Speaker 1: Who you put your trust in matters. Investors have put
Speaker 1: their trust and independent registered investment advisors to the two
Speaker 1: and four trillion dollars. Why learn more and find your
Speaker 1: independent advisor dot com. Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast.
Speaker 1: I'm Tom Keene with David Gura. Daily we bring you
Speaker 1: insight from the best in economics, finance, investment, and international relations.
Speaker 1: Find Bloomberg Surveillance on iTunes, SoundCloud, Bloomberg dot com, and
Speaker 1: of course, on the Bloomberg Chrispharron joins us head of
Speaker 1: Technical analysis at Fatiguous Research Partners. Chris, great to speak with,
Speaker 1: great to be here. Give us first the historical perspective here.
Speaker 1: We have watched the market since, watched the market especially
Speaker 1: closely here since the presidential election. How does it fit
Speaker 1: into history, the kind of rally that we've seen. Well, actually,
Speaker 1: it's not that extraordinary. If you look at four key
Speaker 1: returns thus far, they're about average for what would expect
Speaker 1: this time of year. So I would be hard pressed
Speaker 1: to call the market terribly extended at this point by
Speaker 1: our work. It just doesn't look at when you look
Speaker 1: at at correlations, what do you see at this point, Well,
Speaker 1: what we see is dispersion. We see correlations among stocks
Speaker 1: in the SMP right now the lowest they've been in
Speaker 1: about ten years. So your stock picking matters. Now. What
Speaker 1: we've learned historically is when correlations are moving lower, it's
Speaker 1: often consistent with a credit environment that is supportive. It's
Speaker 1: also consistent typically with the market that's going up, not
Speaker 1: a market that's going down. So lower correlations to us
Speaker 1: reflect normalcy. A line stood out to be in most
Speaker 1: recent note, you said the election has been the first
Speaker 1: macro event and eighteen months where correlations have actually declined.
Speaker 1: What's it? What's it play there? Yeah, Well, if we
Speaker 1: look at the last eighteen months of price history, we
Speaker 1: had a number of macro events. We had the kind
Speaker 1: of devaluation in August. We saw correlation spike when oil
Speaker 1: was at twenty six. We saw a correlation spike around Brexit.
Speaker 1: The same thing that tells us that investors were not
Speaker 1: distinguishing among stocks. They were not discriminating among stocks, they
Speaker 1: were treating them as an asset class. Uh. It seems
Speaker 1: like today, UH, investors are treating individual names on their
Speaker 1: own individual merit. UH. That is a healthier framework. It's
Speaker 1: often one that is consistent with lower volatility as well,
Speaker 1: so we welcome the change. I also think it's good
Speaker 1: news for active here in the act of verse passive debate,
Speaker 1: given that dispersion has widening, correlations have come in. We'll
Speaker 1: take into some of those those companies here in a moment.
Speaker 1: But when you look at, let's say the financial sector,
Speaker 1: the enthusiasm that that we've seen there, there's the enthusiasm,
Speaker 1: how about the technicals? What's that's saying about the financial sector?
Speaker 1: What I think is a little bit ironic about the enthusiasm.
Speaker 1: If you look at the cell side, the Bank Group
Speaker 1: has the second fewest number of buy ratings among cell
Speaker 1: side analysts compared to any of the group, So I
Speaker 1: would hardly call the seuth side UM overwhelmingly enthusiastic. The
Speaker 1: number of downgrades to upgrade since the election has really
Speaker 1: been staggering for the group, and that's almost hard to
Speaker 1: believe when I look at the group UM. I think
Speaker 1: the most important chart of two thousand and sixteen has
Speaker 1: been the breakout in JP Morgan. This is a stock
Speaker 1: that went nowhere for seventeen years. It peaked in March
Speaker 1: of two thousand. It was in purgatory for almost two decades,
Speaker 1: then move through sixty five. The move to eighty I
Speaker 1: think is a game changer. I think it's the most
Speaker 1: important chart of two thousand and sixteen. Is there is
Speaker 1: there a room to run here yet? In other words,
Speaker 1: we've seen such advancement in the in the sector. Uh,
Speaker 1: is it oversold at this point? I don't think it's
Speaker 1: remotely done. In the context of the longer term story, UM,
Speaker 1: this is a regime change to These are stocks that
Speaker 1: you could not own, not just for the last six
Speaker 1: or seven years, but really for the last ten or
Speaker 1: twelve years. What we've seen historically is when a sector
Speaker 1: stays out of favor for that ten to twelve year
Speaker 1: period UM, the next number revers tend to be quite good.
Speaker 1: We saw it with tech. Tech was out of favor
Speaker 1: from two thousand and two really up to two thousand ten.
Speaker 1: We certainly saw with healthcare up through about two thousand nine,
Speaker 1: and we've seen it with banks the last ten to
Speaker 1: twelve years. We think this is the early endings of
Speaker 1: a new secular ble market in bank stocks, and we
Speaker 1: just want to be there. There is a bellweatherness to
Speaker 1: to black Rock. You've got a chart of that in
Speaker 1: your most recent Now, what's that telling you right now
Speaker 1: when you look at black Rock in particularly, Yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: I've always looked to black Rock as a barometer for
Speaker 1: the broader market. It's almost a leverage plan on stocks.
Speaker 1: When black Rock is going up, the SMP tends to
Speaker 1: be going up, and conversely, when black Rock is going down,
Speaker 1: the return environment tends to be more challenging. So black
Speaker 1: Rock is another stock where it's really spent the last
Speaker 1: twenty four months, uh, not making anyone any money, and
Speaker 1: the market really didn't make anyone any money for the
Speaker 1: last twenty four months. So we welcome the breakout there
Speaker 1: over the last several weeks. And I think importantly I
Speaker 1: welcome the breakout in the relative sense as well. I
Speaker 1: am getting paid to own this stock relative to something else.
Speaker 1: That is the other big change for financials. They've become
Speaker 1: relative plays for the first time in a decade. We're
Speaker 1: talking with Chris of her own, head of technical analysis
Speaker 1: at Fatiguous Research Partners. Let's pivot to energy. Now, if
Speaker 1: we could we see oil a bit softer this morning.
Speaker 1: We had seen some some higher numbers earlier in the week.
Speaker 1: What do you say when you look at the energy set.
Speaker 1: When you look at oil in particular right now, Frankly,
Speaker 1: I think it's the most difficult on the street right now.
Speaker 1: As a chartist, it's not a bad picture, uh, And
Speaker 1: I could see it grinding towards sixty over the next
Speaker 1: number of months. But what tempers my enthusiasm is the history.
