WEBVTT - 100-Year Bonds Could Alter How Rate Risk Is Traded

0:00:02.640 --> 0:00:05.320
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Penel podcast. I'm Paul swing you,

0:00:05.360 --> 0:00:07.680
<v Speaker 1>along with my co host Lisa Brahma wits. Each day

0:00:07.720 --> 0:00:10.240
<v Speaker 1>we bring you the most noteworthy and useful interviews for

0:00:10.280 --> 0:00:12.520
<v Speaker 1>you and your money. Whether at the grocery store or

0:00:12.560 --> 0:00:15.480
<v Speaker 1>the trading floor, find a Bloomberg Penl podcast on Apple

0:00:15.520 --> 0:00:17.960
<v Speaker 1>podcast or wherever you listen to podcasts, as well as

0:00:17.960 --> 0:00:22.959
<v Speaker 1>at Bloomberg dot com. Every six months or so, the

0:00:23.079 --> 0:00:25.840
<v Speaker 1>debate about whether the U s should sell fifty two

0:00:25.840 --> 0:00:29.200
<v Speaker 1>a hundred year bonds emerges, and once again we have

0:00:29.360 --> 0:00:33.519
<v Speaker 1>that battle raging, Treasury Secretary Steve Manuchin weighing in and

0:00:33.520 --> 0:00:37.040
<v Speaker 1>saying that it seemed really like a logical thing to

0:00:37.080 --> 0:00:40.120
<v Speaker 1>do for the US to sell ultralong dated bonds in

0:00:40.159 --> 0:00:42.760
<v Speaker 1>the face of just how low interest rates have gone,

0:00:42.800 --> 0:00:45.400
<v Speaker 1>and his advisers are looking into it and are expected

0:00:45.400 --> 0:00:48.720
<v Speaker 1>to recommend against it. But Paul, it really raises this question,

0:00:49.040 --> 0:00:52.159
<v Speaker 1>you know, again and again, what is the hold up?

0:00:52.280 --> 0:00:55.480
<v Speaker 1>If the borrowing costs are so low, and if the

0:00:55.480 --> 0:00:57.800
<v Speaker 1>hold up is that compelling, why do we have this

0:00:57.880 --> 0:01:00.720
<v Speaker 1>debate every six months? Joining us at a discussed Marcus

0:01:00.760 --> 0:01:03.520
<v Speaker 1>Ashworth columnists covering European markets, as well as bond markets

0:01:03.560 --> 0:01:07.800
<v Speaker 1>globally for Bloomberg opinion joining us from London. So Marcus,

0:01:08.040 --> 0:01:11.679
<v Speaker 1>let's just start with why did Treasury Secretary Stephen mcnuchin

0:01:12.040 --> 0:01:15.160
<v Speaker 1>revive this debate that seems to sort of bubble up

0:01:15.240 --> 0:01:18.319
<v Speaker 1>every six months or so because he was told to

0:01:20.720 --> 0:01:23.840
<v Speaker 1>behind you, behind you, behind the curtain. Who knows? Um.

0:01:24.000 --> 0:01:27.080
<v Speaker 1>The great thing is is that the Treasury Borrowing Advisory

0:01:27.080 --> 0:01:30.120
<v Speaker 1>Committee the key word they're being advisory m keeps on

0:01:30.200 --> 0:01:32.679
<v Speaker 1>trying to push this back because look, and I've been

0:01:32.720 --> 0:01:36.080
<v Speaker 1>a years Treasury pod dealer, and it's difficult enough trying

0:01:36.080 --> 0:01:38.039
<v Speaker 1>to trade thirty years. Can you imagine trying to trade

0:01:38.560 --> 0:01:41.200
<v Speaker 1>hundred years or even stripped hundred years. All of a

0:01:41.200 --> 0:01:44.039
<v Speaker 1>sudden someone comes along lets you out of five hundred million,

0:01:44.200 --> 0:01:46.080
<v Speaker 1>you have no hope of getting them back, and cleep

0:01:46.120 --> 0:01:49.480
<v Speaker 1>paying five points higher. It's a disaster to try and

0:01:49.520 --> 0:01:52.320
<v Speaker 1>manage this type of risk from a dealer market maker

0:01:52.360 --> 0:01:54.880
<v Speaker 1>put point of view. They know also that of a

0:01:55.280 --> 0:01:57.760
<v Speaker 1>client buys this stuff, they're gonna look it away not

0:01:57.840 --> 0:02:01.360
<v Speaker 1>come back for what hundred years, So you know it

0:02:01.480 --> 0:02:05.680
<v Speaker 1>kills liquidity, it kills their sense of controlling risk. It can,

0:02:05.760 --> 0:02:08.000
<v Speaker 1>of course created a whole bunch of other stuff. I mean, look,

0:02:08.280 --> 0:02:10.000
<v Speaker 1>to make this sort of sector work, you'd have to

0:02:10.000 --> 0:02:13.440
<v Speaker 1>have hundred your futures, uh and options and all after

0:02:13.480 --> 0:02:16.440
<v Speaker 1>other stuff. It could be great, It could really stretch

0:02:16.520 --> 0:02:20.359
<v Speaker 1>the way that the people trade risk and trade duration convexity,

0:02:20.560 --> 0:02:22.160
<v Speaker 1>and it could do all sorts of things. But the U. S.

0:02:22.200 --> 0:02:24.560
<v Speaker 1>Treasury has to be committed to it for a longer

0:02:24.680 --> 0:02:28.079
<v Speaker 1>term clear plan. This trouble is that Trump could be

0:02:28.080 --> 0:02:30.680
<v Speaker 1>out of office in little every years time and then

0:02:30.800 --> 0:02:34.040
<v Speaker 1>new treasure secretary could do the opposite. So that's what

0:02:34.240 --> 0:02:36.840
<v Speaker 1>scares people, because you know, once you go down this route,

0:02:36.840 --> 0:02:38.360
<v Speaker 1>you've got to stay committed to it and there has

0:02:38.400 --> 0:02:40.400
<v Speaker 1>to be a rational reason for it. Now they can

0:02:40.400 --> 0:02:42.440
<v Speaker 1>be wrong. Yield are incredibly low. It makes sense for

0:02:42.480 --> 0:02:44.760
<v Speaker 1>as far as the government's concerned. But you have to

0:02:44.800 --> 0:02:48.360
<v Speaker 1>have your client base and pensions funds with you. And

0:02:48.520 --> 0:02:50.200
<v Speaker 1>though they may be in Europe and sent in the

0:02:50.280 --> 0:02:53.400
<v Speaker 1>UK because of actual eril and different reasons, there's less

0:02:53.520 --> 0:02:57.200
<v Speaker 1>demand and requirement in the US because you already have

0:02:57.280 --> 0:02:59.440
<v Speaker 1>strip thirty years, which give you a duration of final

0:02:59.680 --> 0:03:02.639
<v Speaker 1>exactly thirty years. Its coomed to a fifty year regular bond,

0:03:02.720 --> 0:03:05.720
<v Speaker 1>so there's less real need for it. But still this

0:03:05.919 --> 0:03:09.359
<v Speaker 1>is a government intent on doing different things. So Marcus,

0:03:09.440 --> 0:03:12.600
<v Speaker 1>are there other developed markets that have longer dated bonds

0:03:13.400 --> 0:03:17.560
<v Speaker 1>years and can we take anything away from those? Sure? Okay,

0:03:17.600 --> 0:03:21.440
<v Speaker 1>Look so in Europe, Germany doesn't go over thirty years. Um,

0:03:21.680 --> 0:03:25.160
<v Speaker 1>we were starting to see other countries around it go there.

