WEBVTT - The Yield Curve Is Signaling Slowdown in Inflation 0:00:01.360 --> 0:00:05.680 This is Bloomberg Business Wait inside from the reporters and 0:00:05.880 --> 0:00:09.440 editors who bring you America's most trusted business magazine, plus 0:00:09.520 --> 0:00:13.680 global business, finance and tech news. The Bloomberg Business Week 0:00:13.720 --> 0:00:18.960 Podcast with Carol Messer and Tim Stenebeck from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:20.239 --> 0:00:23.439 I think of Nirvana mostly as just the grunge band, 0:00:23.560 --> 0:00:26.040 but it's actually, I guess a state you can achieve 0:00:26.920 --> 0:00:29.160 if you what do enough yoga right. 0:00:29.360 --> 0:00:31.680 I guess there are some good you know, good meditation, yoga, 0:00:31.680 --> 0:00:32.960 breathing right, like get there. 0:00:33.280 --> 0:00:36.040 I like that, all right, So let's see what he 0:00:36.120 --> 0:00:39.800 has to say when it comes to the Nirvana scenario. 0:00:40.320 --> 0:00:42.279 The story the most right on the Bloomberg terminal has 0:00:42.320 --> 0:00:43.240 been really all day. 0:00:44.280 --> 0:00:45.440 So great to have back with us. 0:00:45.479 --> 0:00:47.360 I know you spoke to him earlier on TV, but 0:00:47.520 --> 0:00:49.479 right now joining us on Bloomberg Business Week at your 0:00:49.520 --> 0:00:51.599 Denny founder of your Denny Research, and. 0:00:51.560 --> 0:00:52.800 With us on Zoom in New York City. 0:00:53.000 --> 0:00:57.480 Ed, thank you so much for joining us. Talk to 0:00:57.560 --> 0:01:01.480 us about you know, your thinking this inverted yield curve 0:01:01.560 --> 0:01:03.480 that is like gloom and doom. 0:01:03.520 --> 0:01:04.959 We're going to have a recession, and. 0:01:04.920 --> 0:01:07.039 Yet you see it differently. Talk to us about it. 0:01:07.080 --> 0:01:08.000 And how you came to that. 0:01:08.840 --> 0:01:11.880 I do. Actually I wrote a short little book back 0:01:11.920 --> 0:01:17.600 in twenty eighteen titled what is the ill Curve really forecasting? 0:01:18.240 --> 0:01:22.240 And came to the conclusion that it's had a great 0:01:22.319 --> 0:01:25.720 record of forecasting recessions. But what it really does is 0:01:25.880 --> 0:01:29.759 forecasts the process that in the past led to recessions. 0:01:29.800 --> 0:01:33.880 So when the yell curve inverts, basically bond investors are saying, 0:01:34.280 --> 0:01:36.560 we are willing to buy a ten year bond at 0:01:36.560 --> 0:01:39.160 a yel below the two year because we think if 0:01:39.200 --> 0:01:41.319 the FED keeps raising rates, or even if they leave 0:01:41.360 --> 0:01:44.160 them here, something's going to break in the financial system. 0:01:44.240 --> 0:01:47.199 There'll be a financial crisis, and that will morph into 0:01:47.200 --> 0:01:50.880 an economy white credit crunch. And that's what caused recessions 0:01:50.880 --> 0:01:53.720 in the past. It wasn't the inverted yell curves. The 0:01:53.760 --> 0:01:57.480 inverted yell curve just anticipated that something bad would happen 0:01:57.800 --> 0:02:00.400 if the FED continue to raise interest rates. And so 0:02:00.440 --> 0:02:02.400 it's got a pretty good track record, a very good 0:02:02.400 --> 0:02:06.320 track record of anticipating exactly that kind of process. Now, 0:02:06.680 --> 0:02:09.080 how about the current situation. All in the current situation, 0:02:09.160 --> 0:02:12.800 it's done a great job, again of anticipating a financial crisis, 0:02:12.800 --> 0:02:15.720 we had a banking crisis back in March, but this 0:02:15.880 --> 0:02:19.000 time the FED came in so quickly with a liquidity 0:02:19.040 --> 0:02:22.680 facility to stabilize the situation. I mean, the FEDS used 0:02:22.680 --> 0:02:25.799 to play whack them all with these problems since two 0:02:25.840 --> 0:02:29.239 thousand and eight, two thousand and nine, so they whacked 0:02:29.240 --> 0:02:32.200 them all this time, and as a result, we did 0:02:32.240 --> 0:02:35.320 not so far get an economy white credit crunch are 0:02:35.400 --> 0:02:36.120 a recession. 