Speaker 1: This is Masters in Business with Barry Ridholts on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: This week on the podcast, I have an extra special guest.
Speaker 1: Her name is Luby Cantrell, and she is the head
Speaker 1: of Public Policy, Affairs and Government Affairs at PIMCO, where
Speaker 1: she not only works lobbying to make sure Pimco's voice
Speaker 1: is represented in d C but is integrated very closely
Speaker 1: with the Investment Committee, explaining what is coming down the
Speaker 1: road from Congress in d c UH and what various
Speaker 1: events are going to do that could very well impact
Speaker 1: bond or stock holdings. And and that's a really unique
Speaker 1: position in the world of finance. PIMCO literally created this
Speaker 1: role just for her and she's been thriving uh doing this.
Speaker 1: If you are at all interested in government affairs, public
Speaker 1: policy and how that intersects with finance and Wall Street,
Speaker 1: then you're gonna find this to be an absolutely fascinating conversation. So,
Speaker 1: with no further ado, my chat with Pimco's Libby Cantrell.
Speaker 1: I'm Barry Ritults. You're listening to Masters in Business on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Radio. My special guest today is Libby Cantrell. She
Speaker 1: is head of Public Policy at PIMCO, the investing giant,
Speaker 1: managing a trillion plus dollars in fixed income and equities.
Speaker 1: She coordinates the firm's response to policy issues and analyzes
Speaker 1: political events for the firm's investment committee. She has an
Speaker 1: NBA out of Harvard Undergraduate. She was at Brown. She
Speaker 1: is also a c f A charterholder. Libby Cantrell, Welcome
Speaker 1: to Bloomberg. Thanks for having so let's talk a little
Speaker 1: bit about the early days of your career. You started
Speaker 1: as an investment banking analyst in two thousand, pretty much
Speaker 1: as the bubble was blowing up. What was it like
Speaker 1: to begin your career in that environment. Yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: it was. It was certainly an interesting time. And not
Speaker 1: only did was I investment banking, but I was actually
Speaker 1: in the technology corporate finance department of investment banking. So
Speaker 1: I was right. I was had a front row seat
Speaker 1: in some ways, um to to the run up to
Speaker 1: the bubble and then of course the bubble bursting. I
Speaker 1: mean it was, you know, it was interesting because I
Speaker 1: think in some ways, looking back on it, it just, um,
Speaker 1: I think it reinforced this idea of the markets are cyclical.
Speaker 1: Um that you know that that that asset. You know,
Speaker 1: prices go up, and if they go up to a
Speaker 1: point where that they seem completely disconnected to their fundamentals,
Speaker 1: then they're probably probably there's probably a problem. Um. So
Speaker 1: you know, going back, I I didn't have a sort
Speaker 1: of traditional business background in college. I I majored in
Speaker 1: in math and economics UM at Brown. There was no
Speaker 1: pre business. Economics is pretty much what you need if
Speaker 1: you're gonna find it, but it's different, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: I've never taken an accounting course. But but something that
Speaker 1: I did, I think that that has stayed with me
Speaker 1: is that when I entered the technology um group at
Speaker 1: Morgan Stanley, I was questioning how we were valuing these
Speaker 1: these companies when not only did they not have profits,
Speaker 1: but they hardly had any sales. And of course a
Speaker 1: lot of people who were you know, much more senior
Speaker 1: to me and much more experienced and I think much wiser,
Speaker 1: said oh, you know, Libby, you'll you'll learn, you know,
Speaker 1: you just you know, you're get your feet wet, and yeah,
Speaker 1: inter of corporate finance. UM. So you know, I that
Speaker 1: that that that's held to me this day, because you know,
Speaker 1: common sense actually does typically prevail. So what all of
Speaker 1: these things did unravel. I think in some ways to
Speaker 1: my very kind of um, you know, nassan neophyte, uh
Speaker 1: you know point of view, it wasn't necessarily that surprised.
Speaker 1: So revenues and profits, that's old school. We're about eyeballs
Speaker 1: and the cash flow statements. What are you even talking about? Right?
Speaker 1: I literally had a conversation yesterday with a venture capitalist
Speaker 1: who said, let's be honest, if we're looking at discounted
Speaker 1: cash flow was on these startups, They're all made up numbers.
Speaker 1: How could you even begin to put a put a
Speaker 1: figure evaluation on that? Yeah, exactly. And I think here
Speaker 1: even in the run up on the housing um side
Speaker 1: as well, I was in business school and I remember
Speaker 1: being in a class and my you know, my, my
Speaker 1: business school colleagues were just pounding the table that, you know,
Speaker 1: everybody should be able to own a house, and it
Speaker 1: doesn't matter what their income was, and doesn't matter exactly.
Speaker 1: We're three, um, everybody should be able to get alone.
Speaker 1: And you know, again, I just didn't pass the smell test.
Speaker 1: And I think my experience at Morgan Stanley just sort
Speaker 1: of reinforced that the importance of common sense and the
Speaker 1: smell test. My favorite scene in the Big Short in
Speaker 1: the film is the Steve Carell character is literally speaking
Speaker 1: to a stripper about a house and he says, wait,
Speaker 1: you have a house. She goes, no, I have six.
Speaker 1: And that's like the light bulb goes off. This is
Speaker 1: all going to collapse, right exactly, Just just hilarious. So,
Speaker 1: so in two thousand three, you go to Washington, you
Speaker 1: work for a congressman, right, congresswoman congresswoman congress per yes, um,
Speaker 1: and you're you're doing legislative work, You're you're doing policy analysis.
Speaker 1: How do you make the transition from that back to finance?
Speaker 1: Was that a natural progression or was a little bit hmm.
Speaker 1: Let's see if we can we can mix these two interests. Yeah. So,
Speaker 1: you know, when I was at SO, I did a
Speaker 1: third year investment banking Morgan Stanley. I was in Financial Sponsors,
Speaker 1: so sort of the private equity group, and all when
Speaker 1: all my friends were graduating from the analyst program, they
Speaker 1: were all going into private equity programs UM, TPG and Apollo,
Speaker 1: and I just felt, you know, as much as I
Speaker 1: liked my experience in investment banking, and in some ways,
Speaker 1: so many of the things that I applied today I
Speaker 1: learned from that experience. UM, I just was looking for
Speaker 1: something more. And before I even went to college, I
Speaker 1: had worked as a volunteer for a woman at the
Speaker 1: time who was in the Colorado State legislature where I'm from.
Speaker 1: And um, I had sort of always had this itch
Speaker 1: about going to Washington, and so felt like it was
Speaker 1: it was scary in a lot of ways because as
Speaker 1: again all my friends and investment banking and Morgan Stanley
Speaker 1: were going to these, you know, very these premiere private
Speaker 1: equity firms, and I was thinking of taking this really
Speaker 1: significant pay cut to do something that was pretty risky. Um.