0:03:25.200 --> 0:03:28.400
<v Speaker 1>So we know austri has done a one hundred year bond, uh,

0:03:28.639 --> 0:03:31.880
<v Speaker 1>Italy has done a fifty year bond, tapped it again, um,

0:03:32.040 --> 0:03:34.800
<v Speaker 1>France has done fifty years. UK goes out as far

0:03:34.880 --> 0:03:38.240
<v Speaker 1>as as fifty years, Sweden's about to look at possibly

0:03:38.240 --> 0:03:41.600
<v Speaker 1>doing a hundred years, Ireland in Belgium just a private

0:03:41.640 --> 0:03:44.600
<v Speaker 1>places the last couple of years in one hundred years.

0:03:44.640 --> 0:03:47.240
<v Speaker 1>But they're so like one offs, so they really and

0:03:47.400 --> 0:03:50.160
<v Speaker 1>you can look at maybe Italy toward certain degree, UK

0:03:50.360 --> 0:03:53.800
<v Speaker 1>definitely and possibly France of having any form of liquidity

0:03:54.440 --> 0:03:57.120
<v Speaker 1>further out. But it's becoming more and more popular because

0:03:57.400 --> 0:04:00.560
<v Speaker 1>there is a huge, huge hunt for yield in your

0:04:00.840 --> 0:04:03.120
<v Speaker 1>much more extreme than you see in your in the US.

0:04:03.160 --> 0:04:06.360
<v Speaker 1>And then you're on it's definitely there. But but Marcus,

0:04:06.440 --> 0:04:09.000
<v Speaker 1>I mean, how much is the obstacle for the US,

0:04:09.040 --> 0:04:12.280
<v Speaker 1>the fact that US rates are such an important benchmark,

0:04:12.720 --> 0:04:15.280
<v Speaker 1>and that you know, a shift in the whole curve

0:04:15.720 --> 0:04:19.600
<v Speaker 1>creates a much more challenging situation than say in some

0:04:19.680 --> 0:04:22.760
<v Speaker 1>of these nations in Europe that where there's more of

0:04:22.800 --> 0:04:26.120
<v Speaker 1>a composite type rate that is sort of the benchmark

0:04:26.200 --> 0:04:27.919
<v Speaker 1>for a lot of other debt. In other words, it

0:04:27.960 --> 0:04:30.760
<v Speaker 1>won't matter as much to the whole structure of of

0:04:30.800 --> 0:04:33.640
<v Speaker 1>a huge debt market if they issue longer dated debt

0:04:33.680 --> 0:04:36.560
<v Speaker 1>as it would in the US. Lisa, you've clearly been

0:04:36.600 --> 0:04:39.920
<v Speaker 1>doing bonds and fixes quite a while. Spots on exactly right,

0:04:39.960 --> 0:04:41.799
<v Speaker 1>and that is that is the number of the argument.

0:04:41.839 --> 0:04:44.080
<v Speaker 1>I couldn't put it better. You know, look it does

0:04:44.200 --> 0:04:45.840
<v Speaker 1>he cares if Ireland does it all think good for

0:04:45.920 --> 0:04:49.000
<v Speaker 1>them Austria. Likewise, that the reason why Germany hasn't done it.

0:04:49.080 --> 0:04:51.960
<v Speaker 1>Perhaps in Europe they don't really need the money and

0:04:52.160 --> 0:04:55.120
<v Speaker 1>that all and not have the potential sort of liquidity

0:04:55.120 --> 0:04:56.960
<v Speaker 1>out there. And this is that this is exactly the point.

0:04:57.440 --> 0:04:59.720
<v Speaker 1>If you go out to a hundred years, you've got

0:04:59.720 --> 0:05:03.280
<v Speaker 1>to be convinced it's it's it's a worthwhile thing. There

0:05:03.360 --> 0:05:05.680
<v Speaker 1>is huge demand for it, and it's gonna be sudden,

0:05:05.720 --> 0:05:07.440
<v Speaker 1>it's hangs around, and you're gonna be able to issue

0:05:07.480 --> 0:05:10.400
<v Speaker 1>them courtly, you know, for decent amounts of money, and

0:05:10.440 --> 0:05:12.360
<v Speaker 1>you're gonna be able to create a features market and

0:05:12.400 --> 0:05:15.839
<v Speaker 1>blah blah blah. You are the world's interest rate benstion mark.

0:05:16.520 --> 0:05:18.320
<v Speaker 1>Do you mess with that? At your peril? You have

0:05:18.400 --> 0:05:23.839
<v Speaker 1>a fantastic thirty liquid um bond which has strips off it,

0:05:23.880 --> 0:05:26.920
<v Speaker 1>which has tips off it, It's everything works perfectly. Why

0:05:27.000 --> 0:05:31.120
<v Speaker 1>mess for something which is perfection in liquidity terms? And

0:05:31.120 --> 0:05:33.479
<v Speaker 1>and you know for what benefit? Yeah? Okay, I get

0:05:33.480 --> 0:05:35.400
<v Speaker 1>the point that it's looking at very low rates for

0:05:35.400 --> 0:05:38.880
<v Speaker 1>a long, very long while. But you know, thirty years

0:05:38.880 --> 0:05:41.640
<v Speaker 1>not enough here, alright. So my my, my takeaway, Lisa's

0:05:41.680 --> 0:05:45.960
<v Speaker 1>Marcus is not a big fan of Nike, unlikely want

0:05:45.960 --> 0:05:47.560
<v Speaker 1>to trade it. I will never want to be you know.

0:05:47.800 --> 0:05:49.839
<v Speaker 1>Please make me make me a market a hundred million

0:05:51.000 --> 0:05:53.440
<v Speaker 1>Marcus Ashur, thank you so much for joining us. Marcus

0:05:53.520 --> 0:05:57.080
<v Speaker 1>is the Calamus covering European markets for Bloomberg Opinion from London.

0:05:57.120 --> 0:05:58.920
<v Speaker 1>You can read more on this and other stories from

0:05:58.920 --> 0:06:03.560
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Opinion at Bloomberg dot com, slash Opinion and on

0:06:03.600 --> 0:06:21.400
<v Speaker 1>the terminotorl by typing O P I n go. Well,

0:06:21.440 --> 0:06:25.040
<v Speaker 1>as investors come back next week from the long holiday weekend,

0:06:25.040 --> 0:06:27.279
<v Speaker 1>they're gonna take a look at their portfolios and they're

0:06:27.279 --> 0:06:30.040
<v Speaker 1>gonna say, hey, we're ten plus years into this economic cycle.

0:06:30.480 --> 0:06:33.240
<v Speaker 1>Trade uncertainty is out there weighing on my portfolio. But

0:06:33.279 --> 0:06:36.040
<v Speaker 1>I've got a dubbish fed What should I do? Uh?

0:06:36.080 --> 0:06:37.880
<v Speaker 1>Maybe to get some answers, we welcome our next guest,

0:06:37.920 --> 0:06:41.239
<v Speaker 1>Deepak Puri, chief investment Officer for the Americas for Deutsche

0:06:41.240 --> 0:06:43.600
<v Speaker 1>Bank Wealth Management, joins us here in O Bloomberg Interacted

0:06:43.640 --> 0:06:47.159
<v Speaker 1>Broker Studio. Deepak, thanks so much for joining us. So again,

0:06:47.240 --> 0:06:49.240
<v Speaker 1>we kind of look at the SMP and it's kind

0:06:49.279 --> 0:06:50.960
<v Speaker 1>of flat over the last twelve months. We've had a

0:06:50.960 --> 0:06:53.200
<v Speaker 1>great rally this year, but again if you look at

0:06:53.200 --> 0:06:55.919
<v Speaker 1>it over the trailing twelve months, kind of flat. What

0:06:56.000 --> 0:07:00.320
<v Speaker 1>are you telling the Deutsche Bank Wealth investors how should

0:07:00.320 --> 0:07:04.000
<v Speaker 1>be position a portfolio right now? Great? Thank you, Paul.

0:07:04.400 --> 0:07:06.560
<v Speaker 1>I think a couple of things. A what we have

0:07:06.640 --> 0:07:09.280
<v Speaker 1>seen over the last one year, especially year to date

0:07:09.800 --> 0:07:12.880
<v Speaker 1>is primarily driven by what we would call a PE expansion.

