Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Penel podcast. I'm Paul swing you,
Speaker 1: along with my co host Lisa Brahma wits. Each day
Speaker 1: we bring you the most noteworthy and useful interviews for
Speaker 1: you and your money. Whether at the grocery store or
Speaker 1: the trading floor. Find a Bloomberg penl podcast on Apple
Speaker 1: podcast or wherever you listen to podcasts, as well as
Speaker 1: at Bloomberg dot com. Disney reported worse than expected results
Speaker 1: and the parks and resorts, one of their you know,
Speaker 1: most dependable businesses, came in a little bit short. To
Speaker 1: get the latest on what's going on at Disney as
Speaker 1: they make this big pivot from or to streaming. We
Speaker 1: welcome our good friend Porter Bibby's, a managing partner at
Speaker 1: Media Tech Capital Partenacy drains us here in our Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Interactive broker studio support a kind of an ugly quarter
Speaker 1: last night, stocks trading off. What do you what's the
Speaker 1: key takeaway for you? Well, the market hadn't digested the investment,
Speaker 1: uh that that Disney has made not only the seventy
Speaker 1: three billion dollars that they used to buy Fox, but
Speaker 1: five billion for the part of Hulu that Comcast didn't known,
Speaker 1: and they've been spending like drunken sailors getting Disney Plus
Speaker 1: and ESPN Plus organized as streaming sites, and they will
Speaker 1: they will continue to spend. UH about a half a
Speaker 1: billion dollars will go into Disney Plus between now and
Speaker 1: November twelve, when it actually launches. I'm struggling to understand
Speaker 1: not the streaming side of this, but really the theme parks,
Speaker 1: the idea that the Star Wars Uh Galaxy's Edge didn't
Speaker 1: didn't fly, and what does this say about their ability
Speaker 1: to predict audiences and revenues in this area. I think
Speaker 1: what they didn't predicted Disney who was the crowds because
Speaker 1: that Star Wars Uh New theme park was heavily, heavily promoted,
Speaker 1: and it was over overbooked and jammed, and people just decided,
Speaker 1: I'm not taking my kids to this thing that I
Speaker 1: can't get into. It's it's an all day event and
Speaker 1: it's really spectacular and it will smooth things out over over.
Speaker 1: Of course, I want to make sure that I understand that.
Speaker 1: In other words, you're saying that because it was so
Speaker 1: popular and because people people didn't get tickets that it
Speaker 1: sort of diminished demand. But do you think that they
Speaker 1: didn't inaccurately predict the enthusiasm for it. That's that's exactly right.
Speaker 1: And I think you're going to see with with the
Speaker 1: new Star Wars film coming out at Christmas time again
Speaker 1: a huge new surge of interest in that the theme
Speaker 1: parks and and the merchandise are the biggest revenue and
Speaker 1: profit drivers at Disney right now. They represent more than
Speaker 1: of Disney's total revenue. Uh. They were down very marginally
Speaker 1: a couple of points for this last quarter, but that's
Speaker 1: because they had to invest in building the Star Wars park,
Speaker 1: and they're suffering modestly in China and in Hong Kong
Speaker 1: with the protests over there. But those are temporary setbacks
Speaker 1: and Disney will will just go exploding at the end
Speaker 1: of this year. With with the streaming networks that they're launching.
Speaker 1: One of the things that nobody talks about ESPN is
Speaker 1: best position with their live sports coverage and the hundreds
Speaker 1: of millions billions that they've sunk into sports rights to
Speaker 1: be the platform for online betting, which is coming. There
Speaker 1: are nine states that have legalized online betting now. UH,
Speaker 1: by the end of after the election. I think you're
Speaker 1: gonna see twenty five or thirty States going because it's
Speaker 1: found revenue for them, and it beats the pants off
Speaker 1: of the state lotteries and the other other revenue generators
Speaker 1: that States has. You go, You go to the Magic
Speaker 1: Kingdom and just lay down a bet. You know, I
Speaker 1: don't know what snow white exactly on the next game tonight,
Speaker 1: so um so Porter. One of the big announcements I
Speaker 1: thought from last night's results was the company kind of
Speaker 1: announced a bundle streaming product. They're going to be putting
Speaker 1: all this all their streaming products together for one price.
