Speaker 1: Yeah, Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm term Keene
Speaker 1: jay Leye. We bring you insight from the best in economics, finance, investment,
Speaker 1: and international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot Com, and of course on the Bloomberg here
Speaker 1: in New York. Joining against Gregg Boodle BMP parabying US
Speaker 1: head of Equity and Derivative Strategy and he joins US
Speaker 1: now can monitor Greig pretty muted price action. I've got
Speaker 1: to say, with the exception of Chinese equities, which we'll
Speaker 1: talk about in just a moment, but what's your explanation
Speaker 1: this morning as to why futures are up but just
Speaker 1: a half of one percent? Yeah. I think the slightly
Speaker 1: lackluster move from US equities this morning, up just under
Speaker 1: half a percent, is a reflection on how far we've
Speaker 1: already traveled since the December lows against the backdrop that's
Speaker 1: already seen some deterioration in terms of equity fundamentals and
Speaker 1: some of the hard macro data. The move in China
Speaker 1: is stomach six pc on a CSI three D. It's
Speaker 1: pretty difficult in the morning like this morning to wake
Speaker 1: up and untangle what is trade and what it's been
Speaker 1: driven by other factors and specifically China specific factors. Can
Speaker 1: you unwrap that a little bit for us? Gregg? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think really it's kind of this confluence of factors.
Speaker 1: So we see a weaker dollar, a more dovish fed
Speaker 1: the market starting price in a resolution in terms of
Speaker 1: the trade tensions, and then a more kind of credit friendly,
Speaker 1: growth friendly environment coming in China, the stimulus at the
Speaker 1: start of this year working its way through UM. I
Speaker 1: think those things have all come together to make something
Speaker 1: of a perfect storm for China. And EM equity is
Speaker 1: relative to develop market equities. So E M over d
Speaker 1: M is that of this morning story or a longer
Speaker 1: term story? What's your base case, Greg? We think it's
Speaker 1: a slightly longer term story than that. Is something that
Speaker 1: we've been talking about for a while. Is the right
Speaker 1: trade to play a resolution of the trade or as
Speaker 1: I said, there's a kind of confluence of fact is
Speaker 1: not just trade supporting the idea that em could outperform
Speaker 1: developed markets. That's something that I think could run a
Speaker 1: little longer. Although clearly that price action from China this
Speaker 1: morning is very aggressive. How much is underpinned by dividend increase,
Speaker 1: use of cash back to shareholders. I mean it's folded
Speaker 1: into Washington talk and Democratic socialists that's say by backs
Speaker 1: are evil. I get all that, but just from a
Speaker 1: cf A standpoint, if it's a vector that's up not
Speaker 1: like it was in January hindsight, how much of that
Speaker 1: is underpinned by use of cash? Yeah. I think cash
Speaker 1: and balance sheet is something that is going to really
Speaker 1: support some parts of the US equity market. I think
Speaker 1: that the buy back story, whether it's returns through dividends
Speaker 1: or buy backs, the rooster return in some ways doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: I think if you've got a very robust balance sheet,
Speaker 1: net cash on the balance sheet, then that's something that's
Speaker 1: kind of going to give you a more defensive profile
Speaker 1: if we see a growth slow down and returning some
Speaker 1: of that cash is going to support your Earningspress, I
Speaker 1: know you're not great. We're going to talk about individual companies,
Speaker 1: but are reported from Omaha. Katherine Saglinsky just mentioned the
Speaker 1: pile of cash. Mr Buffet has there's a lot of
Speaker 1: other piles of cash out there. What's the I mean
Speaker 1: a lot of people I mentioned Mario Gabelly John tweeting
Speaker 1: out a newmant bureau. I mean a guy like a bell,
Speaker 1: He's like, why are you sitting in the cash? Do something?
