Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. This is Bloomberg Business
Speaker 1: Wait inside from the reporters and editors who bring you
Speaker 1: America's most trusted business magazine, plus global business, finance and
Speaker 1: tech news. The Bloomberg Business Week Podcast with Carol Messer
Speaker 1: and Tim Stenebek from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2: We're going to stay with Nvidia. Charlie setting us up
Speaker 2: really well. It is down about three days in a row,
Speaker 2: not about it is down three days in a row.
Speaker 2: That is confirmed, done, and it's a drop of about
Speaker 2: twelve percent, so putting it past that ten percent threshold
Speaker 2: that represents a correction on track to wipe out about
Speaker 2: four hundred billion dollars, pushing its market cap below three
Speaker 2: trillion dollars. I was thinking about our weekend last week,
Speaker 2: how we said largest market cap, most valuable company. Then
Speaker 2: it went back, So it was kind of that back
Speaker 2: and forth, if you will.
Speaker 3: Okay, but for context here, it still is up one
Speaker 3: hundred and forty four percent so far this year of
Speaker 3: stock in the s and P five hundred at shares
Speaker 3: trading for roughly twenty three times the companies projected sales
Speaker 3: over the next twelve months.
Speaker 2: Carol right, but as our team writes Tim, there's a
Speaker 2: problem with the evaluation in the age of the AI boom.
Speaker 2: No one can really figure out what the chip makers
Speaker 2: revenues are actually going to be. Not the Wall Street
Speaker 2: analysts covering Nvidia or Nvidia execs themselves again our Bloomberg
Speaker 2: team reporting that out. So how our investors supposed to
Speaker 2: calculate whether or not the shares are expensive or not.
Speaker 2: So here to help us tackle that question and really
Speaker 2: get once again to the fundamental story that is Nvidia
Speaker 2: is Bloomberg Inte Intelligence Senior Semiconductor analyst Cujohn Sabani. He
Speaker 2: is with us from San Francisco. Cujonkundon, It's good to
Speaker 2: have you here.
Speaker 4: We do talk with you a.
Speaker 2: Lot about Nvidia and the fundamental story. Remind us of
Speaker 2: that and how you see it fundamentally, what is Nvidia
Speaker 2: and the outlook for this company?
Speaker 5: And I want to bring back to sort of the numbers,
Speaker 5: right like, whenever we are deviating, whether it's a hype
Speaker 5: or not, look at the numbers. Going back to sort
Speaker 5: of end of twenty twenty two, early twenty twenty three,
Speaker 5: when chad GPD really came alive in the world. If
Speaker 5: you look at Nvidia's numbers, right it had about per
Speaker 5: quarter revenue of about seven billion, approximately ten cents of earnings.
Speaker 5: This is when the first time they started to see
Speaker 5: their data center revenue from which is all the AI
Speaker 5: really jump fast forward to right now, most recent the
Speaker 5: revenues have increased ford x EPs has increased about seven
Speaker 5: seven and a half x, and as of today, the
Speaker 5: market cap from that point, which was five hundred billion
Speaker 5: sort of six x. So if you look at the
Speaker 5: numbers there is really it was really a fundamental driven story.
Speaker 5: So that at least should help sort of clarify some
Speaker 5: of these high versus reality and fundamentals, whether it justifies
Speaker 5: or not.
Speaker 3: Okay, well, speaking of justification, a lot of people talk
Speaker 3: about the idea of Nvidia having this nobody else is
Speaker 3: doing what it's able to do when it comes to
Speaker 3: building the hardware that all these companies need to train
Speaker 3: their AI models on. Kun John, So, I'm wondering about
Speaker 3: when you think about projecting revenues from a Bloomberg intelligence
Speaker 3: analyst perspective here, how are you projecting revenues out over
Speaker 3: the next few quarters, over the next few years. How
Speaker 3: are you thinking about.
Speaker 5: That yeah, I mean similar to most Seals head handlers.
Speaker 5: We have also struggled to get to the right number
Speaker 5: every quarter for them, and they keep on beating in raising.
Speaker 5: There's a few factors. Year one, as you must have
Speaker 5: heard this so many times, they continue to remain supply constraints,
Speaker 5: so that's difficult for us to know right like how
Speaker 5: much supply will come up and how much they can execute.
Speaker 5: And second, we keep looking at the spending pattern of
Speaker 5: their largest customers. I mean, look in twenty twenty four,
Speaker 5: their largest hyper scale and cloud customers have already publicly
Speaker 5: announced that they are going to increase their CAPEX by
Speaker 5: forty percent year over year. And now there's even more
Speaker 5: than that. There's the Tier two cloud providers, the AI
Speaker 5: cloud providers, and enterprise spending coming on. So we try
Speaker 5: to keep a close eye to see if there is
Speaker 5: any signs of demand slowing, which we don't see at
Speaker 5: this point.
Speaker 2: What's the replacement cycle for chips for nvideo, like how
Speaker 2: long do they last? How long will they upgrade? You know,
Speaker 2: and video talks about kind of the upgrade cycle being
Speaker 2: pretty quick one. So I'm just curious. I'm curious. So
Speaker 2: these companies that are the big spenders and that are
Speaker 2: building it out. Are they going to have to replace
Speaker 2: their N video chips? I don't know, every six months,
Speaker 2: twelve months, two years, I don't know.
Speaker 5: Yeah, that would be a good answer. When if you
Speaker 5: are in a normalized cycle for any chip like you
Speaker 5: are in CPUs or for handsets. The challenge right now
Speaker 5: is every all of the customers are just rushing to
Speaker 5: get most powerful chips they can get their hands on
Speaker 5: and continue building. So we have to wait and reach
Speaker 5: a digestion phase where they sort of reach a normalized
Speaker 5: spending period and they start thinking about, Okay, now I'm
Speaker 5: going to refresh my older AI chips. So right now,
Speaker 5: I think the replacement cycle is really short, even if
Speaker 5: you want to call it a replacement cycle. And as
Speaker 5: they come out with the newer black Well chips, their
Speaker 5: newer Gray Shopper, you know, two hundred ceries, customers are
Speaker 5: just picking them up and trying to put in as
Speaker 5: fust as possible. Because the the biggest gating factor right now
Speaker 5: in upgrading these AI serversus power. So every new chip
Speaker 5: brings a lot more TCO, a lot more power per
Speaker 5: performance efficiencies.
Speaker 3: John, we can't let you go without asking you about
Speaker 3: potential competition here in the space. It's something we ask
Speaker 3: Ian King a lot about who else out there is
Speaker 3: doing something at least on the development side that could
Speaker 3: get close to in video. What's your perspective there, I.