Speaker 1: And when I say the history, I mean, let's remember
Speaker 1: we're only a year removed from a seventy decline in oil,
Speaker 1: and when we've seen that in the past, the next
Speaker 1: number of years have looked a lot like a big
Speaker 1: trading range where you get some pretty vicious rallies and
Speaker 1: some pretty vicious declines. Now that's certainly been the case
Speaker 1: this year. We doubled off the low, but along the
Speaker 1: way we also had another thirty percent decline in the
Speaker 1: price of crude. So I think, in the context of
Speaker 1: how much volatility are you assuming to be long crude,
Speaker 1: that may be a bit higher than you're comfortable with.
Speaker 1: So I think mean reversion is still the name of
Speaker 1: the game when it comes to oil here, not unlike
Speaker 1: how crude behaved coming out of the six bearer market,
Speaker 1: where really the next decade was characterized by some pretty
Speaker 1: vicious trading ranges. So yes, we can grind towards sixty.
Speaker 1: I would temper my I would temper my return enthusiasm
Speaker 1: much above that. What it's part of the dumb question here,
Speaker 1: but what what is sentiment? When you're doing technical analysis?
Speaker 1: What is what is sentiment? Exactly? What's it telling you? Right? Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know that's a great question, and I often think
Speaker 1: it's a little misinterpreted. I think it's used too often,
Speaker 1: number one. But we like to think of sentiment in
Speaker 1: one of two ways. Number One, there is the data
Speaker 1: that tells us what people say they're doing with their money.
Speaker 1: And then secondly, there is the data that tells us
Speaker 1: what people actually are doing with their money. So surveys
Speaker 1: is positioning, and we always put a greater references on
Speaker 1: the ladder. And I think often there can be a
Speaker 1: dichotomy between what people are saying they're doing and what
Speaker 1: people are actually doing. I think we see that right
Speaker 1: now in the equity market. When I travel around and
Speaker 1: I talked to clients. There are certainly a return to
Speaker 1: animal spirits here. There is certainly, I think some sense
Speaker 1: that people are talking like they're more bullish. But for
Speaker 1: us it really hasn't shown up yet any great extent
Speaker 1: in positioning. The street is actually still running net short
Speaker 1: SMP futures right now if you can imagine that. Now,
Speaker 1: some of that is hedging, but by and large, I
Speaker 1: don't think that's reflective of a very euphoric um, of
Speaker 1: a very euphoric environment at the moment. We're talking about
Speaker 1: correlation a moment ago or those two things often correlated,
Speaker 1: or it is one lead the other. Other words, a
Speaker 1: sentiment lead positioning. Usually you know, typically UM, it can
Speaker 1: actually be the other way around, And you know what's
Speaker 1: been I think the most surprising part um really of
Speaker 1: all my conversations the last four or five weeks with
Speaker 1: investors really around the world is UM. I think there's
Speaker 1: been this tendency to look to November eighth or November
Speaker 1: nine as just the game changing week of the year.
Speaker 1: I disagree to some extent. I think this market really
Speaker 1: started to change over the course of the summer. Um
Speaker 1: leadership began to change before bond yields started to go up.
Speaker 1: We saw financial start to improve by July, we saw
Speaker 1: industrial leadership all year. So in context of sentiment, I
Speaker 1: have often found it trails actual price action. I think
Speaker 1: there's a tendency in our business to feel uncomfortable with
Speaker 1: an investment idea unless you have a story to go
Speaker 1: along with it, And we actually take the other approach
Speaker 1: in our work. We think the story will follow. We
Speaker 1: don't want to ignore price action. That to us is
Speaker 1: always more important sentiment When you look at at at
Speaker 1: sentiment of the risks that that poses for the new year.
Speaker 1: What are you seeing? Well, I think at some point, um,
Speaker 1: there's gonna be a story to tell in the first
Speaker 1: quarter where perhaps sentiment is getting a little bit too aggressive.
Speaker 1: Now it's hard enough to forecast price, it's even harder
Speaker 1: to forecast sent to me. So we'll let that develop
Speaker 1: over the course of January and February. It's something to
Speaker 1: be on guard four as we move later into the
Speaker 1: first quarter, particularly when the seasonal backdrop gets a little
Speaker 1: bit more supportive later in the spring. All right, Christopher
Speaker 1: and stay with us if you that's Christopher own, their
Speaker 1: head of technical analysis of Fatiguous Research partners joining us
Speaker 1: here in New York. Tom and I are at the
Speaker 1: Power Breakfast of the Pier Hotels there with Morgan Stanley.
Speaker 1: I mentioned all the economic data rattled it off here
Speaker 1: a moment ago. What are you looking forward to most
Speaker 1: this morning? What's going to tell us that the most
Speaker 1: about the state of the US economy? Drible goods GDP.
Speaker 1: What's what's the focus for you this morning? You know, GDP,
Speaker 1: it's a revised number, right, We're already looking ahead towards
Speaker 1: what the fourth quarter is tracking. Fourth quarter is tracking
Speaker 1: not that great, right, And so that's what I'm more
Speaker 1: focused on, rather than how close to three percent did
Speaker 1: we grow in the third quarter? UM, durable goods. I
Speaker 1: don't think any data there is going to turn around, uh,
Speaker 1: the trend until we get well into what might be
Speaker 1: delivered from Trump next year, if if corporates decide to
Speaker 1: change their behavior. UM, it's just not been a good
Speaker 1: trajectory for business investment. So really it comes down to
Speaker 1: that high frequency data of weekly jobless claims. You know,
Speaker 1: when do we start and do we start seeing layoffs rise?
Speaker 1: I mean they're at extraordinarily low levels UM, and you
Speaker 1: know how much lower can they go if say Trump's
Speaker 1: policies kick off another wave of of hiring. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is what the Fed is worried about. We've already
Speaker 1: got a tightish labor market UM and so watching those
Speaker 1: jobless claims are very important. Are we able to actually
Speaker 1: push them even lower below record historical lows or do
Speaker 1: they start to rise? Uh? You beg the question there
Speaker 1: Until we get Donald Trump in office, there is the
Speaker 1: pros of the promise of so much change or how
Speaker 1: much do the data, like the data we're gonna get
Speaker 1: today mean and light of that, you know, things could
Speaker 1: change so radically, it seems well, I think that that's
Speaker 1: that's one thing that that worries me. No, economists are
Speaker 1: the dismal scientists, So I have to inject some sort
Speaker 1: of you know, dismal comments here already have the Nickel reference. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: I might, I might take it even darker. Um No,
Speaker 1: But what worries me is that, um, you know we
Speaker 1: we are markets are trading like it's a new day. Um.
Speaker 1: And if that new day doesn't come, what are we
Speaker 1: stuck with? We've been on a slowing trajectory for the economy. Um.