Speaker 1: Is that urgency there? I don't know if the urgency
Speaker 1: is there. And some of the volatility that we've seen
Speaker 1: in equity markets over the last three to six months
Speaker 1: is maybe going to inject a little bit more of
Speaker 1: a noting caution rather than when we have a kind
Speaker 1: of more benign environment. But I think certainly, if we
Speaker 1: do see the growth environment slowing but not slowing too rapidly,
Speaker 1: UM corporates may look to try and offset some of
Speaker 1: that kind of organic slowdown by putting some of that
Speaker 1: cash to work. Well, there's one company that is selling,
Speaker 1: and it's General Electric, and the story drops across the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg that General Electric has agreed to sell it's buy
Speaker 1: a farmer business to Dana her for a total consideration
Speaker 1: including twenty one billion dollars in cash, as well as
Speaker 1: Danna has assumption of certain pension liabilities. That just dropped
Speaker 1: across the Bloomberg. General Electric up more than six percent.
Speaker 1: But is there almost an inside transit actually, I mean
Speaker 1: Mr copp Is, I mean I'm going to be honest
Speaker 1: and totally not surprised by this. So here's the headline
Speaker 1: that comes with it, expects to use proceeds to cut
Speaker 1: leverage and strength and balance sheet. Now this is a
Speaker 1: very g specific story, but let me get to the
Speaker 1: broadest story that I think you can speak to. Greg.
Speaker 1: It's the belief that beyond ge there's a lot of
Speaker 1: companies not in a similar position, but telling the same
Speaker 1: kind of story that this is the year that we're
Speaker 1: going to cut back on debt right size the balance sheet.
Speaker 1: It's the year of the debt diet. In the words
Speaker 1: of some guests that I've spoken to, do you believe
Speaker 1: it is? I think there's gonna be differentiation between those
Speaker 1: who do have leverage on the balance sheet see um,
Speaker 1: you know the end of the cycle inside, see growth slowing,
Speaker 1: and want to take measures to repair their balance sheet.
Speaker 1: But there are other corporates out there who have big
Speaker 1: piles of cash, who have anything we'll be looking to
Speaker 1: put that cash to work. So one of the things
Speaker 1: we've been talking about is looking at the differentiation between
Speaker 1: those who can do things like sustained buy backs, maybe
Speaker 1: even accelerate returns to shareholders and those who are going
Speaker 1: to have to cut back. How many companies are in
Speaker 1: that position, because the thing I worry about sitting here
Speaker 1: is central banks shifting towards an easing bias. But I
Speaker 1: just wonder how much corporates have already leveraged over the
Speaker 1: last couple of years, what difference it will make to
Speaker 1: adjust the supply and price of credit, and whether that
Speaker 1: will be enough to stimulate demand. Yeah. I mean, we
Speaker 1: have had this more dovish tone from the FED, but
Speaker 1: we've been in an environment really for the past ten
Speaker 1: years where there's been an awful lot of support coming
Speaker 1: from central banks. So I think clearly this has been
Speaker 1: one of the drivers that's taken the SMP back up
Speaker 1: from on Christmas eve UM. So I think the ability
Speaker 1: for there to be more liquidity driven rally, for a
Speaker 1: more dovish FED to incrementally drive upside from here is
Speaker 1: much more challenging. I think perhaps one of the biggest
Speaker 1: risks for nineteen is policy impotence. It's just the very
Speaker 1: idea that these central banks try and do more, but
Speaker 1: the effective of it, effectiveness of it is enough, And
Speaker 1: I just wonder whether the one right now we're experiencing
Speaker 1: that to some degree in China. Great because the Chinese
Speaker 1: are doing a lot. It's supporting markets. I haven't seen
Speaker 1: it materially support the economy just yet. Yes, I think
Speaker 1: that's a very important point. You can get some knee
Speaker 1: jerk reaction in terms of equities outperforming when you get stimulus,
Speaker 1: but really for that to drive for sustained rally, what
Speaker 1: you need to see is the stimulus find its way
Speaker 1: into the hard data. If you see the macro data improving,
Speaker 1: that's likely to drive the market higher. Greg, thank you
Speaker 1: so much. Thank you. We speak to the vice president
Speaker 1: of odd for Bloomberg Intelligence, Carol Board darkens the door.
Speaker 1: I'm going to cut to the chase, away from all
Speaker 1: the mambo jumbo. How can this be an arms length transaction?
Speaker 1: Mr Copple bleeds Danner her Blue. He's working for g
Speaker 1: I know the Boards signed off on it and all that.