Speaker 1: But this woman who had worked for in Colorado had
Speaker 1: later gotten elected to Congress, and so that I worked
Speaker 1: for her as a legislative a And I really do
Speaker 1: view that as one of the inflection points in my
Speaker 1: career as something that felt really uncomfortable and really scary,
Speaker 1: but um, it was in retrospect, the best decision. And
Speaker 1: would you recommend to inform you know, so much of
Speaker 1: what I'm doing today? Would you recommend people go outside
Speaker 1: of their comfort zone and do stuff that's scary as
Speaker 1: a way to develop their career, because it sounds like
Speaker 1: it worked out very well for you. Yeah, it's you know,
Speaker 1: it's so tree right. Um, kind of go, you know,
Speaker 1: do something that's that that's pushes you, that's uncomfortable. But
Speaker 1: a business school one of my professors gave her a
Speaker 1: kind of at HARV they had these last speeches of
Speaker 1: every semester, and she said, you know, go towards the
Speaker 1: discomfort in your career. So when somebody asks you to
Speaker 1: do something that feels really uncomfortable, uh and makes you
Speaker 1: sort of nauseous, Um, you know, do that because that
Speaker 1: means that you're going to to learn and even if
Speaker 1: you fail, you're learning through failure. And so you know,
Speaker 1: I think this going to Washington was even maybe a
Speaker 1: bigger example of that, um because but you know, you're
Speaker 1: in your twenties and I felt like, you know, looking
Speaker 1: back again, it was such a wise decision, but it
Speaker 1: was it did feel really scared. I don't I don't
Speaker 1: think that's tried. I think people are afraid of that
Speaker 1: uncomfort zone. That just I'm not familiar with this. I
Speaker 1: don't know this, and I wish when I was younger,
Speaker 1: I was more willing to try stuff that really frightened me.
Speaker 1: It's it's so easy to say, I really don't have
Speaker 1: any expertise in that I'm gonna stick to my knitting
Speaker 1: right now exactly. And I think, um, you know, again,
Speaker 1: I see a lot of my friends who went right
Speaker 1: from investment banking to private equity to business cool, and
Speaker 1: then they kind of had a reckoning in their career,
Speaker 1: right because they hadn't necessarily scratched those itches that were
Speaker 1: maybe a little bit more unconventional, a little bit scarier,
Speaker 1: and you have less to lose in your twenties, right
Speaker 1: and have a family. Um, yeah, I had, I had
Speaker 1: it right, and I had made enough money and were
Speaker 1: instantly to you know, have some savings because it was
Speaker 1: a really dramatic pay cut. Um. But again, money had
Speaker 1: never really been sort of the big focus in my life.
Speaker 1: It was doing to me again sounds so the cheesy,
Speaker 1: but doing something that fulfilled me and taking that step
Speaker 1: really kind of satisfied a lot a lot of what
Speaker 1: I was looking for. Take us through the typical day
Speaker 1: in the life of the head of public policy at
Speaker 1: Bondiant PIMCOH Yeah, I mean I think that that title
Speaker 1: is vague enough, um that it because sort of encapsulates
Speaker 1: you know, UM a lot of what I do and
Speaker 1: allows it to be really dynamic, which it is. So
Speaker 1: the way I think about the position and it's UM.
Speaker 1: The position didn't exist before before I took it over,
Speaker 1: and so in some ways that's given me a lot
Speaker 1: of flexibility and the firm a lot of flexibility in
Speaker 1: order to sort of design it UM in the way
Speaker 1: that they know that they see fit and that UM
Speaker 1: is the most sort of beneficial from a client and
Speaker 1: investment perspective. So, you know, I view myself as wearing
Speaker 1: a couple of different hats in that in that role,
Speaker 1: one is this sort of traditional government affairs role, which
Speaker 1: is advocating on behalf of our clients and our business
Speaker 1: UM about policies in Washington, or you know, playing defense
Speaker 1: in some ways depending on the administration and what's going
Speaker 1: on in d in d C. So one is more
Speaker 1: of a traditional government affairs role UM. The other hat, though,
Speaker 1: that I think is more unique in this position, is
Speaker 1: that I'm pretty integrated into the investment process, so helping
Speaker 1: our investment committee sort of think about what's going on
Speaker 1: in Washington and how that may inform our positioning and
Speaker 1: our macro outlook UM and then sort of the last, uh,
Speaker 1: sort of function that I serve is you're talking to
Speaker 1: clients about how we're thinking about Washington, how we're looking
Speaker 1: at things, and as you might imagine, UM, on any
Speaker 1: given day, you know, there's more demands in one of
Speaker 1: those sort of parts of the function than others. So
Speaker 1: sometimes our clients are really you know, wondering, Um, I
Speaker 1: got lots of questions about tariffs or about tax or
Speaker 1: what have you. Other. Um. Other times I'm again, we're
Speaker 1: playing more active in Washington from a from a traditional
Speaker 1: government affairs. So so let's delve into your work with
Speaker 1: the Investment Committee, because I'm kind of fascinated about that.
Speaker 1: We have just we're recording this in early April. We've
Speaker 1: just had a run of I can't even use the
Speaker 1: word in sanity anymore. We need different adjectives. But but
Speaker 1: it's been the trade war, and it's been the negotiations
Speaker 1: with North Korea, and just this week we had the
Speaker 1: FBI kicked the doors down to the President's attorney's office
Speaker 1: hotel at home, and it's just like there's no escaping
Speaker 1: the news. It's it's brutal. Now you go sit down
Speaker 1: with the Investment Committee is the discussion more from the
Speaker 1: perspective of here's the macro issue of how these tariffs
Speaker 1: will impact these sectors, or is it a broader this
Speaker 1: is what sentiment looks like in response to these headlines,
Speaker 1: or is it not limited to any of the above. Well,
Speaker 1: I think it's I think in some ways it's all
Speaker 1: of the all of the above, And I agree with you.
Speaker 1: It's just been relentless, right, I mean, the news cycle
Speaker 1: over the last two years has been just you just
Speaker 1: cannot escape it. Um, you know one but that one
Speaker 1: guy in Ohio who threw all his TV's out and
Speaker 1: hasn't written anything other than him. For the rest of us,
Speaker 1: it's just been especial if you're you know, if you're
Speaker 1: if you have to follow the news as part of
Speaker 1: your job. I mean, of course from a policy from
Speaker 1: a walk and nerd position, Um that I kind of
Speaker 1: think about myself as a policy nerd. It's fascinating, right,
Speaker 1: because this is a really dynamic, um, you know, really
Speaker 1: in some ways unpredictable policymaking environment. We can speak for
Speaker 1: an hour about the effect of the pass through tax
Speaker 1: cut legislation of LLC's like you want to lank out
Speaker 1: it's been three hours. I don't know, I don't know
Speaker 1: if your if your listeners are going to appreciate that,
Speaker 1: but but no so so, but but to serve to
Speaker 1: your to your question about how our Investment Committee thinks
Speaker 1: about this, well, first of all, and I would say
Speaker 1: that that politics and policy have always been a big
Speaker 1: part of what we've considered, at least it's been one
Speaker 1: of the inputs to our investment process. Um, given the
Speaker 1: fact that you're you began as a fixed income shop
Speaker 1: and what the Feddle Reserve did and response to inflation
Speaker 1: has to be exactly right. So so the FED response
Speaker 1: to inflation and growth, and what is a big driver
Speaker 1: of growth, Well, it's the fiscal part, right, of course,
Speaker 1: it's other you know, other parts of the economy, but
Speaker 1: that that g and the g d P equation is
Speaker 1: pretty pretty important, the gross part, the gross right, yeah,
Speaker 1: the government part, thank you very Do we need to
Speaker 1: walk through the equation maybe, um, but but but so anyway, so,
Speaker 1: so it's always been something that has been a big consideration.
Speaker 1: We've you know, we've talked about it, we've thought about it,
Speaker 1: but clearly over really since the financial crisis, when the
Speaker 1: inner set action of politics and policy and markets have
Speaker 1: been more acute. I mean, going back to Tarp, going
Speaker 1: back to Dodd Frank Um and then of course the
Speaker 1: you know, the housing bail out, the bank's bail out,
Speaker 1: all of this, you know, you know, what have you
Speaker 1: And then fast forward to today when all of these
Speaker 1: you know, what's going on Washington really is driving markets.