0:02:36.880 --> 0:02:38.959 What do you think about this Fed ed? I mean 0:02:39.000 --> 0:02:46.920 you've worked for various FED I guess boards from the 0:02:46.960 --> 0:02:50.919 White House, from Wall Street? What do you think about 0:02:51.000 --> 0:02:52.440 Jerome Powllin how he's done here? 0:02:53.440 --> 0:02:55.520 Well, I think it's going to work out this time. 0:02:56.000 --> 0:02:59.600 There's a Tennessee on Wall Street to what sort of 0:03:00.840 --> 0:03:04.720 bemoan everything that the FED is doing. They clearly don't 0:03:04.720 --> 0:03:06.880 know what they're doing. Seems to be sort of a 0:03:06.960 --> 0:03:10.400 knee jerk reaction of FED watchers on Wall Street and 0:03:10.440 --> 0:03:12.880 other places. But I think they may actually have got 0:03:12.919 --> 0:03:15.560 that right this time. I mean, clearly they were laid 0:03:15.600 --> 0:03:18.679 in tightening, but once they realized that, they moved very 0:03:18.720 --> 0:03:22.640 aggressively from zero to five hundred basis points above zero 0:03:22.800 --> 0:03:26.799 with the FED funds rate and I think that's worked 0:03:26.800 --> 0:03:32.560 pretty well in moderating inflation without causing a recession so far. 0:03:33.000 --> 0:03:35.120 And I think again, they came in just in the 0:03:35.200 --> 0:03:37.960 nick of time here. Actually, they came in very quickly 0:03:38.400 --> 0:03:41.440 in dealing with the financial crisis that occurred in March, 0:03:41.920 --> 0:03:45.240 and as a result, we haven't had the typical process 0:03:45.640 --> 0:03:47.960 of financial crisis, credit crunch, and recession. 0:03:48.360 --> 0:03:50.120 Hey, and one thing Matt and I were talking about 0:03:50.200 --> 0:03:51.400 is the difference between the. 0:03:51.320 --> 0:03:53.280 Different yield curves. Right, we talk about the two in 0:03:53.320 --> 0:03:55.160 the ten, we talk about the three month in the ten. 0:03:55.280 --> 0:03:57.400 What is the yield curve that. 0:03:57.320 --> 0:04:00.760 You think individuals need to focus on to really get 0:04:00.760 --> 0:04:03.280 an idea of Okay, wait, yeah, we're headed for a recession. 0:04:03.960 --> 0:04:07.280 Well, the Index of Leading Economic Indicators is an important 0:04:08.120 --> 0:04:11.000 series and it tends to have a good track record 0:04:11.440 --> 0:04:15.080 of anticipating recessions. And one of its components is, in 0:04:15.120 --> 0:04:18.520 fact the shape of the Yelk curve. But it's the 0:04:18.920 --> 0:04:23.360 spread between the federal funds rate and the tenure yield. 0:04:24.080 --> 0:04:30.480 And so in this situation, I prefer the two year 0:04:30.560 --> 0:04:33.640 versus the tenure because I think the two year gives 0:04:33.720 --> 0:04:38.280 us a more day by day view of what the 0:04:38.320 --> 0:04:41.360 credit markets are thinking. Whereas the FED funds rate is 0:04:41.600 --> 0:04:44.360 totally driven by the Fed. The two year tends to 0:04:44.400 --> 0:04:46.479 anticipate what the Fed's going to do very well. 0:04:46.760 --> 0:04:49.000 But I think Powell in the past has talked about 0:04:49.000 --> 0:04:52.360 the three month ten year spread. I feel like Cam Harvey. 0:04:53.040 --> 0:04:55.640 I'm not sure which one he uses, but he kind 0:04:55.680 --> 0:04:59.120 of gave us this idea, right, He's a professor. I 0:04:59.120 --> 0:05:02.120 think at Duke who gave us this idea that the 0:05:02.880 --> 0:05:06.839 yield curve inversion could forecast a recession. Have we seen 0:05:07.360 --> 0:05:11.360 the three month tenuere spread invert and not had a recession? 0:05:13.160 --> 0:05:17.520 Well, again, the inverted yell curve was one of the 0:05:17.520 --> 0:05:20.240 components of the Index of Leading economic indicators. On both 0:05:20.279 --> 0:05:25.160 those series have had a spectacular track record of anticipating recessions. 