Speaker 1: You know, wage growth has not picked up meaningfully. Real
Speaker 1: disposable income on the household side is slowing pretty noticeably. Um.
Speaker 1: And that's the world that you're left with. A business
Speaker 1: investment has been declining, that's the world you're left with
Speaker 1: if that new day doesn't come, UM, And so it
Speaker 1: worries me how willing how patient will markets be in
Speaker 1: waiting for that new day to come when you're forecasting
Speaker 1: out And again, we've heard so much about what could
Speaker 1: happen here. What could contribute most to growth? Is a
Speaker 1: tax reform, is repatriation holiday? Is it changes to regulation
Speaker 1: and sort of gaming that out. What do you see
Speaker 1: as having potentially the most influence on on the health
Speaker 1: of the U. S economy? Well, Corporate tax reform if
Speaker 1: it's done in a way that incentivizes businesses to invest
Speaker 1: put more capex in place. UM. Personal income tax reform UH,
Speaker 1: if it's UH at the very least more fair and balance,
Speaker 1: but at least if there's enough targeted towards the lower
Speaker 1: income groups because they do spend more of those tax dollars.
Speaker 1: You know, those are the things that get the bigger impact. UM.
Speaker 1: The The unknown here, of course, is on trade policy UM.
Speaker 1: And what I find when I talked to investors is
Speaker 1: that many of them are cherry picking Trump's policies um
Speaker 1: uh to fit into whatever desired outcome they want for
Speaker 1: the economy. And and so many are focused on the
Speaker 1: positives from tax reform and not the possible negatives from
Speaker 1: an unknown trade policy. Uh. And so with so many unknowns,
Speaker 1: you know, we do our best to forecast what the
Speaker 1: economy might look like under Trump, but know that those
Speaker 1: forecasts have to be nimble, and it's a it's a
Speaker 1: moving timeline. It is the power breakfast at the Pier Hotel.
Speaker 1: David Gurr and I really love to attend here on
Speaker 1: Fifth Avenue. It is, of course the storied hotel part
Speaker 1: of the TAJ group. And uh, they do it right.
Speaker 1: It is. It is a quieter breakfast, which is very cool.
Speaker 1: Can be on Twitter. They have a difficulty ignoring us,
Speaker 1: we know, but every table's taken, and even with every
Speaker 1: table taken, it's still quiet. What I would notice a
Speaker 1: coffee is off the church. It's the only reason we
Speaker 1: got Ellen Center here Stanley empowered by Bacon. When you
Speaker 1: talk to Mr Gorman of Morgan Stanley or Mr Rhddecker
Speaker 1: of your foreign exchange shop, how do you death tail
Speaker 1: in a subpar g d P vector with Hans Rhdecker's
Speaker 1: call for a strong dollar policy from the Trump Well,
Speaker 1: I think a strong dollar, called, you know, dampens growth.
Speaker 1: So it's a tempering catcher. Uh So, for every ten
Speaker 1: percent sustained to increase in the trade weighted dollar, it
Speaker 1: can dampen GDP growth by about half a percentage point um.
Speaker 1: And so I think what what might be missed in
Speaker 1: some of the more lofty forecasts in a post Trump
Speaker 1: world is that those forecasts should also be accompanied by
Speaker 1: a stronger dollar, which dampens overall business investment to some
Speaker 1: extent and dampens UH inflation to some extent a well
Speaker 1: as well, or limits the upside, let's say. And so
Speaker 1: I think that that has missed UH, at least in
Speaker 1: some of the more lofty forecasts I see in a
Speaker 1: post Trump world, but it plays very importantly into our
Speaker 1: post Trump forecasts. What does the US consumer look like
Speaker 1: to you? Right now here, we are nearing the holidays,
Speaker 1: Thomas heading out afterward to buy his his satchel of gifts.
Speaker 1: I'm buying the entire a Rule Levine catalog and support
Speaker 1: of nickelback. It's going all Canadians. I'm all Canadian today. Wow,
Speaker 1: that's great. More power to a swipeho a swife of
Speaker 1: the finger on Amazon and you're done. You're there. I'm
Speaker 1: sure they're on the deep discount anyhow, I think I
Speaker 1: think what we've seen with the U S consumer, especially
Speaker 1: this holiday season, is that they are buying more, but
Speaker 1: it deeper discounts, and so in nominal terms, sales are okay, right.
Speaker 1: And then of course, you know, you have to differentiate
Speaker 1: between big box retailers that continue to lose share UM
Speaker 1: two companies like Amazon, the the Internet retailers. I think overall, UM,
Speaker 1: it continues to be a cautious consumer. Some of that
Speaker 1: is driven by the growing share of the population that
Speaker 1: is aging and moving into the age cohorts associated with
Speaker 1: lower rates of spending UM. But overall, in terms of
Speaker 1: the household balance sheet, I'm encouraged. It's unprecedented. You know.
Speaker 1: One of the worries is when interest rates start rising
Speaker 1: more quickly, what does that do to the household balance sheet?
Speaker 1: UM And very little of it is exposed to a
Speaker 1: variable rate, and that's good news. It means it is
Speaker 1: interest rates rise, the interest expense on the balance sheet
Speaker 1: does not eat into disposable income in a way that
Speaker 1: it has in the past, and that can stretch the
Speaker 1: consumer cycle longer because they have more cushion to absorb
Speaker 1: a faster economy with higher interest rates or absorb a
Speaker 1: softening of the economy is financial repression. Over with all
Speaker 1: the enthusiasm we're seeing here at the Pierre Hotel four
Speaker 1: blocks down, folks were four blocks north of the Trump Tower,
Speaker 1: we're just out of reach of the insanity. Well, I
Speaker 1: think that that uh one thing that helps, UM, but
Speaker 1: it's it's a precarious It can be a precarious situation, right.
Speaker 1: One thing that helps is that as stock markets rise UM,
Speaker 1: that's higher net worth, higher financial net worth specifically, and
Speaker 1: if you think about the upper income household in the
Speaker 1: US UM, the top income quentile represents of all consumer
Speaker 1: we're spending. And you can pretty much tie everything that
Speaker 1: they do two asset prices to the stock market UM.