0:07:13.040 --> 0:07:15.840
<v Speaker 1>You know, it's not really driven by corporate earnings going up,

0:07:16.760 --> 0:07:19.800
<v Speaker 1>so keep that in mind as you've positioned yourself for

0:07:19.840 --> 0:07:23.480
<v Speaker 1>the next few quarters. Um. Having said that, I think

0:07:23.520 --> 0:07:25.760
<v Speaker 1>there's certain things for the next couple of months that

0:07:25.840 --> 0:07:28.080
<v Speaker 1>makes us take a little bit of a cautious stance.

0:07:28.560 --> 0:07:30.760
<v Speaker 1>You know, you look at the trade war that's going on.

0:07:30.840 --> 0:07:33.760
<v Speaker 1>Even though there was an olive branch yesterday from the Chinese,

0:07:34.160 --> 0:07:37.960
<v Speaker 1>we feel this is a you know, protracted sort of

0:07:38.400 --> 0:07:41.000
<v Speaker 1>give and take one step forward, two steps back kind

0:07:41.000 --> 0:07:44.320
<v Speaker 1>of situation, and we really don't expect a comprehensive trade

0:07:44.360 --> 0:07:47.920
<v Speaker 1>deal anytime soon. On top of that, the next couple

0:07:47.960 --> 0:07:49.960
<v Speaker 1>of quarters, the third quarter is going to be by

0:07:50.040 --> 0:07:53.120
<v Speaker 1>far the worst quarter for this calendar year, for the

0:07:53.120 --> 0:07:56.320
<v Speaker 1>earning season, and then the fourth quarter could be the

0:07:56.600 --> 0:07:59.600
<v Speaker 1>low watermark for the g d P. So the next

0:07:59.600 --> 0:08:02.400
<v Speaker 1>couple of course, are definitely something to keep an eye on.

0:08:03.000 --> 0:08:06.000
<v Speaker 1>Having said that, I think a longer term, uh, you know,

0:08:06.080 --> 0:08:09.320
<v Speaker 1>things look much better for equities, especially we haven't seen

0:08:09.480 --> 0:08:11.440
<v Speaker 1>a top. You know, when you look at how the

0:08:11.440 --> 0:08:14.360
<v Speaker 1>equity markets end, they usually end up with the bank.

0:08:14.840 --> 0:08:16.920
<v Speaker 1>You know, last twelve months, as you just pointed out,

0:08:17.080 --> 0:08:20.760
<v Speaker 1>has been relatively flattished. So this is not really a

0:08:20.960 --> 0:08:24.120
<v Speaker 1>very top heavy kind of an equity market. We still

0:08:24.120 --> 0:08:27.400
<v Speaker 1>see legs in this markets are twelve month forecast remains

0:08:27.520 --> 0:08:30.240
<v Speaker 1>around three thousand, but that is primarily drivened by a

0:08:30.240 --> 0:08:33.160
<v Speaker 1>little bit better earnings than a pe expansion that we

0:08:33.280 --> 0:08:37.920
<v Speaker 1>have seen them more recently. One counterpoint is that a

0:08:37.960 --> 0:08:41.199
<v Speaker 1>lot of the bearishness that you talk about has been

0:08:41.200 --> 0:08:44.640
<v Speaker 1>baked into valuations currently, and we've seen a sell off

0:08:44.679 --> 0:08:48.160
<v Speaker 1>that really has stemmed from the recognition of some of

0:08:48.200 --> 0:08:51.120
<v Speaker 1>those pesstomistic kind of developments that you were talking about.

0:08:51.520 --> 0:08:54.280
<v Speaker 1>Bank of America came out this morning and recommends buying

0:08:54.320 --> 0:08:56.679
<v Speaker 1>stocks right now because they say that the bearishness has

0:08:56.720 --> 0:08:59.800
<v Speaker 1>gotten so extreme that it makes sense. What do you

0:09:00.040 --> 0:09:03.320
<v Speaker 1>day to that. I wouldn't say that the bearishness is

0:09:03.360 --> 0:09:05.920
<v Speaker 1>to an extreme. I think there's you know, and you

0:09:06.080 --> 0:09:08.920
<v Speaker 1>have to take into account what the other asset classes

0:09:08.920 --> 0:09:11.480
<v Speaker 1>are telling your signaling. So I think the bearishness is

0:09:11.480 --> 0:09:13.680
<v Speaker 1>really at an extreme. When you look at the fixed

0:09:13.720 --> 0:09:17.240
<v Speaker 1>income markets, you know, they are really highlighting a really

0:09:17.600 --> 0:09:21.760
<v Speaker 1>pessimistic scenario for the for inflation, for growth, and so forth.

0:09:22.080 --> 0:09:24.720
<v Speaker 1>On the equity market side, you know, currently you're trading

0:09:24.760 --> 0:09:28.240
<v Speaker 1>at seventeen eighteen times multiple, which is to my mind,

0:09:28.720 --> 0:09:30.880
<v Speaker 1>is pretty much where it should be. Um. You know,

0:09:30.880 --> 0:09:34.280
<v Speaker 1>when you look at how to assign a PE multiple

0:09:34.360 --> 0:09:36.679
<v Speaker 1>on markets, you have to look at both what I

0:09:36.720 --> 0:09:40.160
<v Speaker 1>would call structural forces at play and then the technical trend.

0:09:40.440 --> 0:09:42.840
<v Speaker 1>The cyclical trend is what we call earning s curve.

0:09:43.080 --> 0:09:45.200
<v Speaker 1>You know, there's a lot of talk about yield curves

0:09:45.400 --> 0:09:47.800
<v Speaker 1>and yield curve inversion, but I see a lot less

0:09:47.840 --> 0:09:51.560
<v Speaker 1>focus on earning s curve, which is simply put next

0:09:51.559 --> 0:09:54.920
<v Speaker 1>twelve month earning, subtracting the trailing twelve months earning, and

0:09:54.960 --> 0:09:57.760
<v Speaker 1>what's the trajectory for that earning scurve? And that still

0:09:57.920 --> 0:10:00.560
<v Speaker 1>is positive. So that's a I think to extent a

0:10:00.640 --> 0:10:03.960
<v Speaker 1>positive take on the PE. On the other side, when

0:10:03.960 --> 0:10:07.360
<v Speaker 1>you look at the more structural forces at work, that

0:10:07.480 --> 0:10:10.920
<v Speaker 1>could be a little bit of a downside. UM. So

0:10:11.120 --> 0:10:13.760
<v Speaker 1>that is, you know, you're looking at inflation, prognosis and

0:10:13.800 --> 0:10:17.440
<v Speaker 1>so forth. So overall, that seventeen and a half multiple

0:10:17.520 --> 0:10:21.240
<v Speaker 1>seems reasonably fair to us, and that's what we're saying

0:10:21.280 --> 0:10:24.920
<v Speaker 1>that for the next round months it stays where it's at. UM.

0:10:24.960 --> 0:10:27.800
<v Speaker 1>I would be recommending a little bit of an underweight

0:10:27.840 --> 0:10:30.720
<v Speaker 1>position to your neutral at this stage, given the next

0:10:30.960 --> 0:10:33.400
<v Speaker 1>couple of quarters could be a little bit shaky, as

0:10:33.400 --> 0:10:36.439
<v Speaker 1>I said earlier. So you know, if you have a

0:10:37.440 --> 0:10:40.600
<v Speaker 1>fifty percent neutral allocation to equity, maybe this is the

0:10:40.679 --> 0:10:43.240
<v Speaker 1>time you take some profits of the table markets are

0:10:43.320 --> 0:10:47.720
<v Speaker 1>up fifteen sixt and reallocate or keep some extra money

0:10:48.080 --> 0:10:52.640
<v Speaker 1>in cash. So in your scenario, in your outlook for

0:10:52.760 --> 0:10:55.160
<v Speaker 1>the markets, how aggressive do you think the Fed is

0:10:55.200 --> 0:10:57.480
<v Speaker 1>going to be and how aggressive do you think they

0:10:57.520 --> 0:11:00.480
<v Speaker 1>need to be to kind of support your outlook. So

0:11:00.520 --> 0:11:02.440
<v Speaker 1>I think there is a little bit of a disconnect

0:11:02.480 --> 0:11:04.960
<v Speaker 1>in terms of what the FED futures market is saying

0:11:05.120 --> 0:11:07.600
<v Speaker 1>and what the reality is. You know, you look at

0:11:07.600 --> 0:11:11.400
<v Speaker 1>the numbers, especially from the consumers coming in yesterday today.