Speaker 5: Mean on the merchants silicon it's the only other name
Speaker 5: viable contender there is AMD, which we've talked about multiple times. Again,
Speaker 5: they are also sub but look, the system software more
Speaker 5: than in media has even with a good GPU solution,
Speaker 5: it's very hard to beat that. On the other end,
Speaker 5: there's the competition from the A six providers like the
Speaker 5: broadcoms not competing directly with in Nvidia's GPU right now,
Speaker 5: but I think in the long term it is going
Speaker 5: to eat into the wallet share and the dollars spend
Speaker 5: that its customers would be spending on in Vidia GPUs versus.
Speaker 2: All right, Kunjhon, I know you don't recommend stocks and
Speaker 2: so on and so forth, but this three day route
Speaker 2: that we've seen that has wiped off about ten percent
Speaker 2: more than ten percent off and Vidia. It's in your view,
Speaker 2: not because the fundamental story is coming undone. Maybe it's,
Speaker 2: you know, for who knows what reason, but it's not
Speaker 2: because fundamentally and Vidia is falling apart.
Speaker 5: Definitely not. We don't see any fundamental flags right now,
Speaker 5: especially over the last week.
Speaker 2: All right, well, said Bloomberg Intelligence Senior semi conductor Alice
Speaker 2: kun John Sabani joining us from San Francisco.
Speaker 3: Well, from the Nvidia narrative to one about the US
Speaker 3: rate environment, and to another. One of the most read
Speaker 3: stories on the Bloomberg today. It's about how, just as
Speaker 3: optimism is growing among investors that are rallying, US treasuries
Speaker 3: is about to take off, one key indicator in the
Speaker 3: bond market is flashing a worrying sign for anyone thinking
Speaker 3: about piling in.
Speaker 2: Yep, let's get into it with Bloomberg News Economics editor
Speaker 2: Molly Smith in studio, also with us as Bloomberg Intelligence
Speaker 2: Chief US Interest rates strategist Ira Jersey. IRA's out there
Speaker 2: at BI headquarters in Princeton, New Jersey. I feel like
Speaker 2: I keep thinking of lost in space, warning, warning, warning,
Speaker 2: and if you're too young to understand, google it. All right, treasuries,
Speaker 2: I know what you're talking about. No, no, no, no,
Speaker 2: I'm just kidding, all right, So treasuries are the customer
Speaker 2: raising their losses for the year guys, signs finally emerging
Speaker 2: that inflation the labor market are both truly cooling. All right,
Speaker 2: let me start with you. Trader's betting that may be
Speaker 2: enough for the Fed to start cutting your test rates
Speaker 2: as soon as September. Is that what we're seeing right now.
Speaker 6: Well, that is what the market's pricing.
Speaker 7: I actually suspect that the Fed will wind up waiting
Speaker 7: until sometime after the election to start its cutting cycle.
Speaker 7: But that's certainly why you've seen this rally. It's not
Speaker 7: because of supply, right. We actually get quite a lot
Speaker 7: of supply the next couple of days.
Speaker 6: But the.
Speaker 7: Fundamentals will still matter to the risk appetite for treasury securities.
Speaker 7: They're still the most liquid, safest asset in the world.
Speaker 7: So when you have people who think that the economy
Speaker 7: is going to be going to be slipping and people,
Speaker 7: you know, want to just find a safe haven, they're
Speaker 7: still going to find treasuries.
Speaker 3: Okay, So let's talk a little bit about this idea
Speaker 3: that's raised in this article by our own Liz McCormick.
Speaker 3: The growing view that markets and that the economy is
Speaker 3: so called neutral rate, the theoretical level of borrowing costs
Speaker 3: that neither stimulates nor slows growth. Is actually much higher
Speaker 3: than policymakers are currently projecting, the idea that we are
Speaker 3: going to be high for longer or high for forever. Ara,
Speaker 3: what are you seeing when it comes to that front.
Speaker 7: Yeah, this has been something that people in the market
Speaker 7: have been talking about for years, you know, basically since
Speaker 7: twenty twenty two and the inflation scare. It's you know,
Speaker 7: if the neutral rate used to be, say one percent,
Speaker 7: it's probably meaningfully higher than that today because we have,
Speaker 7: you know, significant shifts in the fundamentals of the economy.
Speaker 7: Not to mention the fact that we do have additional
Speaker 7: you know, pressures on trade flows and the like.
Speaker 6: You no longer have the.
Speaker 7: Globalization keep it to keep prices low for certain items.
Speaker 7: So the general consensus among almost every market participant is
Speaker 7: that it is higher than what it was for the
Speaker 7: last decade.
Speaker 6: The question is how high, right, is.
Speaker 7: It a two and a half percent more or less
Speaker 7: where the Fed thinks, or is it more like three
Speaker 7: and a half percent.
Speaker 6: There are a lot of people who believe that that's
Speaker 6: the case.
Speaker 7: Now, I actually think my view is that it is
Speaker 7: closer to two and a half percent than it is
Speaker 7: to three and a half or four.
Speaker 6: But you know the.
Speaker 7: Fact that a large part of the market and many
Speaker 7: market participants think that it might be somewhat higher. Maybe
Speaker 7: the FED can only cut interest rates by one hundred
Speaker 7: and fifty or two hundred basis points to get to neutral,
Speaker 7: will you know, will matter? And that is in a
Speaker 7: lot of people's market narratives.
Speaker 2: Molly, come on in.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I mean there are definitely Fed officials too, for
Speaker 8: what it's worth, who will say that the longer term
Speaker 8: neutral rate or what we call an economic circle our star.
Speaker 8: If you want to get a little wonky with the jargon,
Speaker 8: there is that they will even say themselves that they
Speaker 8: probably think that rate is higher than one it used
Speaker 8: to be. But I mean, Ira just want to clarify
Speaker 8: this with you too, that our star is not necessarily
Speaker 8: the terminal rate here, right, I mean, those could be
Speaker 8: two different numbers of where the FED cuts to in
Speaker 8: this cycle versus the longer neutral rate over time.
Speaker 6: Yeah, that's that's right, Molly.
Speaker 7: So if you think about where no one really knows
Speaker 7: where our star is, right, it does. You can't know
Speaker 7: at x ante because the fact is that the economy moves.
Speaker 7: There's a lot of moot changes that will happen over
Speaker 7: the next two three five years for determining you.