0:05:25.200 --> 0:05:29.640 I think the last eight recessions were anticipated by an 0:05:29.640 --> 0:05:33.000 inverted yeal curve and by declining leading indicators. There have 0:05:33.040 --> 0:05:38.920 been some instances where they started to flash orange and 0:05:39.480 --> 0:05:43.320 nothing terrible happened. Those were basically consistent with mid cycle 0:05:43.360 --> 0:05:47.520 slowdowns in the economy, otherwise known as rolling recessions, and 0:05:47.560 --> 0:05:50.560 I think that's what's been going on in the current situation. 0:05:51.040 --> 0:05:53.600 I think We've actually had a recession since the beginning 0:05:53.640 --> 0:05:56.400 of last year. It's just been a rolling recession. It's 0:05:56.400 --> 0:06:00.240 been hitting different sectors at different times. It's certainly ask 0:06:00.320 --> 0:06:02.600 anybody in the housing market that's definitely been in a 0:06:02.640 --> 0:06:05.760 recession since the beginning of last year, and same thing 0:06:05.800 --> 0:06:08.200 goes for goods for the past year. There's been a 0:06:08.240 --> 0:06:09.480 recession in a good sector. 0:06:09.640 --> 0:06:12.719 Yeah, our rich Miller is highlighting you know, you're thinking 0:06:12.760 --> 0:06:14.000 about rolling recessions. 0:06:14.160 --> 0:06:17.479 You know, Cam, I mean Cambell Harvey also. 0:06:17.480 --> 0:06:18.919 No, I wasn't calling him camp but I was just 0:06:18.920 --> 0:06:22.120 saying Cambll Harvey, who also came up with this he 0:06:22.520 --> 0:06:24.520 for our story, said it's too early to say that 0:06:24.520 --> 0:06:26.719 the curve in version is a false signal. He said, 0:06:26.720 --> 0:06:29.119 the big question is not whether the downturn is coming, 0:06:29.120 --> 0:06:31.200 it's how severe it will be. I do worry that 0:06:31.200 --> 0:06:33.240 the FED, who two more raid hikes, will put enough 0:06:33.279 --> 0:06:35.360 gasoline on the fire that is going to push us 0:06:35.480 --> 0:06:37.040 in a very negative direction. 0:06:37.240 --> 0:06:38.640 Is that still a risk in your view? 0:06:39.279 --> 0:06:42.560 Well, that's what makes markets right. My view his view, 0:06:43.520 --> 0:06:47.920 and I guess my view is that the Yeld curve 0:06:48.000 --> 0:06:50.280 isn't going to work this time. As a predictor of 0:06:50.320 --> 0:06:53.240 a recession. It's worked very well as a predictor of 0:06:53.279 --> 0:06:56.920 a financial crisis caused by the FED raising interest rates. 0:06:57.760 --> 0:06:59.440 But I don't think we're going to get a recession 0:06:59.440 --> 0:07:02.440 out of it. But it is an open debate. I'll 0:07:02.480 --> 0:07:06.640 conceive that. I mean, you know, nobody's concluding that I'm 0:07:06.720 --> 0:07:09.760 right or the other side is right. It's just the 0:07:09.760 --> 0:07:15.120 other side has more history, you know, favoring the a 0:07:15.200 --> 0:07:18.840 recession outlook. But look, it's been since last summer that 0:07:18.880 --> 0:07:21.440 the yield curve has been inverted. It's been since December 0:07:22.040 --> 0:07:25.720 twenty twenty one that the index of leading indicators has 0:07:25.760 --> 0:07:29.440 been declining. And yet we don't have an economy writer recession. 