0:11:11.840 --> 0:11:14.880
<v Speaker 1>You know, yesterday's the revision on the GDP side. You know,

0:11:14.920 --> 0:11:17.680
<v Speaker 1>you see the consumer spending number at four point seven

0:11:18.000 --> 0:11:21.480
<v Speaker 1>multi year high. This morning we saw the core pc

0:11:21.640 --> 0:11:24.480
<v Speaker 1>E number, you know, inching a little bit upwards. I

0:11:24.520 --> 0:11:29.559
<v Speaker 1>think the FED has has to act given the Jackson

0:11:29.559 --> 0:11:32.560
<v Speaker 1>Old speech and also the preemptive insurance rate cut that

0:11:32.600 --> 0:11:36.319
<v Speaker 1>they started the July meeting with UM so they probably

0:11:36.320 --> 0:11:39.960
<v Speaker 1>go for a cut here in September meeting. But after that,

0:11:40.040 --> 0:11:42.840
<v Speaker 1>I think the incoming data dictates and um, you know,

0:11:42.880 --> 0:11:45.200
<v Speaker 1>our viewers to rate cuts for the next twelve months,

0:11:45.240 --> 0:11:47.800
<v Speaker 1>which is a little bit uh, you know, not as

0:11:47.800 --> 0:11:51.280
<v Speaker 1>aggressive at what the STEAD is expecting. And primarily our

0:11:51.440 --> 0:11:54.920
<v Speaker 1>take is dependent on the fact that we see consuming

0:11:54.960 --> 0:11:58.040
<v Speaker 1>a much better health than what the FED is looking at.

0:11:58.080 --> 0:12:00.960
<v Speaker 1>I think the FED is very myopically looking at and

0:12:01.120 --> 0:12:05.280
<v Speaker 1>it's maybe not asthmiopic, but they're really concerned about the

0:12:05.320 --> 0:12:08.440
<v Speaker 1>overseas market. You know, what's the other central banks doing

0:12:08.800 --> 0:12:12.520
<v Speaker 1>the manufacturing slump in the global economy, and that's creating

0:12:12.559 --> 0:12:15.040
<v Speaker 1>some level of anxiety. On top of that the trade

0:12:15.360 --> 0:12:19.000
<v Speaker 1>war that has the potential of really you know, having

0:12:19.040 --> 0:12:21.880
<v Speaker 1>a second, a third derivative effect that no one really

0:12:21.920 --> 0:12:24.720
<v Speaker 1>has the policy measures to counteract. So I think that's

0:12:24.840 --> 0:12:27.040
<v Speaker 1>really where the FED comes into play. But we still

0:12:27.080 --> 0:12:29.840
<v Speaker 1>think of this as a sort of an insurance policy

0:12:29.880 --> 0:12:32.600
<v Speaker 1>cut phase. So two to three rate cuts or all

0:12:32.720 --> 0:12:37.040
<v Speaker 1>similar to and not really start off an easing cycle,

0:12:37.120 --> 0:12:39.679
<v Speaker 1>which would be two thousand, two thousand two or two

0:12:39.720 --> 0:12:43.080
<v Speaker 1>thousand eight. Deepa poor thank you so much for being

0:12:43.080 --> 0:12:45.760
<v Speaker 1>with us. Debak Pouri is chief investment officer for the

0:12:45.760 --> 0:12:48.360
<v Speaker 1>America's at Deutsche Bank Wealth Management joining us here in

0:12:48.360 --> 0:12:52.360
<v Speaker 1>our Bloomberg Inactive broker studios, talking about a bit of

0:12:52.440 --> 0:12:55.640
<v Speaker 1>cautiousness heading into the next few months. Right now, we're

0:12:55.640 --> 0:12:58.400
<v Speaker 1>seeing a bit of cautiousness clawing back some of the

0:12:58.440 --> 0:13:01.679
<v Speaker 1>earlier games that we saw in the US equities nazdac

0:13:01.760 --> 0:13:04.960
<v Speaker 1>up now just four basis points, so almost flat on

0:13:05.000 --> 0:13:07.800
<v Speaker 1>the day after starting solidly in the green. We are

0:13:07.840 --> 0:13:11.200
<v Speaker 1>seeing bond yields coming off their earlier highs as well.

0:13:11.240 --> 0:13:13.880
<v Speaker 1>It seems like people are getting a little more skeptical

0:13:14.040 --> 0:13:32.640
<v Speaker 1>ahead of trade talks this weekend. Art investing should it

0:13:32.720 --> 0:13:35.760
<v Speaker 1>be a part of your portfolio? Our next guest thinks

0:13:35.760 --> 0:13:38.319
<v Speaker 1>maybe it should be. Dr Carvey Manus. He is an

0:13:38.400 --> 0:13:41.960
<v Speaker 1>art collector, board member of the namesake and the namesake

0:13:42.000 --> 0:13:44.400
<v Speaker 1>of the Manace Art and Education Center at the Nassau

0:13:44.440 --> 0:13:47.480
<v Speaker 1>County Museum of Art. Dr Manis, thanks so much for

0:13:47.600 --> 0:13:51.560
<v Speaker 1>joining us here in a Bloomberg Interactive broker studio. So again,

0:13:52.080 --> 0:13:53.520
<v Speaker 1>we've heard about it from time, like when I think

0:13:53.520 --> 0:13:55.280
<v Speaker 1>about investing in art, I think about these big hedge

0:13:55.320 --> 0:13:57.760
<v Speaker 1>fund managers going out and spending you know, gazillions of

0:13:57.800 --> 0:13:59.920
<v Speaker 1>dollars on art. Do you think it should be part

0:14:00.080 --> 0:14:04.640
<v Speaker 1>of maybe the average investors portfolio. Well, thank you for

0:14:04.640 --> 0:14:07.600
<v Speaker 1>inviting me, and uh, I think it's a good a

0:14:07.600 --> 0:14:09.880
<v Speaker 1>good investment. As a matter of fact, that the Wall

0:14:09.880 --> 0:14:13.600
<v Speaker 1>Street Journal came out a couple of months ago stating

0:14:13.640 --> 0:14:16.319
<v Speaker 1>that art was the best investment for two thousand eighteen.

0:14:17.040 --> 0:14:20.120
<v Speaker 1>Art work was up uh ten point six percent while

0:14:20.160 --> 0:14:24.240
<v Speaker 1>the SMP was down five And through the years, art

0:14:24.280 --> 0:14:27.000
<v Speaker 1>has been quite a good investment. I've been collecting for

0:14:27.240 --> 0:14:30.880
<v Speaker 1>over forty years and I've I've purchased pieces that were

0:14:31.280 --> 0:14:34.680
<v Speaker 1>let's say one thousand, five thousand, ten thousand, and they've

0:14:34.760 --> 0:14:40.160
<v Speaker 1>increased twenty and thirtyfold. And during uh good times, people

0:14:40.160 --> 0:14:43.040
<v Speaker 1>have money and they can they can buy art. And

0:14:43.040 --> 0:14:45.760
<v Speaker 1>and if you look at the graph of prices of art,

0:14:46.000 --> 0:14:49.080
<v Speaker 1>it continues to rise. Very rarely does it go down.

