Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Markets Podcast. I'm Paul Sweeney. Alongside
Speaker 1: my co host Matt Miller. Every business day we bring
Speaker 1: you interviews from CEOs, market pros, and Bloomberg experts, along
Speaker 1: with essential market moving news. Find the Bloomberg Markets podcast
Speaker 1: called Apple Podcast or wherever you listen to podcasts, and
Speaker 1: at Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. Let's bring an Anastasia.
Speaker 1: I'm rosso chief's chief investment strategist for I Capital. Anastasia.
Speaker 1: What the first half of the year plus declining SMP.
Speaker 1: We've got double digit declines and the Bloomberg's corporate bond
Speaker 1: indext treasury bond indext, the sixty forty portfolio is dead.
Speaker 1: What do we do in the second half? Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: it has been a very very dell difficult and challenging start.
Speaker 1: You write, it's sixty forty portfolios down almost se year today,
Speaker 1: so it's really been um a tough start. But I
Speaker 1: do think as a result of that, a lot of
Speaker 1: things that it needed to correct did correct in the
Speaker 1: first half of the year. And when you think about it,
Speaker 1: we did a lot of heavy lifting. We came into
Speaker 1: the year thinking we might get three rate hikes from
Speaker 1: the FED and instead we're gonna get to three percent
Speaker 1: or higher on the FED funt rate by the end
Speaker 1: of the year. So that's a huge pivot that needed
Speaker 1: to happen, and as a result, we needed to see
Speaker 1: the reset and valuations. But we have seen that. If
Speaker 1: you look at the NASTAC evaluation, the p went from
Speaker 1: thirty five times to two times or so today, so
Speaker 1: that's a significant correction. We've seen the crypto craze that
Speaker 1: you know it was alive, and while at the tail
Speaker 1: end of UM take take a big leg lower and
Speaker 1: I think some of that needed to happen as well,
Speaker 1: that froth needed to come out. So as a result,
Speaker 1: as I think about the second half of the year,
Speaker 1: I do still think we're not out of the woods
Speaker 1: yet and there's gonna be challenges and we could talk
Speaker 1: about some of this. I think something's may break. But
Speaker 1: having said that, we're not a forty seven hundred anymore.
Speaker 1: We're thirty seven on the SMP and if we would
Speaker 1: go down to thirty so that might be justified by
Speaker 1: multiples and earnings, that's still a lot less down to
Speaker 1: go that where we started the year, well, that's still
Speaker 1: higher than where we were when the COVID crisis forced
Speaker 1: governments around the world to shut down completely their economies.
Speaker 1: I mean, let's not forget how serious that was. Right, Um,
Speaker 1: it's it's been a bad quarter for the sixty portfolio,
Speaker 1: but last year was aces We went from the end
Speaker 1: at the end of one after a global pandemic. I mean,
Speaker 1: was that justified? Well, I think it was at the time, perhaps, right.
Speaker 1: I mean, there was nothing to stop it because the
Speaker 1: FED was incredibly easy. We've had zero percent interest rate
Speaker 1: and people feel comfortable taken on risk. The beta trade
Speaker 1: was very much alive and well, and you know, justified
Speaker 1: by where the FED was and the risk appetite that
Speaker 1: was there. But it's certainly not justified today. But I
Speaker 1: would make the point is I don't think we need
Speaker 1: to go to where we were just during the pandemic
Speaker 1: or just coming out of the pandemic. Because the reason
Speaker 1: I sort of circle this thirty five hundred level on
Speaker 1: the SMP is because earnings estimates are higher what they
Speaker 1: were before, but they probably need to come down some
Speaker 1: And if we have a base case scenario that it's
Speaker 1: not a recession but a slowdown consumer, let's slow down
Speaker 1: that earnings revisions need to come through to the two
Speaker 1: six or seven percent, And so you do the math
Speaker 1: on that, and you apply a multiple of fifteen or
Speaker 1: sixteen times, then that gets to two about thirty five
Speaker 1: hundred on the SMP, maybe a little bit lower so
Speaker 1: UM so yes, I think probably a little bit lower still,
Speaker 1: but not to the levels that we saw just coming
Speaker 1: out of So that's pretty conservative for earnings estimates. We
Speaker 1: we've been talking um here in the newsroom about a
Speaker 1: story that Jess Mett and Lou Wang wrote. Peloton analysts
Speaker 1: still see Peloton tripling in price. UM analysts still see
Speaker 1: Uber more than doubling. Analysts still see Carbona, Carvana doubling.