Speaker 1: Um So, you know, I think we have the luxury
Speaker 1: in many ways of being a long term investor. Right
Speaker 1: We're a fiduciary for millions of retirees, for thousands of
Speaker 1: pension plans and what have you. So we really are
Speaker 1: not necessarily reacting to the news of the day so much.
Speaker 1: We are trying to construct a longer term outlook about
Speaker 1: you know, where we should be, um as it relates
Speaker 1: to say, interest rates or credit or emerging markets, and
Speaker 1: what's going on Washington drives you know, all of those
Speaker 1: things arguably these days, um so so. So take trade,
Speaker 1: you know something. Trade has been something I've been talking
Speaker 1: about honestly at nauseum to our Investment Committee really since
Speaker 1: right after the election, because I think people under estimated
Speaker 1: how sincere President Trump felt feels about trade, and I
Speaker 1: really and you know, which is stunning to me because
Speaker 1: every speech he gave during the campaign was Hey, NAFTA's
Speaker 1: I'm quoting the president. NAFTA is a terrible deal. I
Speaker 1: don't believe t p P is working for us. We
Speaker 1: need to change these rules and if no one is
Speaker 1: going to treat us fairly, we're going to implement tariffs.
Speaker 1: Every time people say they're surprised, it's like, were you
Speaker 1: not listening to any of the exactly And you even
Speaker 1: go back to the tape when he did interviews back
Speaker 1: in the nineteen eighties and he was talking about Japan
Speaker 1: cleaning our clocks on trade, about NAFTA, about China ascension
Speaker 1: to the w t O. And I don't think a
Speaker 1: lot of public policy issues animated him before he became
Speaker 1: the president, but this was one of them. And I
Speaker 1: really think he sincerely believes that we're getting short changed
Speaker 1: on these trade agreements, and he wants directively it's been
Speaker 1: you know, he's pretty all over the place on so
Speaker 1: many subjects. If you're going to give him credit for
Speaker 1: being consistent on anything, this goes back decades. There was
Speaker 1: an O five into of view with someone, maybe it
Speaker 1: was Oprah, where he's talking about We're not being treated
Speaker 1: fail ay boy other countries and our leaders are ignoring it.
Speaker 1: I think that was back in the nineties. Actually, I
Speaker 1: think there are several probably several interviews, but there's one
Speaker 1: interview I think from seven or something with Oprah or
Speaker 1: He's talking about your pain totally that I have the
Speaker 1: exact same feeling that you do when people say, well,
Speaker 1: these taffs are a shock. Are really He's been pounding
Speaker 1: the table about this for not that you have to
Speaker 1: agree with the tariffs, but you shouldn't be certain to
Speaker 1: be surprised, right and so and you know, and and
Speaker 1: and you know, you go back to seen and I
Speaker 1: think people thought, Okay, well he hadn't done anything in
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen on trade, and I would be I mean,
Speaker 1: not pedantic, but I would I would take issue with
Speaker 1: that as well, because if you actually look at what
Speaker 1: he was doing and what his trade representative, Bob Leitchheiser
Speaker 1: was doing, what Ross was doing at Commerce, they were
Speaker 1: laying the foundation for these tariffs. So you know, not
Speaker 1: to not to bor everybody, but before you can just
Speaker 1: pursue tariffs, you have to go through this investigation process
Speaker 1: and that's you know, several took in this case almost
Speaker 1: a year to do so on stealing aluminum that was
Speaker 1: initiated back in April seventeen, and then of course they
Speaker 1: just made the decision most more recently on on how
Speaker 1: to um, on how to proceed. But this this felt
Speaker 1: pretty clear that this was these were all these things
Speaker 1: were coming UM. And I think to the credit of
Speaker 1: our folks at PIMCO, you know, they weren't necessarily surprised
Speaker 1: that that that that this has happened. UM. But of course,
Speaker 1: you know, this is this is determining how markets are reacting.
Speaker 1: So it's something that we've been talking more recently about.
Speaker 1: Let's talk a little bit about the changing role of
Speaker 1: women on Wall Street, and I have to go back
Speaker 1: to a quote from Michelle Meyer. She's UM one of
Speaker 1: the senior economists at Bank America Merrill Lynch, and she
Speaker 1: made a specific point of saying when she was coming up,
Speaker 1: there were very few women role models for her to
Speaker 1: look up to and emulate as an analyst slash economist.
Speaker 1: But it's beginning to change. What are your perspective on
Speaker 1: that topic. I think it, I mean, it's changing, but
Speaker 1: it's at a glacial pace. Honestly, I think especially on
Speaker 1: the cell side and investment banks. If I if I
Speaker 1: look back to when I entered finance back at two thousand,
Speaker 1: you know, but almost half of my analysts class were women, UM,
Speaker 1: which was UM, I think really notable at the time.
Speaker 1: I just don't think, you know what what what's been
Speaker 1: UM in some ways discouraging is that over time there
Speaker 1: have been many women who have dropped out of finance. UM.
Speaker 1: So it's not necessarily that we're not starting at the
Speaker 1: right place. It's really a question of retaining them and
Speaker 1: developing them and promoting them and all of those things. UM.
Speaker 1: But but to Michelle's point, it's certainly I think the
Speaker 1: the landscape and is looking different, but also the commitment
Speaker 1: among senior leaders. I think that UM, you know, our folks,
Speaker 1: certainly at PIMCO, UH, you know, from the CEO down,
Speaker 1: are really committed to increasing diversity. And it's not just
Speaker 1: lip service. It's actually UM making sure that you know,
Speaker 1: every interview slate has UM some woman on it, UM
Speaker 1: at the very least one, UM, if not more. UM.
Speaker 1: It's making sure that when we're looking at promotion classes
Speaker 1: that they're balanced. UM. It's making sure that we are
Speaker 1: looking two women for um, you know, different opportunities instead
Speaker 1: of just instead of maybe just just sort of the
Speaker 1: conventional man. So and I think we're really trying to
Speaker 1: make a difference. Um, but it's again, it's been I
Speaker 1: think it's been glacial. I just look of almost the
Speaker 1: last twenty years in finance. I've been involved in financial services,
Speaker 1: and we haven't made as much progress as we really
Speaker 1: need to. But I do think it's I do think
Speaker 1: it's changing. So So, I had a debate not too
Speaker 1: long ago with a friend from outside of the industry saying, so,
Speaker 1: when is when is Wall Street having it's meat too movement?
Speaker 1: And my response was, Hey, you know, things were really
Speaker 1: terrible in the eighties, and I think it had it
Speaker 1: in and from my perspective, trading deaths were horrific, and
Speaker 1: the lack of general respectful women in that period was awful.
Speaker 1: But you had a bunch of litigation in the boom
Speaker 1: boom room and all that crazy stuff. And I think
Speaker 1: Wall Street has been woke long before the rest of
Speaker 1: the country did. Plus compliance plus litigation, it seems Wall Street,
Speaker 1: at least in my career, has been ahead of other
Speaker 1: fields in terms of recognizing, hey, this is a problem.