0:07:29.560 --> 0:07:34.040 But I think we've had a rolling recessions. Right's been 0:07:34.080 --> 0:07:35.200 just hunky dory. 0:07:36.160 --> 0:07:40.000 I think Harvey actually is closer to your camp than 0:07:40.320 --> 0:07:43.360 the quote in our story illustrates, because I've talked to 0:07:43.440 --> 0:07:45.120 him in the last few months and he says this 0:07:45.200 --> 0:07:48.080 time is different and not that the yield curve in 0:07:48.200 --> 0:07:51.640 version is not signaling a recession. I want to ask you, 0:07:51.640 --> 0:07:54.480 you wrote FED watching for fun and profits, but you 0:07:54.520 --> 0:07:57.800 also like movie watching for fun, which I know because 0:07:57.840 --> 0:08:00.680 I spoke to you earlier about Oppenheimer. Carol and I 0:08:00.800 --> 0:08:04.320 are both excited about Barbie, but Oppenheimer's another one that 0:08:04.440 --> 0:08:07.200 just crushed it at the box office this weekend. What 0:08:07.240 --> 0:08:09.360 did you think, Well, you know, I. 0:08:09.400 --> 0:08:11.560 Had a choice of going with my daughter and her 0:08:11.560 --> 0:08:14.560 friends to see Barbie or going to see Oppenheimer. I 0:08:14.560 --> 0:08:17.600 decided to go see Oppenheimer, but she said she want 0:08:18.200 --> 0:08:21.040 I heard some bad reviews of Barbie, but she said 0:08:21.680 --> 0:08:23.760 that she really enjoyed it and wants to see it again, 0:08:23.800 --> 0:08:27.920 so I may join her because it's a cultural happening clearly, 0:08:28.640 --> 0:08:31.400 But with regards to Oppenheimer, it was an outstanding movie. 0:08:32.320 --> 0:08:36.400 The directing was awesome. Christopher Nolan did an amazing job 0:08:36.760 --> 0:08:40.240 of kind of going behind the story, not just behind 0:08:40.480 --> 0:08:43.880 the story, but behind Oppenheimer and looking at kind of 0:08:44.120 --> 0:08:48.040 Oppenheimer and it's times. I certainly had a understanding of 0:08:48.080 --> 0:08:52.080 the domestic and geopolitical consequences of developing and using the 0:08:52.120 --> 0:08:55.640 Adam baumb And then you know, there's certainly some philosophical 0:08:55.960 --> 0:09:00.000 discussion of what does it mean that humanity has created 0:09:00.160 --> 0:09:04.840 this horrible instrument of mass destruction that can just basically 0:09:04.920 --> 0:09:09.240 wipe out creation. So it's it's it's a three hour movie, 0:09:09.280 --> 0:09:10.960 but it goes by pretty quick, and I thought it 0:09:11.000 --> 0:09:12.000 was extremely well done. 0:09:12.920 --> 0:09:13.520 I love that. 0:09:14.240 --> 0:09:15.120 I really want to see it. 0:09:15.160 --> 0:09:18.079 I want to see both of the movies. Actually me too. 0:09:18.280 --> 0:09:19.640 Can I ask you real quickly, I'm going to go 0:09:19.640 --> 0:09:22.200 back to markets twenty five seconds. You made some great 0:09:22.240 --> 0:09:25.080 forecasts on Dow five thousand down ten thousand. 0:09:25.520 --> 0:09:27.520 Where do you see markets going from here? Just quickly? 0:09:28.360 --> 0:09:30.600 Well quickly, I say, I think we're going to go 0:09:30.640 --> 0:09:33.599 to forty eight hundred to fifty four hundred by the 0:09:33.679 --> 0:09:35.079 end of the next year, and I think more to 0:09:35.120 --> 0:09:36.640 the top of that range in the bottom. 0:09:37.240 --> 0:09:38.840 All right, that sounds like optimism to me. 0:09:39.600 --> 0:09:41.480 Good to leave it there, ed Thank you so much 0:09:41.559 --> 0:09:42.960 the movies, the markets. 0:09:43.240 --> 0:09:45.760 I talked a little Nirvana. That was really great. We 0:09:45.800 --> 0:09:46.840 really appreciate it, Edgar. 0:09:47.240 --> 0:09:47.800 Yeah, be well. 0:09:47.920 --> 0:09:50.520 Edyard Denny, founder of your Denny Research with us on 0:09:50.559 --> 0:09:52.800 zoom in New York City. But someone who has seen 0:09:52.840 --> 0:09:54.520 so many different market cycles, and I think how many 0:09:54.559 --> 0:09:55.240 times we've talked to. 0:09:55.280 --> 0:09:58.359 Him, Yeah, I say, you know, he worked at the Treasury, 0:09:58.440 --> 0:10:00.640 who worked for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. 0:10:00.720 --> 0:10:02.480 He worked for the Federal Reserve, Board of Governors, and 0:10:02.480 --> 0:10:05.240 then various many Wall Street organizations. 