, Where
Speaker 1: is the money going? Is it going to people who
Speaker 1: had loved ones who died or who lost productivity as
Speaker 1: a result of addictions, or is it going to municipalities.
Speaker 1: It generally will be going to municipalities, although you know,
Speaker 1: it depends on the structure of the settlement. Um, all
Speaker 1: of that still to be worked out. Well, we'll see
Speaker 1: that in the details. Um. You know. I think that's
Speaker 1: really the fascinating thing to think about, is what comes next?
Speaker 1: How do you actually direct that money in a productive way? Um?
Speaker 1: I I hope that that happens. But what what what?
Speaker 1: What would be productive? I mean in my opinion, and
Speaker 1: I think it would have to be coupled with some
Speaker 1: some reforms as to how we actually spend money on
Speaker 1: opio treatment the first place, and and a dramatic increase
Speaker 1: in investment in making medication assisted treatment more more available.
Speaker 1: There's sort of a stigma against it, um, you know,
Speaker 1: because we have the sort of twelves a a based
Speaker 1: model where it's abstinence or nothing, and there's been just
Speaker 1: resistance communities to having things like method o clinics or
Speaker 1: or making it really easy for doctors to to prescribe
Speaker 1: and administer that sort of medication. But it works. UM,
Speaker 1: that's the important thing. It's been shown over and over
Speaker 1: again to be one of the few things. You know,
Speaker 1: opioddiction changes your brain chemistry. You have to account for that. UM,
Speaker 1: just going to a treatment center and and you know,
Speaker 1: just squaring off you need medication, you need to help
Speaker 1: in many cases and making that more available, making safe
Speaker 1: injection sites available, these things that that are are a
Speaker 1: little more controversial but more effective. UM. That needs to happen.
Speaker 1: If the money goes there, then then great. But if it, UM,
Speaker 1: if it just sort of gets wrapped up, you know,
Speaker 1: goes to financing other things and municipalities, then it won't
Speaker 1: be quite as effective. So we'll see Max News and
Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining us. I'm sure we'll
Speaker 1: be talking about this repeatedly as these cases go on.
Speaker 1: If you've ever wanted to watch someone else watch a
Speaker 1: movie or a show to see their reaction, this next
Speaker 1: guest has you covered. And we're so glad to bring
Speaker 1: in Derek Forbes chief executive officer of Stardust, which is
Speaker 1: a very cool name I have to say here in
Speaker 1: our interactive broker studios. Can you just start by saying
Speaker 1: what is Stardust? Hey, guys, thanks for having me on. Yes. So,
Speaker 1: startusts a social media app all about movies and TV
Speaker 1: shows where you can talk about the latest episodes you've
Speaker 1: been watching, find out what people had to say about
Speaker 1: movies and theaters, and figure out what you want to
Speaker 1: watch next. So who is on it gives a sense
Speaker 1: of kind of who is on this app and who
Speaker 1: do you want to be on this app? Yeah, so,
Speaker 1: I guess there's a whole lot of entertainment fans on
Speaker 1: their passionate entertainment fans that love talking about shows they've
Speaker 1: been watching, obsessing about the latest episode. You know, think
Speaker 1: Game of Thrones people got really into it. They like
Speaker 1: to talk about what happened on the episode, what was
Speaker 1: going to happen next week, predictions, theories, as well as
Speaker 1: just hearing analysis and figuring out what they might like
Speaker 1: to watch next. So how many people have actually downloaded
Speaker 1: the app? Yeah, so we're around about a hundred thousand
Speaker 1: users at the moment. It's pretty new we're really just
Speaker 1: starting to get going with our marketing efforts now and
Speaker 1: hoping to get that in front of a much larger audience.
Speaker 1: And I guess that that there's sort of a flip
Speaker 1: side to this, which is the more information you get
Speaker 1: as to what people like, how they talk about films,
Speaker 1: that it can be monetized, right, that data. Yeah, Well,
Speaker 1: the whole idea of this came from hearing from a
Speaker 1: lot of film and TV executives that every time they
Speaker 1: come out with a new title, it's a whole exercise
Speaker 1: to try and find an audience for that and then
Speaker 1: reach those people to get in front of them. What
Speaker 1: we can do with Stardust is is help connects new
Speaker 1: titles with audiences that are actually going to really like it.
