WEBVTT - Consumers Will Be Able To Get Paid For Their Own Data: SRAX CEO

0:00:05.800 --> 0:00:08.720
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg p m L Podcast. I'm pim Fox.

0:00:08.760 --> 0:00:11.520
<v Speaker 1>Along with my co host Lisa Bramowitz. Each day we

0:00:11.600 --> 0:00:15.120
<v Speaker 1>bring you the most important, noteworthy, and useful interviews for

0:00:15.200 --> 0:00:17.800
<v Speaker 1>you and your money, whether you're at the grocery store

0:00:17.920 --> 0:00:20.720
<v Speaker 1>or the trading floor. Find the Bloomberg p m L

0:00:20.840 --> 0:00:28.200
<v Speaker 1>Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and Bloomberg dot com. Sharks

0:00:28.760 --> 0:00:31.520
<v Speaker 1>What is Sharks? Well? Here to tell us what Sharks

0:00:31.640 --> 0:00:34.600
<v Speaker 1>is and why it matters is Chris mcgleno. He is

0:00:34.640 --> 0:00:37.560
<v Speaker 1>the chief executive officer and the founder. They are based

0:00:37.600 --> 0:00:40.120
<v Speaker 1>in Beverly Hills, California, but he is joining us here

0:00:40.120 --> 0:00:43.760
<v Speaker 1>in our eleven three oh studios. Tell us, Chris, thanks

0:00:43.760 --> 0:00:47.280
<v Speaker 1>for being here. First, thanks for having what exactly is Sharks?

0:00:47.320 --> 0:00:50.879
<v Speaker 1>I understanding that you know the underlying thing right, digital

0:00:50.920 --> 0:00:54.920
<v Speaker 1>marketing and consumer data distribution management platform, but I have

0:00:55.080 --> 0:00:57.600
<v Speaker 1>no idea what that means. So what we do is

0:00:57.640 --> 0:01:03.040
<v Speaker 1>we aggregate data on specific audiences. So we we work

0:01:03.120 --> 0:01:07.920
<v Speaker 1>in certain verticals and then we aggregate data around those verticals.

0:01:07.920 --> 0:01:11.279
<v Speaker 1>So an example is we're in the consumer package good business.

0:01:11.680 --> 0:01:14.800
<v Speaker 1>We aggregate data on people that buy certain types of

0:01:14.840 --> 0:01:19.080
<v Speaker 1>products in big box retailers we aggregate the information about

0:01:19.080 --> 0:01:22.600
<v Speaker 1>those consumers and then we put into put them into silos,

0:01:22.640 --> 0:01:25.959
<v Speaker 1>and then we sell access to that data back to marketers.

0:01:26.240 --> 0:01:30.640
<v Speaker 1>We do that. We do similar thing with uh the

0:01:30.680 --> 0:01:34.600
<v Speaker 1>medical business. We have every doctor in the United States

0:01:34.640 --> 0:01:38.160
<v Speaker 1>map down to their cell phone, to their home computers,

0:01:38.160 --> 0:01:41.080
<v Speaker 1>to their office computers, and then we sell access to

0:01:41.120 --> 0:01:43.679
<v Speaker 1>that data to big pharma companies that want to reach

0:01:43.720 --> 0:01:47.640
<v Speaker 1>those particular on colleges, cardiologists, neurologists, and so on. And

0:01:47.680 --> 0:01:50.080
<v Speaker 1>we have that for around five different verticals that we do.

0:01:50.680 --> 0:01:53.680
<v Speaker 1>How hard is it for you to access the data? Well,

0:01:53.880 --> 0:01:56.680
<v Speaker 1>it takes a long time to build specific data sets

0:01:56.720 --> 0:01:59.840
<v Speaker 1>because you need to build them over time. So we

0:02:00.840 --> 0:02:03.920
<v Speaker 1>when we start a particular vertical, we have to slowly

0:02:04.000 --> 0:02:05.800
<v Speaker 1>start to build them, and we buy a lot of

0:02:05.880 --> 0:02:09.040
<v Speaker 1>data at first, and then data is we begin to

0:02:09.080 --> 0:02:11.839
<v Speaker 1>aggregate the data ourselves, and then we own that data

0:02:11.880 --> 0:02:13.600
<v Speaker 1>and resell it. The reason why I ask because I'm

0:02:13.639 --> 0:02:16.960
<v Speaker 1>thinking about Facebook and the recent data privacy concern issues

0:02:17.240 --> 0:02:22.240
<v Speaker 1>and increasing talk of regulation of the data disclosures. Is

0:02:22.240 --> 0:02:25.360
<v Speaker 1>that going to make your life more difficult or do

0:02:25.400 --> 0:02:28.480
<v Speaker 1>you think that that ship has sailed in the contract

0:02:28.520 --> 0:02:33.120
<v Speaker 1>of people deciding to put their information online for everybody

0:02:33.360 --> 0:02:35.799
<v Speaker 1>in return for getting free access to some of these services.

0:02:36.040 --> 0:02:38.600
<v Speaker 1>I think consumers are more aware about the privacy issues

0:02:38.639 --> 0:02:41.000
<v Speaker 1>now than they ever have been. I think in in

0:02:41.040 --> 0:02:44.400
<v Speaker 1>the past, consumers haven't minded given up their data in

0:02:44.400 --> 0:02:47.880
<v Speaker 1>exchange for free access. But I think now with the

0:02:47.960 --> 0:02:53.160
<v Speaker 1>Equifax and with the UH the Facebook breaches, people are

0:02:53.280 --> 0:02:55.639
<v Speaker 1>very aware of the value of their data. And that's

0:02:55.639 --> 0:02:58.880
<v Speaker 1>why around a year ago, we started working on a

0:02:58.880 --> 0:03:01.800
<v Speaker 1>platform that's going to out consumers to own their own data.

0:03:02.080 --> 0:03:04.440
<v Speaker 1>So you, as a consumer will be able to own

0:03:04.480 --> 0:03:08.280
<v Speaker 1>your own information and then people will access that information

0:03:08.320 --> 0:03:11.160
<v Speaker 1>and you'll get paid for that data. UM it's called

0:03:11.200 --> 0:03:15.000
<v Speaker 1>big Token, so UH big token is a platform. Big

0:03:15.040 --> 0:03:17.560
<v Speaker 1>token dot com is a platform that allows people to

0:03:18.360 --> 0:03:22.480
<v Speaker 1>put their information in validate data, and then as marketers

0:03:22.520 --> 0:03:26.480
<v Speaker 1>want to access that information, they pay to access the data.

0:03:26.520 --> 0:03:29.480
<v Speaker 1>But instead of the money going to the big oracles

0:03:29.560 --> 0:03:33.160
<v Speaker 1>experience axioms of the world, it goes direct to the consumer.

0:03:34.000 --> 0:03:36.760
<v Speaker 1>Let's say Lisa goes to an automobile showroom and she's

0:03:36.760 --> 0:03:39.760
<v Speaker 1>interested in a particular car and decides to take a

0:03:39.840 --> 0:03:43.480
<v Speaker 1>test drive, even goes to an auto show is that

0:03:43.640 --> 0:03:48.800
<v Speaker 1>information can you connect that information with maybe what Lisa

0:03:48.840 --> 0:03:52.440
<v Speaker 1>would do online looking at various automobile products very much.