Speaker 1: Um don't earnings estimates need to come down pretty significantly?
Speaker 1: Why our cell side arnalists analysts so slow to bring
Speaker 1: these earnings estimates down? Well, I think for some of
Speaker 1: the companies, perhaps some of which you mentioned, they probably
Speaker 1: do have some some further room to go. But the
Speaker 1: reason I was referring to the six or seven percent
Speaker 1: for the broad indusease the median earnings revision in a
Speaker 1: recession and environment is about thirteen percent if you assume
Speaker 1: they were not going to a full fledged several consecutive
Speaker 1: quarters of negative GDP recession that I don't think thirteen
Speaker 1: percent at the index level is justified. I think half
Speaker 1: of that is the most likely scenario. And if you
Speaker 1: look at two dollars on next twelve month earnings, you
Speaker 1: apply that six or seven percent haircut to that and
Speaker 1: that's what gets you to about two. So that's at
Speaker 1: the index level. But I do think there may need
Speaker 1: to be more Froth Moore exuberants that need to come
Speaker 1: out of some of the sec long term secular growth trates.
Speaker 1: And it's not universal. What's happened for the last two years.
Speaker 1: You've seen massive acceleration and things like e commerce and
Speaker 1: you know, perhaps the Pelicans of the world, but that's
Speaker 1: not repeatable and those growth rates cannot possibly compare to
Speaker 1: what they've seen in the last couple of years, so
Speaker 1: perhaps there's more to go there, all right, Anastasia, thanks
Speaker 1: so much for joining us. Really appreciate getting your perspective here.
Speaker 1: A brutal first half of the year for investors. Um
Speaker 1: you know, hopefully a little bit better in the second half,
Speaker 1: but who knows. Anastasia amar Rosso, chief investment strategist for
Speaker 1: I Capital and also a proud graduate of the University
Speaker 1: of New Mexico, Los Lobos. That's very very cool there.
Speaker 1: All right, we have yet another Supreme Court ruling. This
Speaker 1: could be the last um we're gonna go to June
Speaker 1: Grasso are legally analysts to talk about. The Remain in
Speaker 1: Mexico ruling kind of fell in the direction that the
Speaker 1: Biden Court, that the Biden administration wanted it to. Although
Speaker 1: they lost the e p A a um uh case,
Speaker 1: let's start with remaining Mexico. Okay, Okay, I was gonna
Speaker 1: say that the blow to the Biden administration on the
Speaker 1: e p A case is far greater than the wind
Speaker 1: here on remain in Mexico. Okay, So there's it's not like, oh,
Speaker 1: they won one and they lost one. They won one
Speaker 1: and then they won a half of one, and then
Speaker 1: they won and then they lost a big one. So anyway,
Speaker 1: remain in Mexico. That's the policy that the Trump administration
Speaker 1: put into a fact that because there's not enough room
Speaker 1: for the immigrants crossing the border, that if they don't
Speaker 1: have room, they would get them, they would return them
Speaker 1: to Mexico where they would stay. And then these ten
Speaker 1: cities that were while their asylum bid was processed, which
Speaker 1: can take forever. So and then the ten cities grew up.
Speaker 1: It was very dangerous. Biden administration wanted to stop that,
Speaker 1: and two of the two of the Republican led states sued.
Speaker 1: So here the Supreme Court said, and it was a
Speaker 1: five to four vote because Chief Justice Roberts who and
Speaker 1: uh Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed with the liberals, So it
Speaker 1: was it was those five against the four Conservatives that um,
Speaker 1: it didn't violate the rules for him to have this
Speaker 1: remain in Mexico to rescind the policy because he had
Speaker 1: they had given a good explanation, unlike the DACA case
Speaker 1: a few years ago, they had given a good explanation
Speaker 1: and they could rescind it. Now this goes back to
Speaker 1: the district court judge in Texas, who is who has
Speaker 1: been really hostile to the Biden administration. So it doesn't
Speaker 1: really end here. I mean, this could come back up again.
Speaker 1: No one's talking about this. This could possibly come back
Speaker 1: up again because if if the district court says that
Speaker 1: they're sending it back to the district court for details
Speaker 1: to be worked out. So I suppose the district court says,
Speaker 1: you know, just still doesn't work according to the guidelines
Speaker 1: you gave me Supreme Court. Then it could come up again.
Speaker 1: I mean it probably won't, but it's just a possibility.