Speaker 1: We better do something about it. Not that it's remotely fixed,
Speaker 1: but there's some awareness. Is that a fair Yeah? I
Speaker 1: think that's I think that's fair. Um. However, if you
Speaker 1: look at the composition of management teams across Wall Street
Speaker 1: and the buy side, you don't necessarily see as many
Speaker 1: women as you want to. So I think, wow, we
Speaker 1: may not have, um, the more draconian severe harassment issues
Speaker 1: that I think some of these other industries had that
Speaker 1: have been unearthed recently, we still do have a real
Speaker 1: development problem among women and retention problem. And so that's
Speaker 1: the key is how do we make sure we can
Speaker 1: we can get women in the door. You know, you
Speaker 1: can get women in the door at twenty two because
Speaker 1: they want to be an investment banking programs and they
Speaker 1: want to go to the buy side. Um, but how
Speaker 1: do we make sure that we're getting them to the
Speaker 1: next step? And I think some of it is, um,
Speaker 1: you know this, Some of it is the women do
Speaker 1: have to have children biologically, right, So making sure that
Speaker 1: we're supporting women during that period of time and not
Speaker 1: just making sure that they have maternity leave, but making
Speaker 1: sure that when they come back that they're supported, making
Speaker 1: sure that they don't necessarily miss out on a promotion
Speaker 1: or opportunity when they're out on leave or when they're
Speaker 1: really just in um the fast lane of parenting. I
Speaker 1: think that And and you know, the the interesting thing
Speaker 1: that PIMCO is that we're seeing these demands both from
Speaker 1: women but also from men. I mean, we a lot
Speaker 1: of men in our New York office especially have working wives,
Speaker 1: and so you know, they want to make sure that
Speaker 1: they have parental leave, that they have some flexibility, um,
Speaker 1: to make sure that they can go to the preschool
Speaker 1: recital or what have you. So in some ways, um,
Speaker 1: you know, and this I don't want to say that
Speaker 1: this if you kind of address these issues of mothering,
Speaker 1: that you're going to fix the problem, but that definitely
Speaker 1: is a piece in the puzzle that has to be
Speaker 1: addressed him go, like other organizations are trying to do.
Speaker 1: So promotion retention are Is it fair to say it's
Speaker 1: just as important as pay, parity and recruitment on the
Speaker 1: other end, I think I think promotion and retention in
Speaker 1: some ways fixes the pay issue because a lot of
Speaker 1: times the pay issue is because you just have more
Speaker 1: senior men at the top. So if you get more
Speaker 1: women at the top, I a making these decisions about pay,
Speaker 1: but be just making sure that there is just sort
Speaker 1: of balance about the distribution of pay um. And you know,
Speaker 1: some of these recent studies that have come out have
Speaker 1: I think conflated the issue. Right, So there's this UK
Speaker 1: gender parity study that came out and at least in
Speaker 1: our case, because like every other funny intra firm, we
Speaker 1: had to to publish it. What I think, you know,
Speaker 1: I don't think we have a pay I mean, it's
Speaker 1: it's it's it's illegal to discriminate pay on gender, right,
Speaker 1: so well, but in our case I can say is
Speaker 1: that it's it's it's not about pay parity. It's about
Speaker 1: making sure that you get more women at the top
Speaker 1: so that distribution of pay doesn't look so so out
Speaker 1: of whack. So the area that becomes gray, or at
Speaker 1: least that people have been hiding in has been all right.
Speaker 1: If you're a level three c F A and AN
Speaker 1: analysts and you have five years experience, you would imagine
Speaker 1: that plus or minus a small percentage, that pay level
Speaker 1: should be sort of comparable regardless of gender, what have you.
Speaker 1: But some of the complaints have been two people, maybe
Speaker 1: one person's covering tech and someone's covering a less sexty
Speaker 1: space like utilities. You end up with some pretty wild
Speaker 1: disparities in pay. And the defense has always been, well
Speaker 1: it's this sector versus that or something along those lines.
Speaker 1: Is that an issue that people are hiding behind, or
Speaker 1: is itself simply by having more senior women at the
Speaker 1: upper echelons and upper pay scale at at large farms. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, look, I don't hey, I don't think there's
Speaker 1: one silver bullet and be I can't speak about other firms,
Speaker 1: but I can just speak about about him go. And
Speaker 1: we've you know, we've brought in the third party auditors
Speaker 1: to make sure that we're paying fairly, um, in terms
Speaker 1: of somebody who has the you know, wearing the same role,
Speaker 1: the same level and what what have you in the
Speaker 1: same function. Um. But again it's the issue of making
Speaker 1: sure that we have women in leadership. So um, you
Speaker 1: know those women are you know, having the same opportunities
Speaker 1: and are getting those big paychecks that men have been
Speaker 1: getting historically. So I I don't want to say that
Speaker 1: there's one, you know, there's one way to solve this,
Speaker 1: but I do think that developing women and promoting them
Speaker 1: and getting them into these decision making roles is super important.
Speaker 1: Your offices are in New York, right are you? You're
Speaker 1: not Newport Beach. You're in New York, New York, Yes, right,
Speaker 1: that office, that Newport Beach location is about as beautiful
Speaker 1: as a place. Pretty nice, Yes, you can. You can
Speaker 1: imagine that. A lot of my my business school friends
Speaker 1: think I'm just nuts for working in New York versus
Speaker 1: Newport Beach. But of course New York is closer to Washington.
Speaker 1: That makes that makes perfect sense for you for your drills.
Speaker 1: So let's let's talk about Washington, and let's talk about
Speaker 1: your role. Is it more government affairs and d C
Speaker 1: or is it more hey, investment committee, Here are some
Speaker 1: issues you need to be aware of. I mean, it's honestly,
Speaker 1: it's just both. And it really depends on the environment.
Speaker 1: So you can imagine back a few years ago, after
Speaker 1: Dodd Frank was was implemented, and you know, all the
Speaker 1: regulatory agencies were deciding the rules of the road, um
Speaker 1: for derivatives and other things that that matter. From our perspective,
Speaker 1: it was more of a traditional government affairs role. Um,
Speaker 1: we were educating folks in Washington. We were trying to
Speaker 1: UM make our you know, make our arguments about you
Speaker 1: know what the they what they should kind of the
Speaker 1: direction of the policy should go in UM. But now,
Speaker 1: just given what we've been talking about, you know how
Speaker 1: newsworthy and eventful, event driven this this administration has been.
Speaker 1: It's been more on on the investment side. So we
Speaker 1: have a tragedy like the Parkland school shooting and these
Speaker 1: things normally fade pretty quickly, that seemed to have legs
Speaker 1: and really seemed to last a while. How do you
Speaker 1: integrate something like that into the investment committee? I know
Speaker 1: black Rock is talking about a gun free fund and
Speaker 1: other such things. How do you deal with something ang
Speaker 1: so that does not necessarily impact us as much. I mean, well,
Speaker 1: we might have specific sectors that are impacted, but from
Speaker 1: a macro perspective, you know, gun legislation is not necessarily
Speaker 1: going to impact the growth of the economy or the
Speaker 1: FEDS next move right, So most of the things that
Speaker 1: from a pure kind of top down macro perspective are
Speaker 1: the things that are going to be driving growth and inflation.
Speaker 1: And you know, gun policy is not necessary, but it
Speaker 1: could obviously impact more of a bottom up so so
Speaker 1: let's so then let's talk about something that could impact
Speaker 1: theoretically the economy. You had a very interesting set of
Speaker 1: comments about the tariffs and saying, this is the sixteen
Speaker 1: trillion dollar economy. These are a hundred or a hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty billion dollars worth the tariffs. Explain what the
Speaker 1: thought processes and how that gets digested by the group
Speaker 1: running investments. Sure, so, you know, the the the the
Speaker 1: statement that you're referring to is really based on the
Speaker 1: fifty billions. So the initial set of tariffs that President
Speaker 1: Trump had announced as part of this investigation into China's
Speaker 1: you know, potential um sort tenuous use of American intellectual property,
Speaker 1: fifty billion is not going to really be too much
Speaker 1: of a headwind on the economy, right, we say, a
Speaker 1: tenth of represent perhaps in terms of a drag on GDP.
Speaker 1: That's really dwarfed by the more pro growth things that
Speaker 1: we have seen from this administration, including of course the
Speaker 1: tax bill, which has gotten a lot of news, but
Speaker 1: also something that hasn't really gotten i think as much
Speaker 1: attention in the media, which has been the spending bill
Speaker 1: that was approved, you know, earlier this year, and that
Speaker 1: adds about you know, thirty basis points to real GDP
Speaker 1: growth and everybody and so yeah, I mean maybe not us,
Speaker 1: but but we we knew it was coming. Honestly, I
Speaker 1: think that the size of it was surprising. We were
Speaker 1: thinking more sort of twenty basis points. But the fact
Speaker 1: that it is up to the kind of the three
Speaker 1: tenths of a of a percent in terms of real
Speaker 1: real GDP we're talking about really you know, significant impulse
Speaker 1: from Washington, so about six tenths. So if you talk
Speaker 1: about one tenth of a drag, well, again, distill the
Speaker 1: good outweighs the bad. I think the big question, however,
Speaker 1: is do these hundred billion dollars of tariffs um in
Speaker 1: addition to the fifty billion or do we proceed with those?
Speaker 1: And then of course the big question is what is
Speaker 1: China do and retaliation and that there's just a lot
Speaker 1: of uncertainty around it. But to our earlier to our
Speaker 1: earlier discussion, and I just I think it's going to
Speaker 1: be a much more significant concession from China for this
Speaker 1: administration to back off. I think people who view this
Speaker 1: as sort of symbolic posturing just trying to get China
Speaker 1: to the negotiating table and an easy win, or again
Speaker 1: really underestimating what how President Trump feels about this issue
Speaker 1: and the folks that he has in charge. I mean,
Speaker 1: Bob Bleitheiser is an incredibly widely credible U. S Trade
Speaker 1: representative who knows the law and was behind many of
Speaker 1: the more protectionous measures against Japan and nine. So um,
Speaker 1: I would take again, I would take the I would
Speaker 1: take President Trump very seriously on these issues. Do you
Speaker 1: ever find yourself looking at the reaction at elsewhere on
Speaker 1: the street that they're not taking this of all the things,
Speaker 1: like I think the wall is never going to be built.
Speaker 1: I don't think anybody really cares about the wall. But
Speaker 1: the protection ism in the tariffs, I'm surprised people are
Speaker 1: surprised exactly. I'm surprised that there's a surprised My my
Speaker 1: has been trades equities and uh, we have some pretty
Speaker 1: interesting dinner conversations and all of he's like, oh, you're
Speaker 1: such a bear about the trade policy and the protection
Speaker 1: is m and the potential trade war. Um. But again,
Speaker 1: I mean to to our to our discussion, we needed this.
Speaker 1: This was this was so clearly telegraphed to the market
Speaker 1: that this was going to happen. It was just a
Speaker 1: question of when and not if. Um that sometimes the
Speaker 1: equity market does you know, it's it's the fuddles us
Speaker 1: and I think it fuddles me and sometimes fuddles other
Speaker 1: folks that have So let's hold the equity market saw
Speaker 1: and look at the fixed income market. We now are
Speaker 1: back to trillion dollar deficits the first time in about
Speaker 1: six or seven years. Uh, the nineteen trillion dollar collected
Speaker 1: total debt. I've seen all sorts of forecast from to
Speaker 1: thirty trillion, whatever it is. It's a lot of money,
Speaker 1: and deficits tend to impact the bond market. How are
Speaker 1: you advising the Investment Committee of here's what def sits
Speaker 1: are going to mean for inflation, for credit availability, and
Speaker 1: for were yields may end up. Yeah, and this is
Speaker 1: I mean, this is one where I'm really just an
Speaker 1: input and it's really their analysis and discussion that will
Speaker 1: lead to that in terms of how it impacts our
Speaker 1: position positioning. But it but it is one of the
Speaker 1: reasons um. Our view is that you know the spending
Speaker 1: bill was going to happen, and that there was going
Speaker 1: to be you know, some more fiscal profligacy. Then I
Speaker 1: think people had had maybe expected, um, but this is
Speaker 1: going to have a dampening effect on growth over the
Speaker 1: long term. So you know, again we have the benefit
Speaker 1: of being long term investors. We think three things through
Speaker 1: on a cyclical sort of six to nine months basis,
Speaker 1: but we also have the luxury of thinking things through
Speaker 1: on a kind of a three to five year basis.
Speaker 1: And this is the genesis of our new neutral and
Speaker 1: um you know, new normal kind of paradigm that we think.
Speaker 1: This is one of the reasons why rates are structurally
Speaker 1: going to be lower, because you're probably going to have
Speaker 1: a dampening of you know, on growth because as of
Speaker 1: these large you know, kind of debt overhangs. Because in
Speaker 1: a of course, in a in a time of recession
Speaker 1: or you know, down you know, or downturn, the sort
Speaker 1: of the fiscal um side will have less capacity to
Speaker 1: actually step in because of these big deficits that they're
Speaker 1: running in good times. I mean, as you know, this
Speaker 1: is a very unusual approach, right to be adding all
Speaker 1: of this kind of fiscal juice at a time that
Speaker 1: you know, the economy is actually doing pretty well, right,
Speaker 1: so to add it late in the economic cycle. Um,
Speaker 1: we think what might preclude policymakers from stepping in when
Speaker 1: actually the ac this would have been better timed had
Speaker 1: it been six years earlier or fill in the blank,
Speaker 1: three or four or five years later whenever the next
Speaker 1: recession hit. Yeah, and you know, we you know, we
Speaker 1: don't really take a normative view on policy, so we're
Speaker 1: not telling policymakers what they should do or what they
Speaker 1: shouldn't do. What we say is, if you do this,
Speaker 1: this is how the market will react, and this is
Speaker 1: how the economy will react. So, um, you know, should
Speaker 1: it have been and done later? You know, who knows,
Speaker 1: But certainly I think the practical impact of it being
Speaker 1: done now is that means that policymakers have less flexibility
Speaker 1: longer terms. So pro cyclical stimulus is different than countercyclical stimulus.
Speaker 1: Pretty right. So so let me ask you eCOM one
Speaker 1: or two questions. How long you're right at the intersection
Speaker 1: between Wall Street and DC, between public policy and finance.
Speaker 1: How long does it take for the markets will hold
Speaker 1: the efficient market hypothesis to decide for a moment to
Speaker 1: actually understand what's taking place in DC and reflected in prices.
Speaker 1: Because I'm thinking about your husband's comments on oh, what
Speaker 1: is this all this tariff chatter in seventeen When it's
Speaker 1: not chatter, it's going to happen. How long does it
Speaker 1: take for the markets to actually digest and and adjust
Speaker 1: to these big issues. It seems somethings take a long
Speaker 1: time to work their way in. Yeah, and I think, um,
Speaker 1: I think that that's absolutely true. Although it really is
Speaker 1: important to define which markets you're talking about obviously, right,
Speaker 1: So the equity market, which we just have less interaction,
Speaker 1: and because we really managed primarily fixed income assets, um,
Speaker 1: seems much more reactive to these headlines and and and
Speaker 1: arguably things are more you know, some certain sectors or
Speaker 1: more price for perfection, so they're probably more vulnerable to
Speaker 1: sell offs when you do have a negative headline, whether
Speaker 1: it's trade or something else. Um. I think the fixed
Speaker 1: income market has been maybe a little bit more deliberate,
Speaker 1: a little bit more thoughtful about internalizing some of these policies.