Speaker 1: We can tell us about that. That was a blockbuster
Speaker 1: move by Bob Bob iger Uh to counter the falloff
Speaker 1: in in the share price that his modest earnings miss
Speaker 1: Uh created twelve nine for Hulu, Disney Plus, and the
Speaker 1: ESPN Plus. It's an unstoppable, untouchable idea, and the question
Speaker 1: is how long can they keep it because they're not
Speaker 1: going to make any profit with that kind of a price,
Speaker 1: and there there's no advertising, no um dual revenue stream
Speaker 1: that that any of those except Hulu has a modest
Speaker 1: service that you can buy, pay pay less and get
Speaker 1: some advertising. But even then they've cut the advertising way back,
Speaker 1: So Disney shows down four point seven percent, a pretty
Speaker 1: fierce response to the disappointing earnings. I'm just wondering, and
Speaker 1: just to give you a sense, at one point that
Speaker 1: was the biggest drop in the in the share since
Speaker 1: two thousand and fifteen. Porter, I guess what is going
Speaker 1: to uh sort of turn around the impression here because
Speaker 1: it seems like the disappointment was in the revenues. But
Speaker 1: you know with the package that they offered, if the
Speaker 1: bundling services of a bunch of different things, that seems
Speaker 1: really competitive. I mean, the whole Netflix killer story is
Speaker 1: still on the table. So Disney is not a Netflix killer.
Speaker 1: Netflix is going to be around, thank you very much.
Speaker 1: The economic model is not sustainable, and someone at some
Speaker 1: point in the game is going when the when the
Speaker 1: share price comes down to a reasonable level, is going
Speaker 1: to pick them up. There there's no shortage of of
Speaker 1: content less buyers waiting right now. You have CBS, veh
Speaker 1: Coom coming together today or tomorrow. Um for Eizen wanted
Speaker 1: them a year ago. They're going to be first in
Speaker 1: line knocking the doors down. People don't talk about it,
Speaker 1: but Microsoft needs content. They have eighty million Xbox, Uh,
Speaker 1: Internet connections and just games on the Xbox. But why
Speaker 1: can't they show all of the content that movies and
Speaker 1: television can create? Then then Apple, Oprah and Steven Spielberg
Speaker 1: are not enough to carry Apple into the streaming wars
Speaker 1: and do it, do it well, and do it successfully,
Speaker 1: so there's there's no shortage of buyers. Um Disney, unfortunately
Speaker 1: for the rest of them, has almost no cost of
Speaker 1: content because they have such a spectacular archive and they're
Speaker 1: putting the igor Is announced that they're putting all of
Speaker 1: their brand new movies, the The Avengers, the new Star
Speaker 1: Wars movie this Christmas, the new Frozen. Uh, those are
Speaker 1: blockbusters that cost them nothing to put on the streamings.
Speaker 1: So before you mentioned the costs associated with streaming and
Speaker 1: the company's disclose that won't break even. I guess until
Speaker 1: fiscal still several years away. Do you think investors are
Speaker 1: gonna be that patient? Well, and it's a building business.
Speaker 1: We're seeing a cataclysmic transition of media from legacy media
Speaker 1: cable and satellite to streaming and people who want to
Speaker 1: get in. You have to realize Disney. Disney is up
Speaker 1: twenty seven percent since January. They dropped four percent yesterday
Speaker 1: and today, but there's still a lot of latitude there,
Speaker 1: and investors realized that the assets that they have are
Speaker 1: almost untouchable in the entertainment world. Certainly, if you have
Speaker 1: a child, I'll just say that. But Portabb, thank you
Speaker 1: so much for being with us. Portabb, Managing partner at
Speaker 1: Media Tech Capital Partners. It is time to check in
Speaker 1: with Bloomberg Opinion, and luckily for us, we've got a
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Opinion contributor who is stellar when it comes to
Speaker 1: all things in markets, but particularly fixed income, Jim Bianco,
Speaker 1: President and founder of Bianco Research, coming to us from Chicago. Jim,
Speaker 1: the real story today, this week, this year, for the
Speaker 1: past ten years, has been bonds and bond yields heading
Speaker 1: to record loads today around the world, near record lows
Speaker 1: in the United States. When you look at the thirty
Speaker 1: year yield, and I'm wondering, why is this now causing
Speaker 1: concern rather than support for risk assets? You know, you're
Speaker 1: right that we are very close to We're like five
Speaker 1: basis points away from a record low now in the
Speaker 1: thirty year. And I think that the concern is in
Speaker 1: a unique situation that I don't remember ever seeing we've
Speaker 1: had one rate cut, the market over the next year
Speaker 1: is pricing in four more rate cuts, a total of
Speaker 1: five rate cuts. I can't find a single economist or
Speaker 1: a Federal Reserve official that thinks that the FED should
Speaker 1: or the FED should cut rates five times between the
Speaker 1: last one and four more coming. So the market itself
Speaker 1: is an outlier. The market is seeing problems down the road.