0:03:52.480 --> 0:03:56.200
<v Speaker 1>So we have a auto vertical, and within our auto vertical,

0:03:56.480 --> 0:04:01.160
<v Speaker 1>we're providing software into the dealership level where if somebody

0:04:01.200 --> 0:04:03.000
<v Speaker 1>comes in and takes a test drive, they put in

0:04:03.040 --> 0:04:06.160
<v Speaker 1>the name, email address, phone number of that consumer. Once

0:04:06.200 --> 0:04:09.000
<v Speaker 1>we have that data, we can pretty much find out

0:04:09.040 --> 0:04:11.600
<v Speaker 1>everything else about the consumer. We can then do a

0:04:11.600 --> 0:04:15.520
<v Speaker 1>cross map between the cell phone the email address, and

0:04:15.560 --> 0:04:18.720
<v Speaker 1>that can help us find your browser. We can find

0:04:18.839 --> 0:04:22.559
<v Speaker 1>multiple devices off of those browsers um and just map

0:04:22.600 --> 0:04:24.760
<v Speaker 1>you in general, and within twenty four hours you can

0:04:24.800 --> 0:04:27.200
<v Speaker 1>start seeing ads for the car that you just tested of.

0:04:27.800 --> 0:04:31.040
<v Speaker 1>I'm really confused because the Facebook results that we just

0:04:31.080 --> 0:04:32.960
<v Speaker 1>got seemed to show that people don't care at all

0:04:33.000 --> 0:04:37.000
<v Speaker 1>about privacy because, uh they showed uh, you know, revenue

0:04:37.200 --> 0:04:40.000
<v Speaker 1>growth that was the most is two thousand fifteen, and

0:04:40.160 --> 0:04:43.120
<v Speaker 1>people seem to be uh flocking to the site regardless

0:04:43.120 --> 0:04:46.960
<v Speaker 1>of any privacy concerns. I'm just wondering, why would anybody

0:04:46.560 --> 0:04:51.800
<v Speaker 1>uh start to go through extra passwords and extra forms, etcetera.

0:04:51.839 --> 0:04:54.760
<v Speaker 1>If they're frankly willing to give away their information and

0:04:54.839 --> 0:04:57.279
<v Speaker 1>data for free, right now because consumers are not aware

0:04:57.320 --> 0:05:00.200
<v Speaker 1>about the amount of money that is being generated off

0:05:00.240 --> 0:05:02.120
<v Speaker 1>of them. How much money per person do you think

0:05:02.200 --> 0:05:06.839
<v Speaker 1>is generated a good consumer living in New York City? Uh?

0:05:06.880 --> 0:05:09.080
<v Speaker 1>And you know you remember, you're being tracked everywhere on

0:05:09.080 --> 0:05:12.040
<v Speaker 1>your phone, So they're tracking you from where you live

0:05:12.320 --> 0:05:15.240
<v Speaker 1>to where you work, So they're watching you from the

0:05:15.320 --> 0:05:20.520
<v Speaker 1>Upper East Side to Bloomberg Studio, and they're tracking everything

0:05:20.560 --> 0:05:25.520
<v Speaker 1>that you're doing, so anywhere anywhere from just on the

0:05:25.560 --> 0:05:31.240
<v Speaker 1>digital advertising side, not the not uh consumer marketing research

0:05:31.720 --> 0:05:34.600
<v Speaker 1>or direct mail or anything like that. Anywhere from two

0:05:34.680 --> 0:05:37.320
<v Speaker 1>hundred to two thousand dollars a month. So it's a

0:05:37.320 --> 0:05:39.480
<v Speaker 1>lot of money. Now, if somebody was going to give

0:05:39.520 --> 0:05:41.880
<v Speaker 1>that money to you, would you go sign up to

0:05:41.960 --> 0:05:44.520
<v Speaker 1>do it? That's why we put big Token dot com

0:05:44.600 --> 0:05:47.520
<v Speaker 1>up and we've had thousands of people sign up to

0:05:47.680 --> 0:05:50.120
<v Speaker 1>for their data. But then what about Amazon or what

0:05:50.160 --> 0:05:53.320
<v Speaker 1>about some of these other companies that can gather this

0:05:53.400 --> 0:05:56.880
<v Speaker 1>for free, They wouldn't then be as willing to pay

0:05:57.080 --> 0:06:00.600
<v Speaker 1>the additional cost to me. Correct, Then you as a

0:06:00.640 --> 0:06:05.120
<v Speaker 1>consumer will start to filter out what you're willing to

0:06:05.480 --> 0:06:08.640
<v Speaker 1>look at. We're going to give you uh browser plug

0:06:08.680 --> 0:06:11.279
<v Speaker 1>ins and tools that are going to help you get

0:06:11.400 --> 0:06:14.720
<v Speaker 1>rid of ads that are not paying to access your information,

0:06:16.080 --> 0:06:19.000
<v Speaker 1>and you might even get a check. You will you.

0:06:19.240 --> 0:06:22.320
<v Speaker 1>I just I have to wonder how much I mean, Amazon, Google,

0:06:22.680 --> 0:06:25.160
<v Speaker 1>these are the Facebook, the data sets that's where they

0:06:25.160 --> 0:06:27.360
<v Speaker 1>live and die. So they've got to be fighting back now.

0:06:27.640 --> 0:06:30.080
<v Speaker 1>I mean, you know, we're at the beginning of this.

0:06:30.160 --> 0:06:32.679
<v Speaker 1>We've been working on it for a year, and uh,

0:06:32.800 --> 0:06:36.120
<v Speaker 1>I think that those companies are about to see big

0:06:36.160 --> 0:06:39.839
<v Speaker 1>competition in this area. They've they've they've owned this data

0:06:39.880 --> 0:06:43.080
<v Speaker 1>set for a long time. Consumers have not fought back

0:06:43.400 --> 0:06:45.640
<v Speaker 1>to own their own data, and now they're going to

0:06:45.720 --> 0:06:47.840
<v Speaker 1>be ready to do that. They they just haven't had

0:06:47.880 --> 0:06:50.039
<v Speaker 1>the tools to be able to do it. They couldn't

0:06:50.040 --> 0:06:54.760
<v Speaker 1>go anywhere, sign up and then start getting getting money. Yeah. Well, um,

0:06:55.080 --> 0:06:58.640
<v Speaker 1>I gotta say I I would love to earn twoth

0:06:58.640 --> 0:07:01.880
<v Speaker 1>asand extras. Um. Chris mcglino, thank you so much for

0:07:01.920 --> 0:07:05.479
<v Speaker 1>joining us. Chris mcgleino, chief executive officer and founder of Sharks,

0:07:05.560 --> 0:07:09.640
<v Speaker 1>a digital marketing and consumer data distribution company which is

0:07:09.680 --> 0:07:11.920
<v Speaker 1>based in Beverly Hills, California. But he decided to come

0:07:11.960 --> 0:07:14.280
<v Speaker 1>to New York to our eleven three, oh Studios. Despite

0:07:14.480 --> 0:07:20.560
<v Speaker 1>the rain and the clouds and the chilly air, the

0:07:20.640 --> 0:07:23.160
<v Speaker 1>leaders of North and South Korea have agreed to pursue

0:07:23.240 --> 0:07:26.560
<v Speaker 1>a peace agreement in historic talks. Here to tell us

0:07:26.600 --> 0:07:31.040
<v Speaker 1>more about this is how Brands Henry Kissinger, Distinguished Professor

0:07:31.080 --> 0:07:33.920
<v Speaker 1>for Global Affairs at the Johns Hopkins University School of

0:07:34.120 --> 0:07:38.600
<v Speaker 1>Advanced International Studies, he joins us from Baltimore. How Brands,

0:07:38.600 --> 0:07:41.040
<v Speaker 1>thank you very much for being with us. What if

0:07:41.040 --> 0:07:44.080
<v Speaker 1>you could just describe what you believe is likely to