Speaker 1: You see I think less dramatic moves from on headlines. Uh,
Speaker 1: And I think you see kind of less um, less
Speaker 1: volatili and again is what the drivers are of, you know,
Speaker 1: of fixed income versus versus equities, But I think that
Speaker 1: the fixed income market has been more a little bit
Speaker 1: more immune to be what's going on in Washington. We
Speaker 1: have been speaking with Libby Cantrell of PIMCO Issues, the
Speaker 1: head of Public Policy and Government Affairs. If you enjoy
Speaker 1: this conversation, be sure and check out our podcast extras,
Speaker 1: where we keep the tape rolling and continue to discuss
Speaker 1: all things policy wonk and market related. You can find
Speaker 1: that wherever Finer podcasts are sold Apple, iTunes, Overcast, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: and of course Bloomberg dot com. We love your comments,
Speaker 1: feedback and suggestions right to us at m IB podcast
Speaker 1: at Bloomberg dot net. You could follow me on Twitter
Speaker 1: at rit Halts, or check out my daily columns at
Speaker 1: Bloomberg View dot com. I'm Barry Hults. You're listening to
Speaker 1: Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. Welcome to the podcast.
Speaker 1: Thank you Libby so much for doing this. This has
Speaker 1: really been quite fascinating and we've been trying to get
Speaker 1: you edualed for some time. Before I get to my
Speaker 1: favorite questions, they're they're a handful of other questions we
Speaker 1: didn't get to that. I'm really I really wanna just
Speaker 1: just get a few, um a few moments on UM
Speaker 1: and and it's mostly politics. So the first question, and
Speaker 1: I think, and this is a pretty standard issue, how
Speaker 1: should investors think about politics and how it relates to
Speaker 1: their portfolios? Because we we get emails about this all
Speaker 1: the time, I know, and I wish I had I
Speaker 1: wish I had a one one, uh simple, straightforward way
Speaker 1: of thinking of it. I mean, I think in some ways, UM,
Speaker 1: you know, investors, uh, I think hope the politics politicians
Speaker 1: are about a base level do no harm, right, but
Speaker 1: they don't they don't really get in the way of
Speaker 1: of markets. I think that the sort of second order
Speaker 1: is that they hope that polity titians actually do something
Speaker 1: for economic growth, UM, for longer term viability and what
Speaker 1: have you. And then I think on the sort of
Speaker 1: flip side of that is really what they can do
Speaker 1: to to hinder markets and the economy and and you
Speaker 1: know not it's it's probably too reductive to characterize UM
Speaker 1: the past ten years any one way, but it has
Speaker 1: been more of I think a headwind just two markets
Speaker 1: and UM and you know, maybe to growth then than
Speaker 1: the typical investor would would would meaning things like deficits
Speaker 1: or tax hikes or wars in Iraq or just the whole.
Speaker 1: I think the noise coming out of Washington really right.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think the fact that um bipartisanship isn't
Speaker 1: necessarily lost, but it's definitely on ice, at least for
Speaker 1: a while. UM that we've seen more manufactured crises, whether
Speaker 1: it's the debt ceiling crisis or or government shutdowns, or
Speaker 1: just this real lack of comedy and lack of I
Speaker 1: think constructive engagement between policy between the two parties to
Speaker 1: actually address really longer term issues like our entitlements issue,
Speaker 1: which has become so polarized. But having worked on the Hill,
Speaker 1: there's some really easy ways to address this that are
Speaker 1: actually quite bipartisan that if a centrist coalition came out
Speaker 1: I think put something forward in the political environment was different,
Speaker 1: we could actually affect change. But it's really the kind
Speaker 1: of the lack of political will, of political courage in
Speaker 1: some ways, just the the lack of even discussion between
Speaker 1: between the two parties. It seems that a lot of
Speaker 1: these are unforced eras and self inflicted wounds. I mean,
Speaker 1: for sure, yes, I mean and and so I just
Speaker 1: so again, you know, I don't it's not only are
Speaker 1: they not doing no harm. And maybe it's not, it's
Speaker 1: not sort of short term harm, but in the long run,
Speaker 1: you think that you really have to have the courage
Speaker 1: of your convictions and and just courage in general in
Speaker 1: order to address some of these really longer term big
Speaker 1: issues like we're that we're talking about. Either it's the
Speaker 1: debt issue, it's the entitlement issue, it's investment in education
Speaker 1: or infrastructure, what have you. That that's that that takes courage,
Speaker 1: and also you risk not getting reelected. And I think
Speaker 1: we don't have folks who are have that kind of
Speaker 1: long term view. The thing I'm shocked about you said,
Speaker 1: do no harm. For a second, put put in place
Speaker 1: some pro growth policies. If there's anything that's pro growth
Speaker 1: and has some bipartisan support, it's an infrastructure spend. And
Speaker 1: yet nobody seems to be able to get anything through it.
Speaker 1: I know it's been frustrating, right because it's something that
Speaker 1: was contemplated under President Obama UM and it was certainly
Speaker 1: obviously contemplated on the campaign trail. And I think if
Speaker 1: both candidates, both candidates and and and to your point,
Speaker 1: you know, everybody, every member of Congress likes to bring
Speaker 1: it home some goodies for the district, right, Um, and
Speaker 1: that is one thing that you know, I would say,
Speaker 1: and again there's not one explanation for why there has
Speaker 1: been a lack of bipartisanship, but the elimination of earmarks.
Speaker 1: And this is going to be the unpopular thing to say,
Speaker 1: but you know, these are the things that that horse
Speaker 1: trading for some sort of middle ground, and it really
Speaker 1: precludes sort of the ideological wings of both parties from um,
Speaker 1: you know, sort of abandoning their party and from not
Speaker 1: voting for something. So basically brings people to the table
Speaker 1: and it allows compromise. And I really fundamentally believe and
Speaker 1: to to the to the credit of policymakers in Washington,
Speaker 1: I actually think this is a widely held belief that
Speaker 1: compromise is really central to governing. I mean, it's like,
Speaker 1: guess it's the statement of the obvious, right, but you
Speaker 1: need to bring those folks, and you need to bring
Speaker 1: you need to incentivise them to compromise, and earmarks was
Speaker 1: a way to do that. Talk about unintended consequences of
Speaker 1: of rule changes, did it? Did anyone raise the objection
Speaker 1: that if you get rid of your marks, you're elimiting
Speaker 1: the ability for people to horse straight across the aisle exactly.
Speaker 1: Um and and it's it's been something that has been
Speaker 1: discussed behind I think closed doors recently. But but it's
Speaker 1: so the optics of bringing back earmarks, I think it
Speaker 1: would be so bad. But it's you know, it's one
Speaker 1: percent of discretionary spending. It's such a small part of spending.
Speaker 1: And discretionary spending, of course, is only a third of
Speaker 1: all government spending because two thirds is entitlement spending. So
Speaker 1: we're talking about a really diminimus is entitled in spending. Yeah, military,
Speaker 1: big chunk of that also, I just want Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: about five billion of discretionaries, so it's about half of
Speaker 1: discretionaries military and some of the mandatory some of entitlements
Speaker 1: is earmarked for military folks in terms of benefits and
Speaker 1: what have you and healthcare programs. But but yeah, so anyway,
Speaker 1: so it's a very small part of discretionary spending. And
Speaker 1: again this is a difficult thing for a member of
Speaker 1: Congress to advocate for, but I do think it was
Speaker 1: an uintended consequence of its elimination, and you you you
Speaker 1: look at sort of the inflection point of when all
Speaker 1: this partisanship happened, and maybe it's just totally coincidental, but
Speaker 1: it really was around two thousand and ten. It was
Speaker 1: partly because of the Tea Party, of course, but again
Speaker 1: there wasn't an incentive to bring them to the table
Speaker 1: because there weren't those air marks anymore. And my last
Speaker 1: question before I get to my favorite questions. Your role
Speaker 1: of PIMCO is so central to dealing with policy and
Speaker 1: the and the the investment side. How do you not
Speaker 1: let your own personal politics interfere with your process? Yeah? Well,
Speaker 1: something that I you know, I think like every investor
Speaker 1: who's covering their own a sector, they really try to
Speaker 1: do it in a dispassionate, objective way. Um. I think
Speaker 1: because politics is so visceral, it's so emotional. Um, it's
Speaker 1: maybe harder to do, but I really and it goes
Speaker 1: back to our view that we don't have we don't
Speaker 1: have a normati vie about how things should be. If
Speaker 1: we're trying to you know, react to how things are
Speaker 1: um and predict how things will be um again, not
Speaker 1: how they should be. So that so that's ah, that's
Speaker 1: it makes it easier because I'm not saying projecting my
Speaker 1: own kind of views on what a policy direction. I'm
Speaker 1: sort of saying, Okay, this is what is likely to happen,
Speaker 1: and this is how the market will react to it.
Speaker 1: And I view that instead a very similar role as
Speaker 1: any sort of credit research analyst who's looking at another sector.
Speaker 1: Just passionate, objective. But you know, it's it's it's a
Speaker 1: harder just given given the topic. All Right, so let's
Speaker 1: get to my favorite questions. These are the the issues
Speaker 1: we ask all of our guests. I think I'm woefully
Speaker 1: unprepared for. By the way, just just re associate the
Speaker 1: first thing that comes into your mind. Uh, tell us
Speaker 1: the most important thing people don't know about your background.
Speaker 1: I'm a huge Denver Broncos fan. Um no, I I
Speaker 1: from Denver. You know. I I struggled. That's all these
Speaker 1: questions this morning. I struggled with that one. And um,
Speaker 1: you know, I think it's Uh, I think it's something.
Speaker 1: And we talked a little bit about this, that you're
Speaker 1: taking these risks early on your career. Um, and it's
Speaker 1: it's something I talked to about, especially to younger women
Speaker 1: who are who are coming into finance. But um, you know,
Speaker 1: taking risks, it's taking calculated risks. It's just it's just important.
Speaker 1: And I did that when I left finance temporarily to
Speaker 1: go to Washington, and then I helped, you know, in
Speaker 1: some ways create this role at Pimcoes role had never
Speaker 1: existed before. And if I hadn't spoken up, if I
Speaker 1: hadn't made the case for why this was important from
Speaker 1: a business and an investment perspective, I wouldn't be here today.
Speaker 1: So I so, I don't know whether this is something
Speaker 1: that I want people to know about me, but I
Speaker 1: do think when reflecting on my career, it's something that's
Speaker 1: held me in goodstead by taking calculated risks, by speaking
Speaker 1: up um, and you know, by sort of by by
Speaker 1: risking failure. And I think that's a that's a hard
Speaker 1: it's a hard thing to do. Tell us about some
Speaker 1: of your mentors who helped god your career. Law Well,
Speaker 1: so you know, my my U I have to say,
Speaker 1: my my my mom is important because my my parents
Speaker 1: got divorced. My mom hadn't worked um, and she went
Speaker 1: back to work at a pretty difficult time because she
Speaker 1: had to. And I think seeing her her kind of
Speaker 1: resilience and her grit um, you know, just sort of
Speaker 1: solidified the importance of well, first of all, it's the
Speaker 1: importance of work for me that I think as a
Speaker 1: especially as a woman. UM. You know, my view is
Speaker 1: that the work is just really important. It gives you,
Speaker 1: um obviously gives you, you know, some professional identity, but
Speaker 1: it also gives you economic independence. And I think that
Speaker 1: UM was certainly you know, underscored to me during this
Speaker 1: kind of experience growing up. UM. And then you know
Speaker 1: later on, UM, this member of Congress who I worked for,
Speaker 1: UH in the in the state legislature and then later
Speaker 1: in the House of Representatives, she really in some ways
Speaker 1: exemplified But UM, I hope I am. Now you know,
Speaker 1: she was a real professional. She was dedicated to her work.
Speaker 1: She was ambitious. But at the same time, she was
Speaker 1: a mother, and she was you know, a friend and
Speaker 1: a wife and all of those things. I mean again
Speaker 1: sounds kind of cheesy, UM, but to see that, and
Speaker 1: I really do believe when we were talking about this
Speaker 1: about you know, women mentors in Wall Street, but you
Speaker 1: have to you know, you could only be what you
Speaker 1: can see, and I think see working for this woman
Speaker 1: while when I was a teenager UM and sort of
Speaker 1: seeing her struggle with a parenthood and running for Congress.
Speaker 1: You know, really just again kind of reffirmed that you
Speaker 1: can do it. It's just that takes a lot of
Speaker 1: hard work and persistence. Let's talk a little bit about books.
Speaker 1: You have to travel a decent amount of What what
Speaker 1: do you read for other than those PDFs that that
Speaker 1: get produced by PIMCO. What do you read for pleasure?
Speaker 1: Mark either fiction nonfiction market related? I would I read both, right,
Speaker 1: So I read um. In terms of non fiction, I
Speaker 1: read a lot of presidential history, which I think has
Speaker 1: been in some ways reassuring or interesting during this period
Speaker 1: of time to sort of see you read about what
Speaker 1: we went through in the nineteenth century or or what
Speaker 1: have you. How chaotic that has been. Um uh, well
Speaker 1: so so I just I just downloaded um grant by
Speaker 1: Chair now, which is supposed to be supposed to be amazing.
Speaker 1: And then on the other hand, I like to read
Speaker 1: fiction too, because to what we were talking about earlier,
Speaker 1: there's just been no escape from the news psychle and
Speaker 1: so to read and I was, you know, read fire
Speaker 1: and Fury, and I just like too much too much
Speaker 1: right back in there. I had the exact same reaction
Speaker 1: to you. I read the first thirty pages and I'm like, wait,
Speaker 1: now I'm doing this when the TV is offen. You know,
Speaker 1: I know I ended up. I ended up feeling like
Speaker 1: I had to read it for my job, but it
Speaker 1: wasn't necessarily for pleasure. I felt like it was more
Speaker 1: of a work assignment, um than anything else. So, you know,
Speaker 1: I like novels, but honestly, I think like other folks
Speaker 1: have said, you know, I'm being a worker, working and traveling,
Speaker 1: and then being a parent doesn't allow me a lot,
Speaker 1: and then having to read the news. So honestly, I
Speaker 1: go to bed reading Twitter, and I wake up reading Twitter,
Speaker 1: which is that I don't think it's healthy long term. No,
Speaker 1: it's definitely not healthy. Well unless you mute with with
Speaker 1: great extreme prejudice, if you're muting people who are just
Speaker 1: I can't read another screed and threaded um fest. I'm
Speaker 1: just I'm done with this guy, unless you are an
Speaker 1: aggressive muter. Yeah, it's just painful. Yeah, it's just it
Speaker 1: doesn't feels just relentless. So so tell us what has
Speaker 1: changed over the course of your career within finance. Are
Speaker 1: you seeing progress or is it still a glacial pace
Speaker 1: of change? You know, I think again, you know, going
Speaker 1: back to our discussion at least about gender and just
Speaker 1: about diversity in general, you know, you know, ethnicity and
Speaker 1: what have you. I, um it did that has been glacial.