Speaker 6: Know, where is the is our star?
Speaker 7: So you know, if let's say that our star is
Speaker 7: three percent right, just as a number, then presumably in
Speaker 7: a weak economic scenario, the Fed Reserve will cut to
Speaker 7: below that number in order to try to stimulate the economy.
Speaker 6: But again, no one really knows exactly where our star is.
Speaker 7: Our store in the nineteen eighties was much different than
Speaker 7: our store in the nineteen sixties or nineteen fifties, and
Speaker 7: that we can empirically know because we have economic evidence
Speaker 7: of where both short.
Speaker 6: Term interistrates were and long term interistrates.
Speaker 7: The other thing that I think is missed by a
Speaker 7: lot of these discussions about our star is that the
Speaker 7: financial system and the way that we fund is meaningfully
Speaker 7: different now than it even was ten years ago or
Speaker 7: even twenty years ago. No one funds, no corporation funds,
Speaker 7: was short term debt anymore. This doesn't happen, right, so
Speaker 7: is our star where the FED funds rate. That's going
Speaker 7: to have a much different effect on a corporate business
Speaker 7: and capex and I like today than it did twenty
Speaker 7: five years ago when twenty five or thirty percent of
Speaker 7: industrial debt was short term debt that was going to
Speaker 7: be affected almost immediately by what the FED did.
Speaker 6: It's a really good.
Speaker 4: Point just to build on that a bit.
Speaker 8: I believe it was Adrianna Kugler, a FED governor who
Speaker 8: was speaking last week or she was kind of alluding
Speaker 8: to this as well in saying that, you know, our
Speaker 8: star is not what dictates monetary policy. It like to
Speaker 8: Iver's point, you know, like this is just like I
Speaker 8: want to say, like imaginative, but it's really just more
Speaker 8: of like a concept, like in theory rather than in practice.
Speaker 8: And like what's more useful for policy makers is how
Speaker 8: to understand how restrictive policy is right now in the
Speaker 8: short term, rather than estimating the neutral rate of interest
Speaker 8: in the long term.
Speaker 2: Well to that, I mean, the FED has aggressively raised
Speaker 2: rates in the last year. We know that right before
Speaker 2: stopping the growth. US growth has not fallen off a cliff.
Speaker 2: US jobs market. I know there's a little bit of a
Speaker 2: debate out there, but it still seems tight, which makes
Speaker 2: one wonder, molly if the FED policy is not restrictive
Speaker 2: enough right now and suggests that the neutral rate needs
Speaker 2: to be higher.
Speaker 8: And then you also have the camp though, who's arguing
Speaker 8: that monetary policy acts with long and variable legs.
Speaker 4: Well, just to throw that out there, but we all
Speaker 4: want to know.
Speaker 8: But no, that's exactly it, though, right, And that's exactly why,
Speaker 8: like you are, you're also wondering too, just like of
Speaker 8: the efficacy of policy in general, and like the transmission method,
Speaker 8: and like, do we have an economy that's just structurally
Speaker 8: more resistant to higher interest rates now than we did
Speaker 8: in past tightening cycle? That's also a possibility. And you
Speaker 8: look at like the percentage of homesit that are mortgage free,
Speaker 8: and you know, people who maybe are not relying as
Speaker 8: much on credit cards, and like these ways that would
Speaker 8: actually like affect consumers more directly, and it's clearly not
Speaker 8: showing up in more clear signs of stress in those
Speaker 8: parts of the economy.
Speaker 2: I wrote, let me just what happened to the neutral
Speaker 2: rate during the vulgar era?
Speaker 7: Well, so the neutral rate was probably much higher, right,
Speaker 7: was probably more like six or seven percent. But part
Speaker 7: of that was that there was much structurally higher inflation.
Speaker 7: And to one of Molly's points, you know the the
Speaker 7: you know how those long and variable lags of monetary
Speaker 7: policy are going to affect things.
Speaker 6: Goes back to what I was saying.
Speaker 7: Earlier about who has the debt, what sectors are doing well.
Speaker 7: If you look at inflation today, inflation right now is
Speaker 7: driven almost one hundred percent by services, which is two factors, right,
Speaker 7: It's housing services and then non housing services, right, But
Speaker 7: the non housing service part of the economy is not
Speaker 7: affected by debt. Most people don't borrow money to start
Speaker 7: services businesses or to expand services businesses.
Speaker 6: They use cash on hand.
Speaker 7: So the thing is is that you're not going to
Speaker 7: see a significant slowdown now. It's much different than the
Speaker 7: nineteen seventies or nineteen eighties when companies were levering themselves
Speaker 7: and borrowed a lot of money in order to invest
Speaker 7: in their businesses and expand that's just not the case today.
Speaker 7: So the fact is is that we've shifted a significant
Speaker 7: amount of the way that the economy functions, where interest
Speaker 7: rates are more at least in my opinion, are much
Speaker 7: more of a sentiment kind of indicator as opposed to
Speaker 7: having real effects on the economy, just because of the
Speaker 7: structural shifts and how we do business today versus previous generations.
Speaker 3: Okay, so on this, Molly, I'm curious about the reads
Speaker 3: we get later this week when it comes to the
Speaker 3: Fed's preferred gauge of underlying inflation. What's expected here and
Speaker 3: how could this sort of change the outlook?
Speaker 8: Yeah, so it's probably going to be another favorable inflation print.
Speaker 8: I think most economists are penciling in just a one
Speaker 8: tenth increase in the core PCEE inflation gauge. So that
Speaker 8: would be I think the smallest since November and pretty
Speaker 8: consistent with what we saw from the CPI and PPI
Speaker 8: reports a couple of weeks ago. So I mean, look,
Speaker 8: I think like it's I know, we talked about this
Speaker 8: last time too. I still find it just amazing how
Speaker 8: quickly the narrative has changed in terms of how we're
Speaker 8: thinking about inflation here. That we had like the three
Speaker 8: horrible prints at the beginning of the year, we had
Speaker 8: one month that came in as expected, and now one
Speaker 8: month it's better than expected, and all of a sudden,
Speaker 8: inflation has resumed its downward trend. I'm not saying I
Speaker 8: necessarily disagree with that, but it's just amazing how we
Speaker 8: have just we have really just kind of gone back
Speaker 8: to being fully optimistic that inflation is pretty much going
Speaker 8: down again.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's pretty fascinating something we've talked about. Listen, both
Speaker 2: of you, thank you so much, really setting the right
Speaker 2: tone in terms of this week and what we are
Speaker 2: focusing on. Bloomberg News Economics editor Molly Smith and Bloomberg
Speaker 2: Intelligence Chief US interest rates strategist Ira Jersey.
Speaker 1: We're listening to the Bloomberg Business Week podcast. Catch us
Speaker 1: live weekday afternoons from two to five pm. Easter Listen
Speaker 1: on Apple card Play and then brout Auto with a
Speaker 1: Bloomberg business act or wants us live on YouTube.
Speaker 2: Well, jeff yass not a household name, a libertarian, a billionaire,
Speaker 2: a Wall Street veteran, obsessive poker player, big investor in
Speaker 2: the parent of TikTok as well, Tim, Yeah.
Speaker 3: We're talking about the company called byte Dance. He's a
Speaker 3: former never trumper who's recently become an okay, fine, might
Speaker 3: as well be trumper, So writes Bloomberg's Anie Masa in
Speaker 3: a story that is among our most read on the
Speaker 3: Bloomberg Terminal. It is today's big take on the Bloomberg
Speaker 3: Terminal and at Bloomberg dot Com slash big take. Annie
Speaker 3: Masa is Bloomberg News wealth reporter. She joins us here
Speaker 3: in the studio jeff yass okay, so he oversees Susquehanna
Speaker 3: International as you right, it's a trading from burrow deep
Speaker 3: in the machinery of modern finance.
Speaker 6: He's a poker player.
Speaker 3: He wrote about options for his thesis in college. Why
Speaker 3: are we talking about him right now?
Speaker 1: Though?
Speaker 9: The reason, and he's in the news so much recently,
Speaker 9: is he's a huge political donor.
Speaker 4: There are two things. He's a huge political donor.
Speaker 9: He kind of soared to the top of the list
Speaker 9: of biggest individual donors for much of this year in
Speaker 9: the twenty twenty four election cycle. And then the second
Speaker 9: thing is that he is a major investor in an
Speaker 9: app that most of us have heard of, TikTok or
Speaker 9: the byte Edance, which might be familiar to a lot
Speaker 9: of listeners. So for those two reasons, he this kind
Speaker 9: of stealthy, you know, veil of secrecy that he's spent
Speaker 9: his entire career enjoying has been blown up in the
Speaker 9: past year.
Speaker 2: What's more important his political aspect or the TikTok or
Speaker 2: is just that it's both of those things combined.
Speaker 4: They're a bit wrapped together.
Speaker 9: So he is a major libertarian, and one of the
Speaker 9: things that I wrote about in the story is his
Speaker 9: kind of conversion when he was younger to like libertarian
Speaker 9: as and how at various points in his life he
Speaker 9: called on Milton Friedman personally for advice and has kind
Speaker 9: of built his.
Speaker 4: Whole career and reputation that way.
Speaker 9: So he's always been a big donor to libertarian causes.
Speaker 9: But as far as politics go, and as far as
Speaker 9: TikTok and Trump go, this perfect storm happened in the
Speaker 9: past year where he came on people's radars for having
Speaker 9: been such an investor in TikTok, and then this flip
Speaker 9: flop that Trump did in terms of tick in terms
Speaker 9: of TikTok and banning TikTok also kind of pinged people's radars,
Speaker 9: like why is.
Speaker 4: He doing this? We'll have the two had a conversation,
Speaker 4: that's right.
Speaker 9: So there was this moment where they had a conversation
Speaker 9: at a big Club for Growth event in not at
Speaker 9: mar Lago.
Speaker 4: It was at the Breaker's hotel. The other.
Speaker 9: Maybe more of stately yeah cousin, but you know, ten
Speaker 9: minutes away and so this conversation happened, and you know,
Speaker 9: Jeff Yass's camp says that they did not discuss TikTok.
Speaker 9: But subsequently Trump, you know, has come out in favor
Speaker 9: of keeping TikTok on the phones of all Americans, And
Speaker 9: subsequently Jeff has come out and said he will not
Speaker 9: donate money to Trump directly, but he supports him in
Speaker 9: the twenty twenty four election.
Speaker 3: A big flip flop for the former president who during
Speaker 3: his administration tried to get TikTok to divest its American
Speaker 3: assets back in twenty twenty. We'll get to more of that,
Speaker 3: but I want to talk about your reporting process for
Speaker 3: this anny. Who did you speak to, who did you
Speaker 3: not speak to, and talk a little bit about how
Speaker 3: you reported out this piece.
Speaker 9: Sure, without going through the entire list of names, it
Speaker 9: was a long line of the people I spoke to.
Speaker 4: I did kind of try and get into.
Speaker 9: People who've worked at Susquehanna or worked there, you know,
Speaker 9: friends of Jeff's. He has now gathered so much attention
Speaker 9: that there are activist groups that are organizing local campaigns
Speaker 9: in Pennsylvania where they're showing up and you know, protesting
Speaker 9: outside the office or events, So I talked to those people.
Speaker 9: So I just tried to canvass locally in Pennsylvania because
Speaker 9: he is the richest man in Pennsylvania and donates a
Speaker 9: lot to politics at the local level as well as
Speaker 9: well as the Wall Street component.
Speaker 2: Does he when he donates to politics is at both
Speaker 2: sides of the aisle?
Speaker 9: No, it's it's really too conservative causes. He will donate
Speaker 9: in some cases, but his most major spending is for republic.
Speaker 2: I think what's interesting about this story, and you write this,
Speaker 2: a billionaire flip flopping for Donald Trump is nothing new, right,
Speaker 2: We are increasingly seeing that as we get closer to
Speaker 2: the November election. So no judge, but why single out Jeff? Yeah, yes,
Speaker 2: And what did you want to know in all these
Speaker 2: conversations that you had that you really painted redible picture
Speaker 2: of this guy from kind of being a little kid
Speaker 2: to where he is now.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I wanted to know.
Speaker 9: Basically, My unifying question was this is this is someone
Speaker 9: who focuses a lot at a professional level on decision making,
Speaker 9: which might sound a little bit basic, but he kind
Speaker 9: of built this whole company, as you said earlier, on
Speaker 9: poker and decision and rational decision making and poker. So
Speaker 9: I was trying to really suss out.
Speaker 4: Okay, so if this.
Speaker 9: Is the moment in which he's you know, going publicly
Speaker 9: on record and saying that he supports Trump over Biden,
Speaker 9: it for you know, these purposes. This year, I was
Speaker 9: trying to get inside his head as much as I
Speaker 9: could without talking to him about why he's making that
Speaker 9: decision now. And so he's he like the bet he's making,
Speaker 9: the bet he's making, Yeah, the bet he's making exactly
Speaker 9: and what matters to him. So of course TikTok matters
Speaker 9: a great deal to him. You know, he's worth forty
Speaker 9: seven billion dollars, but about a third of that comes
Speaker 9: from this stake, this early stake that his company took
Speaker 9: in TikTok. So that's a piece of it, but there
Speaker 9: are other dimensions to it. He's a huge supporter of
Speaker 9: this kind of controversial program of school vouchers, So we
Speaker 9: get into that quite a bit in the story, and
Speaker 9: that is something that's very much in line with Trump's
Speaker 9: former Education secretary of Batsy Davos is a major supporter
Speaker 9: of school of voucher programs.
Speaker 3: One thing that I really liked about this story was
Speaker 3: the history of Susquehanna and how the firm came to be.
Speaker 3: And you write in the piece Anny that it's even
Speaker 3: though it's a financial firm and a lot of financial
Speaker 3: it's you know, essentially considered part of the financial elite.
Speaker 3: This is not something that's on Wall Street. This is
Speaker 3: not you know, a guy who has homes right outside
Speaker 3: of New York City and commutes into New York City.
Speaker 3: This is this is Pennsylvania that we're talking about here.
Speaker 3: Talk a little bit about the location of the firm
Speaker 3: and who he's had in his inner circle, what they've
Speaker 3: gone and done since they joined the firm and left
Speaker 3: the firm, and sort of what you learned there.
Speaker 9: Yeah, so Susquehanna is based in a kind of unusual
Speaker 9: place for a big Wall Street firm. It's based in Balakinwood, Pennsylvania,
Speaker 9: which is a suburb of Philadelphia. And the reason that
Speaker 9: they were in Philadelphia to begin with, he got started
Speaker 9: trading options. Options are what kind of built the foundation
Speaker 9: of this entire company in Philly.
Speaker 4: But as I write this story, you know, he.
Speaker 9: Not a huge fan of taxes, so he's always optimizing
Speaker 9: for tax purposes, and by moving from the like, it's
Speaker 9: pretty clear that is something that's how people describe him.
Speaker 3: Libertarian doesn't necessarily love taxes.
Speaker 2: I mean the Club for Growth, right, this group that
Speaker 2: he supports, did you say it's an anti tax political
Speaker 2: advocacy group right, and.
Speaker 9: Rationally, Yeah, I could accurately be described as an anti tax.
Speaker 4: Some would say he really hates texts. Yeah, I mean
Speaker 4: all sorts of all sorts of people would tell you that.
Speaker 4: I'm sure Jeff would tell you that too.
Speaker 9: But anyway, so he moved the company from Philadelphia to
Speaker 9: balakan Wood. Even that marginal little move, you know, saved money,
Speaker 9: you know, was savings on taxes. So you're tucked away absolutely,
Speaker 9: absolutely absolutely, but like you're tucked away outside of the
Speaker 9: kind of fray of Wall Street.
Speaker 4: And they started with options.
Speaker 9: But they've expanded to all sorts of different stuff anything
Speaker 9: you can think of, really, stocks, bonds.
Speaker 4: Crypto swift.
Speaker 9: Yeah, they like event contracts, yeah, all of this, and lottery,
Speaker 9: insurance kind of policies, all sorts of those things. So
Speaker 9: so that is something particular to the firm. And they
Speaker 9: have this culture where they train you using poker techniques
Speaker 9: and playing poker in Texas.
Speaker 2: Hold on this is fascinating, right when he hires someone, right,
Speaker 2: they actually are playing.
Speaker 9: This, yeah, because they want to see how you make decisions.
Speaker 9: How do you go about deciding what you know when
Speaker 9: you're playing a hand whether to bet, check or fold.
Speaker 9: And it actually doesn't matter as much do you win
Speaker 9: or lose that hand because luck can factor in, But
Speaker 9: did you make the right decision based.
Speaker 4: On the probabilities?
Speaker 9: And you know the players around the table, and they
Speaker 9: want to know how you made those decisions. So yeah,
Speaker 9: and so to your question, a lot of proprietary trading
Speaker 9: firms that are now kind of giants on Wall Street.
Speaker 9: The people who run those firms are often from Susquehanna.
Speaker 3: Like a Jane Street for example.
Speaker 4: Jane Street is the perfect example.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but people want to know these people who are
Speaker 2: kind of protesting against them. They want the public at
Speaker 2: large want to like kind of say who he is, right,
Speaker 2: They want to get it out.
Speaker 4: They just get about thirty seconds left here, though.
Speaker 9: They want people to know his name more, and they
Speaker 9: are trying to work to combat his what they consider
Speaker 9: outsize influence in their state, right.
Speaker 2: Which is like you know, we talk about follow the
Speaker 2: money with everything and anything, not alone, right, in terms
Speaker 2: of big political donors. Exactly incredible story, so much detail,
Speaker 2: another incredible piece of reporting. Annie, Thank you so much.
Speaker 2: Anie Masa, she's well reporter at Bloomberg News. As we said,
Speaker 2: this is among our most read stories on the Bloomberg
Speaker 2: terminal as we speak. It's also the Bloomberg Big Take,
Speaker 2: which you can find on the Bloomberg Terminal at Bloomberg
Speaker 2: dot com slash Big Take, so definitely check it out.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Business Week podcast. Listen live
Speaker 1: each weekday starting at two pm Eastern on applecar Play
Speaker 1: and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. You can
Speaker 1: also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New
Speaker 1: York station, Just say Alexa Play. Bloomberg.
Speaker 3: Eleven thirty June is Pride Month, and all this month
Speaker 3: Bloomberg Business Week is featuring of voices on topics related
Speaker 3: to equality. You right, remember, just a couple of weeks ago,
Speaker 3: we spoke to Sarah Kate Ellis. She's the CEO and
Speaker 3: president over at GLAD. Catch that conversation in our weekend podcast.
Speaker 3: By the way, according to GLAD a study they did
Speaker 3: last last year, seventy percent of non LGBTQ people agree
Speaker 3: that companies should publicly support and include the lgbt community
Speaker 3: through practices like hiring, advertising, and sponsorship.
Speaker 2: It was a great conversation, I feel like an eye
Speaker 2: opening and some statistics she shared with us in terms
Speaker 2: of acceptance, which is still an issue. She's been doing that,
Speaker 2: Sara Kate Ellis it is for ten years, and yes, progress,
Speaker 2: but there's a lot more to go when it comes
Speaker 2: to acceptance more generally.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no question, companies, for their part, have gotten more
Speaker 3: outspoken in support of LGBTQ employees. Yet according to EY,
Speaker 3: a majority of these companies, or of these employees at
Speaker 3: these companies, they still feel that sharing parts of their
Speaker 3: identity at work could hold them back.
Speaker 2: So for more we're joined by Karen Torinight. She is
Speaker 2: Global vice Chair of Diversity, Equity and Inclusiveness at EY,
Speaker 2: and she's joining Tim and me from New York. Karen,
Speaker 2: great to have you here with us. You know, talk
Speaker 2: to us a little bit about what you are hearing
Speaker 2: from companies when it comes to how members of the
Speaker 2: LGBTQ community feel within those companies. I'm curious to about
Speaker 2: EY and your own experiences. What you guys are seeing
Speaker 2: when it comes to this sure absolutely.
Speaker 10: First off, thank you very much for having me, and
Speaker 10: thank you for highlighting this important topic.
Speaker 11: I would say there's a few things happening.
Speaker 10: One, you know, employees of all dimensions are actually, you know,
Speaker 10: feeling greater pressures than they ever have, whether it be wars,
Speaker 10: economic pressures, xenophobia, increase, political pressures, a whole host of.
Speaker 11: Things all around the world. And we're certainly seeing that.
Speaker 10: And I look at it as though employees are taking
Speaker 10: and carrying an extra backpack with them to work each day.
Speaker 10: And I would say our studies recently showed that not
Speaker 10: only are our lgbt Q plus employees carrying a backpack,
Speaker 10: but perhaps even a heavier backpack with them to work
Speaker 10: each day.
Speaker 11: And at EY and.
Speaker 10: I believe at other companies too, you know, we feel
Speaker 10: a piece of our job is to help lighten that
Speaker 10: back pack a bit. And it is particularly concerning because
Speaker 10: while employees rate workplaces as the second place most likely
Speaker 10: to belong, second only to home, but more so than
Speaker 10: their communities and their places of worship, et cetera.
Speaker 11: You know, work is always not always a work. Workplace
Speaker 11: is not always a walk in the park.
Speaker 10: For LGBTQ plus employees, and to your point, three quarters
Speaker 10: of them in a recent study that we did around
Speaker 10: the world show that there really are what I would
Speaker 10: call cautiously transparent, and they're not likely to necessarily share
Speaker 10: their identity at work because they feel that it will
Speaker 10: in fact hold them back and explain.
Speaker 3: So, how do you explain that and sort of share
Speaker 3: the differences that you find in the research for how
Speaker 3: non LGBTQ employees feel about sharing those own personal details
Speaker 3: at work. What's what's sort of the benchmark here?
Speaker 11: Well, I think I think, look, you know, we do.
Speaker 10: We do see from our studies that you know, all
Speaker 10: employees are hesitant to share political affiliation, they're hesitant to
Speaker 10: share religion at work. They can also be hesitant to
Speaker 10: share other personal aspects.
Speaker 11: So that is quite clear.
Speaker 10: But it feels like from our studies that there's greater
Speaker 10: barriers and our LGBTQ plus folks feel like they are
Speaker 10: less likely to be sponsored, as an example, and they
Speaker 10: tend to feel that they're over mentored, meaning that they
Speaker 10: aren't endorsed for equitable assignments, or for visibility or for
Speaker 10: opportunities similar to their non LGBTQ plus counterparts.
Speaker 2: Karen, a wise person always says to me, but are
Speaker 2: they right? Like, in other words, is it a feeling
Speaker 2: or are they really not getting those juicy opportunities? Like
Speaker 2: I am just curious. Right, there's a feeling and then
Speaker 2: there's the reality. And it seems to me that the
Speaker 2: reality is is that they're not getting those opportunities. What
Speaker 2: do we know on that front?
Speaker 11: Well, I think there's a few things.
Speaker 10: Not all LGBTQ plus employees are out at work, so
Speaker 10: it isn't necessarily something that you can measure as easily
Speaker 10: as you can, for example, gender identity, which people tend.
Speaker 11: To be a bit more forthcoming about.
Speaker 10: So that that's one piece, So you don't actually have
Speaker 10: all the data.
Speaker 11: The other pieces, I think you have to be able
Speaker 11: to explain.
Speaker 10: Do you have the policies, are you making for a
Speaker 10: respectful and safe workplace for everyone?
Speaker 11: Do you offer role models?
Speaker 10: And I'll give you an example, because it is an
Speaker 10: important piece for people to not only have affinity with
Speaker 10: peers and other colleagues and allies, but it's also really important.
Speaker 10: We've heard the old adage you can't be what you
Speaker 10: can't see, you know, you know, I would say speak
Speaker 10: for EHY that you know, we're no stranger to having
Speaker 10: diverse leadership, and it's really important for us to have
Speaker 10: out LGBTQ plus leadership and we do at the country
Speaker 10: levels on our management committees, on our boards, on our
Speaker 10: senior clients serving capacity, and that really really makes a
Speaker 10: difference so that people can see, yes, you can advance,
Speaker 10: you can advance to the highest levels within an organization.
Speaker 10: And I think that's particularly important, especially when people are
Speaker 10: seeing the workplaces around them actually retracting in some capacity
Speaker 10: or feels like they're retracting.
Speaker 3: So how would you advise companies, because at the end
Speaker 3: of the day, that's what EI does. EI advises companies.
Speaker 3: They have a roster of clients. You tell them best
Speaker 3: practices when it comes to certainly to all aspects of business.
Speaker 3: How do you advise companies to shift at work given
Speaker 3: what you found in your research.
Speaker 10: Yeah, I think there's a few things. Ton at the
Speaker 10: top is critical, meaning you have to have ironclad support
Speaker 10: for your commitment in this area. And that doesn't mean
Speaker 10: you have to do everything perfect because none of us do. However,
Speaker 10: you have to be authentic and not just during pride months,
Speaker 10: which can vary around the world, meaning twelve months out
Speaker 10: of the year that you have consistent commitment and tone
Speaker 10: at the top accountability holding yourselves responsible for that also
Speaker 10: pretty un sexy things, Carolyn tim Lake policies, you know,
Speaker 10: but that showed employees that regardless of where you work,
Speaker 10: like at EUY, we will offer you a safe and
Speaker 10: respectful environment and that is our commitment. The other thing
Speaker 10: that you can do, which tends to be a little harder,
Speaker 10: is making sure that your systems are equitable, and that
Speaker 10: your pay equity systems are equitable, your promotion systems.
Speaker 11: And then the last thing that many companies you know.
Speaker 10: I see around the world that do a nice job
Speaker 10: of this is offer affinity groups and those you know,
Speaker 10: those are not a LGBTQ plus strategy, but they're a
Speaker 10: huge enhancement. For example, we have them in seventy seven
Speaker 10: countries and we have you know, thousands of employees that
Speaker 10: belong to these networks, and that offers people not only
Speaker 10: role models, but it offers them the ability to share
Speaker 10: and have voice and have voice to leadership, so that
Speaker 10: it goes in two ways, not just with.
Speaker 11: Each other but up through management.
Speaker 10: And we've found that to be really, really helpful in
Speaker 10: guiding our level of authenticity in this place, in showing
Speaker 10: our support.
Speaker 2: And I you know, always one of the things that
Speaker 2: comes up, whether it's affinity groups or just groups overall,
Speaker 2: Like what you want is everybody to be a part
Speaker 2: of the whole, right, and you want to be careful
Speaker 2: about not dividing everything up and keeping people, yes, into
Speaker 2: a group where they feel supported, but you want to
Speaker 2: make sure that that group then is you know, certainly
Speaker 2: a part of the bigger, broader organization. So is there
Speaker 2: an understanding of that, because sometimes I think companies will
Speaker 2: set up a group or something and then it's like, okay, done,
Speaker 2: we did it. Like you, we're helping out a group, right,
Speaker 2: the importance is making sure that they're a part of
Speaker 2: the whole.
Speaker 10: Yes, absolutely, And you don't want to be an isolated group.
Speaker 10: So there could be some benefits of course to having
Speaker 10: you know, a similar topic and a similar concern or
Speaker 10: things that you're working through. Absolutely, but you need allies
Speaker 10: in that, regardless of the demographic group.
Speaker 11: But to your point, you also need to you know,
Speaker 11: you're not You're not.
Speaker 10: This is not about fixing lgbt Q plus employees. This
Speaker 10: is about fixing environments and making sure that environments are
Speaker 10: as equitable as possible. So another example that you could
Speaker 10: consider to do is inclusive leadership behavior types of training
Speaker 10: which doesn't focus on people's beliefs necessarily focuses on how
Speaker 10: they behave in a workplace and how they could be
Speaker 10: a most inclusive colleague and team member uh to to
Speaker 10: all of their employees. And we found that that that's
Speaker 10: been very beneficial to us in inclusion overall and belonging
Speaker 10: overall for everyone.
Speaker 2: All Right, gott to leave it there, hey, Karen, thank
Speaker 2: you so much. Karen tour Night, she's global vice chair
Speaker 2: of Diversity, Equity and Inclusiveness over at EY joining us
Speaker 2: on this Monday in New York.
Speaker 11: A brother, maule.
Speaker 12: A journal, Now about you let me drive?
Speaker 5: No no, no, no, honey, please out do the riding gravel.
Speaker 2: I want to try.
Speaker 10: It's a good question, good.
Speaker 1: Time, This is good drive to the globe. Do well
Speaker 1: by Ja Don on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2: All right, everybody, just about eighteen minutes to go until
Speaker 2: we wrap up the trade on this Monday. Our Alexandra
Speaker 2: Semanova writing the U Stock Market pouncing from one all
Speaker 2: time high to the next, but below the surface. She says,
Speaker 2: a uh waning share of stocks is participating in the
Speaker 2: advanced spelling potential troublehead for equity. So tim, she writes,
Speaker 2: bifurcation between the S and P five hundred performance and
Speaker 2: breath has reached one of the worst levels in three decades,
Speaker 2: according to Bloomberg Intelligence data, the only two times since
Speaker 2: nineteen ninety five it's been as extreme as now came
Speaker 2: before drawdowns for US stocks. O. Great, something to think
Speaker 2: about it.
Speaker 3: That's really good introduction. Introductory remarks, I should say for
Speaker 3: our next guest. Emily Roller was co chief investment strategist
Speaker 3: at John Hancock Investment Management. And that's because Emily, you
Speaker 3: say that, hey, it's been a good run. That's the
Speaker 3: good news. The bad news is likely to start to
Speaker 3: mean that bad news for markets soon. So it's not
Speaker 3: going to be like, you know, bad news is good news.
Speaker 3: It's like bad news is actually going to be bad news.
Speaker 3: What is the evidence for the shift that you write about?
Speaker 12: Yeah, so thanks for having me this afternoon. So we
Speaker 12: are seeing the labor market shift. You know, you look
Speaker 12: at some of the data that's come out as of late,
Speaker 12: you know, initial claims rising over the last couple of
Speaker 12: weeks certainly isn't great news. We're finding that it's harder
Speaker 12: to get a new job after you lose one. Job.
Speaker 12: Switching is not resulting in wage gains the way that
Speaker 12: it has previously. So we're watching closely for this next
Speaker 12: jobs report to see signs that that picture may deteriorate more.
Speaker 12: We're also seeing inflation slowing right now. That's a great
Speaker 12: thing because we have to remember that inflation was awesome
Speaker 12: for corporate profits, especially for companies with a lot of
Speaker 12: pricing power that could pass that along. It actually resulted
Speaker 12: in record revenue growth. But that inflation impulse is fading
Speaker 12: now and we're seeing it in things like used car
Speaker 12: prices falling. We're seeing retailers actually start to make cuts.
Speaker 12: There's a few articles on Bloomberg today talking about fast
Speaker 12: food chains actually starting to cut prices here. Even so
Speaker 12: we're seeing at the high end, we're seeing it at
Speaker 12: the low end, you know. Of course, housing is that
Speaker 12: last piece of the inflation picture that's really critical here.
Speaker 12: Housing is a huge component of CPI, and even though
Speaker 12: we're starting to see some cracks in the housing market,
Speaker 12: things like housing sentiment we saw last week are slowing
Speaker 12: building permits, new housing starts slowing. House prices are still up.
Speaker 12: They're up six percent nearly on a year over year basis,
Speaker 12: which is pretty remarkable and shows the resilience of the
Speaker 12: housing market. So we need to see that inflation data
Speaker 12: come down on the shelter front in order to see
Speaker 12: the FED start to cut. But remember when inflation's slowing,
Speaker 12: that also means growth is slowing, margins are compressing, and
Speaker 12: corporate earnings are going to come down. So a long
Speaker 12: way of saying that this bad news ultimately is not
Speaker 12: going to be great for corporate profits.
Speaker 2: Right, we also have FED Bank of San Francisco President
Speaker 2: Mary Daly. She's warning the US labor market is nearing
Speaker 2: an inflection point where further slowing could mean higher employment.
Speaker 2: That's our news story right on the Bloomberg. At the
Speaker 2: same time, Tim and I talked at the beginning of
Speaker 2: our broadcast about our Liz McCormick story about how long
Speaker 2: can high rates last? Bond markets say maybe forever, So
Speaker 2: I do wonder about what that means for the investment environment.
Speaker 2: So tie it all together. First of all, real quickly
Speaker 2: recession or no recession then or earnings recession or no recession.
Speaker 2: What are you expecting.
Speaker 12: We do see that a contraction ultimately unfolding, just the
Speaker 12: way it always has. We think there'll be some type
Speaker 12: of liquidity event or financial accident in the face of
Speaker 12: a higher cost of capital, which happens every time some
Speaker 12: sort of over levered or lower quality player will get exposed.
Speaker 12: We'll have a contraction. Or maybe it's simply the unemployment
Speaker 12: rate rising, is margins compressed due to that higher cost
Speaker 12: of capital and slower revenue growth, And by the way,
Speaker 12: that means it's a great environment to pick up the
Speaker 12: income that's available in high quality bond. You just nailed
Speaker 12: it when you talked about the fact that bonds just
Speaker 12: haven't really sniffed this out yet. They haven't sniffed out
Speaker 12: lower growth and lower inflation, and bonyards are still up
Speaker 12: on the year. Remember we started the year with the
Speaker 12: ten year treasury yield sitting at three eighty eight. We're
Speaker 12: right around four twenty four right now, So we've seen
Speaker 12: this backup in bon yields. That to us is creating
Speaker 12: a really attractive entry point. If you see inflation slowing,
Speaker 12: if you see growth slowing, Now maybe it doesn't move
Speaker 12: into straight line, but you can get paid to wait.
Speaker 12: High quality bonds are offering five to six percent income,
Speaker 12: and that is close to the highest levels they've been
Speaker 12: over the past twenty years. So bonds are miths priced
Speaker 12: to us in an environment where we do eventually see
Speaker 12: a contraction unfolding.
Speaker 3: What do you see the tenure doing in the next
Speaker 3: few months.
Speaker 12: Yeah, I mean we think it made. It'll chop up
Speaker 12: around before it eventually falls if there is some type
Speaker 12: of oh great question. So you know, on average, if
Speaker 12: you look at the past few bed cutting cycles, the
Speaker 12: ten year treasury yield falls on average about two and
Speaker 12: a half percent from peak to trough. So that is
Speaker 12: a big drop. Say we peaked, you know, right around
Speaker 12: five percent. That brings us down to a two or
Speaker 12: three handle on the ten year treasure yield once we
Speaker 12: get through the economic contraction. So if you're a big
Speaker 12: fan of bond math, that is a really attractive return
Speaker 12: from a duration standpoint, and then you get to add
Speaker 12: the income back in. So I think you could potentially
Speaker 12: even see double digit returns across areas like the ten
Speaker 12: year treasury yield in that contraction environment.
Speaker 2: So are you saying, really what investors need to be
Speaker 2: thinking right now is much more fixed income exposure at
Speaker 2: this point and not equity exposure.
Speaker 12: We still like equity exposure of Carol, And it's a
Speaker 12: very unpopular story to be talking about fixed income because
Speaker 12: it's certainly hasn't worked as well as just owning that
Speaker 12: one big stock and kind of letting it ride. I
Speaker 12: do still think there's opportunities in equities. The challenge is
Speaker 12: the starting point. So stocks are trading it elevated multiples.
Speaker 12: If you look at the US tech sector, it's trading
Speaker 12: at thirty one times forward earnings right now, and that
Speaker 12: is the highest since we were coming down from the
Speaker 12: tech bubble in the late nineteen nineties. Now there's an
Speaker 12: old saying that valuations are not a catalyst. There probably
Speaker 12: needs to be some shift in the macro regime. We
Speaker 12: need to see earnings across technology companies falter and frankly
Speaker 12: they haven't. And the tech sectors got the best earnings
Speaker 12: across all S and P five hundred sectors. So the
Speaker 12: fundamental case for owning tech stocks is there. It's just
Speaker 12: the valuations are looking awfully egregious to us. So we
Speaker 12: want to own them, but we want to diversify by
Speaker 12: looking at places like US mid cap stocks, which are
Speaker 12: trading at the deepest discount to their large cap counterparts
Speaker 12: in the late nineteen nineties. They benefit from an overweight
Speaker 12: to high quality industrial. So there's other areas to be
Speaker 12: in equity, but we like bonds to do some more
Speaker 12: heavy lifting and portfolio and we just want.
Speaker 3: To end with an equity. In the last thirty seconds,
Speaker 3: shares of en Video down six percent, more than twelve
Speaker 3: percent over the last three days. Four hundred billion dollars
Speaker 3: in market cap just gone poof. How are you watching it?
Speaker 12: Yeah, I can't remember a time when one stock ever
Speaker 12: meant this much to the market. It's so remarkable. I
Speaker 12: mean it was it's up one hundred and fifty percent.
Speaker 12: You're to day two hundred percent over the one year period.
Speaker 12: So I think it's certainly makes sense to expect some
Speaker 12: type of pullback in this name, but it's it's incredibly
Speaker 12: you know, it's it's amazing how important this one name
Speaker 12: has been to the broad market. Again, it's a high
Speaker 12: quality stock, great balance sheet, lots of cash, but the
Speaker 12: multiple is pretty extended.
Speaker 10: Ye.
Speaker 2: Mirrors are Kunjan Sabani at Bloomberg Intelligence, who basically said
Speaker 2: It's a fundamentally driven story. Whether you look at revenues,
Speaker 2: EPs or market cap, you know it really, at least
Speaker 2: from his perspective, makes an awful lot of sense. Emily Hey,
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. Emily Roll and co. Chief Investment
Speaker 2: Strategies at John Hancock Investment Management, joining us in Boston.
Speaker 1: This is the Bloomberg Business Week podcast, available on Apple, Spotify,
Speaker 1: and anywhere else you get your podcasts. Listen live weekday
Speaker 1: afternoons from two to five pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot com,
Speaker 1: the iHeartRadio app, tune In, and the Bloomberg Business App.
Speaker 1: You can also watch us live every weekday on YouTube
Speaker 1: and always on the Bloomberg terminal