Speaker 1: And so, yes, it's using that data, but we see
Speaker 1: it as really benign way of using that data because
Speaker 1: we're helping people to find content that they're going to
Speaker 1: they like. Um. One of the new features we've just
Speaker 1: released is really exciting. It's it uses machine learning and
Speaker 1: based on all of your ratings of movies and TV
Speaker 1: shows that you put in, it will give you a
Speaker 1: set of a few titles every week that you're going
Speaker 1: to really love watching UM and we we've found that
Speaker 1: people have been really stoked with some of the recommendations
Speaker 1: they've had. So how do you work with the content creators,
Speaker 1: the TV networks, the movie studios. What's your relationship with them,
Speaker 1: because I would think they would want to work with
Speaker 1: you to again try to reach an audience. Absolutely. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we have great relationships with a number of the big
Speaker 1: studios and we're starting to work on some initiatives with
Speaker 1: them in terms of promoting their titles into users of
Speaker 1: the app, and then also helping to to use videos
Speaker 1: from our app of people talking about titles to to
Speaker 1: help promote their movies on other forms of social media
Speaker 1: and platforms. How do you make money right now? We're
Speaker 1: pre revenue, so we don't right now, but we have
Speaker 1: a plan and it's going to be all about getting
Speaker 1: titles in front of audiences and and that's very valuable
Speaker 1: to studios to connect their UM their releases with an audience.
Speaker 1: So we've actually seen some pushback from investors with companies
Speaker 1: that have an idea but that don't make money yet.
Speaker 1: How do investors handle what you're giving them? Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: a great question, and I think with a social media
Speaker 1: like this, it's all about the user numbers, and it's
Speaker 1: all about how engaged those users are and how strongly
Speaker 1: they're retained. If you have eyeballs that are regularly coming
Speaker 1: back to an app, then there is no question that
Speaker 1: there is value in that in terms of its ability
Speaker 1: to draw users attention to a product. H and UM.
Speaker 1: And I think that you know, unlike some of these
Speaker 1: other horror stories that you've seen recently, there aren't all
Speaker 1: of the same costs associated where you're kind of like
Speaker 1: throwing money out the window wherever user you get, right,
Speaker 1: So this sounds like an advertising driven model at some
Speaker 1: point based upon audience. So that to me means you're
Speaker 1: competing against anybody else who's trying to get eyeballs and
Speaker 1: advertising and things like that. So you know, a Facebook
Speaker 1: for example, or on Instagram. So how do you kind
Speaker 1: of position your app versus maybe some of the bigger ones. Yeah,
Speaker 1: great question. And so startus is specialized. So it's because
Speaker 1: it's all about movies and TV. UM. It's a place
Speaker 1: where you can go and get richer information about the
Speaker 1: titles that you're interested in UM and connect with people
Speaker 1: who are also interested in it and and I think
Speaker 1: that's that's at the heart of the draw. Also, we've
Speaker 1: done a really good job of making it anti troll.
Speaker 1: And so if you want to go there and talk
Speaker 1: about The Mandalorian when that show comes out in a
Speaker 1: few weeks time, and follow it episode by episode, you
Speaker 1: can do so in a place where you're not going
Speaker 1: to get like attacked or have like random people posting
Speaker 1: hateful comments. We're going to keep the conversation about the
Speaker 1: show well. Thank you so much for being with us,
Speaker 1: Derek Forbes, I really appreciate it. Derek Forbes, chief executive
Speaker 1: officer of start US, twining us here in our interactive
Speaker 1: broker Studios. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg P and
Speaker 1: L podcast. You can subscribe and listen to interviews at
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts or whatever podcast platform you prefer. I'm Paul Sweeney.
Speaker 1: I'm on Twitter at pt Sweeney. I'm Lisa Abram Woyds.
Speaker 1: I'm on Twitter at Lisa A. Bram Woods One. Before
Speaker 1: the podcast, you can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Radio