Speaker 1: So but in this case, what was what was difficult
Speaker 1: about this case for the states who oppose it is
Speaker 1: that they're basically would have to tell the Biden admin allustration,
Speaker 1: you have to engage with a foreign state, with Mexico
Speaker 1: and get an agreement with Mexico to allow this to happen.
Speaker 1: So they would really have been interfering in, you know,
Speaker 1: foreign affairs, which during the Royal arguments they say, what
Speaker 1: I remember, I think Elena Kagan said, what are we
Speaker 1: going to tell Mexico to, you know, keep everybody here?
Speaker 1: And well they have indeed negotiated that with the Mexicans,
Speaker 1: which I think is crazy. But with the Trump administration,
Speaker 1: I had confused this earlier and I'll correct myself now
Speaker 1: with the title forty two, which that was a COVID
Speaker 1: driven thing, right, that's still in effect. So that is
Speaker 1: still in effect because Biden administration wanted to end that
Speaker 1: that COVID was used. The title forty two Public health
Speaker 1: emerge in a similar way, right to send asylum seekers
Speaker 1: back while they're because they were worried that those asylum
Speaker 1: seekers might spread COVID. Right, So the courts have told
Speaker 1: the Biden administration you can't end that. So they're still
Speaker 1: using Title forty two at the boarder and you know, secretly,
Speaker 1: I think they might have been relieved they had Title
Speaker 1: forty two because they are not prepared for the influx
Speaker 1: at the border in the summer months. You know, it
Speaker 1: starts to build up. We were given a tragic example
Speaker 1: of how dangerous that is the last couple of days.
Speaker 1: Let's get to the e p A. Uh decision, which
Speaker 1: you think is more important, was a big blow to
Speaker 1: the Biden administration. Well, you know, it's it's cutting back
Speaker 1: on the e p A, which is the agency that
Speaker 1: handles this, their ability to set rules to curb climate change.
Speaker 1: So it's a huge blow and you know, one wonders,
Speaker 1: now what's going to happen. And also, as I you
Speaker 1: know I mentioned before this, the conservatives on this court
Speaker 1: are against what is called the administrative state. They want
Speaker 1: to cut back on the agency's rules, on the agency's
Speaker 1: ability to you know, to put rules into effect all
Speaker 1: the different federal agencies. And you know, you know, if
Speaker 1: Congress were there to stay been and make rules, this
Speaker 1: wouldn't be quite as big of a loss. And conservatives
Speaker 1: who push this through, who pushed these through, know that
Speaker 1: that's the case that Congress is not going to start
Speaker 1: passing rules now. Do they want it to go back
Speaker 1: to the states, as this the state's rights issue from
Speaker 1: the conservatives on the Spreme Court, I think it's a
Speaker 1: I think I don't know if it's a state's rights
Speaker 1: issue as much as it's we don't want these administrative
Speaker 1: agencies to be making decisions their bureaucrats, and it should
Speaker 1: be the elected representatives of the people making these kinds
Speaker 1: of decisions. But you know, how is I don't know
Speaker 1: how other than people that are trained in this and
Speaker 1: do it for a living, you want them making decisions
Speaker 1: about it, you know, just the big government. I guess
Speaker 1: you just don't want the Washington big government. You know,
Speaker 1: it's sort of drained the swamp in a different in
Speaker 1: a different respect. So it's interesting how these uh, how
Speaker 1: people in this country looking at it from outside, because
Speaker 1: I lived in Germany for years, fall on different sides
Speaker 1: of the ideological For example, they want small government, but
Speaker 1: they want huge border control right. They don't want the
Speaker 1: government to be able to decide anything, but not not
Speaker 1: the important decisions, but the death penalty, right, because that's
Speaker 1: not a very important decision. No, it's um no one
Speaker 1: said it makes sense, right, but that that's our Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: And they have ruled. And so now they go on
Speaker 1: summer vacation and we'll see what they do. Twelve o'clock
Speaker 1: they're going to have Tom Brown Jackson sworn in. So
Speaker 1: I think they'll all have champagne and then split champion split.