0:10:05.720 --> 0:10:09.280 You're listening to the Bloomberg Business Week podcast. Catch us 0:10:09.320 --> 0:10:12.640 Live weekday afternoons from three to six Eastern Listen on 0:10:12.720 --> 0:10:16.440 Bloomberg dot com, the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business 0:10:16.480 --> 0:10:19.800 app or wants us Live on YouTube. 0:10:20.360 --> 0:10:22.040 Now, we're going to talk about Twitter, right. 0:10:21.920 --> 0:10:23.880 We're gonna text everything app. 0:10:25.640 --> 0:10:27.520 Well it still is if you look at Twitter dot 0:10:27.520 --> 0:10:32.400 com and the ur L is still Twitter dot com. 0:10:32.920 --> 0:10:33.960 They're still working on it. 0:10:34.200 --> 0:10:34.680 Yeah. 0:10:34.840 --> 0:10:37.120 No, I went to Twitter with those Aria. Let's let's see. 0:10:37.280 --> 0:10:38.079 You know who knows about it. 0:10:38.120 --> 0:10:42.640 Bloomberg News Technology porter Alexbarenka, she's on zoom in La. 0:10:42.880 --> 0:10:44.840 I mean it feels like Elon's flywey oh. 0:10:44.920 --> 0:10:47.080 I see the X on Twitter now, yeah, it was 0:10:47.120 --> 0:10:49.640 on it, but it is still the u r L. Right, Alex, 0:10:49.640 --> 0:10:51.160 When are they going to change that? Do they get 0:10:51.320 --> 0:10:52.800 X dot com? Is that already? 0:10:52.800 --> 0:10:55.360 Given what I do know, A Matt is that I 0:10:55.440 --> 0:10:57.400 don't know when they're going to change that. In typical 0:10:57.520 --> 0:11:01.800 Elon Musk fashion, this change happen and basically late last 0:11:01.880 --> 0:11:04.720 night on the app now formerly known as Twitter, Musk 0:11:04.800 --> 0:11:07.920 was tweeting, Hey guys, we're going to change the name 0:11:08.120 --> 0:11:10.480 if somebody can come up with a good logo, pseudo 0:11:10.559 --> 0:11:13.959 crowdsourcing it as he's wont to do with follow tweets 0:11:14.000 --> 0:11:15.760 or I guess we now call them exers or some 0:11:15.880 --> 0:11:18.480 other name that will come up. And wouldn't you know, 0:11:18.600 --> 0:11:22.800 twelve hours ago the app is now called Twitter. So 0:11:23.200 --> 0:11:26.439 this kind of change across the board. It wasn't, let's say, 0:11:26.440 --> 0:11:29.880 a rollout that you'd see in other rebrandings of major 0:11:29.920 --> 0:11:32.199 technology or any other firm for that matter. 0:11:32.320 --> 0:11:37.360 So, Mike, two questions are is this just something that 0:11:37.400 --> 0:11:39.640 Elon Musk is trying to do to get attention back 0:11:39.679 --> 0:11:43.440 from Threads, which must by now have added two hundred 0:11:43.440 --> 0:11:47.800 million users. And also, is Linda Yakarino the CEO? Is 0:11:47.840 --> 0:11:50.320 she in charge of stuff or does she just kind 0:11:50.320 --> 0:11:53.520 of follow on tweet whatever Elon does. 0:11:54.280 --> 0:11:55.800 Well, I'll take the first question first. 0:11:55.800 --> 0:11:56.240 On X. 0:11:56.320 --> 0:11:59.200 Elon Musk has been obsessed with the idea of X 0:11:59.240 --> 0:12:02.200 for a long time. Our colleague Max Chafkin, who wrote 0:12:02.200 --> 0:12:04.760 a book on PayPal where Musk kind of made his name, 0:12:05.080 --> 0:12:07.800 reminded us that back then he tried to get PayPal 0:12:07.960 --> 0:12:10.560 called X and that didn't work. And of course we 0:12:10.640 --> 0:12:14.199 have SpaceX, the Tesla Model X, and his child's nickname 0:12:14.480 --> 0:12:16.599 is X. So this is something that we kind of 0:12:16.679 --> 0:12:19.040 knew was combing. It's something that he had announced when 0:12:19.040 --> 0:12:22.440 he bought this company. But now I guess in the 0:12:22.480 --> 0:12:24.800 snap of the fingers and the turning on of a 0:12:24.800 --> 0:12:28.719 big light projected on to Twitter's headquarters or Ex's headquarters, 0:12:29.040 --> 0:12:32.880 it's now official. But on here second question, So Musk 0:12:32.920 --> 0:12:36.160 did bring in Linda Yakarino, the former media executive, to 0:12:36.400 --> 0:12:40.920 run as CEO. Here You saw her today with like 0:12:41.040 --> 0:12:44.800 really jargony business speak, kind of piling on the excitement 0:12:44.920 --> 0:12:49.160 about this name change. You also saw you might have 0:12:49.200 --> 0:12:52.400 seen there were reports that Yakarino actually sent a letter 0:12:52.440 --> 0:12:55.520 out to employees. But there was something really interesting. 