Speaker 1: It is trying to communicate that through the inverted yield curve,
Speaker 1: through the plunge in yields, and it seems like the
Speaker 1: economic community in the FETE is not listening, and it's
Speaker 1: getting worried that since they're not listening, I have to
Speaker 1: not price in an even worse outcome. And we're caught
Speaker 1: in this spiral now with interest rates falling and falling
Speaker 1: and falling. So, Jim, how surprised were you to wake
Speaker 1: up this morning and see that we had rake cuts
Speaker 1: coming out of New Zealand and Indian and Thailand. Surprised
Speaker 1: and that all three of them were more than expected.
Speaker 1: There was an expectation that there'd be a cut in India,
Speaker 1: but it was larger than expected. There was not a
Speaker 1: for Thailand, and they did cut as well in New
Speaker 1: Zealand cut by fifty basis points, which is only done
Speaker 1: during the global financial crisis in the christ Church earthquake,
Speaker 1: So those were big deals, so it was very surprising.
Speaker 1: Do you think that this is signaling that there is
Speaker 1: more of a real possibility of a near term recession
Speaker 1: globally and in the US, because that certainly seems to
Speaker 1: be the indication of yield curves around the world. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think so. Um, if you look at the data
Speaker 1: that is coming out of Europe, especially today one of
Speaker 1: the big wirehouses UH describe some of the German data
Speaker 1: that came out today if disastrous. It's been such a
Speaker 1: bad number, and we it matters global growth is slowing down.
Speaker 1: It matters for the US. We cannot ignore it, and
Speaker 1: that is weighing on us as well too. It's obviously
Speaker 1: weighing on the rest of the world, which is why
Speaker 1: we're now approaching outside of the US half of the
Speaker 1: sovereign bonds in the world are now negative outside of
Speaker 1: the US. So, Jim, you mentioned that the FED or
Speaker 1: the markets are discounting four more rate cuts by the FED,
Speaker 1: although the data UH may not support that. What do
Speaker 1: you actually think the FED is going to do? They are,
Speaker 1: in fact, you know, as they say, data dependent. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think they're going to cut rates in September. The
Speaker 1: problem is is that they think that they're pretty sure
Speaker 1: that they're going to cut by twenty five, and there's
Speaker 1: some argument that maybe, you know, there might be something
Speaker 1: that comes along that they don't cut. The market's pretty
Speaker 1: sure they're gonna cut by fifty because it's now almost
Speaker 1: at a chance the way it's priced in that there
Speaker 1: will be a fifty basis point cut. So this will
Speaker 1: be the game will play. The Fed will follow you,
Speaker 1: we'll give you great cuts, but the market will be screaming, no,
Speaker 1: you're gonna give us more than you think and faster
Speaker 1: than you think. So we're all headed in the same direction.
Speaker 1: It's just the speed at which the market thinks to
Speaker 1: fet should go in which the Fed wants to go.
Speaker 1: At Jim, here's what I'm really struggling with. I'm looking
Speaker 1: at break even rates, sort of a gauge of inflation
Speaker 1: over the next five to ten years, or at least
Speaker 1: where people are pricing it in. It's come down, but
Speaker 1: it's not at the lowest point since the financial crisis.
Speaker 1: The way that bond that that that the yield curves
Speaker 1: are and I'm struggling to understand what the implication here is.
Speaker 1: Real yields just are going to continue to go lower
Speaker 1: even if growth grinds along. I mean, is that the
Speaker 1: main takeaway here? Yes, and there is a nuance we
Speaker 1: need to put into those market measures of inflation expectation
Speaker 1: to break even rates. If you go back over the
Speaker 1: last several years and look at all of the times
Speaker 1: that it was lower, you know, February of two thousand sixteen,
Speaker 1: two thousand twelve and example, and you look at crude oil,
Speaker 1: crude oil was down or more off of its high.
Speaker 1: Crude oil is down, but nowhere near that right now.
Speaker 1: So what's driving these break evens lower, these expectations of
Speaker 1: lower inflation is not the energy market falling apart, but
Speaker 1: a belief that non energy inflation, which is core inflation,
Speaker 1: is coming down. That's what I think is really worrisome.