Speaker 1: You know. It used to be there there was a
Speaker 1: story that one of the justices used to have have
Speaker 1: a limo waiting to take him to the airport right
Speaker 1: after the least is exactly all right, Joan Grasso, Bloombridge Legal, Anos,
Speaker 1: thank you so much, all R. Let's check out with
Speaker 1: Everett Millman here. Uh he does all that commodity stuff
Speaker 1: for hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. It
Speaker 1: looks at all kinds of coins, but also Gainesville that's right,
Speaker 1: that's right, at Gainesville Coins chief market Strategies. But crypto,
Speaker 1: yah know, so let's start with crypt dough. All right,
Speaker 1: we got Everett Crypto print. We were below, we were
Speaker 1: down to eight. What's going on in the world that
Speaker 1: crypto here, right? I think it's worth noting that the crypto,
Speaker 1: entire crypto market as a whole has been falling dramatically,
Speaker 1: So it's not just Bitcoin, although that's obviously the one
Speaker 1: that we're all going to focus on. I think that
Speaker 1: this is a sign of crypt crypto winter being in
Speaker 1: full force, and a lot of what's caused Bitcoin to
Speaker 1: go down is really exogenous to the to the coin itself. Uh.
Speaker 1: We've seen that it has lately followed the stock market lower,
Speaker 1: and I think we can reason our way to why
Speaker 1: that is the case. That a lot of more institutional
Speaker 1: holders are now in the bitcoin space, and so as
Speaker 1: stocks fall, they liquidate their bitcoin UM. And the fact
Speaker 1: that other crypto projects, other crypto lenders starting to see
Speaker 1: some cracks and failing UM. They often use bitcoin as collateral,
Speaker 1: So we've seen a lot of selling of bitcoin to
Speaker 1: try and probably of other cryptos correct. So I think
Speaker 1: those are the main culprits here. UM. Yeah, there have
Speaker 1: been a number of failures or now we have heard
Speaker 1: uh it reported that Three Arrows is being forced to
Speaker 1: liquidate UM and I've also seen forecasts for bitcoin to
Speaker 1: fall down to twelve thousand. Still, to put it in perspective, Everett,
Speaker 1: I heard um someone say earlier is the worst quarter
Speaker 1: for bitcoin since Q three of eleven. So I looked
Speaker 1: back at the price action in Q three of twenty
Speaker 1: eleven bitcoin at that point. It wasn't that nineteen thousand
Speaker 1: or twelve thousand, or seven thousand or three thousand. It
Speaker 1: went from sixteen dollars to five dollars. So we've come
Speaker 1: a long way, baby, Absolutely. I think when you zoom
Speaker 1: out like that, that is a great way to look
Speaker 1: at it. And most of the early adopters and some
Speaker 1: of the people who are old heads in bitcoin, they've
Speaker 1: seen this sort of cyclical pattern time and time again
Speaker 1: over the past ten years, so kind of retracing back
Speaker 1: to where our starting point was. Anyone who has been
Speaker 1: holding along the way is very happy with the performance
Speaker 1: of their cryptos um and particularly for bitcoin being the biggest,
Speaker 1: most recognizable one. At some point every nice seen me
Speaker 1: recall folks, you know, as we're all learning about crypto
Speaker 1: and bitcoin, uh talking about it. Maybe bitcoin is a
Speaker 1: hedge for inflation, but that doesn't appear to be the case,
Speaker 1: does it. Well, that has not played out thus far
Speaker 1: as I mentioned, I think it is those exogenous factors.
Speaker 1: But by its design, bitcoin is supposed to be a
Speaker 1: deflationary currency. The supply of bitcoin every four years UM.
Speaker 1: The pace of the supply growth gets cut in half,
Speaker 1: the so called happening UM. And so this is a
Speaker 1: deflationary design. And although that does solve the inflationary problem
Speaker 1: that we have with fiat money UM as far as
Speaker 1: I can tell, it introduces a second problem, which is
Speaker 1: relates back to one of the oldest principles in economics,
Speaker 1: known as Gresham's law that good or bad money drives good. Essentially,
Speaker 1: people want to spend cheap money that's losing its value
Speaker 1: and hold on to the money that is rising in value.
Speaker 1: So if indeed bitcoin is supposed to be deflationary over time,
Speaker 1: it begs the question why on earth would anyone spend
Speaker 1: bitcoin At a certain point, UM, you would want to
Speaker 1: keep bitcoin and spend everything else. So I think that's
Speaker 1: very many years of still out down the road. But
Speaker 1: it does bring up an interesting philosophical question about what
Speaker 1: is sound money and it is bitcoin actually money? UM.