Speaker 1: And so you know, to the extent that that we're
Speaker 1: able to extend those gains or hold on to those gains,
Speaker 1: that could be a boost to consumer spending. But then
Speaker 1: when I say precarious, I mean something has to be delivered,
Speaker 1: right for markets to hang onto these gains, because the
Speaker 1: gains are built on hope with nothing being delivered. Yet,
Speaker 1: how long does that hope last? How much time do
Speaker 1: does Congress, does the president elect have to affect something well. Now,
Speaker 1: markets are like a two year old, right, they want
Speaker 1: everything like yesterday. Um. Now, Congress can hit the ground
Speaker 1: running on January three. There is a an eight year
Speaker 1: pent up demand for a conservative Republican agenda um that
Speaker 1: they want to deliver, and they don't have to wait
Speaker 1: for Donald Trump to be inaugurated on January twenty. If
Speaker 1: they can hit the ground running, and that can at
Speaker 1: least move the rhetoric for word um and show that
Speaker 1: they're moving in the right direction. Um. You know the
Speaker 1: fact that mid term elections, you know, politicians start to
Speaker 1: shut down in the fall of seen to get ready
Speaker 1: for the midterm elections. So that is good news because
Speaker 1: it pushes the timeline up even further to try and
Speaker 1: get things done as quickly as possible. You don't want
Speaker 1: to lose this opportunity of having a Republican sweep with
Speaker 1: a Republican president. Uh, you know if you're a Republican
Speaker 1: in Congress, because it doesn't come around that often. Uh.
Speaker 1: And so there are some powerful incentives for things to
Speaker 1: get done. The risk there is if things just simply
Speaker 1: don't move fast enough right off the bat for markets,
Speaker 1: and there starts to be come down your hands like
Speaker 1: Mr Trump does when he's certainly what he's talking. There
Speaker 1: you go, Ellen's got the Trump. You know, the fingers
Speaker 1: up in the air and this is this is the
Speaker 1: simbol for bread and drink. So I know which side
Speaker 1: my glass and my plate is on the tables. Ye
Speaker 1: give me your confidence, your Trump's certitude on the strength
Speaker 1: of the American consumer, giving your subpart gdpqual So I
Speaker 1: think that the Americans consumer is strong. But let's talk
Speaker 1: about what a strong American consumer looks like. It's not
Speaker 1: three to four spending, which was debt field spending prior
Speaker 1: to the financial crisis that was also fueled by a
Speaker 1: lot of equity withdrawal from homes. You know, you take
Speaker 1: off that layer, and a strong consumer is a two
Speaker 1: percent growth rate. Now we've been running above that, and
Speaker 1: we ran above that in because a lot of that
Speaker 1: was fueled by falling gas prices moving into seventeen. Though
Speaker 1: gas prices are not falling below their levels, and that's
Speaker 1: going to be headwind two households. Um believe it or not.
Speaker 1: But but I'm I've been constructive on the consumer for
Speaker 1: a long time. I remain constructive on the consumer UM
Speaker 1: and I and I like, so where are chief US
Speaker 1: equity strategist Adam Parker is positioned for the consumer going
Speaker 1: into twenty well liking credit cards because it's not a
Speaker 1: retail specific play, but it's a play on households becoming
Speaker 1: more confident, more income. You know, the tax brigs coming through,
Speaker 1: tax cuts coming through that fuels credit demand. UM and
Speaker 1: so credit cards. I like his overweight on credit cards. UM.
Speaker 1: When we look at where tax dollars are spent, UM,
Speaker 1: think about stretching out the consumer durable good cycle longer. People.
Speaker 1: You know, Tom and I talked about this earlier on
Speaker 1: on UH surveillance UM that UH new autos UM tend
Speaker 1: to garner those tax dollars. Uh. And so that stretches
Speaker 1: out that cycle longer because we've seen auto sales slowing,
Speaker 1: you know, so perhaps the stems that slowing. UM. Furniture
Speaker 1: and home furnishings is also a category that gets the
Speaker 1: benefit of tax dollars. You know. So, so UM are
Speaker 1: our strategists are are overweight specific home builders UM and
Speaker 1: and home improvement. Right now, housing looks more mid cycle, UM.
Speaker 1: I mean part of the you know, we've been elliaching
Speaker 1: over the lack of a more robust recovery and housing
Speaker 1: for a long time, and much of that is the
Speaker 1: the onerous regulatory overlay UM. But the good news there
Speaker 1: is that we're far from overheating, and overheating at the
Speaker 1: end of the day is really what ends a business
Speaker 1: expansion UM. And so the fact that we look more
Speaker 1: mid cycle in housing is encouraging. And b if home
Speaker 1: price growth continues along this track, we will have finally
Speaker 1: whittled away negative equity and that's been a big impediment
Speaker 1: to middle income households. Muhammadlarian just emailed in and says
Speaker 1: good morning to Ellen Setner, Morgan Stanley dr Alarian's acclaimed
Speaker 1: phrases those unknown unknowns. What's your unknown unknown for two
Speaker 1: thousand seventeen. I think it's on what happens on trade?
Speaker 1: How far do they want to push trade? Yeah, because
Speaker 1: I think that that the zero sum presidency. Are we
Speaker 1: going to a neo merk until is America? You know?
Speaker 1: I think that I think through UM dynamic dynamic estimation
Speaker 1: and there's another jargon alert for you, UM. I think
Speaker 1: it gives the more conservative Republicans cover in order to
Speaker 1: vote through some stimulus UM and so We don't think
Speaker 1: it's a zero sum game, but of course trade policy
Speaker 1: can make it a zero sum games. Is that ner?
Speaker 1: Morgan Stanley, thank you so much. You have a great holiday.
Speaker 1: Remind me what Mr Zuckerberg said today? What did you say?
Speaker 1: He took off against nickelback? Just like Money Bought is
Speaker 1: my favorite song off Silver Side Up. But this is
Speaker 1: a song we all remember from fourteen years ago, David.
Speaker 1: This is a band from Canada. Mr Avril Levine. He's
Speaker 1: like an elite singer. Go who you put your trust
Speaker 1: in matters. Investors have put their trust in independent registered
Speaker 1: investment advisors to the tune of four trillion dollars. Why
Speaker 1: they see their roles to serve, not sell. That's why
Speaker 1: Charles Schwab is committed to the success over seven thousand
Speaker 1: independent financial advisors who passionately dedicate themselves to helping people
Speaker 1: achieve their financial goals. Learn more and find your independent
Speaker 1: advisor dot com. Someone that is so valuable to speak
Speaker 1: to on America's economic policies Diane Swank. She has a
Speaker 1: huge advantage of not being on the island of Benhattan.
Speaker 1: She has a far more, uh better, far and better
Speaker 1: perspective than many Diane Swank of DS Economics, Good morning, Diane,
Speaker 1: Good morning three point five. Is that sustainable? Allen Sander
Speaker 1: was on earlier with a cautious Morgan Stanley view, Are
Speaker 1: you living in the land of a Trump three economy
Speaker 1: or do you two need to be cautious? Um, I'm cautious.
Speaker 1: I think we're going to get a little below two
Speaker 1: on the fourth quarter. After that three and a half percent.