Speaker 1: This is not two thousand and sixteen when the break
Speaker 1: even s fell a lot more because crude I went
Speaker 1: from a hundred dollars to twenty six dollars and just
Speaker 1: wiped out the energy part of the equation. This is
Speaker 1: everything else that seems to be falling. Jim Bianco, thank
Speaker 1: you so very much. Jim, as president and founder of
Speaker 1: Bianco Research, is also a contributor to Blue or Opinion.
Speaker 1: You can read more on this and other stories from
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Opinion at Bloomberg dot com, slash Opinion or on
Speaker 1: the terminal by typing O P I n go. President
Speaker 1: Trump coming out yet again against the Federal Reserve, basically
Speaker 1: saying the problems in the US not China. We are
Speaker 1: stronger than ever. Money is pouring into the US, while
Speaker 1: China is losing companies by the thousands to other countries
Speaker 1: and their currencies under siege. Our problem is a federal
Speaker 1: Reserve that is too proud to admit their mistake of
Speaker 1: acting too fast and tightening too much, and that I
Speaker 1: was right. And it goes on. There is a three
Speaker 1: tweet tweet storm joining us now to talk about what
Speaker 1: this implies for markets and how it's being interpreted and frankly,
Speaker 1: what is the FEDS conundrum is going forward? Tom Or,
Speaker 1: like chief economist for Bloomberg Economics, I'm just wondering what
Speaker 1: your impression is of these tweets? Is Trump right? So?
Speaker 1: I think there's certainly a consensus that the Federal Reserve
Speaker 1: was too aggressive um at the end of two thousand
Speaker 1: and eighteen, UM, and that that rate hike misjudged the
Speaker 1: state of the economy, misjudged the mood in the markets,
Speaker 1: and now they're having to undo some of the damage
Speaker 1: which that did. UM. Where he's wrong, I think is
Speaker 1: on the idea. Firstly, that politicians should be intervening in
Speaker 1: monetary policy. We have independent central banks for a good reason.
Speaker 1: The White House weighing in UM before breakfast, lunch, and
Speaker 1: dinner doesn't make their job any easier. UM. Secondly, is
Speaker 1: monetary policy effective against trade tariffs? Can you cut interest
Speaker 1: rates to offset the drag caused by Trump's trade war? Um?
Speaker 1: I think the answer to that probably no. Businesses see
Speaker 1: lower rates as an incentive to invest, But when they're
Speaker 1: so worried about supply chains being broken, about access to
Speaker 1: markets being blocked, they're not going to make that investment.
Speaker 1: So Tom, it's the market is pricing in, you know,
Speaker 1: as much as four more rate cuts over the next
Speaker 1: year or so. What is the market seeing that? Maybe? Um,
Speaker 1: The Federal Reserve is not so. I think the markets
Speaker 1: are forward looking. The Federal Reserve is looking at the
Speaker 1: data and the data is telling us about the past. Um,
Speaker 1: So the market is anticipating an escalating trade war, chilling
Speaker 1: US exports, breaking US supply chains, hitting the US consumer
Speaker 1: in the pocket book, and a federal reserve which is
Speaker 1: being forced to respond to that. The risk, I think,
Speaker 1: is that we have a spiral of higher tariffs and
Speaker 1: lower rates, and in a year's time, the economy is
Speaker 1: on the cusp of a very serious downturn, and the
Speaker 1: Federal Reserve has not enough firepower left to deal with it.
Speaker 1: So it's not just a federal reserve. We've got central
Speaker 1: banks around the world that are cutting rates more than
Speaker 1: people have expected. We got the three rate cuts from
Speaker 1: three three different central banks in Asia overnight, and I'm
Speaker 1: just wondering, I mean, do you think that basically the
Speaker 1: Fed is given a green light to central banks around
Speaker 1: the world to go into an easing cycle, perhaps prematurely.
Speaker 1: I think there's two things going on, Lisa. So the
Speaker 1: first thing is that central banks are all responding to
Speaker 1: the same threat. The trade war isn't just a problem
Speaker 1: for China and the US. It's a problem for most
Speaker 1: other major economies in the world, and that's why we're
Speaker 1: seeing so many central banks responding to it. The second point,
Speaker 1: and I think this is where your comment is is
Speaker 1: completely on point, is the FED easing enables other central
Speaker 1: banks to ease. If the U his lowering rates, other
Speaker 1: central banks can and do lower rates without concerns about
Speaker 1: currency weakness and capitaliite flows. And that's why we're seeing
Speaker 1: Thailand and other emerging markets taking advantage of that opportunity. So, Tom,
Speaker 1: you lived and worked in Beijing for many years, you
Speaker 1: have a good sense of the economic situation there. What
Speaker 1: do you think the Chinese are really looking to achieve
Speaker 1: from a trade deal, if anything, and what is kind
Speaker 1: of the timing that you think that they might be under.