0:07:44.160 --> 0:07:48.400
<v Speaker 1>happen next between the leaders of North and South Korea. Well,

0:07:48.440 --> 0:07:50.280
<v Speaker 1>I think what you'll see is that there may be

0:07:50.400 --> 0:07:53.840
<v Speaker 1>some effort to put flesh on the bones of the

0:07:53.960 --> 0:07:56.800
<v Speaker 1>very skeletal agreement that was reached at the summit, which

0:07:56.840 --> 0:08:01.000
<v Speaker 1>was basically aspirational in terms of working toward a formal

0:08:01.120 --> 0:08:03.040
<v Speaker 1>end to the war in the Korean Peninsula and the

0:08:03.040 --> 0:08:06.520
<v Speaker 1>eventual de nuclearization of the peninsula. But those goals are

0:08:06.640 --> 0:08:09.400
<v Speaker 1>quite gauzy right now, and so any next steps would

0:08:09.440 --> 0:08:13.400
<v Speaker 1>have to deal with flushing out the specifics of how

0:08:13.400 --> 0:08:16.320
<v Speaker 1>those goals might be pursued. So how you know there

0:08:16.400 --> 0:08:18.200
<v Speaker 1>we need to whip out the scorecard here, because there

0:08:18.200 --> 0:08:21.160
<v Speaker 1>are a lot of people that are either giving credit

0:08:21.240 --> 0:08:25.000
<v Speaker 1>to President Trump for navigating or pushing Kim John earned

0:08:25.000 --> 0:08:27.160
<v Speaker 1>to this point. People are giving credit to the South

0:08:27.200 --> 0:08:30.320
<v Speaker 1>Korean president. People are giving credit to China, who sort

0:08:30.400 --> 0:08:33.400
<v Speaker 1>of pushed the leaders of North and South Korea to

0:08:33.559 --> 0:08:37.439
<v Speaker 1>this point. In your view, well, really it was the

0:08:37.520 --> 0:08:39.920
<v Speaker 1>leaders of North Korea who pushed the United States and

0:08:39.920 --> 0:08:42.320
<v Speaker 1>South Korea to this point. It was the North Koreans

0:08:42.320 --> 0:08:44.720
<v Speaker 1>who came up with the idea for a meeting between

0:08:45.440 --> 0:08:47.920
<v Speaker 1>Trump and King Young Lum. And one of the really

0:08:47.960 --> 0:08:51.920
<v Speaker 1>difficult analytical points in dealing with this situation is figuring

0:08:51.960 --> 0:08:55.600
<v Speaker 1>out precisely what the North Korean calculus is. There's surely

0:08:55.640 --> 0:08:58.840
<v Speaker 1>a desire to ease the economic pressure from the U

0:08:58.960 --> 0:09:01.880
<v Speaker 1>S sanctions, but there may also be a calculation this

0:09:01.960 --> 0:09:04.920
<v Speaker 1>is simply a smart, tactical way of reducing pressure while

0:09:04.920 --> 0:09:08.320
<v Speaker 1>the North completes its nuclear arsenal. Now, in addition, there

0:09:08.360 --> 0:09:12.400
<v Speaker 1>was a joint statement it's called the Pond John Declaration,

0:09:12.520 --> 0:09:16.640
<v Speaker 1>calling for the restart of reunions of families separated by

0:09:16.720 --> 0:09:21.640
<v Speaker 1>the Korean War. Will that accelerate further agreements? Do you

0:09:21.679 --> 0:09:24.080
<v Speaker 1>think it's useful as an atmospheric and it may lead

0:09:24.120 --> 0:09:30.079
<v Speaker 1>to additional atmospherics in the sense of suspending propaganda broadcasts

0:09:30.080 --> 0:09:33.400
<v Speaker 1>across the border and things like that. It has relatively

0:09:33.440 --> 0:09:37.480
<v Speaker 1>little connection to the more substantive issues at hand, which

0:09:37.520 --> 0:09:40.080
<v Speaker 1>would be the nuclear program and the state of war

0:09:40.160 --> 0:09:42.840
<v Speaker 1>that still exists between the North and the South, but

0:09:42.920 --> 0:09:45.520
<v Speaker 1>it is perhaps hopeful as a sign of of a

0:09:45.600 --> 0:09:49.080
<v Speaker 1>broader thawing between the two countries. You know, Professor, One

0:09:49.120 --> 0:09:51.360
<v Speaker 1>thing that that struck me, aside from the menu, the

0:09:51.440 --> 0:09:55.440
<v Speaker 1>highly symbolic menu of the meeting that took place between

0:09:55.440 --> 0:09:58.200
<v Speaker 1>the North and South Korean leaders, it struck me that

0:09:58.400 --> 0:10:02.840
<v Speaker 1>the whole procession was not broadcast on North Korean television.

0:10:02.880 --> 0:10:04.720
<v Speaker 1>I know this is a small point, but to me,

0:10:04.800 --> 0:10:07.679
<v Speaker 1>it indicated that there was not an opening up of

0:10:07.800 --> 0:10:11.320
<v Speaker 1>North Korea. Was this significant to you and kind of

0:10:11.320 --> 0:10:13.640
<v Speaker 1>what can we look at going forward to know whether

0:10:13.720 --> 0:10:17.800
<v Speaker 1>this is in good faith or not. I think looking

0:10:17.840 --> 0:10:20.439
<v Speaker 1>for an opening up of the North Korean political system

0:10:21.400 --> 0:10:25.160
<v Speaker 1>is probably unrealistic at this point. Uh. The Kim family

0:10:25.200 --> 0:10:28.120
<v Speaker 1>regime is interested first and foremost in its own survival,

0:10:28.160 --> 0:10:30.640
<v Speaker 1>and I think it understands any meaningful opening up of

0:10:30.640 --> 0:10:34.080
<v Speaker 1>the political system would would jeopardize that, and so everything

0:10:34.120 --> 0:10:37.080
<v Speaker 1>that the regime is doing is a tactical move to

0:10:37.240 --> 0:10:40.880
<v Speaker 1>secure its own power. So any opening up of the

0:10:40.920 --> 0:10:44.120
<v Speaker 1>regime would presumably be something that would come much much

0:10:44.160 --> 0:10:46.760
<v Speaker 1>farther down the road and would probably be almost against

0:10:46.760 --> 0:10:49.480
<v Speaker 1>the will of the Kim family. If there is an

0:10:49.520 --> 0:10:52.960
<v Speaker 1>agreement that is reached, what would this do to relations

0:10:52.960 --> 0:10:56.680
<v Speaker 1>between the United States and China, Well, it all depends

0:10:56.679 --> 0:10:59.200
<v Speaker 1>on what the nature of the agreement is. I think

0:11:00.080 --> 0:11:02.480
<v Speaker 1>we're having a little bit of whiplash right now because

0:11:02.640 --> 0:11:05.160
<v Speaker 1>for about a year, the fear of most countries in

0:11:05.200 --> 0:11:07.200
<v Speaker 1>the region and around the world was that the Trump

0:11:07.200 --> 0:11:09.480
<v Speaker 1>administration was going to get the United States into a

0:11:09.559 --> 0:11:12.480
<v Speaker 1>nuclear war with North Korea. I think the fear now

0:11:12.640 --> 0:11:15.680
<v Speaker 1>is that the United States might conclude a deal that

0:11:15.720 --> 0:11:18.880
<v Speaker 1>would have actually be too advantageous to North Korea. And

0:11:18.920 --> 0:11:22.400
<v Speaker 1>so the critical elements from the United States decide will

0:11:22.440 --> 0:11:24.640
<v Speaker 1>to be in will be to ensure that any deal

0:11:24.679 --> 0:11:27.640
<v Speaker 1>with the North doesn't prejudice the US alliance with South

0:11:27.720 --> 0:11:32.240
<v Speaker 1>Korea or the broader US posture in the region. China

0:11:32.280 --> 0:11:34.320
<v Speaker 1>obviously would like to see a different sort of deal,

0:11:34.400 --> 0:11:37.240
<v Speaker 1>one that would lead to a retraction of American presence

0:11:37.440 --> 0:11:41.240
<v Speaker 1>in Northeast Asia. So can you put this into context

0:11:41.440 --> 0:11:46.520
<v Speaker 1>of why then this is so important? Well, this is

0:11:46.679 --> 0:11:49.480
<v Speaker 1>the single this is the crisis spot that is most

0:11:49.559 --> 0:11:53.440
<v Speaker 1>likely to lead to nuclear war. Right now, any conflict

0:11:53.480 --> 0:11:56.480
<v Speaker 1>between the United States and North Korea would be of

0:11:56.600 --> 0:11:59.679
<v Speaker 1>unbelievable lethality even if it did not cross the nuclear

0:11:59.720 --> 0:12:02.200
<v Speaker 1>thresh fold. But from everything we know about North Korean

0:12:02.800 --> 0:12:06.240
<v Speaker 1>military doctrine, it quite easily could escalate into the nuclear realm.

0:12:06.320 --> 0:12:09.320
<v Speaker 1>And so if it is possible to negotiate some sort

0:12:09.320 --> 0:12:11.520
<v Speaker 1>of agreement that would lower tensions, that would be a

0:12:11.520 --> 0:12:14.240
<v Speaker 1>good thing in and of itself. If it's possible to

0:12:14.280 --> 0:12:16.680
<v Speaker 1>do so in a way that leads to the rolling

0:12:16.720 --> 0:12:19.160
<v Speaker 1>back of the North Korean nuclear arsenal, that would also

0:12:19.200 --> 0:12:22.199
<v Speaker 1>be very useful in terms of reducing the nuclear threat

0:12:22.200 --> 0:12:24.680
<v Speaker 1>both to the United States and its allies. That that's said,

0:12:24.720 --> 0:12:27.559
<v Speaker 1>I'm still somewhat skeptical that this is ultimately what will

0:12:27.559 --> 0:12:30.840
<v Speaker 1>come out of this process. Can the United States, Japan,

0:12:31.080 --> 0:12:35.120
<v Speaker 1>and our allies live with a nuclear armed North Korea?

0:12:35.679 --> 0:12:37.680
<v Speaker 1>We would prefer not to, but yes, I think we

0:12:37.760 --> 0:12:41.440
<v Speaker 1>can live with it. If if the alternative were, for instance,

0:12:41.840 --> 0:12:44.920
<v Speaker 1>launching a preventive war to prevent that. The United States

0:12:44.920 --> 0:12:47.480
<v Speaker 1>has confronted the sort of problem for we worried very

0:12:47.559 --> 0:12:49.280
<v Speaker 1>much about what it would mean to face a nuclear

0:12:49.320 --> 0:12:52.160
<v Speaker 1>Soviet Union or a nuclear China during the Cold War,

0:12:52.200 --> 0:12:54.920
<v Speaker 1>and in both cases we were ultimately able to live

0:12:54.920 --> 0:12:57.400
<v Speaker 1>with it, albeit in a very dangerous intense way. And

0:12:57.440 --> 0:12:59.040
<v Speaker 1>I think if we were put to it, we could

0:12:59.080 --> 0:13:01.920
<v Speaker 1>probably do that again. So I want to I want

0:13:01.920 --> 0:13:03.719
<v Speaker 1>to go back to the menu, since it was much

0:13:03.800 --> 0:13:07.280
<v Speaker 1>parsed over and in mouth watering to read about what

0:13:07.360 --> 0:13:10.440
<v Speaker 1>they ate. But what was interesting to me was that

0:13:10.520 --> 0:13:14.960
<v Speaker 1>the menu anger Japan again, the menu that the for

0:13:15.000 --> 0:13:18.720
<v Speaker 1>the feast that North Korean leader and South Korean leaders eight.

0:13:19.360 --> 0:13:23.440
<v Speaker 1>What do you make of that? I don't make a

0:13:23.480 --> 0:13:25.280
<v Speaker 1>lot of it. I think this is probably about the

0:13:25.320 --> 0:13:28.160
<v Speaker 1>seventeenth on the list of things that's most important in

0:13:28.280 --> 0:13:33.199
<v Speaker 1>terms of assessing the prospects of the negotiating process, and

0:13:33.200 --> 0:13:35.360
<v Speaker 1>and so I I you know, this is a region

0:13:35.400 --> 0:13:38.520
<v Speaker 1>where history looms very large, and so there are constantly

0:13:39.240 --> 0:13:43.240
<v Speaker 1>seemingly small issues that are causing frictions between uh, not

0:13:43.360 --> 0:13:45.719
<v Speaker 1>just the US, and it's adversarious, but sometimes between US

0:13:45.760 --> 0:13:48.520
<v Speaker 1>allies and sometimes between Japan and North Korea, and so

0:13:48.559 --> 0:13:52.080
<v Speaker 1>I I think that is is noteworthy and perhaps worth reporting,

0:13:52.120 --> 0:13:54.520
<v Speaker 1>but but probably relatively low on the list of things

0:13:54.559 --> 0:13:57.800
<v Speaker 1>that will determine the success or failure of this initiative.

0:13:58.040 --> 0:14:00.920
<v Speaker 1>So South Korea's shrimp surprise for Donald Trump last year

0:14:00.920 --> 0:14:03.600
<v Speaker 1>and the dessert this time around not the biggest thing

0:14:03.679 --> 0:14:05.160
<v Speaker 1>on your list, How brands, thank you so much for

0:14:05.240 --> 0:14:08.160
<v Speaker 1>joining us, How Brands. Henriette Kisinger, Distinguished professor at Johns

0:14:08.200 --> 0:14:13.040
<v Speaker 1>Hopkins University and a Bloomberg View columnist. Definitely, some of

0:14:13.040 --> 0:14:17.400
<v Speaker 1>the imagery coming out of the Korean Peninsula is really striking,

0:14:17.559 --> 0:14:21.080
<v Speaker 1>of the leaders holding hands, taking one step into the north,

0:14:21.280 --> 0:14:24.240
<v Speaker 1>one step into the south, marking the end to this

0:14:24.400 --> 0:14:27.960
<v Speaker 1>what is it, seven decade long conflict that has been

0:14:28.360 --> 0:14:32.160
<v Speaker 1>keeping a lot of families apart on the Korean peninsula. Yes,

0:14:32.200 --> 0:14:35.359
<v Speaker 1>and that's set to change, at least according to this communication,

0:14:35.480 --> 0:14:38.760
<v Speaker 1>although unclear whether those families will in fact get reunited

0:14:38.800 --> 0:14:46.480
<v Speaker 1>anytime soon. Big tech is driving the train in US

0:14:46.600 --> 0:14:49.200
<v Speaker 1>equity markets these days. And to talk a little bit

0:14:49.200 --> 0:14:51.200
<v Speaker 1>about what we've seen out of earning so far as

0:14:51.240 --> 0:14:54.080
<v Speaker 1>well as what to expect, is Michael Scanlon, portfolio manager

0:14:54.120 --> 0:14:58.440
<v Speaker 1>at Manu Life Asset Management in Boston. He oversees, among

0:14:58.520 --> 0:15:01.840
<v Speaker 1>other funds, the John Hand Balanced Fund, which has about

0:15:02.240 --> 0:15:04.520
<v Speaker 1>nearly two billion dollars of assets. And Michael, I was

0:15:04.560 --> 0:15:07.960
<v Speaker 1>looking and four of your top five biggest holdings in

0:15:07.960 --> 0:15:12.920
<v Speaker 1>that fund Alphabet, Apple, Amazon, and Microsoft. As a result

0:15:13.080 --> 0:15:16.240
<v Speaker 1>of the earnings that we have seen so far, have

0:15:16.360 --> 0:15:19.840
<v Speaker 1>you decided to either add to your current holdings of

0:15:19.880 --> 0:15:22.600
<v Speaker 1>any of those companies or pair some of the some

0:15:22.720 --> 0:15:25.840
<v Speaker 1>of the assets. Well, good morning and thanks for having me.

0:15:25.920 --> 0:15:28.120
<v Speaker 1>So I think when you look at this earnings period,

0:15:28.160 --> 0:15:29.960
<v Speaker 1>you know, there's obviously we had a little bit of

0:15:30.000 --> 0:15:33.200
<v Speaker 1>disappointment out of Google and then essentially very strong results

0:15:33.200 --> 0:15:35.320
<v Speaker 1>out of the rest of the players there. I think

0:15:35.440 --> 0:15:37.760
<v Speaker 1>when you look at the text based you know, whether

0:15:37.760 --> 0:15:40.880
<v Speaker 1>it's these these newer platform companies like a Google or

0:15:40.920 --> 0:15:43.480
<v Speaker 1>a Facebook, I mean, they continue to have these enormous

0:15:43.480 --> 0:15:46.240
<v Speaker 1>secular tail winds. And I think it's also interesting if

0:15:46.240 --> 0:15:48.360
<v Speaker 1>you look at it some of these more what you

0:15:48.360 --> 0:15:51.800
<v Speaker 1>would associate with legacy I T names like Microsoft or Cisco.

0:15:52.200 --> 0:15:54.920
<v Speaker 1>You know, those companies are obviously are also doing quite

0:15:55.000 --> 0:15:57.360
<v Speaker 1>well right now. Has they're been able to manage this

0:15:57.440 --> 0:16:00.680
<v Speaker 1>transition to more of a cloud based can shooting versus

0:16:00.760 --> 0:16:04.480
<v Speaker 1>on premise type systems. Well, Michael, does this mean that

0:16:04.520 --> 0:16:07.040
<v Speaker 1>you wouldn't invest really new money in a technology company

0:16:07.120 --> 0:16:10.680
<v Speaker 1>unless it had a cloud offering? Well, we you know

0:16:10.760 --> 0:16:12.680
<v Speaker 1>that has been a big part of our holdings is

0:16:12.720 --> 0:16:14.520
<v Speaker 1>that you do want to have these companies that are

0:16:14.520 --> 0:16:17.200
<v Speaker 1>aligned with that themes are else you're fighting an enormous headwinds.

0:16:17.240 --> 0:16:19.320
<v Speaker 1>I mean, one name out there that's been struggling quite

0:16:19.320 --> 0:16:20.920
<v Speaker 1>a bit, as Oracle, that's not a name that we

0:16:20.960 --> 0:16:23.600
<v Speaker 1>own in our portfolio, and that's the name where when

0:16:23.680 --> 0:16:25.360
<v Speaker 1>you look at their cloud business, I mean, they're just

0:16:25.360 --> 0:16:28.400
<v Speaker 1>getting laughed by everybody else. So that that that would

0:16:28.440 --> 0:16:30.880
<v Speaker 1>be a tough space to get invested in today. But Michael,

0:16:30.920 --> 0:16:32.880
<v Speaker 1>the reason why I asked is because when we talked

0:16:32.960 --> 0:16:35.920
<v Speaker 1>to a lot of investment managers and we asked them,

0:16:36.000 --> 0:16:39.240
<v Speaker 1>you know when most last time that you rearranged your portfolio,

0:16:39.240 --> 0:16:41.000
<v Speaker 1>they say, actually, we've held it the same for about

0:16:41.000 --> 0:16:43.040
<v Speaker 1>a year. I'm wondering, is it the same with you

0:16:43.200 --> 0:16:45.240
<v Speaker 1>or you know, do you look at these earnings and

0:16:45.240 --> 0:16:48.440
<v Speaker 1>then decide, you know what, uh, Amazon seems like they're

0:16:48.560 --> 0:16:52.120
<v Speaker 1>super solid, let's add more there, and you know, what Apple,

0:16:52.160 --> 0:16:55.000
<v Speaker 1>we're a little bit concerned about the end of the superphone,

0:16:55.240 --> 0:16:57.800
<v Speaker 1>of the supercycle of the smartphones. We're going to pair

0:16:57.880 --> 0:17:00.720
<v Speaker 1>back there. Are you doing any of those calculatations right now?

0:17:01.360 --> 0:17:03.080
<v Speaker 1>So that's a fair question. I mean, that's part of

0:17:03.080 --> 0:17:05.360
<v Speaker 1>managing a portfolio as you get these names that will

0:17:05.400 --> 0:17:08.440
<v Speaker 1>bounce hard after earnings, or they might sell off hard

0:17:08.480 --> 0:17:12.119
<v Speaker 1>after earnings. And maybe that doesn't justify exiting or entering

0:17:12.680 --> 0:17:15.480
<v Speaker 1>new positions, but what you do is trade your names

0:17:15.560 --> 0:17:17.720
<v Speaker 1>up and down in terms of the weight of the portfolio.

0:17:18.200 --> 0:17:20.199
<v Speaker 1>You know, you look at something like Apple over the

0:17:20.280 --> 0:17:22.919
<v Speaker 1>last couple of years, you know that stock has been

0:17:23.000 --> 0:17:25.960
<v Speaker 1>meaningfully higher than it has been today. Uh, And if

0:17:25.960 --> 0:17:27.760
<v Speaker 1>you look at the weight of our portfolio, it has

0:17:27.800 --> 0:17:29.760
<v Speaker 1>moved around in terms of the weight of the portfolio

0:17:29.800 --> 0:17:34.480
<v Speaker 1>over the last twelve months. Michael, in managing the John

0:17:34.520 --> 0:17:39.520
<v Speaker 1>Hancock Balanced Portfolio as well as the Balanced Fund, what

0:17:39.640 --> 0:17:42.879
<v Speaker 1>would you like to see happen in terms of rebalancing

0:17:42.920 --> 0:17:46.119
<v Speaker 1>Because some of the names in the fund have performed

0:17:46.200 --> 0:17:49.959
<v Speaker 1>so well, You've got to maintain a balance so that

0:17:50.040 --> 0:17:52.720
<v Speaker 1>you don't end up with these outsized positions that could

0:17:52.760 --> 0:17:57.440
<v Speaker 1>come back and bite you. Yeah, So we initiated an

0:17:57.480 --> 0:18:00.880
<v Speaker 1>overweight position and energy UH out of the second half

0:18:00.920 --> 0:18:02.800
<v Speaker 1>of last year, and that proved to be a little

0:18:02.800 --> 0:18:06.439
<v Speaker 1>bit early. Yet in the last month or so, it

0:18:06.480 --> 0:18:09.320
<v Speaker 1>seems like that that positioning is starting to come around

0:18:09.320 --> 0:18:11.639
<v Speaker 1>for us. I've had some really outsized winners there in

0:18:11.720 --> 0:18:15.360
<v Speaker 1>terms of names like Conico Phillips or names like sun

0:18:15.440 --> 0:18:17.760
<v Speaker 1>Core and Shell. So those names have been doing quite

0:18:17.760 --> 0:18:19.560
<v Speaker 1>well for US, and I still think that, you know,

0:18:19.600 --> 0:18:21.480
<v Speaker 1>even though they've had a big, meaningful bounce in the

0:18:21.560 --> 0:18:23.840
<v Speaker 1>last couple of months here, I do still think there's

0:18:23.880 --> 0:18:25.760
<v Speaker 1>a long runway there. So when you look at the

0:18:25.840 --> 0:18:30.639
<v Speaker 1>SMP five roughly SMP in the tech sector UH at

0:18:30.680 --> 0:18:33.159
<v Speaker 1>kind of a mid single digit six or seven percent,

0:18:33.480 --> 0:18:35.119
<v Speaker 1>I do think that you're going to see energy to

0:18:35.160 --> 0:18:36.800
<v Speaker 1>continue to work here through the end of the year.

0:18:37.160 --> 0:18:38.760
<v Speaker 1>You know, Michael, I'd love to just zoom out a

0:18:38.760 --> 0:18:41.439
<v Speaker 1>little bit and get your feeling on what the narrative

0:18:41.480 --> 0:18:45.040
<v Speaker 1>should be for this earning season. By some measures, it's

0:18:45.080 --> 0:18:49.440
<v Speaker 1>the biggest volume of earnings beats ever. By others, there

0:18:49.480 --> 0:18:52.000
<v Speaker 1>are huge warning signs that this is perhaps as good

0:18:52.000 --> 0:18:55.000
<v Speaker 1>as it gets. Where do you fall on the different

0:18:55.080 --> 0:18:58.600
<v Speaker 1>narratives that are competing for attention right now. Yeah, it's funny.

0:18:58.640 --> 0:19:02.399
<v Speaker 1>I mean if expectations were very high going into this

0:19:02.480 --> 0:19:04.760
<v Speaker 1>earnings period, but yet if you look at the results,

0:19:04.760 --> 0:19:06.520
<v Speaker 1>I mean, they've blown away the results. I think the

0:19:06.560 --> 0:19:08.840
<v Speaker 1>earnings are. You know, it's been like an eight percent

0:19:09.040 --> 0:19:12.000
<v Speaker 1>surprise on the consensus number this quarter thus far. I

0:19:12.000 --> 0:19:14.520
<v Speaker 1>believe it's the number. And you know, you look at

0:19:14.560 --> 0:19:16.000
<v Speaker 1>some of the things that are going on that you

0:19:16.040 --> 0:19:18.120
<v Speaker 1>could frame as a negative right now, with the ten

0:19:18.200 --> 0:19:22.120
<v Speaker 1>year yield crossing or hovering around three, an oil up meaningfully,

0:19:22.160 --> 0:19:25.280
<v Speaker 1>which is attacks on the U S consumer essentially. Uh.

0:19:25.320 --> 0:19:27.199
<v Speaker 1>You know, I think somebody said it best the other

0:19:27.280 --> 0:19:29.000
<v Speaker 1>day when they said we're all looking for a silver

0:19:29.080 --> 0:19:31.840
<v Speaker 1>bullet and exactly why the market has been weaker than

0:19:31.880 --> 0:19:34.000
<v Speaker 1>would expect. But you know, at the end of the day,

0:19:34.000 --> 0:19:36.160
<v Speaker 1>it's earnings that drive markets, and you might have these

0:19:36.200 --> 0:19:38.760
<v Speaker 1>short periods of disconnect where the market doesn't keep up

0:19:38.800 --> 0:19:41.520
<v Speaker 1>with earnings growth. But I think the SMP five hundred

0:19:41.520 --> 0:19:43.359
<v Speaker 1>here at you know, sixteen and a half, a little

0:19:43.359 --> 0:19:46.480
<v Speaker 1>bit of seventeen times earnings, I think it's very attractive

0:19:46.520 --> 0:19:48.119
<v Speaker 1>and by the end of the year, I do expect

0:19:48.160 --> 0:19:50.840
<v Speaker 1>the market's going to finish higher from here. Michael, you

0:19:50.840 --> 0:19:55.720
<v Speaker 1>mentioned energy, what about other commodities noted investments maybe in

0:19:55.800 --> 0:20:01.159
<v Speaker 1>countries such as Australia. Yeah, so outside of energy, you know,

0:20:01.240 --> 0:20:05.000
<v Speaker 1>we do have a small position in Franco, so we

0:20:05.040 --> 0:20:07.640
<v Speaker 1>have some exposure to gold. Uh. You know, I think

0:20:07.720 --> 0:20:09.880
<v Speaker 1>when you look at the commodity space really right now,

0:20:09.920 --> 0:20:12.239
<v Speaker 1>our focus has been on oil and names that are

0:20:12.240 --> 0:20:15.760
<v Speaker 1>more associated with it because the disconnects between what the

0:20:15.760 --> 0:20:19.080
<v Speaker 1>commodity has done since last summer versus what the stock

0:20:19.119 --> 0:20:21.040
<v Speaker 1>prices have done, and we just feel like that that's

0:20:21.160 --> 0:20:23.880
<v Speaker 1>that's offering us the best risk reward right now. What's

0:20:23.920 --> 0:20:28.560
<v Speaker 1>the most contrarian bet right now? Most contrarian bet right now?

0:20:28.600 --> 0:20:31.800
<v Speaker 1>I guess in Starbucks is a name which we've owned

0:20:31.800 --> 0:20:35.520
<v Speaker 1>in the portfolio for over a year now, probably eighteen

0:20:35.560 --> 0:20:37.600
<v Speaker 1>months or so, and that's the name that reported earnings

0:20:37.680 --> 0:20:39.960
<v Speaker 1>last night. That's the name that continues to be out

0:20:40.000 --> 0:20:42.400
<v Speaker 1>of favor with investors. I do think when you listen

0:20:42.440 --> 0:20:45.080
<v Speaker 1>to the call last night, there was some things that

0:20:45.119 --> 0:20:48.600
<v Speaker 1>a bowl could continue to be positioned around, and that

0:20:48.680 --> 0:20:50.560
<v Speaker 1>the last two months of the first quarter they had

0:20:50.600 --> 0:20:53.280
<v Speaker 1>north of a three percent comp in the US. You know,

0:20:53.320 --> 0:20:55.000
<v Speaker 1>as we look forward through the rest of the year,

0:20:55.040 --> 0:20:56.919
<v Speaker 1>April might be a bit bumpy because it is a

0:20:56.920 --> 0:21:00.320
<v Speaker 1>difficult comp with the unicorn frappuccino that they had year.

0:21:00.920 --> 0:21:02.760
<v Speaker 1>But I think that stock has been very out of

0:21:02.800 --> 0:21:05.080
<v Speaker 1>favor of the multiple is very very compressed to where

0:21:05.080 --> 0:21:08.240
<v Speaker 1>it's been, and obviously it's still a fantastic brand. Shares

0:21:08.280 --> 0:21:10.280
<v Speaker 1>of Starbucks down a little bit more than one and

0:21:10.280 --> 0:21:13.520
<v Speaker 1>a half percent right now. Michael, what happens if a

0:21:13.600 --> 0:21:16.160
<v Speaker 1>ten year stays at three percent? Does that change your

0:21:16.200 --> 0:21:20.360
<v Speaker 1>investment thesis? It doesn't. Uh. You know, it's funny when

0:21:20.920 --> 0:21:23.359
<v Speaker 1>it's obviously a big psychological factor when you get the

0:21:23.400 --> 0:21:25.800
<v Speaker 1>ten year yield up to a big round number like

0:21:25.840 --> 0:21:28.199
<v Speaker 1>three percent that we haven't seen in a while. But

0:21:28.480 --> 0:21:30.600
<v Speaker 1>as I speak to management teams that we own in

0:21:30.640 --> 0:21:33.840
<v Speaker 1>the portfolio or perspective companies that we're thinking about investing,

0:21:34.160 --> 0:21:36.240
<v Speaker 1>I don't hear any of them coming back and saying, well,

0:21:36.280 --> 0:21:38.840
<v Speaker 1>if if the yield hits on the ten year hits three,

0:21:38.840 --> 0:21:41.720
<v Speaker 1>we're doing something different. I mean, it's this is really

0:21:41.760 --> 0:21:44.680
<v Speaker 1>an environment where stock picking matters a lot more going

0:21:44.720 --> 0:21:47.000
<v Speaker 1>forward than it has the last couple of years, and

0:21:47.040 --> 0:21:50.600
<v Speaker 1>you just need to be focused on those companies specific stories. Again,

0:21:50.640 --> 0:21:52.920
<v Speaker 1>I think three percent is more of a psychological number

0:21:52.920 --> 0:21:55.159
<v Speaker 1>more than anything. Thanks very much for being with us.

0:21:55.200 --> 0:21:59.600
<v Speaker 1>Michael Scanlon, Managing Director, portfolio manager, Manual Life Asset Management

0:21:59.600 --> 0:22:01.920
<v Speaker 1>based in Boston, of course, home to Bloomberg One. I

0:22:01.920 --> 0:22:04.800
<v Speaker 1>was six on Boston, Newburyport and thirty and Metro West

0:22:04.880 --> 0:22:07.560
<v Speaker 1>and the South Shore, helping to manage the John Hancock

0:22:07.640 --> 0:22:12.240
<v Speaker 1>Balance Fund and the balanced portfolio. Total assets. He's helping

0:22:12.320 --> 0:22:17.400
<v Speaker 1>be responsible for more than well nearly two billion dollars.

0:22:17.840 --> 0:22:20.240
<v Speaker 1>We've got much more coming up on Bloomberg Market time

0:22:20.280 --> 0:22:24.159
<v Speaker 1>pim Fox my co host Lisa A. Bramwoods. This is Bloomberg.

0:22:27.200 --> 0:22:32.400
<v Speaker 1>XN posted its weakest first quarter of outputs since Chevron,

0:22:32.600 --> 0:22:36.800
<v Speaker 1>the other hand, surpassed every first quarter profit and production

0:22:37.080 --> 0:22:40.920
<v Speaker 1>production estimate out there. As a response, Exon shares down

0:22:41.119 --> 0:22:45.200
<v Speaker 1>three point four percent, while Chevron shares up more than

0:22:45.359 --> 0:22:48.360
<v Speaker 1>one percent. Joining us to understand the tale of two

0:22:48.560 --> 0:22:51.800
<v Speaker 1>gas giants, Fernando Valet, He's oil and gas analyst with

0:22:51.840 --> 0:22:55.480
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Intelligence, joining us here in our eleven three oh studios. Fernando,

0:22:55.560 --> 0:22:58.800
<v Speaker 1>can you explain what Excen did wrong and what Chevron

0:22:58.840 --> 0:23:02.320
<v Speaker 1>did right? Sure, hi, guys, good to be here. I

0:23:02.359 --> 0:23:05.399
<v Speaker 1>think there are two key issues with x On. The

0:23:05.440 --> 0:23:09.600
<v Speaker 1>first is you had some uh time timely issues. You

0:23:09.680 --> 0:23:12.440
<v Speaker 1>had the earthquake in Point New Guinea that impacted production.

0:23:12.920 --> 0:23:16.199
<v Speaker 1>You had higher oil prices actually takes some production away

0:23:16.840 --> 0:23:20.080
<v Speaker 1>because you have a production sharing contracts where higher prices

0:23:20.119 --> 0:23:24.040
<v Speaker 1>actually decrease your entitlement volumes. And then part of it

0:23:24.080 --> 0:23:26.840
<v Speaker 1>is just the investment profile. I mean x Son had

0:23:26.920 --> 0:23:30.920
<v Speaker 1>been cartailing investments since the oil price crisis. They cut

0:23:31.000 --> 0:23:34.080
<v Speaker 1>their capex in twent billion dollars, and I think what

0:23:34.200 --> 0:23:36.480
<v Speaker 1>the new CEO has recognized is that that is not

0:23:36.520 --> 0:23:40.359
<v Speaker 1>a sustainable strategy UH and they're they're actually now raising

0:23:40.400 --> 0:23:44.120
<v Speaker 1>their capex the thirty billion dollars going forward, which is why,

0:23:44.320 --> 0:23:47.560
<v Speaker 1>for example, they haven't returned to the buybacks Chevron. On

0:23:47.600 --> 0:23:49.800
<v Speaker 1>the other hand, they had a couple of major projects

0:23:49.800 --> 0:23:52.240
<v Speaker 1>that they've been UH funding for a very long time

0:23:52.320 --> 0:23:55.600
<v Speaker 1>that have finally started to come on stream. Gorgon Look

0:23:55.600 --> 0:23:59.600
<v Speaker 1>of Financial Gas in Australia, wheat Stone also loqu of

0:23:59.640 --> 0:24:02.520
<v Speaker 1>Finance or Gas project in Australia. Both of those projects

0:24:02.560 --> 0:24:05.800
<v Speaker 1>started up in seventeen and they've been ramping and they've

0:24:05.800 --> 0:24:08.399
<v Speaker 1>been a major contributor to both production and the earning

0:24:08.440 --> 0:24:13.879
<v Speaker 1>speed for not the percentage of production that is UH

0:24:14.000 --> 0:24:17.399
<v Speaker 1>that is done by large the large oil companies like

0:24:17.640 --> 0:24:19.480
<v Speaker 1>x On Mobile like share and isn't that going down?

0:24:20.359 --> 0:24:24.119
<v Speaker 1>It was shale was definitely taking UH market share in

0:24:24.200 --> 0:24:28.679
<v Speaker 1>the global oil market. But as your production, as I mentioned,

0:24:28.680 --> 0:24:30.480
<v Speaker 1>a lot of these projects that were funded in the

0:24:30.640 --> 0:24:34.720
<v Speaker 1>twenty uh ten period and they're now coming to fruition,

0:24:35.040 --> 0:24:38.960
<v Speaker 1>they're actually going to help big oil recapture some market share. UH.

0:24:39.520 --> 0:24:42.199
<v Speaker 1>Who's actually seating market share in this time in the

0:24:42.200 --> 0:24:45.840
<v Speaker 1>cycle is OPEC, As you had UH, Saudi Arabia curtail

0:24:45.880 --> 0:24:50.080
<v Speaker 1>that production, Venezuela falling UH and also non US no

0:24:50.080 --> 0:24:52.840
<v Speaker 1>non OPEC. So you had your Columbia as your China's,

0:24:53.040 --> 0:24:56.600
<v Speaker 1>Mexico's or productions going down because these oil prices have

0:24:56.720 --> 0:25:00.199
<v Speaker 1>forced them to cut investments and their aging fields are

0:25:00.240 --> 0:25:04.080
<v Speaker 1>actually going down in production very significantly. Is that why

0:25:04.600 --> 0:25:07.600
<v Speaker 1>investors aren't necessarily interested in the stocks? Because if you're

0:25:07.600 --> 0:25:09.600
<v Speaker 1>not giving back the money to the shareholders, and other

0:25:09.640 --> 0:25:12.240
<v Speaker 1>companies are like Conico Phillips doing a share buy back,

0:25:13.240 --> 0:25:15.080
<v Speaker 1>why would you buy the shares of companies that aren't

0:25:15.119 --> 0:25:18.360
<v Speaker 1>going to reward the shareholder. I think that's that's very

0:25:18.359 --> 0:25:20.959
<v Speaker 1>fair in the short term. I think though, when you

0:25:21.000 --> 0:25:24.080
<v Speaker 1>look at what ex One is doing, there's a recognition

0:25:24.119 --> 0:25:27.520
<v Speaker 1>that their portfolio can't compete with shale, and that's why

0:25:27.520 --> 0:25:30.440
<v Speaker 1>they've gone out there and they've bought UH more, papoint,

0:25:30.440 --> 0:25:34.840
<v Speaker 1>New Guinea, more, Brazilian pre salts, uh they bought Permian assets.

0:25:34.960 --> 0:25:37.760
<v Speaker 1>And so if you look at all the five pillars

0:25:37.760 --> 0:25:40.399
<v Speaker 1>at the outlined in March, all those five pillars have

0:25:40.440 --> 0:25:45.159
<v Speaker 1>been acquired or discovered since their old investments or x

0:25:45.240 --> 0:25:48.520
<v Speaker 1>t O s your Russian oil and gas, your Canadian

0:25:48.560 --> 0:25:51.639
<v Speaker 1>oil sands day don't work in this world anymore. So

0:25:51.800 --> 0:25:54.359
<v Speaker 1>you need to go out and revamp. And it's a

0:25:54.359 --> 0:25:57.720
<v Speaker 1>painful period of recognition, but it's something that I think

0:25:57.720 --> 0:26:00.800
<v Speaker 1>it's necessary for you to compete long term, Irman, and

0:26:00.960 --> 0:26:03.879
<v Speaker 1>you're becoming a going concern. You know, one thing that

0:26:03.920 --> 0:26:06.359
<v Speaker 1>we were talking about before the segment, you were noting

0:26:06.640 --> 0:26:08.560
<v Speaker 1>that it has to do with the composition of the

0:26:08.640 --> 0:26:12.160
<v Speaker 1>underlying assets between Exon and Chevron. Exxon holds about fifty

0:26:12.480 --> 0:26:17.320
<v Speaker 1>of its assets as natural gas produced producing UH utilities,

0:26:17.400 --> 0:26:22.640
<v Speaker 1>whereas Chevron focuses more on oil. Brent crude rose substantially

0:26:22.680 --> 0:26:25.639
<v Speaker 1>the first quarter, whereas natural gas actually declined if you

0:26:25.680 --> 0:26:28.719
<v Speaker 1>look at prices and just wondering has Exon talked at

0:26:28.720 --> 0:26:32.879
<v Speaker 1>all about increasing its exposure to crude or sort of

0:26:32.960 --> 0:26:35.919
<v Speaker 1>changing the mix of its business at all. Yeah, that's something.

0:26:36.240 --> 0:26:38.520
<v Speaker 1>Those five pillars when you look at it, uh, A

0:26:38.560 --> 0:26:41.480
<v Speaker 1>lot of it is uh deep water so Guiana and

0:26:41.480 --> 0:26:44.959
<v Speaker 1>Brazil deep water oil. Uh. And then the other two

0:26:45.000 --> 0:26:50.320
<v Speaker 1>major projects are um Lique Financial Gas which internationally which

0:26:50.320 --> 0:26:53.440
<v Speaker 1>are again oil linked, so they'll they'll help that mix.

0:26:53.520 --> 0:26:56.880
<v Speaker 1>And then the Permian. Uh. So those five pillars will

0:26:57.320 --> 0:27:01.920
<v Speaker 1>definitely change the pricing from being more US gas linked

0:27:02.160 --> 0:27:05.600
<v Speaker 1>into more international pricing and oil and that should help

0:27:05.640 --> 0:27:09.679
<v Speaker 1>their resilience because as you guys probably know, the Marcellist

0:27:09.680 --> 0:27:12.200
<v Speaker 1>and the Permian, they're going to keep our our natural

0:27:12.240 --> 0:27:14.320
<v Speaker 1>gas prices in this country very low for a very

0:27:14.359 --> 0:27:16.800
<v Speaker 1>long time. I want to pick up on what Lisa said,

0:27:16.840 --> 0:27:19.120
<v Speaker 1>having to do with the factors that affect the actual

0:27:19.240 --> 0:27:23.000
<v Speaker 1>price of oil and the way in which fossil fuel,

0:27:23.359 --> 0:27:26.280
<v Speaker 1>whether it be natural gas or shale oil or you know,

0:27:26.400 --> 0:27:31.200
<v Speaker 1>deep water affected. But isn't it also that Venezuela, Mexico

0:27:31.359 --> 0:27:34.399
<v Speaker 1>to the big oil producing regions. You got Pemmics with

0:27:34.440 --> 0:27:38.240
<v Speaker 1>cutbacks in potential farm participation, and then you've got the

0:27:38.240 --> 0:27:41.120
<v Speaker 1>general Venezuela story. Isn't that going to affect the price

0:27:41.119 --> 0:27:45.560
<v Speaker 1>of oil? That that certainly has and that's what we

0:27:45.560 --> 0:27:49.399
<v Speaker 1>were mentioning about OPEC seating market share, uh, with Venezuela

0:27:49.440 --> 0:27:52.640
<v Speaker 1>being one of the you know, going down from almost

0:27:52.640 --> 0:27:55.919
<v Speaker 1>three million barrels to under one point seven million barrels

0:27:55.920 --> 0:27:59.160
<v Speaker 1>a day. Now, UH, Mexico has also had its issues.

0:27:59.240 --> 0:28:02.720
<v Speaker 1>But again when you look at this country going from

0:28:02.760 --> 0:28:05.240
<v Speaker 1>ten to ten point six million barrels a day, there's

0:28:05.280 --> 0:28:08.800
<v Speaker 1>a lot of production coming online and there is a

0:28:08.880 --> 0:28:13.080
<v Speaker 1>question mark of what happens in But I think one

0:28:13.080 --> 0:28:17.280
<v Speaker 1>of the parts that investors sometimes misses that Saudi Arabian

0:28:17.359 --> 0:28:21.000
<v Speaker 1>Russia have both cartail production and so there is some

0:28:21.040 --> 0:28:25.120
<v Speaker 1>spare capacity that can come online, although the man could

0:28:25.200 --> 0:28:28.840
<v Speaker 1>eventually outpaced at depending on oil prices. Thank you very

0:28:28.920 --> 0:28:31.080
<v Speaker 1>much for being with us for Nada vale Is Oil

0:28:31.119 --> 0:28:36.240
<v Speaker 1>and Gas Anithers for Bloomberg Intelligence. You're listening to Bloomberg Markets.

0:28:37.680 --> 0:28:40.240
<v Speaker 1>Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg P and L podcast.

0:28:40.560 --> 0:28:44.480
<v Speaker 1>You can subscribe and listen to interviews at Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

0:28:44.600 --> 0:28:48.040
<v Speaker 1>or whatever podcast platform you prefer. I'm pim Fox. I'm

0:28:48.080 --> 0:28:52.080
<v Speaker 1>on Twitter at pim Fox. I'm on Twitter at Lisa Abramo.

0:28:52.200 --> 0:28:54.800
<v Speaker 1>It's one before the podcast. You can always catch us

0:28:54.840 --> 0:29:03.560
<v Speaker 1>worldwide on Bloomberg Radio. Took