0:12:55.080 --> 0:12:56.800 In there that I noticed. 0:12:57.200 --> 0:13:00.280 She was talking about how this name change is the 0:13:00.280 --> 0:13:02.400 beginning of this second act that a lot of companies 0:13:02.440 --> 0:13:04.640 don't have a chance to do, and she pointed out 0:13:04.679 --> 0:13:07.320 that they have the opportunity to do this together. I 0:13:07.360 --> 0:13:09.880 will just point out that is very different than how 0:13:09.920 --> 0:13:13.480 this name change played out last night, not actually within 0:13:13.520 --> 0:13:16.640 the company but on the internet. As Musk is wants 0:13:16.720 --> 0:13:17.240 to do well. 0:13:17.280 --> 0:13:19.160 I just want to know was Linda part of this 0:13:19.360 --> 0:13:21.800 decision or did she play catch up? 0:13:23.120 --> 0:13:25.480 It seems like she is playing a lot of catchup. 0:13:25.559 --> 0:13:27.880 And because this is something that Musk has talked about 0:13:27.880 --> 0:13:30.480 in the past, I would hamper to guess that this 0:13:30.640 --> 0:13:34.640 predated Yakarino's kind of tenure here at Twitter. What she 0:13:34.800 --> 0:13:38.959 will have to do is continue to reassure advertisers, kind 0:13:38.960 --> 0:13:42.920 of the monetary lifeblood of X or Twitter, of this 0:13:43.000 --> 0:13:45.360 social media app, that this is a place that they 0:13:45.400 --> 0:13:47.840 should be spending their money. If you are an advertiser 0:13:47.880 --> 0:13:50.160 and you sit back and you kind of see these changes, 0:13:50.480 --> 0:13:52.400 there's two ways to think about it. There's the way 0:13:52.400 --> 0:13:55.240 that Musk really wants you to that Yakarina laid out 0:13:55.280 --> 0:13:58.880 in her letter to employees that this is the moves 0:13:58.880 --> 0:14:02.280 of an inventor, an inventive company who moves fast and 0:14:02.400 --> 0:14:05.080 is really agile. But kind of the bane of an 0:14:05.160 --> 0:14:10.600 advertiser's existence is uncertainty and quick changes, and Twitter or 0:14:11.160 --> 0:14:14.920 X has already been kind of having some struggles convincing 0:14:14.960 --> 0:14:17.120 advertisers that their platform is safe in a place that 0:14:17.120 --> 0:14:19.480 they should spend money. So whether or not she was 0:14:19.520 --> 0:14:22.280 involved in this decision. She is foresore as a CEO 0:14:22.440 --> 0:14:25.040 going to have to take the brunt a really important 0:14:25.040 --> 0:14:28.360 group of stakeholders in those advertisers to convince them that 0:14:28.400 --> 0:14:30.280 this is the beginning of something new and not just 0:14:30.320 --> 0:14:33.000 a continuation of kind of a maturial leader. 0:14:33.080 --> 0:14:37.560 Can I just say, though Twitter great brand name, Most 0:14:37.600 --> 0:14:40.760 would argue, why the heck would you start messing around 0:14:40.800 --> 0:14:42.920 with wet and we tweet it? 0:14:42.960 --> 0:14:44.920 It makes complete sense. 0:14:45.880 --> 0:14:48.240 It's fascinating and I can't imagine changing the name of 0:14:48.560 --> 0:14:52.240 Google or Kleenex. So you're losing what a decade and 0:14:52.240 --> 0:14:54.800 a half of history. I don't know you can tell 0:14:54.840 --> 0:14:57.040 in this interview, Guys, I'm struggling to know what to 0:14:57.080 --> 0:14:59.560 call it right now. I guess it'll sink and eventually 0:15:00.000 --> 0:15:02.560 I still don't have a new word for the term tweet. 0:15:02.920 --> 0:15:05.120 Maybe we'll be xing, I'm not quite sure. 0:15:05.280 --> 0:15:08.880 And that just come on totally. 0:15:09.120 --> 0:15:11.000 It's like something completely different. 