Speaker 1: I think it's quite fair that the CFTC is going
Speaker 1: to be regarding it as a commodity because bitcoin does
Speaker 1: convert electricity into new coins, so it is sort of
Speaker 1: backed by a commodity. Okay, good stuff evert moment, appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Love getting your thoughts here. All things commodities and most
Speaker 1: notably crypto. Over the last we learned something new. Gresham's Law.
Speaker 1: We're going for it, named in eighteen sixty by economist
Speaker 1: Henry Dunning McLeod after Sir Thomas Gresham. Thank goodness for Google.
Speaker 1: Everett Millman, chief market analyst for Gainesville Coin, The building
Speaker 1: of real estate, construction and all that good stuff. John Fish,
Speaker 1: CEO and chairman of Suffer Construction Company, joins us here. John,
Speaker 1: thanks so much for joining us here. We'll get to
Speaker 1: the kind of the interest rate story angle in a bid,
Speaker 1: but I want to just talk to you about if
Speaker 1: you want to go out and build a building, whether
Speaker 1: it's a residential real estate or commercial real state as
Speaker 1: a construction guy, John, can you get the labor? Can
Speaker 1: you get the raw materials? If you do get the
Speaker 1: raw materials, do you have to pay through the nose?
Speaker 1: Give us a sense of what it's like to actually
Speaker 1: build something today, you know, Matt Paul, thank you very
Speaker 1: much for the opportunity. Again, it's probably one of both
Speaker 1: challenging times iron industry has had over the last five years.
Speaker 1: Again you pointed out the material cost are as high
Speaker 1: as I've ever been, and again the shortage of labor
Speaker 1: across the board and this is just not the East
Speaker 1: Coast but the entire country right now. And again because
Speaker 1: it's a demand for talent out there is one person
Speaker 1: for every two job openings. When you think about that,
Speaker 1: and that's detrimental lab business. What it does, it drives
Speaker 1: up wages. At the end of the day, wages over
Speaker 1: the last eighteen months have grown up substantially in the
Speaker 1: same thing with material costs. And then you introduced the
Speaker 1: concept of supply chain. I mean that also again creates
Speaker 1: a tremendous amount of disruption. What we've seen in the
Speaker 1: construction industry right now, in the realist industry is a
Speaker 1: tremendous amount of uncertainty in our industry as a whole
Speaker 1: doesn't feel well when when there's a deal of uncertainty,
Speaker 1: so um, you don't see or do you see inflation
Speaker 1: rolling over. We've noticed in some places, um, for example,
Speaker 1: goods that you would find at Walmart and target um,
Speaker 1: they've overstocked. Critty Gupta is just on talking to us
Speaker 1: about shipping costs which have rolled over slightly. UM still
Speaker 1: not cheap by any means UM. And we're watching for
Speaker 1: softening of other UH inflation or other metrics. Do you
Speaker 1: see any of that in construction? We not as of yet.
Speaker 1: I think it's gonna happen. I think in the next
Speaker 1: quarter we're probably gonna see things slowing itself down. We're
Speaker 1: still climbing from a cost perspective point of view across
Speaker 1: the country, and I do think as this negative news
Speaker 1: comes back into the marketplace, people gonna start putting the
Speaker 1: brakes on a little bit preen the day. But I
Speaker 1: would say this, Matt and Paul, We've been a long
Speaker 1: way to go. You're at eight point six percent inflation
Speaker 1: right now at this particular point time, we don't do
Speaker 1: well into it down to the three the two and
Speaker 1: a half percent levels. And so at the end of
Speaker 1: the day, I think we've got a ways to go,
Speaker 1: and I think the only way to do it is
Speaker 1: the FED continue to put the squeeze on, and that's
Speaker 1: raising interest rates. And again I will say this r
Speaker 1: very you know, defensively is I think we we we
Speaker 1: need a recession at this point in time. I think
Speaker 1: it's the only way to sort of choke off the
Speaker 1: inflationary pressures that are on the economy right now and
Speaker 1: get it over with quickly, because I do think because
Speaker 1: of the fact that consumers still has almost five point
Speaker 1: four trillion dollars and savings in their pocket, once we
Speaker 1: sort of ring out this inflation and the consumers on
Speaker 1: the sidelines that comes back into the ballpark all of
Speaker 1: a sudden, we're going to see the economy moving back
Speaker 1: up again. So I'm bullish in the long term. I
Speaker 1: think we've got a period of time twelve to eighteen
Speaker 1: months that it's going to be challenging right now. And
Speaker 1: my attitude is, hey, let's let's put the brakes on,
Speaker 1: let's get this over with. Let's rebalance the labor market,
Speaker 1: let's rebalance the supply chain, uh, and get back to work.