Speaker 1: You've gotta be kidding me. Uh you know, about a
Speaker 1: year ago Danner wanted to buy it and uh Ge
Speaker 1: rebuffed them. Uh he got I mean, let's be fair,
Speaker 1: he got twenty one billion dollars and he needs cat.
Speaker 1: It's actually a little lesson. I thought I had billion um.
Speaker 1: The peer group, which is dan her Thermo Fisher um
Speaker 1: in the life science business or eighteen nineteen right now. So, um,
Speaker 1: the deal you know was good for Danna her as
Speaker 1: well as good for G. G has to balance, I
Speaker 1: mean G has to balance. I need money and I
Speaker 1: need it fast. And the positive in this is that
Speaker 1: they've been getting two billion, three billion from selling tod
Speaker 1: J and J come in here or you know, name
Speaker 1: six other companies you know better than me. I'm not
Speaker 1: sure if there was a bid. I know that Danner
Speaker 1: was interesting, you know, was just gonna be questioned in
Speaker 1: the next week. I I think people are so happy
Speaker 1: that they're getting that much money, and that will so
Speaker 1: all my radars up. I mean no, I might see
Speaker 1: your I see your point because it's it's they got that.
Speaker 1: They got it below peer multiples. Uh, it's a growth business.
Speaker 1: Margins are are very good. Um, and but is in
Speaker 1: a box. They have to balance. I need the money.
Speaker 1: What did dinner or two? Did it go down ten answers? No, no, no,
Speaker 1: because if they paid fifteen times for it. Now, what's interesting, Karen,
Speaker 1: is not just a move in the stop, but the
Speaker 1: moving the debt as well. It's up three cents on
Speaker 1: the dollar. Erupt to fifty on the G perpetual. It's
Speaker 1: a triple B credit and they're using the money to
Speaker 1: right size the balance sheet. How important is that? That's
Speaker 1: extremely important because there was fear of a downgrade. Uh,
Speaker 1: they need to get the debt down as quickly as possible.
Speaker 1: There wasn't a lot of large chunks left that they
Speaker 1: could sell um and you know, oil service is the
Speaker 1: only one they have left that's a reasonable, reasonable size chunk.
Speaker 1: So this does solve the you know, big chunk of
Speaker 1: the debt problem. It doesn't solve it completely, and I
Speaker 1: think will ease the fears about another downgrade. Yeah, so
Speaker 1: we tried it ninety two cents on the dollar, and
Speaker 1: there's been this big fit about another down Right. Do
Speaker 1: you think this is sufficient or do they need to
Speaker 1: do more? Do they need to raise more capital? You know,
Speaker 1: you know they've got to continue to raise capital. But
Speaker 1: I think the emergency, I would say the emergency might
Speaker 1: be over in the in the near town. So you
Speaker 1: sound by a farmer, You keep healthcare, The healthcare IPI
Speaker 1: is not going to happen. What's next? What's the next
Speaker 1: unit that you'll lay the focused on. I think healthcare
Speaker 1: will happen, but it won't happen right away, and he
Speaker 1: needs the cash flow. UM, this doesn't you know, I
Speaker 1: don't think it aborts the UM option to sell healthcare,
Speaker 1: but he needs a cash flow. So right now he
Speaker 1: can stop the bleeding with this sale, get the cash
Speaker 1: from healthcare to do other things, and eventually I think
Speaker 1: you'll get Are there other suitors that could step in
Speaker 1: here in the next forty hours and say, wait a minute,
Speaker 1: that I think that's a possibility. Okay, I mean we're
Speaker 1: so far from the ge of schenected in New York.
Speaker 1: You've mentioned before Karen Aviation and might right, that's the
Speaker 1: crown jewel. Now, yes, that's you know, you know, they
Speaker 1: get rid of Healthier, they get rid of oil service,
Speaker 1: it's it's it's power, it's renewables, and it's a crown jewel. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's gonna say. I mean, basically, it's an airline engine company.
Speaker 1: It's running a power business. Because they can't figure out
Speaker 1: how to get rid of it that they're going to
Speaker 1: have to just shrink power as much as they can.
Speaker 1: That's not an option to sell. Now, I don't you
Speaker 1: don't do bi hold sell what's the stock etch with
Speaker 1: the stock up a zillion percent, were up over twelve.
Speaker 1: We're just below twelve twelve. I mean, I don't need
Speaker 1: a target from me. I know that's impolite, but I mean,
Speaker 1: does this say everything have legs to forty or is
Speaker 1: it plus or minus five points? It's got a lot
Speaker 1: more work to do, uh to run to anywhere where
Speaker 1: near that. I mean, they've still got a big promise.
Speaker 1: I just have a glass. I don't want a price forecast.
Speaker 1: But you know, the stock was what six or seven?
Speaker 1: It's it's done, you know, up to America. It's what
Speaker 1: Deutsche Bank is to Europe. And the question that comes
Speaker 1: up with Deutsche Bank again and again and again is
Speaker 1: whether you can cut your way to growth. And it's
Speaker 1: a question that's asked about g E as well. Radically
Speaker 1: different company, of course, but the same situation. Can you
Speaker 1: cut your way to growth? I think they're trying to
Speaker 1: cut their way to stability and um and when once
Speaker 1: they can stabilize power and there's some signs in order
Speaker 1: that that's happening, they can stop the bleeding there they've
Speaker 1: got a growth engine. Well I'm not playing on words,
Speaker 1: but it's it's it's aviation and frankly healthcare is nine
Speaker 1: operating margins and will be more like fifteen sixty without this.
Speaker 1: Are they benefited by the death of the airbus? Uh three?
Speaker 1: I mean the day move a lot more engines on
Speaker 1: smaller planes. No, g E and Pratt and Whitney are
Speaker 1: the big engine guys. So yeah, so um, you know
Speaker 1: that plane goes, but there's others that there's a million
Speaker 1: with a lot going to hear and thank you so
Speaker 1: much wandering on the energy, and you know, I would say,
Speaker 1: next forty eight hours, we'll see. We went through the
Speaker 1: surveillance data bank and try to find one of our
Speaker 1: guests that actually listen to all the speeches, and Julia
Speaker 1: Cornado joins usspect policy perspectives. What do these speeches mean, Julie?
Speaker 1: To a grizzled PhD pro like you, do you actually
Speaker 1: listen to these speeches? Did you just look at the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg headlines? You just ignore them? Well, actually a number
Speaker 1: of the speakers were speaking at an event in New York,
Speaker 1: so I was able to attend to that event and
Speaker 1: see the full glory of the said speakers in person.
Speaker 1: So um, it was as you that was why we
Speaker 1: got such a day. Lose the annual conference, the Booth conference,
Speaker 1: since you got in New York exactly, Yeah, Rob and
Speaker 1: Roger enjoining a tomorrow on Bloomberg Surveillance ex Chicago. Next
Speaker 1: RBI in India with an important new book as well.
Speaker 1: Give us a FED update. It's you know, we're marching
Speaker 1: to March and then there's a March meeting. You know,
Speaker 1: I know there's a press conference and all that, but
Speaker 1: is it a dead meeting? Is FED speak goes effectively?
Speaker 1: The March meeting is dead in policy terms because the
Speaker 1: FED has hit the pouse button. So we know that
Speaker 1: they're pretty much on hold for the first half of
Speaker 1: the year as they sort of gather the data and
Speaker 1: take the temperature on the economy. Most of the speakers
Speaker 1: that we heard from are looking forward to this evaluation
Speaker 1: of their policy tool kit and whether they should tweak
Speaker 1: their inflation targeting approach, and that's the hot topic of
Speaker 1: the day. I look Julia at the dot plot, which
Speaker 1: I haven't looked at phone since Michael McKee stopped the
Speaker 1: press conference last time around, and not only is the
Speaker 1: market call distant from the FED call, but the market
Speaker 1: cause of vector going to lower rates out for years.
Speaker 1: To me, the slope of the market call has radically changed.
Speaker 1: Am I right on that? Um? Yes, you are right,
Speaker 1: and I think that what we will see at the
Speaker 1: March meeting is another flattening of the dot plot, and
Speaker 1: with the FED moving closer to the market, rather than
Speaker 1: the market moving closer to the Fed, but the Fed.