Speaker 1: That will bring the europe a little higher. But we're
Speaker 1: still talking about one six one seven year, which is
Speaker 1: one of the slowest performing years of the expansion. So
Speaker 1: this is not anything to you know, write home about.
Speaker 1: The good news, as we did regain momentum after almost
Speaker 1: come into a standstill in the first half the year
Speaker 1: or so. Really the consumer was behind that, So I
Speaker 1: think that's the good artist. We've got some momentum, and
Speaker 1: even though it's a little rocky momentum, we do have
Speaker 1: momentum carrying us regardless of policy good bet or in
Speaker 1: different at least at the start of the year. To
Speaker 1: get us into the start of the year, fold in
Speaker 1: auto sales dynamics into our subpar year. I remember the
Speaker 1: effervescence of eighteen million units did autos let us down
Speaker 1: towards a sub two percent statistic. You know, yeah, autos
Speaker 1: are peeking out. That's he issue. There's a couple of
Speaker 1: things going on in the auto sector. We've got UM
Speaker 1: they have been issuing subprime credit for a long time.
Speaker 1: They got a waiver after the crisis that helped to
Speaker 1: do sales for quite a while. But let's face it,
Speaker 1: there's a payback to giving lower quality at it and
Speaker 1: some of it's going bad now. It's one of the
Speaker 1: sectors that certainly regulators are watching very closely in terms
Speaker 1: of how these sales, these loans are performing. They went
Speaker 1: out to sevent eight years on these loans. It was
Speaker 1: really you know, a long time. And auto itself, the
Speaker 1: vehicles themselves or trucks UM, whether they be light trucks
Speaker 1: or autos or actually underwater very quickly on these loans.
Speaker 1: So that's one issue, and we've really kind of tapped already,
Speaker 1: you know, a very large pool of people replacing vehicles.
Speaker 1: So the vehicle sector also with import with UM I'm
Speaker 1: sorry used vehicle of prices falling that have remember, raises
Speaker 1: the price for anyone buying a car because their trading
Speaker 1: values going down and they've been also offering incredibly deep
Speaker 1: discounts and incentives to you know, we've just gotten very
Speaker 1: well trained. We wait him out. It's a game of
Speaker 1: chicken both in you know, holiday sales and when you're
Speaker 1: buying a vehicle. Dian, do you do you look at
Speaker 1: these data differently because of the presidential change over we're
Speaker 1: going to have here in January, the prospect of a
Speaker 1: new policy, of the prospect perhaps of great change in Washington,
Speaker 1: d C. How do you how do you read these
Speaker 1: data given that, Well, what we do know is that
Speaker 1: we had momentum going into seventeen and you know, even
Speaker 1: if no policy, unlike what the stock market had been
Speaker 1: betting only pro growth policies, they sort of delineated between
Speaker 1: the spectrum of what could happen. On November nine, as
Speaker 1: UM President elect Trump accepted his acceptance speech, he talked
Speaker 1: about pro growth and unity, and he played down some
Speaker 1: of the more damaging trade policies. Immigration policies were now
Speaker 1: at population growth the lowest since the depression. We've got
Speaker 1: household formation flowing. Yesterday we saw the data and news
Speaker 1: on you know, record breaking young adults are living with
Speaker 1: their parents. That without immigration means slower growth going forward,
Speaker 1: but at least we were set up in the year
Speaker 1: to look better no matter what, because we had gotten
Speaker 1: rid of some of our excess baggage that we carried
Speaker 1: into ten, and that was really an overhang of inventories,
Speaker 1: and most notably the oil bust that was already healing.
Speaker 1: The oil and story, which had been a silver lining
Speaker 1: in that investment sector in capital goods, has been coming
Speaker 1: back and you're starting to now see that how big
Speaker 1: a driver is energy going to be here going into
Speaker 1: two that's a great question. I mean, it was an
Speaker 1: extraordinary driver, and we had a hundred dollar pre barrel oil.
Speaker 1: We were competitive at fifty before the presidency, that the election,
Speaker 1: and now that is one of the few places the
Speaker 1: regulation I think the market's overbetting on how quickly it
Speaker 1: can ease up and create profits in the financial services sector.
Speaker 1: But on the flip side, the regulation in the energy
Speaker 1: sector can happen fairly quickly, and um, they're already competitive,
Speaker 1: so that will be a I think we're going to
Speaker 1: see outsize games again, an investment of course outside games
Speaker 1: after having major contraction that's very um, you know, it's
Speaker 1: a big turnaround, So it will contribute a lot next year.
Speaker 1: That said, it's still not very broad base. It's still
Speaker 1: one sector doesn't employ many people. Doing own the stream
Speaker 1: is very important for a couple of key states, but
Speaker 1: it's not broad based throughout the economy that we need.
Speaker 1: Joining us now without question, one of our most interesting guest,
Speaker 1: George Friedman, has issued his two thousand seventeen view, which
Speaker 1: links foreign policy in the military and INDUS strategic risk
Speaker 1: is well George Freeman's chairman and founder Geopolitical Futures and David,
Speaker 1: why did you start us off here on that nexus
Speaker 1: of America's projection abroad? Yeah, you know, we've we've seen
Speaker 1: this play out here since the election, the contours of
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's foreign policy beginning to tape ship take shape.
Speaker 1: Worrisome to to some people here, George, Uh, when when
Speaker 1: you look at what's going to be the overarching issue
Speaker 1: in two thousand seventeen, is it an extension of the
Speaker 1: populism we've seen here in two thousand seventeen, Well, it's
Speaker 1: certainly going to be an extension of opposition to extreme internationalism. Looks,
Speaker 1: since World War Two, we've had a basic fundamental belief,
Speaker 1: which is that fixed alliances in free trade are the
Speaker 1: foundation of American policy. We've seen that the alliance like
Speaker 1: NATO doesn't work extremely well. The our partners don't participate
Speaker 1: as they should. And we've also seen that we've been
Speaker 1: involved in wars all over the world for fifteen years
Speaker 1: that haven't ended well. In terms of free trade. GDP
Speaker 1: may grow, but it's not well distributed. So you've got
Speaker 1: a worldwide rising against internationalism and reasserting the national interest
Speaker 1: and even class interest. Uh Madame Leguard, the head of
Speaker 1: the IMP, was a bloomber a couple of weeks ago,
Speaker 1: and she spoke about her worry about the globalization that happening.
Speaker 1: What's the status of what's the health of globalization at
Speaker 1: this point? Do we see a pause on the movement
Speaker 1: towards more globalization? Well, this is two thousand, Nate. We've
Speaker 1: seen a phenomenon. Interdependence is a wonderful thing until it isn't.