Speaker 1: I don't think that looks very different. Um But in
Speaker 1: a big butt here, I think there is much more
Speaker 1: of a commitment of an awareness, a commitment on boards,
Speaker 1: the commitment among management teams to actually change things and
Speaker 1: not again, not just creating a woman's network and having
Speaker 1: a woman you know, talk over glasses of wine about
Speaker 1: whatever it's really about. You know, a fundamental commitment to change.
Speaker 1: And I think that does feel like it's changing. And
Speaker 1: you know, I think the data is really compelling on this.
Speaker 1: And this is what we've been trying to make. The
Speaker 1: argument other folks and our clients are making this argument
Speaker 1: to us as well, is that diverse teams lead to
Speaker 1: better outcomes from a performance from a from a financial perspective.
Speaker 1: So this is not just a question of it would
Speaker 1: be nice to have. This is a question of the
Speaker 1: must have because it really is drives the bottom line.
Speaker 1: Avoid group think. Can it's never a bit exactly right?
Speaker 1: Tell us about a time you failed and what you
Speaker 1: learned from the experience. Oh gosh, I mean I feel
Speaker 1: like I fail every day. Um, you know, I I
Speaker 1: you know, I joke, but I do feel in some ways. Again,
Speaker 1: I think it's just a juggling. Uh, you know, not
Speaker 1: to put too much of a point on this, but
Speaker 1: having two small children and trying to do what and that.
Speaker 1: You know, we haven't really talked about this, but I
Speaker 1: also co had our New York office here, and so
Speaker 1: I just have a lot of my a lot of
Speaker 1: my plate, and invariably I feel like I'm letting somebody down.
Speaker 1: I'm not doing something. Um, whether it's you know, usually
Speaker 1: work takes priority over over my kids. Um, even though
Speaker 1: my kids are my of course my number one priority,
Speaker 1: and so is my husband. If he was listening to
Speaker 1: them to this that in there, he's probably tuned out
Speaker 1: a couple of pages. Nobody else is. UM. But but
Speaker 1: you know, I mean, you know, again not just kind
Speaker 1: of be tripe, but I think that you just realized that,
Speaker 1: you know, nobody has going into working starting to work
Speaker 1: at twenty two. You sort of think that you look
Speaker 1: up to the especially the women at thirty or forty,
Speaker 1: and they think that they have a figured out I
Speaker 1: think as I realized I just turned ford to you
Speaker 1: just realized that you never figured this out, and that's okay,
Speaker 1: and you sort of have to give yourself the freedom
Speaker 1: in order to fail but also to rectify things. Um.
Speaker 1: So you know, I just keep I keep just trying
Speaker 1: and trying, is you know. And I this again a
Speaker 1: kind of a lesson from my mom, is that you
Speaker 1: just you know, persistence is important. And I think persistence
Speaker 1: can get you can get you far. What do you
Speaker 1: do outside of the office to relax and just kick back? Oh,
Speaker 1: I go to my my six year old karates karate classes. Uh.
Speaker 1: You know again there's I do I and I uh,
Speaker 1: I really I do have a lot of Um. I
Speaker 1: spent a lot of time with my kids on the weekend.
Speaker 1: Of course. Um you know, I try to I try
Speaker 1: to work out, but I have a three and a
Speaker 1: six year old, so they're pretty unforgiving when I when
Speaker 1: I'm around, they you know, they want my um, they
Speaker 1: want my time. But um, you know, I think I
Speaker 1: wouldn't have it any other way, right, I wouldn't have it.
Speaker 1: I think that being a mom makes me a better employee,
Speaker 1: and being an employee and be having having a career
Speaker 1: makes me a better mom Um. So it's it's hectic,
Speaker 1: but I wouldn't do any differently. So what sort of
Speaker 1: advice would you give to a millennial or a recent
Speaker 1: college graduate who was considering a career in finance. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's a that's a that's a good question. I mean
Speaker 1: I think, you know, I think, um, by the way,
Speaker 1: these are all I think they are all. That's yet
Speaker 1: that is yet another good question. Very Uh, you know,
Speaker 1: you know what I think is and I see this
Speaker 1: you know in our in our New York office that
Speaker 1: hasn't even a more disproportionate number of millennial millennial folks, UM,
Speaker 1: but that their voice is really important. And I think
Speaker 1: what we're seeing this is sort of seeing this in Parkland, right,
Speaker 1: is that UM, I guess they're not that's not technically
Speaker 1: the millennial generation, but but what have you but that
Speaker 1: this kind of younger generation with a fresher perspective is
Speaker 1: really important. And UM, I think they need to be
Speaker 1: realistic about how much they can change in organizations. But
Speaker 1: that shouldn't necessarily prevent UM from speaking up, from trying
Speaker 1: to make change. And we we found that in our
Speaker 1: at listener in New York office at PIMCO that we've
Speaker 1: really a lot of the change that we've instituted the
Speaker 1: last two years from a cultural perspective has come from
Speaker 1: those folks because they've made suggestions. Um and they have
Speaker 1: a totally different perspective. And I think growing up with
Speaker 1: social media is just totally changing this generation and there
Speaker 1: and their perspective. Um and and I think it is
Speaker 1: moving these sort of you know, um not not you know,
Speaker 1: these kind of older or more traditional organizations in a
Speaker 1: in a really positive way. So I would say, you know, joined,
Speaker 1: don't don't be discouraged by sort of financial services joined
Speaker 1: financial services, but also be prepared to to speak up
Speaker 1: and try to make some change. And our final question,
Speaker 1: what is it that you know about the world of
Speaker 1: investing and public policy today that you wish you knew
Speaker 1: fifteen twenty years ago when you came out of business. Wow,
Speaker 1: I mean, I think it's changing every single day. So
Speaker 1: it's uh, um, you know, I think, um, you know,
Speaker 1: in some ways, it's some ways I was lucky, right
Speaker 1: because I think I saw that Washington didn't speak Wall
Speaker 1: Street language, and Wall Street didn't speak Washington language. UM.
Speaker 1: So I think in fifteen fifteen years back I wish
Speaker 1: I had more confidence that that was really the case,
Speaker 1: that there was really a need for this. UM and
Speaker 1: uh and I think what we're you know, what we're
Speaker 1: seeing here is that markets really are influenced by what's
Speaker 1: going on in Washington and and and and policymakers. So UM,
Speaker 1: I don't know if it's what I wish I knew,
Speaker 1: but I but I but again, I think that this
Speaker 1: bridge between the two is really important. I think will
Speaker 1: become even more important going forward. We have been speaking
Speaker 1: with pimco's Libby Cantrell. She runs the Office of Public
Speaker 1: Policy and Government Affairs at PIMCO. If you enjoy this conversation,
Speaker 1: be sure and look up an Inch or down an
Speaker 1: inch on Apple, iTunes, overcast, SoundCloud, wherever you find your
Speaker 1: favorite podcasts, and you could see any of the other
Speaker 1: two hundred or so such conversations we've had. We love
Speaker 1: your comments, feedback and suggestions right to us at m
Speaker 1: IB podcast at Bloomberg dot net. I would be remiss
Speaker 1: if I did not thank Mike crack staff that helps
Speaker 1: put together these podcasts each week. Uh Medina Parwana is
Speaker 1: our audio engineer. Slash producer. Taylor Riggs is our booker.
Speaker 1: Michael Batnick is my head of research. I'm Barry Ridholts.
Speaker 1: You've been listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.