0:15:10.840 --> 0:15:13.520 Exactly be for Bloomberg after Dark. 0:15:13.600 --> 0:15:17.960 Right, Well, listen, Alice, you you always impress me with 0:15:18.080 --> 0:15:20.920 your You've got your finger on the pulse of the zeitgeist, 0:15:20.960 --> 0:15:22.800 as Tom Kean would say, But it's a much younger 0:15:22.800 --> 0:15:27.480 thing than that. Are you involved in threads? Did you 0:15:28.000 --> 0:15:31.040 cross over like so many other people did. Is that 0:15:31.760 --> 0:15:35.560 has that really got any staying power or do people 0:15:35.640 --> 0:15:37.080 still all tweet? 0:15:37.760 --> 0:15:41.160 I am still I did cross over to threads because 0:15:41.160 --> 0:15:44.040 it was such an easy sign on from Instagram. I 0:15:44.120 --> 0:15:47.240 do feel this kind of moment of opportunity because Twitter 0:15:47.320 --> 0:15:49.840 looks like a different place than it did, so I've 0:15:49.880 --> 0:15:53.280 looked to threads. But also I'm still not sure what 0:15:53.440 --> 0:15:56.480 the long term value of threads will be for me, 0:15:56.720 --> 0:15:58.680 and I think a lot of users are still exploring 0:15:58.680 --> 0:16:02.040 that too. So while they are certainly with Meta being 0:16:02.160 --> 0:16:05.880 obviously a tech giant who knows how to monetize social 0:16:05.960 --> 0:16:10.840 media products, they're absolutely a challenger to the likes of Twitter. 0:16:11.320 --> 0:16:14.440 I also question where you are spending their time. The 0:16:14.560 --> 0:16:18.160 average TikTok user, say in the US, is spending ninety 0:16:18.160 --> 0:16:21.080 five minutes a day on that app. That is an 0:16:21.120 --> 0:16:25.480 obscene amount of time compared to twenty thirty forty minutes 0:16:25.560 --> 0:16:29.160 on the likes of Instagram or Twitter. So you know, yes, 0:16:29.200 --> 0:16:31.640 I'm on threads. I still think it's a question mark 0:16:31.720 --> 0:16:34.640 and it's not clear that they're kind of capturing this 0:16:34.800 --> 0:16:38.200 opportune moment as you have elon musk making noise over 0:16:38.240 --> 0:16:42.040 here at X but certainly I try to be in 0:16:42.080 --> 0:16:44.360 front of the zeit guys for you guys to see 0:16:44.360 --> 0:16:47.320 what's moving and shaking as a chronically online human being. 0:16:47.400 --> 0:16:49.040 How old are the people on TikTok. 0:16:50.040 --> 0:16:53.400 The people on TikTok are actually getting older, so majority 0:16:53.400 --> 0:16:55.640 of their users are under the age of thirty or 0:16:55.640 --> 0:16:58.400 thirty five, but you see about a quarter of their 0:16:58.520 --> 0:17:02.160 users are actually into their late thirties, forties and fifties. 0:17:02.200 --> 0:17:05.280 You have TikTok grandma. So this app, TikTok used to 0:17:05.280 --> 0:17:08.439 be kind of really of the use, but they're starting 0:17:08.440 --> 0:17:12.800 to encroach on that territory that Facebook, Instagram others have 0:17:12.960 --> 0:17:16.000 really kind of made their name on. And just today 0:17:16.200 --> 0:17:19.960 TikTok has also rolled out a text format, so there's 0:17:20.040 --> 0:17:23.199 maybe a little jab at both Twitter or x and 0:17:23.320 --> 0:17:26.560 threads in there as well. From this fast growing competitor 0:17:26.600 --> 0:17:29.400 who used to focus on video, who's now saying, hey, look, 0:17:29.400 --> 0:17:31.040 at least we can give you an option to post 0:17:31.040 --> 0:17:31.720 here on text. 0:17:32.600 --> 0:17:34.320 All right, This is I mean, it's all kind of 0:17:34.359 --> 0:17:37.560 fascinating stuff, but at the end of the day, journalists 0:17:37.560 --> 0:17:40.800 for the most part, are on Twitter, right. I mean, 0:17:40.840 --> 0:17:43.359 you look at threads, Alex, but I'm sure you don't 0:17:43.640 --> 0:17:45.360 wake up in the morning and it's the first thing 0:17:45.359 --> 0:17:45.720 you do. 0:17:47.160 --> 