Speaker 1: So I don't have a window into China's leadership compound
Speaker 1: Jong Nan high Um, but my sense is that the
Speaker 1: Chinese view on negotiations with Trump has changed in the
Speaker 1: last few months. UM. We had that move at the
Speaker 1: beginning of the summer to hike tariffs from ten unexpected.
Speaker 1: We had that surprise threat of tariffs against mex Acho
Speaker 1: after the US had negotiated noon after UM, and now
Speaker 1: we have the teen per cent tariffs on three billion
Speaker 1: dollars and the move to label China currency manipulator. I
Speaker 1: think all of these things are convincing Beijing that actually
Speaker 1: the chances of a wind wind deal with Trump on
Speaker 1: trade are pretty low, and so I think what they're
Speaker 1: doing is buckling down the hatches and trying to last
Speaker 1: three to November twenty twenty, when they hope that they'll
Speaker 1: have someone else in the White House who they find
Speaker 1: it easier to talk to. Tom Can the tariffs and
Speaker 1: what we've seen so far with the trade wars and
Speaker 1: the global economy into recession. So global recession is a
Speaker 1: big call. Um, Let's start with the US. So US
Speaker 1: recession is a big call as well. Unemployment is a
Speaker 1: fifty years Luxemburg. Luxembourg's much smaller, But unfortunately I haven't
Speaker 1: flown over it recently. So per the economists rule that
Speaker 1: you can't make a judgment on an economy you haven't
Speaker 1: flown over, I can't make a judgment. Um. But let's
Speaker 1: come back to the US. UM. Yes, the trade war
Speaker 1: is a very serious threat to growth, not just because
Speaker 1: of what the tariffs are doing, but because of the
Speaker 1: chilling impact of uncertainty on business and consumer confidence and
Speaker 1: financial markets. UM. At the same time, we have unemployment
Speaker 1: at a fifty year low UH and wage growth running
Speaker 1: at more than three. The consumer is the main driver
Speaker 1: of you of the U S economy. UM, So yes,
Speaker 1: we're concerned. Yes, we're looking at UM some indications of
Speaker 1: some weakness coming into the labor market, but we'd want
Speaker 1: to see more signs of the labor market crumbling before
Speaker 1: we made a big call like that, Tom, or like,
Speaker 1: thank you very much time as a chief economist for
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Economics, joining us live here in our Bloomberg Interactive
Speaker 1: Broker studio. Well, what I thought was some very interesting
Speaker 1: news coming out of FedEx. The company announced that the
Speaker 1: ground delivery contract with Amazon won't be renewed when it
Speaker 1: expires at the end of this month, the company said
Speaker 1: in a statement. To get the latest on this and
Speaker 1: what it means for FedEx and the transportation industry, we
Speaker 1: welcome Satista Jendle, president of s J Consulting, and Thomas Black,
Speaker 1: transportation reporter for a Bloomberg UH. Tom's let's start with
Speaker 1: you kind of just give us the background here on
Speaker 1: what FedEx is doing with one of the biggest strippers
Speaker 1: in the world. They're pulling back. We knew this was coming.
Speaker 1: They announced in June that they were no longer going
Speaker 1: to do the next day air service for Amazon. So, uh,
Speaker 1: this is an incremental step in that and they're pulling
Speaker 1: back on on the ground and they it's a signal
Speaker 1: that they see Amazon more as a competitor as it
Speaker 1: builds out its network, and they're gonna try to scoop
Speaker 1: up other customers for e commerce as it grows. Situation.
Speaker 1: President of j Consulting, come in in here, because I'm
Speaker 1: wondering how much this bet is a good one on
Speaker 1: FedEx's part. How big of an infrastructure does Amazon dot
Speaker 1: Com have right now? And it is fed X going
Speaker 1: to be in a better position than Amazon as a
Speaker 1: result of this move, you know, this is Uh. The
Speaker 1: termination of the contract first is really an academic because
Speaker 1: based on a lot of data we have, fed X
Speaker 1: was not handling any packages because Amazon has cut them
Speaker 1: off completely. They give them zero packages, So it is academic.