0:14:49.160 --> 0:14:51.560
<v Speaker 1>All right, let's let's start with how you got into

0:14:51.560 --> 0:14:55.160
<v Speaker 1>this in the first place. You're an orthopedic surgeon by day,

0:14:56.360 --> 0:14:59.440
<v Speaker 1>investor by night, and then perhaps if you have a

0:14:59.480 --> 0:15:03.000
<v Speaker 1>few then your back at your carpentry roots. So how

0:15:03.000 --> 0:15:05.680
<v Speaker 1>did you get into this sort of art in casting world? Well,

0:15:05.760 --> 0:15:08.480
<v Speaker 1>I always love art. As a as a child, I

0:15:08.480 --> 0:15:11.600
<v Speaker 1>would my father would take me to the Brooklyn Museum.

0:15:11.640 --> 0:15:13.520
<v Speaker 1>And uh, I I lived in a kind of a

0:15:13.600 --> 0:15:17.840
<v Speaker 1>rough area, a rough neighborhood. It was Crown Heights, and uh,

0:15:17.880 --> 0:15:20.960
<v Speaker 1>and my friends were not interested in museums. Nobody around

0:15:21.000 --> 0:15:23.720
<v Speaker 1>they was interested in museums except when my father would

0:15:23.760 --> 0:15:26.800
<v Speaker 1>take me. I loved looking around at the old Masters

0:15:26.840 --> 0:15:29.640
<v Speaker 1>and the Impressionists and and and the different paintings. I

0:15:29.680 --> 0:15:32.640
<v Speaker 1>just loved art. And when I went to college, I

0:15:33.120 --> 0:15:35.720
<v Speaker 1>was a pre med major, but I actually majored in

0:15:35.840 --> 0:15:39.360
<v Speaker 1>art history. So I took a lot of art history classes. Uh.

0:15:39.480 --> 0:15:42.600
<v Speaker 1>Then when I finished medical school and I was able

0:15:42.640 --> 0:15:47.720
<v Speaker 1>to save a few shekels, I started buying art. So

0:15:47.840 --> 0:15:53.720
<v Speaker 1>how would you suggest that someone gets started in the

0:15:53.880 --> 0:15:58.160
<v Speaker 1>art business and the kind of art investing in art? Okay,

0:15:58.240 --> 0:16:00.560
<v Speaker 1>that's a very good question. There are many anyways to

0:16:00.720 --> 0:16:03.240
<v Speaker 1>buy art. You can buy art at the auctions, you

0:16:03.280 --> 0:16:06.960
<v Speaker 1>can buy at galleries art fairs, you can buy online. Now,

0:16:07.240 --> 0:16:10.680
<v Speaker 1>buying online is is a very good venue. Uh. And

0:16:10.720 --> 0:16:13.000
<v Speaker 1>you don't have to spend a lot of money. Of course,

0:16:13.040 --> 0:16:15.400
<v Speaker 1>you can spend hundreds of millions like some of the

0:16:15.480 --> 0:16:19.880
<v Speaker 1>Matisse and Picassos. And actually, couldn't excuse me that you

0:16:19.960 --> 0:16:23.040
<v Speaker 1>who bought that the Da Vinci looked like that person

0:16:24.000 --> 0:16:27.920
<v Speaker 1>a little bit back at my records. Anyway, carryout, so

0:16:28.000 --> 0:16:31.880
<v Speaker 1>you can buy a lithograph. A lithograph, let's say, from Chicalo, Picasso,

0:16:32.000 --> 0:16:35.520
<v Speaker 1>famous artists that I just happened to mention, could be

0:16:35.520 --> 0:16:39.280
<v Speaker 1>between one thousand and a hundred thousand. So if you

0:16:39.360 --> 0:16:41.720
<v Speaker 1>have a you know, just a few thousand dollars to invest,

0:16:42.160 --> 0:16:45.920
<v Speaker 1>buy a litho from one of the famous artists. Now, Uh,

0:16:46.200 --> 0:16:49.120
<v Speaker 1>there are certain parts of an areas of art that

0:16:49.280 --> 0:16:52.600
<v Speaker 1>go up faster than other areas. So we have the

0:16:52.600 --> 0:16:55.560
<v Speaker 1>old masters that increase in value maybe four or five

0:16:55.600 --> 0:16:58.720
<v Speaker 1>percent a year. We have the modern artists like Picasso

0:16:58.920 --> 0:17:02.440
<v Speaker 1>and Uh and Jay and Dolly that increase in value

0:17:02.680 --> 0:17:05.280
<v Speaker 1>I don't know, six seven, eight percent per year. And

0:17:05.320 --> 0:17:08.439
<v Speaker 1>then you have the contemporary. The contemporary market is hot,

0:17:08.480 --> 0:17:11.560
<v Speaker 1>as am I llowed to say hell and say that

0:17:12.240 --> 0:17:15.359
<v Speaker 1>is really hot. And we have artists like Damien Hurst

0:17:15.400 --> 0:17:20.280
<v Speaker 1>and Jeff Coon's and especially well Walhole Lichtenstein. The pop

0:17:20.359 --> 0:17:23.840
<v Speaker 1>artists are still very hot, but the graffiti artists are

0:17:23.960 --> 0:17:31.359
<v Speaker 1>doing amazingly well. Artists like Basku, Yacht, Keith, Harry, Kenny Scharff, Uh,

0:17:31.400 --> 0:17:35.199
<v Speaker 1>and now fellow called cause k A W S they

0:17:35.200 --> 0:17:38.240
<v Speaker 1>are so hot. Uh. You buy a piece now and

0:17:38.400 --> 0:17:40.960
<v Speaker 1>within a year or two it they will definitely increase

0:17:41.000 --> 0:17:43.200
<v Speaker 1>in value. So if you if it, let's say it's

0:17:43.240 --> 0:17:47.040
<v Speaker 1>not one of the top names. How do you determine

0:17:47.080 --> 0:17:51.920
<v Speaker 1>whether something's good? Also a good question. First of all,

0:17:51.920 --> 0:17:54.199
<v Speaker 1>you're gonna this is a collection, and you have to

0:17:54.240 --> 0:17:58.119
<v Speaker 1>really like what you buy. You just can't buy because

0:17:58.160 --> 0:18:00.480
<v Speaker 1>you think it's an investment. You're gonna have to hold

0:18:00.520 --> 0:18:03.080
<v Speaker 1>onto these pieces for a while. It's not a flip

0:18:03.320 --> 0:18:06.600
<v Speaker 1>type of thing. Let's say like real estate or or stocks.

0:18:07.320 --> 0:18:08.919
<v Speaker 1>You have to hold onto it so you're gonna live

0:18:08.960 --> 0:18:10.960
<v Speaker 1>with it. So you have to find a piece that

0:18:11.000 --> 0:18:14.520
<v Speaker 1>you really like, uh, the color of the design, whatever,

0:18:14.760 --> 0:18:17.880
<v Speaker 1>a piece that you like. Then and then as far

0:18:17.920 --> 0:18:21.119
<v Speaker 1>as I'm sorry, what what I but how did you know?

0:18:22.119 --> 0:18:24.439
<v Speaker 1>I was thinking? I'm just thinking about you know, if

0:18:24.560 --> 0:18:27.600
<v Speaker 1>you ask, you asked the dealer, you you asked the

0:18:27.640 --> 0:18:31.359
<v Speaker 1>auction house, You get prices, you do due diligence. You

0:18:31.440 --> 0:18:35.359
<v Speaker 1>do your due diligence. Go online, put the artist name in.

0:18:35.640 --> 0:18:38.680
<v Speaker 1>Let's say the artist is John Smith. Put it online

0:18:38.840 --> 0:18:41.680
<v Speaker 1>and you'll see the prices uh if he's sold in

0:18:42.000 --> 0:18:44.920
<v Speaker 1>galleries and auctions. But if you if you're talking about

0:18:44.920 --> 0:18:48.360
<v Speaker 1>an up and coming artist that has not had any

0:18:48.440 --> 0:18:53.240
<v Speaker 1>UH sales at auctions or or major galleries, then it's difficult.

0:18:53.520 --> 0:18:57.320
<v Speaker 1>Then it's a crapshoot. But I try to buy like stocks.

0:18:57.320 --> 0:19:00.879
<v Speaker 1>I try to buy blue chip artists and UH and

0:19:00.880 --> 0:19:04.040
<v Speaker 1>and and occasionally I'll buy like an overd uh what

0:19:04.440 --> 0:19:06.680
<v Speaker 1>did they call us? The pink sheets? Occasionally I'll buy

0:19:06.840 --> 0:19:09.520
<v Speaker 1>an artist like on a pink sheet. But that's then

0:19:09.560 --> 0:19:11.520
<v Speaker 1>you're taking a risk. So all right, how about for

0:19:11.560 --> 0:19:15.119
<v Speaker 1>someone like me with little too absolutely no experience, how

0:19:15.160 --> 0:19:18.440
<v Speaker 1>do I spot fakes? Or is that a risk that

0:19:18.480 --> 0:19:20.280
<v Speaker 1>I have to really deal with something that's just you know,

0:19:20.280 --> 0:19:24.320
<v Speaker 1>it's it's not it's a fake, it's not authentic. Well,

0:19:24.480 --> 0:19:29.159
<v Speaker 1>Thomas Hoving, the director of the Modern Art Museum UH,

0:19:29.200 --> 0:19:32.919
<v Speaker 1>said that of the art and museums are fake. So

0:19:32.960 --> 0:19:35.320
<v Speaker 1>it's very hard to really stay away from fakes. But

0:19:35.680 --> 0:19:38.280
<v Speaker 1>what you need is provenance. You buy a piece, and

0:19:38.320 --> 0:19:41.200
<v Speaker 1>you need the papers from the gallery, from the auction,

0:19:42.080 --> 0:19:46.360
<v Speaker 1>provenance that this is an authentic piece. Where is the

0:19:46.440 --> 0:19:50.760
<v Speaker 1>bid coming from? That keeps prices continually marching higher. Is

0:19:50.800 --> 0:19:53.840
<v Speaker 1>there sort of the Chinese buyer that's been coming in

0:19:53.960 --> 0:19:56.960
<v Speaker 1>or the European buyer, or is it you know, everywhere,

0:19:56.960 --> 0:19:59.439
<v Speaker 1>And just the more that it becomes sort of you know,

0:19:59.680 --> 0:20:05.080
<v Speaker 1>pop pularised online, etcetera, the more everything is worth well,

0:20:05.160 --> 0:20:08.440
<v Speaker 1>you you have people who buy art who are very

0:20:08.480 --> 0:20:11.360
<v Speaker 1>wealthy and it's kind of a prestige type of thing.

0:20:12.320 --> 0:20:15.000
<v Speaker 1>Uh So that that pushes the prices up as well.

0:20:15.240 --> 0:20:19.880
<v Speaker 1>But there are more museums opening up every year, more

0:20:19.920 --> 0:20:23.720
<v Speaker 1>people are educated, more people are going to museums every year,

0:20:24.320 --> 0:20:28.040
<v Speaker 1>and people want to you know, have art in their

0:20:28.080 --> 0:20:31.280
<v Speaker 1>in their life. It's beautiful to be surrounded by, you know,

0:20:31.320 --> 0:20:34.280
<v Speaker 1>wonderful pieces of art. Besides the fact that it's a

0:20:34.359 --> 0:20:37.080
<v Speaker 1>very good investment. So if I go to an auction,

0:20:37.160 --> 0:20:39.399
<v Speaker 1>just real quickly, what do I need to know? Do

0:20:39.480 --> 0:20:44.880
<v Speaker 1>I just wave my little paddle when I like something? Well, yeah,

0:20:44.920 --> 0:20:51.880
<v Speaker 1>I guess no. You that's a big paddle, okay, but

0:20:52.119 --> 0:20:56.280
<v Speaker 1>uh you are that you look before you bid? You

0:20:56.320 --> 0:20:58.800
<v Speaker 1>have to you look up the artists and the auction

0:20:59.359 --> 0:21:02.479
<v Speaker 1>catalog will have a low estimate and a high estimate,

0:21:03.040 --> 0:21:06.000
<v Speaker 1>so they they do a lot of the due diligence

0:21:06.000 --> 0:21:09.479
<v Speaker 1>for you. Uh. Let's say a piece is estimated between

0:21:09.480 --> 0:21:12.560
<v Speaker 1>ten and twenty thousand, so you know, you you look

0:21:12.560 --> 0:21:15.399
<v Speaker 1>it up and and and online and see if this is, uh,

0:21:15.640 --> 0:21:18.280
<v Speaker 1>you know, within your price range. And if you see

0:21:18.320 --> 0:21:20.480
<v Speaker 1>if it's you think it's fair. And you could call

0:21:20.680 --> 0:21:24.120
<v Speaker 1>the auction or the gallery and ask for previous prices

0:21:24.240 --> 0:21:27.320
<v Speaker 1>and asked them how they came up with this particular estimate.

0:21:27.960 --> 0:21:30.080
<v Speaker 1>Dr Harvey Mannus, thank you so much for spending time

0:21:30.080 --> 0:21:34.600
<v Speaker 1>with us. My book collected. We're going to get there.

0:21:34.640 --> 0:21:37.400
<v Speaker 1>Don't worry. Dr Harvey man This is an art collector

0:21:37.440 --> 0:21:39.760
<v Speaker 1>of board member and the namesake of the Mannis Art

0:21:39.760 --> 0:21:42.360
<v Speaker 1>and Educations that are at the Nassau County Museum of Art.

0:21:42.440 --> 0:21:45.520
<v Speaker 1>And he has a book collecting Art for Pleasure and

0:21:45.680 --> 0:21:48.400
<v Speaker 1>a profit that he is holding up and you can

0:21:48.560 --> 0:22:07.000
<v Speaker 1>find it on Amazon and others. Hurricane Dorian continues to

0:22:07.080 --> 0:22:09.959
<v Speaker 1>bear down on the state of Florida, expected to make

0:22:10.080 --> 0:22:13.600
<v Speaker 1>landfall perhaps Monday of next week. The question really is

0:22:13.760 --> 0:22:17.560
<v Speaker 1>where will it make landfall. To help us get the latest,

0:22:17.600 --> 0:22:21.400
<v Speaker 1>we welcome Matthew Polozola, Senior annalys covering Property and Casualty

0:22:21.400 --> 0:22:23.840
<v Speaker 1>insurance for Bloomberg Intelligency joints us here in our Bloomberg

0:22:23.880 --> 0:22:27.240
<v Speaker 1>Interactive Broker studio and Brian Sullen, Energy and Commodities reporter

0:22:27.280 --> 0:22:29.520
<v Speaker 1>for Bloomberg News and our Bloomberg one oh six one

0:22:29.680 --> 0:22:32.639
<v Speaker 1>studio in Boston. Brian, let's start with you. Can you

0:22:32.680 --> 0:22:35.080
<v Speaker 1>just give us the latest on what we know about

0:22:35.200 --> 0:22:38.240
<v Speaker 1>the storm. So, the storm is um on the verge

0:22:38.240 --> 0:22:40.000
<v Speaker 1>of becoming a Category three, which will make it a

0:22:40.000 --> 0:22:42.719
<v Speaker 1>major hurricane, and it is potentially going to be a

0:22:42.720 --> 0:22:45.480
<v Speaker 1>category four when it finally gets to the Florida coast

0:22:45.560 --> 0:22:50.600
<v Speaker 1>um late Monday early Tuesday. Right now, the current thinking

0:22:50.680 --> 0:22:52.879
<v Speaker 1>is that it will be somewhere between Fort Lauderdale and

0:22:52.920 --> 0:22:58.920
<v Speaker 1>Port Lucy in Florida's um southeast coast. So, Matthew, given

0:22:58.920 --> 0:23:01.000
<v Speaker 1>the fact that you focus on insurance companies and that

0:23:01.000 --> 0:23:04.160
<v Speaker 1>they're expected to have potentially billions of dollars of losses

0:23:04.840 --> 0:23:08.400
<v Speaker 1>with this hurricane, I'm wondering, where do you see which

0:23:08.400 --> 0:23:10.719
<v Speaker 1>companies are going to be most affected? Which what are

0:23:10.720 --> 0:23:15.160
<v Speaker 1>you watching? Sure? So, the market share of homeowners insurance

0:23:15.160 --> 0:23:19.919
<v Speaker 1>in Florida is mostly dominated by smaller regional companies, large

0:23:20.240 --> 0:23:24.160
<v Speaker 1>mutual non public insurance companies, and the state run insurance

0:23:24.160 --> 0:23:27.520
<v Speaker 1>company so the large national companies like A I G.

0:23:27.760 --> 0:23:31.439
<v Speaker 1>Chub Um, All State Progressive, they will have exposure, but

0:23:31.480 --> 0:23:33.080
<v Speaker 1>they're kind of in the bottom half of the top

0:23:33.119 --> 0:23:35.639
<v Speaker 1>ten of market share. Not only that, but they're pretty

0:23:35.640 --> 0:23:39.680
<v Speaker 1>significantly protected by reinsurance. So in the event of a really,

0:23:39.720 --> 0:23:42.600
<v Speaker 1>really large storm, it's probably the smaller regional companies who

0:23:42.640 --> 0:23:46.480
<v Speaker 1>are most in jeopardy. So, Brian, I guess the question

0:23:46.520 --> 0:23:48.800
<v Speaker 1>is if comes across as it makes landfall as a

0:23:48.800 --> 0:23:52.399
<v Speaker 1>category for obviously major, major storm. I know one of

0:23:52.400 --> 0:23:54.600
<v Speaker 1>the things I've been reading about and hearing about this

0:23:54.600 --> 0:23:56.720
<v Speaker 1>storm is kind of the the speed at which the

0:23:56.800 --> 0:23:59.080
<v Speaker 1>storm is moving, i e. It's not going very fast.

0:23:59.080 --> 0:24:01.520
<v Speaker 1>So that suggest said there could be some significant damage.

0:24:01.600 --> 0:24:04.320
<v Speaker 1>Well what are you hearing? Um, Yeah, So there's two

0:24:04.320 --> 0:24:05.800
<v Speaker 1>things that are gonna happen. One is it's going to

0:24:05.880 --> 0:24:08.919
<v Speaker 1>come ashore and you're gonna have that that initial burst

0:24:08.960 --> 0:24:11.600
<v Speaker 1>of really intense winds in a small area plus the

0:24:11.640 --> 0:24:13.760
<v Speaker 1>storm surge, and that's gonna cause you most of your

0:24:13.800 --> 0:24:16.200
<v Speaker 1>damage right along the coast. But as you point out,

0:24:16.240 --> 0:24:18.360
<v Speaker 1>then it's gonna stall out and it's gonna sit over

0:24:18.400 --> 0:24:20.119
<v Speaker 1>Florida for maybe a couple of days. And this is

0:24:20.160 --> 0:24:24.040
<v Speaker 1>a situation similar but not exactly the same as what

0:24:24.080 --> 0:24:26.400
<v Speaker 1>happened in Texas with Harvey, where it just came out

0:24:26.400 --> 0:24:29.479
<v Speaker 1>and it just wrung itself out. So, um, I've been

0:24:29.520 --> 0:24:32.080
<v Speaker 1>watching the rainfall totals just keep going up, and right

0:24:32.160 --> 0:24:37.080
<v Speaker 1>now we're in the six to fifteen inch range. This

0:24:37.160 --> 0:24:41.080
<v Speaker 1>is really interesting to me from an insurance point of view, Matt,

0:24:41.160 --> 0:24:45.240
<v Speaker 1>because the more rain there is, the more relief there

0:24:45.240 --> 0:24:47.560
<v Speaker 1>Probably isn't some of these insurance companies right because it

0:24:47.600 --> 0:24:51.639
<v Speaker 1>isn't flood insurance covered by the government and not necessarily

0:24:51.680 --> 0:24:53.679
<v Speaker 1>their per view. Isn't that correct? That is true? So

0:24:53.720 --> 0:24:58.400
<v Speaker 1>the federal government basically backstops most of the private flood insurance.

0:24:58.520 --> 0:25:01.320
<v Speaker 1>There is commercial flood insurance, so you could see private

0:25:01.359 --> 0:25:05.439
<v Speaker 1>companies should UH see some of those losses, but for

0:25:05.480 --> 0:25:09.360
<v Speaker 1>the most part, a lot of flood uh doesn't impact

0:25:09.400 --> 0:25:11.960
<v Speaker 1>these companies. But one thing that I find really interesting,

0:25:12.000 --> 0:25:15.360
<v Speaker 1>so there were some estimates of fifty three billion dollars

0:25:15.400 --> 0:25:17.639
<v Speaker 1>for the potential losses for this storm. Is that correct?

0:25:18.000 --> 0:25:21.120
<v Speaker 1>That that's insured values of where it was aiming towards well?

0:25:21.160 --> 0:25:23.199
<v Speaker 1>But so so, what I'm struggling to understand is just

0:25:23.200 --> 0:25:26.240
<v Speaker 1>in a larger context, these slow moving storms seem to

0:25:26.320 --> 0:25:32.000
<v Speaker 1>be increasingly common. So how do insurance companies change their

0:25:32.680 --> 0:25:37.200
<v Speaker 1>calculus as this increasingly happens? I mean, basically, are our

0:25:37.240 --> 0:25:41.440
<v Speaker 1>insurance premiums going up dramatically as each storm happens? I

0:25:41.520 --> 0:25:44.560
<v Speaker 1>probably say not not as each storm happens, but certainly

0:25:44.600 --> 0:25:48.280
<v Speaker 1>over time. Insurers are definitely reacting to higher catastrophe prone

0:25:48.359 --> 0:25:52.360
<v Speaker 1>areas like California and wildfire and Florida with hurricanes. So

0:25:52.680 --> 0:25:55.800
<v Speaker 1>not only are they pulling back capacity, but they're buying

0:25:55.840 --> 0:25:59.720
<v Speaker 1>more protection for these areas as well. So Brian, Yeah,

0:25:59.720 --> 0:26:04.200
<v Speaker 1>I know you cover commodities for Bloomberg News. What's been

0:26:04.400 --> 0:26:08.120
<v Speaker 1>the projected impact on some of the citrus and other

0:26:08.640 --> 0:26:10.919
<v Speaker 1>you know kind of produce and so on for the

0:26:10.920 --> 0:26:13.720
<v Speaker 1>state of Florida. Um, it could it could get very

0:26:13.760 --> 0:26:17.480
<v Speaker 1>bad um in that situation, especially if um the storm

0:26:17.560 --> 0:26:20.920
<v Speaker 1>kind of drags its way northward up the peninsula. UM.

0:26:21.000 --> 0:26:23.199
<v Speaker 1>You know, the area where it's going to come in

0:26:23.280 --> 0:26:27.160
<v Speaker 1>and make landfall is not necessarily a heavy um citrus producer,

0:26:27.240 --> 0:26:30.080
<v Speaker 1>But uh, that's further north up the peninsula, and as

0:26:30.240 --> 0:26:31.919
<v Speaker 1>as the storm goes up there and you get these

0:26:31.920 --> 0:26:35.919
<v Speaker 1>flooding rains, that that is. UM, it's going to add up, Brian,

0:26:36.000 --> 0:26:39.200
<v Speaker 1>since you cover the weather so well, and I love

0:26:39.240 --> 0:26:41.679
<v Speaker 1>reading your stories because I've always interested in what's going

0:26:41.720 --> 0:26:45.000
<v Speaker 1>to be happening. How much more frequently are we seeing

0:26:45.040 --> 0:26:47.800
<v Speaker 1>these big, slow moving storms that just sort of dump

0:26:47.840 --> 0:26:51.120
<v Speaker 1>a lot of rain and create a whole host of problems. Yeah,

0:26:51.160 --> 0:26:53.280
<v Speaker 1>there's been a lot of discussion back and forth about

0:26:53.320 --> 0:26:57.119
<v Speaker 1>that with UM. People who have study climate change, for instance,

0:26:57.119 --> 0:26:59.240
<v Speaker 1>are saying that these things are becoming more common because

0:26:59.240 --> 0:27:02.760
<v Speaker 1>the jet stream itself is getting stuck. And in Dorian's situation,

0:27:02.800 --> 0:27:04.840
<v Speaker 1>what we're gonna have here is two very large high

0:27:04.840 --> 0:27:07.800
<v Speaker 1>pressure systems, one over the western Atlantic in one over

0:27:07.800 --> 0:27:11.400
<v Speaker 1>the Great Planes in the United States. And because hurricanes

0:27:11.400 --> 0:27:14.200
<v Speaker 1>don't move under their own power, these two two monsters

0:27:14.240 --> 0:27:17.399
<v Speaker 1>basically are gonna pin Dorian down and that's what's going

0:27:17.440 --> 0:27:20.400
<v Speaker 1>to create it and make it such a slow mover. UM.

0:27:20.480 --> 0:27:22.680
<v Speaker 1>And like I said, some people point to climate change

0:27:22.720 --> 0:27:24.520
<v Speaker 1>is saying that, you know, these big high pressure systems

0:27:24.520 --> 0:27:28.560
<v Speaker 1>are getting stuck more often because of UM the problems

0:27:28.680 --> 0:27:32.680
<v Speaker 1>related with that. So, Matthew, you mentioned earlier reinsurance. That's

0:27:32.800 --> 0:27:35.600
<v Speaker 1>one of the many areas of insurance I don't understand,

0:27:35.800 --> 0:27:38.840
<v Speaker 1>um explain to us kind of how the reinsurance market

0:27:38.960 --> 0:27:41.560
<v Speaker 1>works and kind of how that might how they might

0:27:41.560 --> 0:27:44.960
<v Speaker 1>be affected here in Florida. Sure, So it's insurance for

0:27:45.119 --> 0:27:47.720
<v Speaker 1>insurance companies. So like let's say you're all state and

0:27:47.720 --> 0:27:50.520
<v Speaker 1>you write a lot of homeowners insurance in this in Florida,

0:27:50.800 --> 0:27:53.280
<v Speaker 1>you might say you go to a re insurance company, say,

0:27:53.280 --> 0:27:55.760
<v Speaker 1>if we have losses over one billion dollars, you take

0:27:55.800 --> 0:27:59.960
<v Speaker 1>a certain percentage of that reinsurance company. So it's increasing

0:28:00.080 --> 0:28:01.959
<v Speaker 1>looking like this storm is probably gonna be worse than

0:28:02.080 --> 0:28:05.240
<v Speaker 1>last year's Hurricane Michael in terms of insured losses, maybe

0:28:05.320 --> 0:28:07.800
<v Speaker 1>closer to IRMA in two thousand seventeen. So when you

0:28:07.800 --> 0:28:12.440
<v Speaker 1>start to get into those like dollar storm losses, uh,

0:28:12.480 --> 0:28:16.960
<v Speaker 1>it starts to go through the reinsurance coverage of companies. So, Brian,

0:28:17.160 --> 0:28:20.800
<v Speaker 1>how would you rank this season that we have coming

0:28:20.880 --> 0:28:23.040
<v Speaker 1>up in terms of how active the hurricanes are going

0:28:23.119 --> 0:28:25.159
<v Speaker 1>to be? How are people sort of talking about it

0:28:25.320 --> 0:28:30.080
<v Speaker 1>versus previous years. So we're right now we're entering the

0:28:30.119 --> 0:28:33.719
<v Speaker 1>most active period of the hurricane season, and that typically

0:28:33.800 --> 0:28:36.200
<v Speaker 1>happens around this time of year, like say from August

0:28:36.240 --> 0:28:39.880
<v Speaker 1>twenty October one, so we're just getting going. Um, there's

0:28:40.040 --> 0:28:43.120
<v Speaker 1>two more potential storms out in the Atlantic following this one,

0:28:43.560 --> 0:28:45.880
<v Speaker 1>and they may take a similar track. So you know,

0:28:45.960 --> 0:28:47.680
<v Speaker 1>we could be back here in a week or two

0:28:47.720 --> 0:28:50.960
<v Speaker 1>weeks talking again about Florida taking a hit. I wouldn't

0:28:50.960 --> 0:28:53.800
<v Speaker 1>be surprised if that was the case. Um, the early

0:28:53.840 --> 0:28:55.600
<v Speaker 1>part of the season was kind of slow, but you

0:28:55.640 --> 0:28:57.840
<v Speaker 1>can't really judge the rest of the season by what

0:28:57.880 --> 0:28:59.560
<v Speaker 1>happens in the early part of the season, so we

0:28:59.600 --> 0:29:02.640
<v Speaker 1>could be in for a very active period here well.

0:29:02.680 --> 0:29:04.840
<v Speaker 1>And we wish the best to everybody who is in

0:29:04.840 --> 0:29:09.600
<v Speaker 1>the regions that are squarely in the target of Hurricane Dorian. Uh, Matt,

0:29:09.600 --> 0:29:11.720
<v Speaker 1>Paul Zilla, thank you so much for being with us.

0:29:11.720 --> 0:29:14.840
<v Speaker 1>Brian Sullivan, thank you as well, both of them for

0:29:14.960 --> 0:29:18.080
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg covering from the insurance side as well as the

0:29:18.120 --> 0:29:22.400
<v Speaker 1>weather and commodity side. What we can be expecting definitely, Uh.

0:29:22.440 --> 0:29:26.880
<v Speaker 1>The human aspect is important, honestly, Paul, though, I'm actually

0:29:27.120 --> 0:29:31.240
<v Speaker 1>expecting the debate to emerge once again about the US

0:29:31.320 --> 0:29:36.440
<v Speaker 1>government's program to ensure against flood damage, because it's not

0:29:37.320 --> 0:29:40.880
<v Speaker 1>they don't have enough money to make it sustainable given

0:29:41.000 --> 0:29:43.200
<v Speaker 1>the payouts that we've seen in recent years, and so

0:29:43.240 --> 0:29:45.320
<v Speaker 1>there's going to be a big question of what you

0:29:45.400 --> 0:29:47.800
<v Speaker 1>do with this program. And it always sort of strikes me,

0:29:47.920 --> 0:29:50.440
<v Speaker 1>as you know, the bulk of the of the damage

0:29:50.480 --> 0:29:53.440
<v Speaker 1>gets caused by flooding, and so then it ends up

0:29:53.560 --> 0:29:56.480
<v Speaker 1>squarely in the government's hands. Very interesting. Well, I'm sure

0:29:56.480 --> 0:29:59.160
<v Speaker 1>I'll be talking more about that. Thanks for listening to

0:29:59.200 --> 0:30:01.880
<v Speaker 1>the Bloomberg Piano All podcast. You can subscribe and listen

0:30:01.880 --> 0:30:05.200
<v Speaker 1>to interviews at Apple Podcasts or whatever podcast platform you prefer.

0:30:05.440 --> 0:30:08.120
<v Speaker 1>I'm Paul Sweeney. I'm on Twitter at pt Sweeney. I'm

0:30:08.160 --> 0:30:11.040
<v Speaker 1>Lisa Abram Woyds. I'm on Twitter at Lisa abram woits one.

0:30:11.280 --> 0:30:13.880
<v Speaker 1>Before the podcast, you can always catch us worldwide. I'm

0:30:13.880 --> 0:30:14.760
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Radio.