0:17:49.199 I do look at Twitter. Journalists are on Twitter, and 0:17:49.240 --> 0:17:51.640 increasingly I would make the argument for LinkedIn as well, 0:17:51.680 --> 0:17:54.200 because you kind of have that business slant for business 0:17:54.240 --> 0:17:58.200 journalists like me, and again that predictability of what audience 0:17:58.240 --> 0:17:59.959 do you have where that's going to be the thing 0:18:00.240 --> 0:18:02.920 that Threads is going to need to kind of answer 0:18:03.040 --> 0:18:05.199 for users, for folks like me who are kind of 0:18:05.440 --> 0:18:07.879 the core audience, and the folks who read Bloomberg and 0:18:07.880 --> 0:18:09.120 Business Weekends and fin twit. 0:18:09.240 --> 0:18:12.520 Right, it's fin twit for our for our listeners, for 0:18:12.600 --> 0:18:14.240 our viewers, for our readers. 0:18:14.680 --> 0:18:17.359 But it's absolutely it's funny that you say LinkedIn. 0:18:17.440 --> 0:18:19.879 I feel like that is like the sleeper social media 0:18:19.920 --> 0:18:21.520 app that we all kind of pooh poohed. 0:18:21.880 --> 0:18:23.320 It's like, I'm not looking for a job, why do 0:18:23.359 --> 0:18:24.119 I have to be on it? 0:18:24.560 --> 0:18:28.240 And increasingly when you do an interview with somebody or 0:18:28.359 --> 0:18:30.919 I get reached out, that's where I get pitches Like 0:18:31.000 --> 0:18:33.320 that has become I feel like almost the sleeper social 0:18:33.400 --> 0:18:34.439 media app, Alex. 0:18:35.400 --> 0:18:37.480 It has, and I can tell you that the comment 0:18:37.560 --> 0:18:40.639 dialogue on LinkedIn I see there looks like what my 0:18:40.760 --> 0:18:43.560 Twitter dialogue used to look like five years ago. So 0:18:43.600 --> 0:18:46.840 it's very interesting you have this kind of thinkfluent or 0:18:46.960 --> 0:18:50.200 vibe that LinkedIn's been known for people trying to show 0:18:50.240 --> 0:18:53.560 off their brains and their expertise. But because I think 0:18:53.600 --> 0:18:56.359 a lot of folks have been looking for another place 0:18:56.480 --> 0:18:59.600 that can replace what Twitter once was a place to 0:18:59.640 --> 0:19:01.880 share new updates and kind of those day to day 0:19:01.880 --> 0:19:06.240 things that are professionally slanted, folks are increasingly looking to LinkedIn, 0:19:06.320 --> 0:19:08.560 and I'm seeing not only the posting but also the 0:19:08.600 --> 0:19:11.560 engagement in the comments that I used to see elsewhere, 0:19:11.600 --> 0:19:13.960 whether that's on a tech story an article, or I 0:19:14.000 --> 0:19:16.280 post a lot of videos there as well, and those 0:19:16.320 --> 0:19:19.359 tend to do well too, So interesting sleeper idea there 0:19:20.200 --> 0:19:23.720 with LinkedIn, But certainly there's an opportunity for a text 0:19:23.760 --> 0:19:25.960 forward place to kind of take some audience here. 0:19:26.000 --> 0:19:27.080 You are the best. 0:19:27.119 --> 0:19:30.000 Alex Parinka technology port at Bloomberg News knows her stuff 0:19:30.200 --> 0:19:31.679 on Zoom from La Alex. 0:19:31.720 --> 0:19:32.040 Thanks. 0:19:33.200 --> 0:19:36.760 You're listening to the Bloomberg Business Week podcast. Catch us 0:19:36.800 --> 0:19:40.800 live weekday afternoons from three to six Eastern on Bloomberg Radio, 0:19:41.000 --> 0:19:44.280 the Bloomberg Business app, and YouTube. You can also listen 0:19:44.400 --> 0:19:47.480 live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station, 0:19:47.920 --> 0:19:50.720 Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty. 0:19:52.880 --> 0:19:55.720 So I don't have any easy sigue to go from 0:19:55.720 --> 0:19:58.679 that to talking about Barbie, which I both have not 0:19:58.800 --> 0:19:59.320 yet seen. 0:19:59.480 --> 0:20:03.120 No, I actually had tickets on Saturday night. 0:20:03.200 --> 0:20:05.200 I know you talked about having tickets, and. 0:20:05.160 --> 0:20:10.679