Speaker 1: The only relevance of terminating that contract is that during
Speaker 1: peak time, Amazon will not be able to rely on
Speaker 1: fed X for any volume. But Amazon has built its
Speaker 1: own network of last mile delivery to such a point
Speaker 1: that today they are delivering over four million packages a
Speaker 1: day with their own drivers, and they're continuing to ramp
Speaker 1: that up. So and they've got the post aft that
Speaker 1: they've got ups and they've got up the private small
Speaker 1: cave here to deliver for them. And this is no
Speaker 1: headache for Amazon. They will not miss a heartbeat not
Speaker 1: having fed X. Instead, fed X is going to have
Speaker 1: to work hard to replace that capacity and that volume
Speaker 1: with others. That doesn't come easy. Yeah, Thomas, I want
Speaker 1: to follow up on that point. It seems like when
Speaker 1: I think about Amazon, I would think that would just
Speaker 1: be a huge, huge customer for fed X, and you know,
Speaker 1: I think about a fixed cost system like uh, you
Speaker 1: know FedEx has how will they make up that lost volume? Well,
Speaker 1: they talked about the volume with Amazon being about one
Speaker 1: point three of their total sales, which if you do
Speaker 1: just to back it of the envelope, calculations around nine million.
Speaker 1: So it seems a lot. But it's a company that
Speaker 1: does almost seventy billion in sales per year, so it
Speaker 1: can handle the hit um ups on. On the other
Speaker 1: it probably does more business with Amazon and that partnership
Speaker 1: is continuing, so it's going to be interesting to see
Speaker 1: how that plays out over time. If this is more
Speaker 1: of a cosmetic type of move on the part of
Speaker 1: fed X or a pr kind of I don't want
Speaker 1: to call it a stunt, but something to sort of
Speaker 1: make a statement more than anything else. What are they
Speaker 1: hoping happens from it? I think this is a wait
Speaker 1: for them to embrace themselves with Walmart and get Walmart
Speaker 1: to realize that they are, uh not working with Walmart's
Speaker 1: biggest competitor, and that to have Walmart make FedEx their
Speaker 1: primary career and give them more business than and to
Speaker 1: what whatever they're giving to ups to FedEx other than that,
Speaker 1: If I'm a shipper, it doesn't make a difference to
Speaker 1: me that I would rather do business with fed X.
Speaker 1: If they're not doing business with Amazon that never happens,
Speaker 1: then this is a more negative for FedEx than for
Speaker 1: Amazon in my view. So, Thomas, I know that, uh,
Speaker 1: the fed X is kind of saying it's in a
Speaker 1: transition year and their forecasting earnings to decline. What's really problem,
Speaker 1: what's really creating the problems there at FedEx? Well, they
Speaker 1: have some problems in their European business. They acquired a
Speaker 1: company called T n T Express and that was back
Speaker 1: in May of when they close that deal and they
Speaker 1: still are grappling with the integration of that company. That's
Speaker 1: that's been a a drag on on fed X and UH.
Speaker 1: They're also seeing the international business weekend a little bit
Speaker 1: with some of the trade spat that's going on. So
Speaker 1: those those are two main things that are weighing on.
Speaker 1: Who is Walmart relying on now, I mean in terms
Speaker 1: of who I mean who who is who is uh?
Speaker 1: Who is FedEx going to sort of take business away from?
Speaker 1: See that again, Well, you said that Walmart could be
Speaker 1: the biggest winner from the fed X or basically that
Speaker 1: FedEx is trying to win over Walmart's business. I'm wondering
Speaker 1: who Aalmart is doing shipping business with right now. They
Speaker 1: are doing a big amount of business with FedEx, but
Speaker 1: they're also giving to UPS and this is effort by
Speaker 1: them to try and have some of that business going
Speaker 1: to others, including upsp devoted to FedEx. Thank you so
Speaker 1: much for being with us at Gendel, President of SJA Consulting.
Speaker 1: Thomas Black, transportation reporter for Bloomberg News. Thanks for listening
Speaker 1: to the Bloomberg P and L podcast. You can subscribe
Speaker 1: and listen to interviews at Apple Podcasts. Or whatever podcast
Speaker 1: platform you prefer. I'm Paul Sweeney. I'm on Twitter at
Speaker 1: pt Sweeney. I'm Lisa A. Bram Woy. It's I'm on
Speaker 1: Twitter at Lisa Bramwoit's one before the podcast. You can
Speaker 1: always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio