Speaker 1: Hello, all listeners to Stephanomics Stephanie Flanders, I wanted to
Speaker 1: share with you a new podcast from Bloomberg called What
Speaker 1: Goes Up. Each week, hosts Sarah Pontick and Mike Reagan
Speaker 1: speak with expert guests about the main themes influencing global markets.
Speaker 1: They explore everything from stocks to bonds, to currencies and commodities.
Speaker 1: So if you're curious about the latest buzz on Wall Street,
Speaker 1: this show is for you. We're going to play you
Speaker 1: the latest episode of What Goes Up and if you
Speaker 1: like what you hear and want to hear more, the
Speaker 1: show's out now and you can subscribe to What Goes
Speaker 1: Up on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: Thanks and enjoy. Hello and welcome to What goes Out,
Speaker 1: a Bloomberg weekly markets podcast. I'm Sarah Panza, a markets
Speaker 1: reporter on the Cross Asset Team, and I am Mike Reagan,
Speaker 1: a senior editor on the Markets Team. This week on
Speaker 1: the show, from long shot to base Case, Wall Street
Speaker 1: is growing increasingly pestimistic, but a trade deal might not
Speaker 1: be reached over the summer months, and even as the
Speaker 1: Fed preaches patients, bonn yields continue to fall with the
Speaker 1: ten year treasury yield reaching the lowest level since And
Speaker 1: of course, sir, we will finish the show with the
Speaker 1: ever popular the Craziest Thing I ever saw in markets
Speaker 1: this week, at least this week. I hope you have
Speaker 1: a good one. Do you have a good crazy thing?
Speaker 1: I will have a good one by the end of
Speaker 1: the podcast. All right, I've got a good one. No
Speaker 1: pressure on our guests. The mind's mind's pretty good. I'm
Speaker 1: just throwing it out there. That's it. I'm not trying. Well,
Speaker 1: that's one of our guests there, Emily Barrett, you better
Speaker 1: have something good. Uh. Emily is our correspondent straight fresh
Speaker 1: from the trade Wars covering the bonds and FX markets.
Speaker 1: That's exactly how it feels, and also joining us on
Speaker 1: the show. Geno Martin Adams, the chief equity strategist here
Speaker 1: at Bloomberg. Gina spent many years as a strategist Wells
Speaker 1: Fargo Wacoba Corp. Before that. But Sarah, I was looking
Speaker 1: at Gina's bio. Something I did not know about her.
Speaker 1: She's a Gator. Yes, you know that. I am from
Speaker 1: South Florida as well. I'm a Gator by birth. No,
Speaker 1: that's too Florida women on the show. I don't know,
Speaker 1: Florida women don't make the news quite as entertaining. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but maybe we can change that. Don't underestimate that. But
Speaker 1: this week We've been talking about US China trade for
Speaker 1: a while now, but it seems like we got a
Speaker 1: bit of a step up. We think about what's changed,
Speaker 1: for one being the Huawei blacklist. We've also heard talks
Speaker 1: that other surveillance companies out of China could be blacklisted
Speaker 1: as well. And we even have a fight song out
Speaker 1: of China and for gators. I went to school at Michigan.
Speaker 1: You know, a good fight song can really rile people
Speaker 1: up Gina. From your perspective, is this becoming something that
Speaker 1: traders investors can really no longer ignore. Yeah. I don't
Speaker 1: necessarily think they have ignored ward it, but it did
Speaker 1: take a new step this week, and it took a
Speaker 1: step into a tech war as opposed to just a
Speaker 1: trade war. I think when you look back over the
Speaker 1: course of the last year, that's been the most dangerous
Speaker 1: aspect of the U. S. China relationship shift. It's not
Speaker 1: the tariffs. The tariffs are a teeny tiny portion of
Speaker 1: GDP growth, they're a teeny tiny portion of earnings growth.
Speaker 1: You know, you've run through the quantification of tariffs and
Speaker 1: you find out real quick how small they are, which
Speaker 1: is why stocks could sort of bounce around in the
Speaker 1: one to three percent decline range up until this week,
Speaker 1: and we did see an elevated level of volatility this week.
Speaker 1: We've seen a lot more angst evident in broad market classes,
Speaker 1: with the rise and gold as a good example. This week.
Speaker 1: Small caps really getting creamed this week, So much bigger
Speaker 1: risk off sentiment this week than last week. And I
Speaker 1: think the reason for that is this week it became
Speaker 1: about tech, not about trade. Gee, I'm curious, in uh,
Speaker 1: your career, have you ever thought about politics as much
Speaker 1: as as we have through these days. It seems like
Speaker 1: a very uncomfortable thing for fundamental technical analysts. Yeah, it's uh.
Speaker 1: I have thought about politics a lot over the course
Speaker 1: of the last several years. I mean, I can distinctly
Speaker 1: remember sixteen as a year in which it was all
Speaker 1: you know, the popular sentiment on Wall Street was if
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton wins, stocks should do fine. If trade, if Trump,
Speaker 1: when stocks are gonna get pummeled, right, and the opposite,
Speaker 1: The exact opposite thing occurred right after the Trump election.
Speaker 1: Inen then the thing was stocks just climbed this wall
Speaker 1: of wari because everyone was really concerned about Trump. I
Speaker 1: think throughout my career, I've always had to focus on
Speaker 1: policy in general, but more so on monetary policy than
Speaker 1: on fiscal policy, and certainly never on trade policy. And
Speaker 1: you know, even the smartest trade policy movements in the
Speaker 1: Bush administration weren't so meaningful for the broad market. So
Speaker 1: it's definitely a very different kind of policy that we
Speaker 1: were now focused on. Though policy is always important, it's
Speaker 1: just usually monetary rather than than trade or fiscal that
Speaker 1: really matters. And you mentioned how and I think everyone's
Speaker 1: doing this now. You take the x percent tariffs on
Speaker 1: x dollar value of goods and you get why you
Speaker 1: get a certain effect on earnings on revenue, But I
Speaker 1: wonder is there more to it than that? Or there's
Speaker 1: sort of unquantifiable risks uh to confidence, to sentiment, that
Speaker 1: sort of thing, and and how you know, how do
Speaker 1: you wrap your head around that as the type of
Speaker 1: strategists you are who is deep into the numbers. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's it's frankly, very very difficult because behavioral analysis is
Speaker 1: a huge part of markets, and I think the only
Speaker 1: way to really analyze the potential impact to this is
Speaker 1: through price itself. You know, we can all speculate as
Speaker 1: to what it means for GDP growth globally. We can
Speaker 1: all speculate as to how much of this is either
Speaker 1: inflationary or deflationary, But the hard truth is nobody knows.
Speaker 1: We could try to quantify it, we could try to
Speaker 1: pretend we know more than anybody else, but the reality
Speaker 1: is the market itself, which is an aggregate of millions
Speaker 1: and millions of people's opinions, is probably smarter than any
Speaker 1: of us in this room. Right I've made a whole
Speaker 1: career out of pretending I know more than uh and
Speaker 1: so I watched price very very carefully, and what price
Speaker 1: tells me right now is okay. So far the risk
Speaker 1: of this, there's somewhat contained five percent correction and stocks
Speaker 1: is nothing. These things come around every nine months or
Speaker 1: so on average. But if we start to work our
Speaker 1: way toward ten percent, we break that ten percent line,
Speaker 1: it becomes very clear that the market's impression of this
Speaker 1: is something much worse right now, something I've been hearing
Speaker 1: as to why markets have been decently resilient. We're not
Speaker 1: too far off the highs. Like you said, is that
Speaker 1: you look at the economic data, you look at the fundamentals,
Speaker 1: and they're still largely strong. However, this past week we
Speaker 1: did see some weaker p m I numbers in the US,
Speaker 1: not yet contracting, but pretty close on the cusp. What
Speaker 1: could it take to really push us off the edge?
Speaker 1: So historically you're not pushed off the edge until manufacturer
Speaker 1: p m I in the US is all the way
Speaker 1: down at forty three. I think the market will absolutely
Speaker 1: hesitate reach a point of very big insecurity if I
Speaker 1: s M falls below fifty. Uh. That's one of the
Speaker 1: big keys that we watch. Initial claims is another one
Speaker 1: incredibly important to the direction of equities, long term initial claims.
Speaker 1: If initial claims start rise, saying, and especially if they
Speaker 1: rise more than fifty thousand, start to move towards seventy
Speaker 1: in a rise, you're pretty much assured that you're falling
Speaker 1: into recession. Uh. The other thing to watch is, of
Speaker 1: course the bond markets. We you still haven't had that
Speaker 1: inversion of the two stents at least last I checked,
Speaker 1: and that's a big key trigger for the equity market sentiment.
Speaker 1: As well. So there are a lot of different things
Speaker 1: that I think you want to watch for the economic data.
Speaker 1: You know, frankly, consumer confidence, which is still near a
Speaker 1: fifteen year high, is still pretty supportive, So you need
Speaker 1: to see a big deterioration and consumer confidence as well.
Speaker 1: What's a good segue into our next guest on the
Speaker 1: Bonds team, Emily, You had a story out UM this
Speaker 1: week talking about the market expectations for inflation. I just
Speaker 1: want to read one line because I think it's it's
Speaker 1: pretty important, uh, right that since consumer price gains have
Speaker 1: been lagging the FEDS two percent target for much of
Speaker 1: the past decade, it's a little wonder that inflation isn't
Speaker 1: a hot topic in the market yet, don't duntune, but
Speaker 1: it may be warming up with the Fed actively debating
Speaker 1: how it can meet its inflation goals, including a June
Speaker 1: fourth the fifth conference to discuss different approaches. I feel
Speaker 1: like the trade tensions are UH causing a lot of
Speaker 1: confusion about what we should expect for inflation. Obviously, the
Speaker 1: market is pricing in lower inflation going forward, Um, but
Speaker 1: a lot of people are talking about the pure inflationary
Speaker 1: effects of the tariffs on the consumer what is sort
Speaker 1: of the consensus out there or what's the smartest take
Speaker 1: you've heard about what we should expect as far as inflation,
Speaker 1: uh in the trade trade war, right, Yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: this is the interesting thing. I think people try and
Speaker 1: disaggregate what's the shorter term issue in terms of the
Speaker 1: inflation impact, and directly I've seen some Golden Sacks Golden
Speaker 1: Sacks analysis saying, you know, this is the boost that
Speaker 1: we might see two c p I and the mean
Speaker 1: in sort of the medium term. But people are really
Speaker 1: focusing on that longer term potential drag on growth, and
Speaker 1: as they're looking to that, they're sort of seeing if
Speaker 1: growth starts to slow, then you have more and more
Speaker 1: headwinds to that inflationary impulse. And so really that's where
Speaker 1: we're seeing this decline and break evens, which is the
Speaker 1: inflation premium that are built into treasuries. Um, we're seeing
Speaker 1: that just coming down and down. And that's despite the
Speaker 1: fact that you know, we've had tariffs put on, there
Speaker 1: are other things. There's been oil price gains sort of
Speaker 1: uh in the year to date hasn't been reflected at all,
Speaker 1: and normally break evens would follow that pretty closely. So
Speaker 1: we're seeing this kind of really sort of counterintuitive moving
Speaker 1: inflation markets. And it's because you know, people talked for
Speaker 1: ages about secular stagnation. You've got bored of hearing about this.
Speaker 1: But it seems that the forces that are pressuring inflation
Speaker 1: lower it's not just in the US, it's globally and
Speaker 1: so much stronger else where. People would argued, UM really
Speaker 1: our top of mind for most investors, and so that's
Speaker 1: going to be hard to fight. And this is this
Speaker 1: is where it comes down to people's expectations for rate cuts.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's a sense in the market that the FED,
Speaker 1: if it's going to be serious about hitting its two
Speaker 1: percent inflation target, is really going to need to take
Speaker 1: some action on rates to lower them UM. And people
Speaker 1: have gone so far as to say, a couple of
Speaker 1: people I spoke to, you know, it's not just one cut,
Speaker 1: it's probably two or three if you want to hit UM.
Speaker 1: The thing that's interesting about where c p I is
Speaker 1: at the moment is relative to the Fed's target. The
Speaker 1: FED prefers consumption expenditure, so they look at a PC
Speaker 1: rate which is actually forty to forty basis points below
Speaker 1: where CPI is, so Um, so that's it's even worse
Speaker 1: really if you look at the Fed's preferred measure. I
Speaker 1: know a lot of people are looking at the FED
Speaker 1: minutes that came out this week and calling it old news. Um,
Speaker 1: but I ran a little control fine just to see
Speaker 1: where the word transitory comes up, and transitory appeared twice
Speaker 1: as it relates to inflation, whereas the last time around
Speaker 1: we saw the word transitory once, but it was related
Speaker 1: to GDP and first quarter slower growth being transitory. What
Speaker 1: else did we possibly learn from the minutes, if it's
Speaker 1: possible to clean anything more from what we've heard from
Speaker 1: FAT officials, I think what people wanted to see. I mean,
Speaker 1: this must be the shortest lived transitory impact on markets ever,
Speaker 1: because after you know, when Fed the Fed's Powell was
Speaker 1: really pushing that transitory message, you know what's weighing on inflation,
Speaker 1: It's going to be very short lived. You did see
Speaker 1: a market correction that started to sell off a little.
Speaker 1: Oh right, Okay, we might come back if the FED
Speaker 1: believes this is going to happen, But that just got crushed.
Speaker 1: And what the minutes gave us was this sense that
Speaker 1: at least among the f O M c that the
Speaker 1: FEDS Committee, there is a broad agreement that these or
Speaker 1: at least they're own message that people seem to think that, yes,
Speaker 1: this could be a transitory impact. But from the people
Speaker 1: I've spoken to, they're listening at the fact to the
Speaker 1: fact that the transitory effects don't quite make up for
Speaker 1: the short form inflation. They really do believe that they're
Speaker 1: a longer forces at work here. So what we learned
Speaker 1: from the minutes, it's a really good question. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm not even sure that, uh, you know, the trade
Speaker 1: impact wasn't factored in because obviously most of the trade
Speaker 1: fallout really happened after the minutes were released. Um, so
Speaker 1: the bump that we should have got, I've got a
Speaker 1: much more hope of getting it back. Really at this
Speaker 1: point now, if the break evens are right and we're
Speaker 1: due for some weaker inflation going forward, what does that
Speaker 1: make certain sectors, certain factors look more attractive to you?
Speaker 1: How would how would you recommend playing sort of the
Speaker 1: low inflation environment? Well, it depends on if we are
Speaker 1: indeed in for a transitory or a longer term sort
Speaker 1: of disinflationary deflationary trend first start. But if we assume
Speaker 1: that it's very very short term. More than likely it
Speaker 1: pushes you into more defensive sort of sectors, and I
Speaker 1: think we've seen that over the course of the last
Speaker 1: couple of months. Our sector strategy model even pushed us
Speaker 1: into defensive sectors as early as the end of April,
Speaker 1: and that largely reflects what's happening in rates. And rates
Speaker 1: are rallying so much, indicating that this inflation pressure is
Speaker 1: somewhat nil at least in the short run, suggesting that
Speaker 1: the downside risk to growth is still pretty evident. And
Speaker 1: at a time after stocks had already rallied tremendously in
Speaker 1: the first quarter, the valuation multiple started to shift as
Speaker 1: well on the cyclicals versus defensives. Call I could tell
Speaker 1: you one sector it absolutely suggests you want to stay
Speaker 1: away from, and this is manifestans price performance as well
Speaker 1: as energy. There's one sector that is just constantly the
Speaker 1: inflation play in the equity market. It's energy, and then
Speaker 1: to a lesser extent, materials. As much as this last
Speaker 1: month of weakness in the equity market seems to have
Speaker 1: been about tech, the energy sector is down four bases
Speaker 1: points more than tech stocks. I mean, it's just getting crushed.
Speaker 1: It's making new relative price lows in comparison to the
Speaker 1: SMP five hundred, and has been persistently for the last
Speaker 1: several years. So the equity signal is actually very deflationary.
Speaker 1: If not deflationary, then at least disinflationary, and has persisted
Speaker 1: through a long period of time. At the beginning of
Speaker 1: the year, I heard the case being made a lot
Speaker 1: that we needed to see energy prices close the gap
Speaker 1: with oil prices because we had seen oil rally so much. Well,
Speaker 1: now clearly we're seeing oil prices roll over, we're seeing
Speaker 1: energy stocks roll over. Is the case for that, for
Speaker 1: energy prices to move up to oil prices and close
Speaker 1: the gap kind of disintegrating? Yeah, you know, that gap
Speaker 1: has been existing for the last three years, so you
Speaker 1: could even take it all the way back toleven when
Speaker 1: the gaps started to widen. You know, I think that
Speaker 1: the terrible fate for energy stocks is unfortunately, every time
Speaker 1: oil prices rise, it's met with a new wave of supply,
Speaker 1: which constrains profitability and constrains the inevitent and constrains the
Speaker 1: oil price from continuing to rise. And that's very well
Speaker 1: played out in energy stocks and energy investors. Investors just
Speaker 1: don't want to touch the sector on that premise alone.
Speaker 1: From a sentiment perspective, you got a love energy for
Speaker 1: a long term sort of sentiment call. You're looking at
Speaker 1: a sector that's now less as a share of market
Speaker 1: cap of the SMP five than it was when oil
Speaker 1: prices were ten dollars of barrel. So nobody wants to
Speaker 1: touch this stuff. But how do you jump in in
Speaker 1: the face of clear signals from the rates market generally
Speaker 1: sort of depressed economic signals relative to where we were
Speaker 1: at least a year ago, stock price signals that are
Speaker 1: still very very negative, and frankly, the dynamics of oil
Speaker 1: supply and demand are different today than they were ten
Speaker 1: years ago. So it's a tough space. And there's just
Speaker 1: not a lot to suggest that that gap necessarily needs
Speaker 1: to close, because frankly, oil prices keep closing back toward
Speaker 1: energy stocks every time they try to rally, and that's
Speaker 1: just a the fracking boom. I take it. Just the supply, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, if you think about sort of how things
Speaker 1: have changed over the last decade or so, go back
Speaker 1: to two thousand seven, two thousand eight, when oil prices
Speaker 1: were moving towards a hundred and fifty dollars, and the
Speaker 1: sentiment was, We're never going to find supply again. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's just just not enough oil in the world, and
Speaker 1: oh yeah. But the course of the next several years
Speaker 1: we found out, oh lo and behold, there is actually
Speaker 1: plenty of supply. We just needed to use new technologies
Speaker 1: to get to it. That's created this massive downtrend and
Speaker 1: oil prices really since they peaked in two seven and
Speaker 1: then again in and the result of that is just
Speaker 1: this this persistence of supply, or even the perceived persistence
Speaker 1: of supply, con strange your upward potential for price growth,
Speaker 1: and it's feeding through the energy stocks emily. To get
Speaker 1: back to the Fed minutes, there's this weird situation that
Speaker 1: happens where, okay, the trade were escalates a couple of
Speaker 1: weeks ago with President Trump's tweets, and then he follows
Speaker 1: through and raises the tariffs. Then along come the minutes,
Speaker 1: which are reflecting a meeting that occurred before it. So
Speaker 1: yet people still seem to react to them. I mean,
Speaker 1: assuming this is the last best evidence we've gotten from
Speaker 1: the Federal Reserve on their thinking, but at some point
Speaker 1: to people just to ignore them. You've talked to a
Speaker 1: lot of investors after the minutes, presumably they're still reading
Speaker 1: these minutes even though so much has changed since then,
Speaker 1: or did they discount them to some degree. I think
Speaker 1: this is the weird thing, and this is the thing
Speaker 1: that always makes me just sigh and kind of a
Speaker 1: scream sometimes when you look at the minutes, because like
Speaker 1: this is essentially stale news, right, and particularly at this
Speaker 1: point because it's prior to all of the trade stuff
Speaker 1: that happened. So I was actually really interested myself to
Speaker 1: see what the market was going to do to this,
Speaker 1: And it just it's funny because I don't know if
Speaker 1: people actually forget they're still they're so busy reading the
Speaker 1: Fed's ruins sometimes that any signal, like this sort of
Speaker 1: smoke signal is going to tell them what to do.
Speaker 1: But I think the interesting thing that most people are
Speaker 1: trying to pause out of that document is how much
Speaker 1: consensus is there, how firmly held a belief is this
Speaker 1: in the fit, and how difficult it might it be
Speaker 1: to dislodge, Like how much they're looking at the data
Speaker 1: really and what what is their interpretation of the data.
Speaker 1: So people are constant. The thing that I find most
Speaker 1: amusing is looking at how people understand the word few
Speaker 1: versus several versus a number of us some know as
Speaker 1: a measure of how many people on the committee actually
Speaker 1: hold a certain view. So that's that's one of the
Speaker 1: things you talk about stale news. If you looked at
Speaker 1: the staff economic projections in the minutes, they actually talked
Speaker 1: about how trade the U. S and China coming together
Speaker 1: was positive, optimistic. So how that's changed since good minutes
Speaker 1: were actually written. I want to ask you, though, how
Speaker 1: far off does it seem like the bond market is
Speaker 1: from where the Fed actually stands at this point in time.
Speaker 1: This is starting to feel as if that disconnect is
Speaker 1: actually widening again. I mean, we saw earlier this year
Speaker 1: there was, you know, the market was really doubling down
Speaker 1: to say even as many as you know, sort of
Speaker 1: too high, starting to get pricing. We're getting closer to
Speaker 1: that now. I think that the interesting point from what
Speaker 1: the market is pricing in is there is actually now
Speaker 1: still more than one hike pricing by the end of
Speaker 1: the year, just a little more. The Fed. I think
Speaker 1: that after giving that message of transient, they're just sitting
Speaker 1: there with that for the time being, and it seems
Speaker 1: as if that that conviction among policymakers is really at
Speaker 1: odds with the markets movements lately. Um But it's hard
Speaker 1: to see. I mean as as you, Jina, you were
Speaker 1: discussing before, you know, the data are still reasonably strong.
Speaker 1: There's there's actually looking at it objectively from a dispassionate viewpoint,
Speaker 1: it's hard to see whether the FED would find a
Speaker 1: decent case to cut rates at this point. And now
Speaker 1: that they're starting up their inflation review, this is going
Speaker 1: to become a really interesting topic to follow over the
Speaker 1: next couple of months because they're really going to have
Speaker 1: to look at what other kinds of strategies they might
Speaker 1: take to try and meet their mandate. Now, Gina, you
Speaker 1: have a lot of letters after your name, c IF, A,
Speaker 1: c MT. I also have three names. I'm just trying
Speaker 1: to extend their business parts as continued on the confusion
Speaker 1: part of the game here. So I was I was
Speaker 1: curious to see your technicals, putting your CMT head on
Speaker 1: Chartered Market Technician and and looking at the technicals. UM,
Speaker 1: so walk us through two things. I'm curious a sort
Speaker 1: of what levels you're looking at but also is it
Speaker 1: the time, uh right now where technicals kind of take
Speaker 1: a backseat to the fact that everyone's waiting for the
Speaker 1: next headline, waiting for the next tweet. You know, are
Speaker 1: there times when you sort of uh discount technicals to
Speaker 1: some degree and don't give them as much weight as
Speaker 1: you normally would, And are we in a period like
Speaker 1: that now? I never discount technicals. I am a technician.
Speaker 1: I think they're actually always valuable at every market stage,
Speaker 1: and they're valuable in different ways. They give you different signals,
Speaker 1: either they're confirming or not confirming your fund to until
Speaker 1: case that gives you a reason to go back and
Speaker 1: look at the fundamental case. Nonetheless, I think you know
Speaker 1: right now what the technicals are saying is near term,
Speaker 1: there's just not a lot of reason for optimism. It's
Speaker 1: still markets. You know, maybe testing the early May lows,
Speaker 1: which were support levels created by resistance points that we
Speaker 1: had matched on the SMP five hundred back in the
Speaker 1: October attempted an advance, November attempt at advance, and then
Speaker 1: during the rise earlier this year, we sort of got
Speaker 1: stuck in this level in the SMP fire. We're back
Speaker 1: there again. If we can hold these levels. Fantastic stocks
Speaker 1: are probably in pretty good shape, but it's really questionable
Speaker 1: because you're getting breakdowns, some small capture getting breakdown some semiconductors,
Speaker 1: you're getting breakdowns and transportation stocks. Just the near term
Speaker 1: weakness is evident. Longer term, is there any evidence of
Speaker 1: the bull market is over? No? Right? I mean, even
Speaker 1: line last year only confirmed that the bowl trend is
Speaker 1: still intact because it bottomed right at major support lines
Speaker 1: that have existed since two thousand nine. I use a
Speaker 1: fifty week a lot, but that really defines sort of
Speaker 1: shorter term bowl trends and bear trends. The fifty week
Speaker 1: moving average on the SMP five hundreds right around twenty
Speaker 1: seven seventy seven seventy six right now, Uh that if
Speaker 1: we crossed through the fifty week, then you're most likely
Speaker 1: going to continue to go lower and see a fifteen
Speaker 1: correction again. But you have to go all the way
Speaker 1: down into the twenty three hundreds to really eliminate the
Speaker 1: long term bowl trend. So, just thinking perspective wise, you
Speaker 1: could easily have another recession with the twenty correction and
Speaker 1: stocks and you're still in a long term secular bowl market, right,
Speaker 1: short term, you're absolutely in another bearish condition like we
Speaker 1: were in eighteen. But you've got to have a significant
Speaker 1: dismantling of trend in order to eliminate the overall bowl
Speaker 1: trend that's been in place for now more than ten years.
Speaker 1: How about my personal favorite shampoo, head and shoulders. A
Speaker 1: lot of people are talking about a head and shoulders,
Speaker 1: are talking about the size of the neckline, right I am.
Speaker 1: But the other the really strong fundamental like tenant of
Speaker 1: technical analysis is you never call a pattern before it
Speaker 1: actually occurs. And that's what people are at risk of doing. Um,
Speaker 1: I think you know, to call this a head and shoulders,
Speaker 1: you have to have a significant breakdown beneath the neckline.
Speaker 1: I haven't had that yet. To call it a triple top,
Speaker 1: you've got to have a similar breakdown. So I you know,
Speaker 1: just I like to follow the rules, despite the fact
Speaker 1: that I'm from Florida or Florida. The rules of technical
Speaker 1: analysis say, don't get hasty to call a pattern before
Speaker 1: it actually occurs. All right, Well, there's one role in
Speaker 1: this podcast, and it's if you show up. You have
Speaker 1: to have a crazy thing, the craziest thing you've seen
Speaker 1: in markets this week? So Emily is looking nervous. I
Speaker 1: don't think I don't and she prepared, hang on, hang on,
Speaker 1: you have little faith. Actually I tried here. I don't
Speaker 1: want to go to last because then you're going to
Speaker 1: give you a great ones and then I'm going to
Speaker 1: kind of limp in with So yeah, I'll go first. Okay,
Speaker 1: this is this is a royalties thing, so it's not
Speaker 1: actually our markets thing, for say, but it's about money,
Speaker 1: so it's close all out. But I was a fan
Speaker 1: of The Verve back in the nineties. So there's this song,
Speaker 1: Bitter Sweet Symphony, if anyone knows that I was very
Speaker 1: fond of. It has this lovely string sort of intro
Speaker 1: to it. And it turns out that Richard Ashcroft, the
Speaker 1: lead singer of The Verve, lost the royalties to that
Speaker 1: song because he sam put a little too much of
Speaker 1: a Stone song to do it, and so the Stones
Speaker 1: ended up getting all the royaltiest at that time, it
Speaker 1: was huge. That album was huge, um, and they just
Speaker 1: recently gave them back. So so they petitioned for Mick
Speaker 1: Jagger to handback the royalties and without hesitation, apparently said yeah,
Speaker 1: just how did they're just out of their good nature. Well,
Speaker 1: I'm suspecting they may not have needed it. I thought
Speaker 1: you're gonna go Rick Astley there. I thought I was
Speaker 1: getting Rick rolled. For a minute, I'm trying to think
Speaker 1: of the fact that about him. Next alright, Gina Martin Adams. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so I'm afraid I'm going to disappoint everyone because mine
Speaker 1: is incredibly obvious. But it just has to be noted
Speaker 1: that we had a video go viral out of China
Speaker 1: with a giant gold fist and a nationalist, populist message
Speaker 1: that suggests like the Soviet Union is rising again, except
Speaker 1: for it's in China. I see that video and I'm
Speaker 1: just blown away. If you haven't seen it, you need
Speaker 1: to go out and search the Chinese trade war fight song.
Speaker 1: It's it's just amazing and really, you know, and then
Speaker 1: you have all the just the yamp up in uh
Speaker 1: sort of this nationalistic sort of message coming out of China.
Speaker 1: Speak has been extraordinarily aggressively. They're not back and down,
Speaker 1: you know. Also tells me this is a lot about tech.
Speaker 1: This is not And then I go back to what
Speaker 1: I said at the beginning. Everybody's focused on trade. It
Speaker 1: is not about trade. It's about tech and who's going
Speaker 1: to be the global leader in technology development and advancement
Speaker 1: and dissemination around the world over the next several decades.
Speaker 1: So China is not backing down because they're taking this
Speaker 1: really seriously. Sarah, want to bring ye back on to singing.
Speaker 1: You can sing song for US translator. He's sang the
Speaker 1: US bond Markets theme song last week, so pretty impressive.
Speaker 1: Also last week I have to bring us an update
Speaker 1: just because last week, for those of you who didn't
Speaker 1: tune in, we talked about how Steve Minusian's dad Um
Speaker 1: actually bought a ninety over ninety million dollar bunny rabbit.
Speaker 1: It was an art piece UM on the behalf of
Speaker 1: someone and now we know that it was on behalf
Speaker 1: of point seventy two Steve Colin Um. So he is
Speaker 1: now I think I can't believe we didn't guess that. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: he is now the owner of a beloved Oh we're
Speaker 1: ninety million dollars silver inflatable bunny rabbit. Pretty amazing. Um.
Speaker 1: But another one that I'll bring forwards this week that
Speaker 1: I guess two is kind of obvious, Tesla. I mean,
Speaker 1: we have analysts coming out one after another, going as
Speaker 1: far as saying that the worst case scenario, we could
Speaker 1: see Tesla stock fall down to ten dollars a share,
Speaker 1: and we did see Tesla fall below two hundred dollars
Speaker 1: a share, which we haven't seen in quite a while.
Speaker 1: So pretty amazing. I've got to say it is that
Speaker 1: is a soap opera for the ages. I think, yes,
Speaker 1: all right, I'll give you mine. Uh now, Sarah, it
Speaker 1: was a pretty ugly day in the stock market on Thursday.
Speaker 1: You wouldn't expect to see a lot of companies rising.
Speaker 1: What if I told you there was a stock that
Speaker 1: rose thousand and nine on Thursday, A penny's This is
Speaker 1: why I love the penny stocks there. Uh so, Rhino
Speaker 1: International Corp. It's a Chinese company. Sounds legit right, designs, manufacturers,
Speaker 1: installs and services, proprietary and hattented wastewater treatment, desulfurization equipment
Speaker 1: and YadA, YadA, YadA. Anyway, Yes, it rose to one
Speaker 1: penny a true penny stock, from one a penny um by.
Speaker 1: By my math, it required about seven hundred bucks to
Speaker 1: do this. The funny thing is the market cap of
Speaker 1: the company yesterday it was only like two d and
Speaker 1: sixty eight dollars period, not millions. It's amazing, so um
Speaker 1: congratulations to all the shareholders of Rhino International. Core about there. Uh.
Speaker 1: I try to find out more about the company, but
Speaker 1: when you click on their website are web security software
Speaker 1: prevented me from saying, I think that's how's you all
Speaker 1: you need to know about company? But with that said,
Speaker 1: Gina Martin Adams, Emily Barrett, thank you so much for
Speaker 1: coming on the show today. We really enjoyed it. Thank you,
Speaker 1: Thank you. What Goes Up. We'll be back next week.
Speaker 1: Until then, you can find us on the Bloomberg Terminal
Speaker 1: website and app, or wherever you get your podcasts. We'd
Speaker 1: love it if you took the time to rate interview
Speaker 1: the show so more listeners can find us, and you
Speaker 1: can find us on Twitter. Follow me at at Sarah pontzat,
Speaker 1: Mike Is at reg Anonymous. Our guest, Pina Martin Adams
Speaker 1: is at Gina Martin Adams, and Emily Barrett is at
Speaker 1: Not That ECB. What Goes Up is produced by topor Foreheads.
Speaker 1: The head of blooperg podcast is Francesca Levi. See you
Speaker 1: next time.