Speaker 1: So in two thousand aid we saw a virus, a
Speaker 1: fairly moderate bubble in the United States insect the entire world,
Speaker 1: and eight years later the world is still staggering from
Speaker 1: the consequences of that. So the question is how do
Speaker 1: you limit viruses from spreading, how do you keep dysfunctions
Speaker 1: in some markets from creating long term crisis. So certainly
Speaker 1: the idea that unlimited interdependence UH is good for everybody
Speaker 1: has been was disproven, and she I am F is
Speaker 1: the champion of increasing interdependence, and that seems to know
Speaker 1: just pyramid the risks. We focus a lot on how
Speaker 1: the US would fare if policy does turn more inward
Speaker 1: and you kind like this in your in your fine report.
Speaker 1: Here a degree to which there are some countries that
Speaker 1: would do better than others if if there was more inwardness,
Speaker 1: if there was less of a globalized well, what are
Speaker 1: some others here? They're wrestling with this and trying to
Speaker 1: wait with the prospects of less globalization would be well.
Speaker 1: I mean for Europe, for example, it's been eight years
Speaker 1: since the failures of two thousand eight. Southern Europe is
Speaker 1: in a state of depression, partly because Germany is a
Speaker 1: desperate exporter of the German GDP derives from exports UH.
Speaker 1: These countries are staggering under the load of a euro
Speaker 1: basically designed to serve Germany, and so increased inwardness in
Speaker 1: Southern Europe seems to be the only logical way to
Speaker 1: try to recover. They have been in depression for eight
Speaker 1: years of unemployment rate. You have a single sentence, George,
Speaker 1: in your report on Russia and their projection and military
Speaker 1: mike with great fanfare. Is it for real or did
Speaker 1: you capture it perfectly? That it's all bluff, image and bluster,
Speaker 1: Which isn't Syria having no strategic importance of Russia, but
Speaker 1: it was a wonderful place to make a large impact
Speaker 1: with a relatively small force. The Russians sent a little
Speaker 1: over a hundred aircraft into the region. We have far
Speaker 1: more than that. They carried out attacks and it made
Speaker 1: it appear that they were decisive. Well, then they're quite
Speaker 1: a while and they're still struggling to capture Leppo. But
Speaker 1: that's not the point. They managed to elevate themselves to
Speaker 1: appear of the United States at a time when their
Speaker 1: economy is staggering and when their loss of the Ukraine
Speaker 1: has never been reversed. So this is a weak country
Speaker 1: carrying out a brilliant bluff. To what exid are we
Speaker 1: culpable in? That is the US culpable in its elevation.
Speaker 1: We're all culpable in everything. Uh, the United States wants
Speaker 1: to have very nice outcomes. It doesn't have the military
Speaker 1: means to impose them. It wants to carry out attacks
Speaker 1: and muscles without civilian attacks, civilian debts. The United States
Speaker 1: for quite a while has been carrying out a fantasy
Speaker 1: foreign policy. But the differences that, unlike the Russians, the
Speaker 1: United States tent of the world's economy. It really does
Speaker 1: have a global military force, however badly it may have
Speaker 1: been used. The Russians really, in objective terms of power projection,
Speaker 1: just aren't there. Broadcasting live to New York, Bloomberg eleven
Speaker 1: freo to Washington, d C, Bloomberg to Boston, Bloomberg twelve
Speaker 1: hundred to San Francisco, Bloomberg nine sixty to the country,
Speaker 1: Sirius XM chad A one nineteen and around the globe
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Radio Plus app and Bloomberg dot Com. This
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg Surveillance and good morning. I'm Caeren Moscow along
Speaker 1: with Town Keen and David Gura, and the opening bill
Speaker 1: is brought to you by s C. I have evolving
Speaker 1: investor and regulatory demands affected your investment firms operational readiness.
Speaker 1: Imagine transforming your business with SCI's global platform at se
Speaker 1: i c dot com. Slash Imagine stocks are a little
Speaker 1: changed to lower at the open. The S and P
Speaker 1: five hundred down a tenth of upper cent or two
Speaker 1: points to two sixty two. The Dow Jones Industrial Average
Speaker 1: down eight to nineteen thousand, nine hundred twenty nine, and
Speaker 1: the NASDAK is little changed at fifty four seven day
Speaker 1: tenure Treasury down seven thirty seconds, the yeld two point
Speaker 1: five six percent, that yield on the two year one
Speaker 1: point to zero percent. Nimex screwed oil up half percent
Speaker 1: or twenty six cents to fifty two seventy four a barrel.
Speaker 1: Comex's gold is down to ten percent or two dollars
Speaker 1: forty cents to eleven thirty nine ounce, the Euro a
Speaker 1: dollar oh four or five eight, and the En one
Speaker 1: seventeen point six nine. Tom and David Karen thanks so much.
Speaker 1: A power breakfast at the Pier Hotel on Fifth Avenue,
Speaker 1: New York. It is a lovely, lovely place for day
Speaker 1: Girl and I to be, And I got a rounding
Speaker 1: criticism on Twitter. I was migrating to the weekend and
Speaker 1: I said Friday morning, it feels like it could be
Speaker 1: perhaps it is a surveillance correction. James Steele of HSBC
Speaker 1: out on gold. He reaffirms support on gold eleven twenty
Speaker 1: two eleven per ounce. Uh. He believes those levels hold
Speaker 1: barring significant dollar strength. Why don't you bring us back
Speaker 1: with George George Freeman here he has the founder and
Speaker 1: chairman of Geopolitical Futures and ge which we were talking
Speaker 1: about Russia a moment to go in the degree to
Speaker 1: which that country has been elevated to a peer status
Speaker 1: here with the US. Give us your sense of how
Speaker 1: that relationship changes as if at all here in the
Speaker 1: new year. Uh, we have President elect Donald Trump picking
Speaker 1: Rex Tillerson to be Secretary of State and making a
Speaker 1: lot for better or worse for the fact that he
Speaker 1: has had a good relationship with the Russian leadership. Do
Speaker 1: you see the relationship changing here in two thousand seventeen. Well,
Speaker 1: we have a basic agreement already on Ukraine's frozen conflict. Uh.
Speaker 1: Government is pro Western, the Russians are hold in your
Speaker 1: position that could be formalized. But look, the real Russian
Speaker 1: problem is economy. It cannot survive very well with oil
Speaker 1: price as this, and the United States can't do anything
Speaker 1: about it. So the issue is not whether they like
Speaker 1: each other don't like each other. The issue is what
Speaker 1: is the underlying problem facing each country. The American problem
Speaker 1: really is disengaging from them at least. The Russian problem
Speaker 1: is maintaining their economy. They're relevant to each other, so
Speaker 1: they can threaten each other and steal emails and things
Speaker 1: like that. But the fundamental questions, Uh, don't turn around personalities.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm looking at your note here, looking at
Speaker 1: your outlook for the new year, and the words stock
Speaker 1: that stood out to me. You're talking about China and
Speaker 1: the presidentiation. You call it a dictatorship pulling no punches there. Uh,
Speaker 1: we talked about the US Russian relationship going forward. How
Speaker 1: about the U S. China relationship? What are the next
Speaker 1: turns there? We saw the incident last week. We can
Speaker 1: debate the significance of it, the gravity, gravity of it
Speaker 1: in the South China. See, how does that relationship change?
Speaker 1: You're going forward? Well, the Chinese are still dependent on exports,
Speaker 1: and the American market is desperately important to them. Uh,
Speaker 1: China is much less important to the United States. We
Speaker 1: can substitute for most of the things that they export
Speaker 1: to US. Including rare earths. So the Chinese have the weekend.
Speaker 1: They're the sellers, were the buyers, and for all of
Speaker 1: their posturing, you know, that is the economic truth. The
Speaker 1: military truth is they don't have an amphibious capability able,
Speaker 1: for example, to invade I want. They have some ships,
Speaker 1: but they don't have the air power. They don't have
Speaker 1: the ability to block the US missiles coming into their ships,
Speaker 1: and they only have two brigades marines. UH and the
Speaker 1: Taiwanese have tend to visions. So there are a lot
Speaker 1: of things that the media talks about that they just
Speaker 1: can't do. But they're very good at making it appear
Speaker 1: that they're more profitably are Georgia the time we got
Speaker 1: left with you. What we talked about in economics is
Speaker 1: a zero sum trade, a zero sum international economics, and
Speaker 1: some would use the phrase neo mercantilism. The Pentagon has
Speaker 1: to deal with a new president who, by all interviews
Speaker 1: we do, who seems to be very transactional and very dealmaking.
Speaker 1: Is your world so immense that it literally is immune
Speaker 1: from a given president and immune from a new president?
Speaker 1: Or is the Pentagon actually thinking about how they're going
Speaker 1: to adapt to a zero sum zeitgeist from a new president.
Speaker 1: The Pentagon has built for certain types of wars, certain
Speaker 1: types of military operations. It is a vast enterprise. Presidents
Speaker 1: hold off this for four years, sometimes eight. The president's
Speaker 1: ability to reshape, you know, these vast institutions and make
Speaker 1: them different is limited. So every you know, the different
Speaker 1: foreign policy and reality is vast. Policy is what you
Speaker 1: wish you could do. Reality is which you encounter. Obama
Speaker 1: realized this. He had wanted to have a completely different presidency.
Speaker 1: Uh didn't happen. George W. Bush would never have believed
Speaker 1: that his presidency was going to be ab at war
Speaker 1: in Afghanistan and iraq Um. Reality makes a president, not
Speaker 1: the president making reality. Okay, there's a famous point where
Speaker 1: Woodward Wilson is sitting there and somebody waltzes into the
Speaker 1: room and whispers in his ear, and he changes policy.
Speaker 1: How do degrees in about six seconds? Can you fathom
Speaker 1: a president Trump being Wilsonian and being supple and amenable
Speaker 1: to policy change. I think all presidents are supple in
Speaker 1: making policies. Now, the question is, doesn't really change anything.
Speaker 1: So let's assume that he has decided and it would
Speaker 1: be reasonable thing that he is going to withdrawal from
Speaker 1: the Middle East. You know he's spoken about that in
Speaker 1: various times and other things. How long does it take
Speaker 1: to do that? How complex can it be? How do
Speaker 1: you mitigate the consequences? So the problem I have with
Speaker 1: all the focus on policy, it's like a focus on
Speaker 1: the wishes. I'm not sure the event you're talking about
Speaker 1: with Wilson changing the policy, but it would love to
Speaker 1: see whether it had any consequence on small things. Sure,
Speaker 1: I mean small things. Uh, it's easy to change. But
Speaker 1: on the basic structure of US foreign policy. UH, as
Speaker 1: Franklin Roosevelt discovered before World War Two, it took years
Speaker 1: to get this country ready for a change in policy
Speaker 1: and to build the military. Does it Mr Trump? Face?
Speaker 1: That's in a day of modern UH communication and tweeting.
Speaker 1: Does he saying face the same constraints? Is FDR. Well,
Speaker 1: he faces real constraints. And it's the Republicans in the Senmates.
Speaker 1: The Republics in the Senate are most concerned about really
Speaker 1: being reelected. Trump won by a very narrow minority, actually,
Speaker 1: and they're asking the question, my better off supporting Trump
Speaker 1: or opposing Trump. It's a very reelected Remember mainstream Republicans
Speaker 1: don't like him, so far more important than Twitter is
Speaker 1: the same problem that Woodward Wilson had. He wanted the
Speaker 1: League of Nations, the Senate didn't. He didn't get it.
Speaker 1: Always remember that the president's is not is probably the
Speaker 1: weakest leader of the Euro American world. He has the
Speaker 1: least direct power. Almost everything he wants to do has
Speaker 1: to go through Congress, and he's going to have to
Speaker 1: build some sort of relationship with Congress. Otherwise he's just
Speaker 1: making speeches. George, very quickly here about thirty seconds left
Speaker 1: with you, unfortunately too little time. What is the dose,
Speaker 1: the first dose of realism Donald Trump is going to
Speaker 1: get when he's in office. What's the what's the first
Speaker 1: flash point? Do you think he's going to sing? Well,
Speaker 1: the first slash point he's going to he is that
Speaker 1: he's going to have to deal with the mid least issue.
Speaker 1: We've been a war fifteen years. He's attacked our policy.
Speaker 1: He has to find a different one, and it's very difficulty.
Speaker 1: Is going to be the Congress is not going to
Speaker 1: necessarily agree with him, and that there are prices for
Speaker 1: everything that he wants to do. Uh, he has a
Speaker 1: range of things that he wants to do. None of
Speaker 1: them are easy to do, and his staff is new
Speaker 1: and they have to learn how to do things. It
Speaker 1: takes a long time for the presidential staff to settle
Speaker 1: down and do things. But most importantly, what he's going
Speaker 1: to face is that for everything he wanted to do,
Speaker 1: there's a price. At the price is going to hurt
Speaker 1: some Americans, and undercut of Church Freeman, thank you so much,
Speaker 1: really appreciate it. With his year ahead review. Maybe David,
Speaker 1: we ought to talk to somebody who maybe worked with
Speaker 1: Carlos Goodieiras who maybe didn't want a wall across Mexico,
Speaker 1: or maybe worked with powerful senators who looked at President
Speaker 1: ABC de ar Trump and said, really, who would that
Speaker 1: person be that we should talk to. You're talking about
Speaker 1: Ron von Jean and vonin company joining us now by phone,
Speaker 1: and there is so much political news to talk about. Tom,
Speaker 1: We've been remiss not talking about it yet. I want
Speaker 1: to get to all of that. We can talk about
Speaker 1: immigration policy, national security policy, and all of that, but
Speaker 1: first let me start with politics. Politics and the news
Speaker 1: releases that we've gotten here over the last couple of days.
Speaker 1: President elect Donald Trump naming carlike on special advisor to
Speaker 1: the President. He'll be handling regulatory affairs. Were on great
Speaker 1: to speak with you, and let me ask you about
Speaker 1: the sentence at the end of that email announcement. Carl
Speaker 1: Icon will be advising the President in his individual capacity
Speaker 1: and will not be serving as a federal employee or
Speaker 1: a special government employee, and will not have specific duties.
Speaker 1: A two part question here, what is carl Icon going
Speaker 1: to be doing UH? And is he somebody who could
Speaker 1: not have been confirmed? Wow, it looks like he's going
Speaker 1: to be examining the UM regulations that President Trump said
Speaker 1: he wanted to remove, at least of them that affected
Speaker 1: American jobs. So he's going to be looking at that
Speaker 1: with a microscope and making recommendations to the whiteouts and
Speaker 1: which regulations should go into the trash can. Now. He's
Speaker 1: also reportedly UM an advisor interviewing potential UH nominees or
Speaker 1: our selections for SEC chair and UM that is that's
Speaker 1: definitely an unconventional role. It's something but Trump trusts him,
Speaker 1: he has done deals with him in the past, UM
Speaker 1: and as looking to him for advice, So I mean
Speaker 1: he is I don't know if Carlican wanted to actually
Speaker 1: serve in the cabinet um, but he would definitely receive
Speaker 1: some scrutiny if he was under the microscope during Center
Speaker 1: confirmation by Democrats. Run you've been in Washington a long time.
Speaker 1: I know that the transition team has shied away from
Speaker 1: using the term swamp. Now they're moving on to other
Speaker 1: soaring rhetoric. But let me ask you here just about
Speaker 1: what Diane Swamp brought up with here us here a
Speaker 1: couple hours ago. She said that, you know, it is
Speaker 1: a skill to know how to navigate Washington. You bring
Speaker 1: in a special counselor who is not of Washington. How
Speaker 1: big of a problem is that is? Is this administration
Speaker 1: beginning to reckon yet, with the fact that the bureaucracy
Speaker 1: is byzantine and you may need a guide to get
Speaker 1: around it. Well, I think that they have a combination
Speaker 1: of insider and outsiders that are beginning to populate the
Speaker 1: White House, in the cabinet um. You know, the voters
Speaker 1: sent him, sent Trump to Washington to take a wrecking
Speaker 1: ball to the place, and a lot of the secretaries
Speaker 1: being named, you know, are going to you know, are
Speaker 1: going to turn up turn those cabinets and Seo's upside down. UM.
Speaker 1: And while you do need to have a good sense
Speaker 1: of how Washington works to understand the levels of power,
Speaker 1: at the same time, they don't want they also want
Speaker 1: some fresh fresh bases from the outside coming into to
Speaker 1: shake things out. Right. But I particularly go to your
Speaker 1: service to Senator A Lot. Trent Lot, tell me here
Speaker 1: what the body language and day to day technical response
Speaker 1: will be of Senate leadership. Every interview we do says
Speaker 1: they're the focal point. Can he be an executive president
Speaker 1: or does he actually have to get along with the
Speaker 1: Trent Lots of two thousand eighteen. Well, I'll tell you
Speaker 1: what I mean. You know, the fact that Republicans don't
Speaker 1: have sixty votes in the Senate means that, um, there's
Speaker 1: going to need to be some compromises. In the Senate
Speaker 1: is really the backstop, the backlog where everything is going
Speaker 1: to start piling up. So Trump is going to need
Speaker 1: those guys. I think also, though the Republican majority owes
Speaker 1: its majority to Donald Trump, UM in a number of
Speaker 1: those states, like you know, like Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania,
Speaker 1: for example, UM, where everyone thought he was going to lose.
Speaker 1: So I think it leaves for the first hundred days,
Speaker 1: you're going to see everyone trying to get along as
Speaker 1: much as possible and um uh and and I and I.
Speaker 1: But you know, like any relationship, it's going to have
Speaker 1: some turbulence. Uh. I don't expect the turbulence over the
Speaker 1: next couple of years. But I'm wondering the degree to
Speaker 1: which Donald Trump's election has changed the way politics gets
Speaker 1: done in Washington. Already, there's word here that Kelly Ann
Speaker 1: Conway is going to be moving to town to be
Speaker 1: a counselor to the president. You're getting a new neighbor,
Speaker 1: the Bunging company getting a new neighbor, Corey Lewandowski trading
Speaker 1: New Hampshire for Washington, d C. He's planning to set
Speaker 1: up a lodging shop a block away from the White House.
Speaker 1: Have other politicians taken note? In other words, is the
Speaker 1: brand of politics that Donald Trump espouses something that other
Speaker 1: politicians are going to try to take on as their own. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, it's it's just that's a really good question,
Speaker 1: because Donald Trump is really a bottle to captured lightning
Speaker 1: the bottle on populism. U. Now, uh, you know, you
Speaker 1: had Bernie Sanders and the leaps. It was extremely popular too.
Speaker 1: Um So there are pots believe that politicians will emerge
Speaker 1: out of nowhere trying to reflect the Trump brand. He is,
Speaker 1: though of forced assure. It's hard to see how someone
Speaker 1: could replicate it, but you could potentially see people understanding
Speaker 1: that there's a new way to campaign and that people
Speaker 1: are both fed up with us with complete you know,
Speaker 1: with with with the package they've been seeing over the
Speaker 1: last you know, twenty years. Ron greatly appreciate the perspective someone.
Speaker 1: I think we'll be talking to you because we staggered
Speaker 1: January twenty Ron Bonjeane working with selected Republicans over the
Speaker 1: many years from Washington. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and listen to interviews on iTunes, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: or whichever podcast platform you prefer. I'm out on Twitter
Speaker 1: at Tom Keene. David Gura is at David Gura. Before
Speaker 1: the podcast, you can always catch us worldwide on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: Who you put your trust in matters. Investors have put
Speaker 1: their trust and independent registered investment advisors to the two
Speaker 1: and four trillion dollars. Why learn more and find your
Speaker 1: independent advisor dot com