Speaker 1: John on the commercial side, UM, you know, I think
Speaker 1: the work from home thing, getting back to the office thing,
Speaker 1: the how people are gonna be working going forward is
Speaker 1: still very much influx UH in the United States. As
Speaker 1: you talk to some of your bigger clients, how are
Speaker 1: they thinking about office space going forward. I think most
Speaker 1: companies right now are re engineering how they're using this space,
Speaker 1: which is which, which is smart. But at the end
Speaker 1: of the day, again, I think it's a short term phenomena. Okay,
Speaker 1: we might be talking about twelve, eighteen, twenty four months out,
Speaker 1: but at the end of the day, the only way
Speaker 1: to build culture, the only way to get promoted, is
Speaker 1: people to be back at work at the end of
Speaker 1: the day. And we are social animals as human beings,
Speaker 1: and what we need we we we thrive on that energy.
Speaker 1: And what happens is a company maintains a competitive vantage,
Speaker 1: I believe through their culture, and you can't build culture remotely.
Speaker 1: So how's it look then? How's it look in Boston?
Speaker 1: Can I tell something right now? I think overall you
Speaker 1: know people, I would say we probably have six people
Speaker 1: back to work generally speaking, our companies back at pcent
Speaker 1: back to work, which I'm proud of. But at the
Speaker 1: end of the day, I think Boston, like every other community,
Speaker 1: is grappling with this issue because right now labor is
Speaker 1: in demand. They have to say as to what's going
Speaker 1: to go on with the work rules. Right now we're
Speaker 1: seeing this with unionization at Apple, We're seeing this at
Speaker 1: Starbucks across the board. But my senses, as the market
Speaker 1: softens a little bit, all of a sudden, you'll have
Speaker 1: more of a balance in the environment. And I think
Speaker 1: that's what we need at this particular point in time,
Speaker 1: and that's why I am a strong advocate, you know,
Speaker 1: continue raising the rates, although I don't like it, and
Speaker 1: in the real estate is very, very uncomfortable with with
Speaker 1: interest rate rising because the real estate runs on credit
Speaker 1: as we all know, and doesn't like the uncertainty. But
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, my attitude, let's get
Speaker 1: this pain out of the system, okay, and let's move forward,
Speaker 1: all right. The way, I just want to say, for
Speaker 1: those listeners who have who don't know, I have never
Speaker 1: heard of it, been or seen it. The Boston Pops
Speaker 1: is one of the coolest events I've ever attended in America.
Speaker 1: Um coming up on this, I guess Sunday and Monday
Speaker 1: it used to be five thousand people gather outside the
Speaker 1: half Shell there to watch, and it's gonna be getting
Speaker 1: back to numbers like that. John, do you go? Do
Speaker 1: you watch the Pops? What we do? I'm a strong
Speaker 1: support of the Pops. I think it's one of the best,
Speaker 1: uh you know, organizations I think in the country. To
Speaker 1: be honest with you, it's a huge cultural event for
Speaker 1: the city of Boston, and I would just say this
Speaker 1: to you, it's something that we as as Bostonians extremely
Speaker 1: proud of. In my sense of that numbers probably up
Speaker 1: the seven d and so we'll keep you know, we'll
Speaker 1: hope for a good weather. All right, it's that's starting
Speaker 1: at five in here on Bloomberg Radio Monday. It's big.
Speaker 1: It is so much fun. I mean, I have to say,
Speaker 1: anyone in the area, if you're close enough, get to it. Um.
Speaker 1: It's just a great party. It really, it really gives
Speaker 1: you that feeling that the country is coming together, which
Speaker 1: is a feeling that we've been lacking in the past
Speaker 1: a couple of weeks, months, or years. And we're gonna
Speaker 1: be showing that at five pm here on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: All right, that's coming up. We had John Fish, their
Speaker 1: CEO and chairman STUFFI Construction Company. Thanks for listening to
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Markets podcast. You can subscribe and listen to
Speaker 1: interviews with Apple Podcasts or whatever podcast platform you prefer.
Speaker 1: I'm Matt Miller. I'm on Twitter at Matt Miller three.
Speaker 1: On Fall Sweeney, I'm on Twitter at pt Sweeney Before
Speaker 1: the podcast. You can always catch us worldwide at Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Radio