Speaker 1: This is where there's a key difference between the market
Speaker 1: and the dot plot, and that is that the dot
Speaker 1: plot is the FED official communication. The Feed is never
Speaker 1: going to say we're projecting failure, we're predicting a recession.
Speaker 1: The market can make dot call um and effectively some
Speaker 1: people in the market believe. And in fact, the National
Speaker 1: Association of Business Economist survey just showed that the modal
Speaker 1: expectation is for a recession in h So that's what
Speaker 1: the market is, at least many in the market are thinking.
Speaker 1: And that's why we have a bit of a rate
Speaker 1: cut price in whether it's twenty one, they're always pushing
Speaker 1: out this. There is always a recession called somewhere in
Speaker 1: the mixed. Julia, what you mentioned earlier, I think it's
Speaker 1: really interesting the prospect of a higher inflation target. Muhammad
Speaker 1: al Arian running for bloom Back Opinion Today, and he
Speaker 1: wrote the following, will the fect be able to meet
Speaker 1: a higher inflation target if it already struggles to make
Speaker 1: its current want on a consistent basis? What difference does
Speaker 1: it make? Julia Well, I think that is probably the
Speaker 1: single biggest shortcoming of evaluating that approach, is they don't
Speaker 1: even know whether it's feasible, uh to hit a higher
Speaker 1: inflation target or to even average at a slightly higher
Speaker 1: run rate of inflation over a longer horizon. We we
Speaker 1: haven't been hitting the inflation target. Is that because inflation
Speaker 1: expectations have slipped lower and that's something that they can
Speaker 1: correct with their communication. Or are there inflationary processes, you know, deeper,
Speaker 1: more structural processes that hold back inflation and would sort
Speaker 1: of you know, put the sends credibility at risk if
Speaker 1: they if they've raised the target at a time when
Speaker 1: inflation is structurally low. So that's one of the big
Speaker 1: questions that they're going to be grappling with as they
Speaker 1: do this evaluation. What do you make of this evaluation
Speaker 1: playing out as publicly as it currently is. Well, I
Speaker 1: think the idea in them doing that is to emphasize
Speaker 1: that they understand they are a public institution, even though
Speaker 1: they do have independence. If they don't acknowledge and respond
Speaker 1: to public demands, they will lose that independence. They understand
Speaker 1: that more now than ever before. And so I think
Speaker 1: that the idea of having these town halls and these
Speaker 1: public conferences is to make sure that the public fully
Speaker 1: buys into any changes that are made. And it's a
Speaker 1: good thing. I mean, I think they're going to hear
Speaker 1: a variety of perspectives like the one you just mentioned
Speaker 1: that they might not get as loudly as if they
Speaker 1: do it behind closed door until with a specro policy perspective.
Speaker 1: This is a joy. We have waited and waited and
Speaker 1: waited to get the two hundred and seventy two page
Speaker 1: book of the year in business. This is an economics.
Speaker 1: It's not investment or finance. It's like the behavior of business.
Speaker 1: We are thrilled to bring in a gene case. Uh
Speaker 1: and her book be fearless. It has not only come
Speaker 1: out in a splash, but it's really come out to
Speaker 1: some immense acclaim as well. Just go out to Amazon
Speaker 1: and look at the acclaim and Uh, it speaks for
Speaker 1: its self. We said that gene Case, you can't come
Speaker 1: on until Lady Gaga talks about you at the Academy Awards.
Speaker 1: Of course, that's what happened last night. Are you wearing
Speaker 1: Alexander McQueen today, Jane, I'm trying. I'm trying to channel Gaga. No,
Speaker 1: there was Gaga and your husband Steve Case. Of course,
Speaker 1: with modest internet, acclaim goes it's not about how many
Speaker 1: times you are knocked down. It's about how many times
Speaker 1: you get up and keep going. This is Gaga last
Speaker 1: night wearing McQueen at the end of the show, Gene Case.
Speaker 1: Forget about the advantages of Gene Case and Steve Case.
Speaker 1: Give us one example of how you were knocked down
Speaker 1: years ago. Sure well, I tell the story in my
Speaker 1: new book, Be Fearless. You know I was um We
Speaker 1: We had a large initiative at the Case Foundation where
Speaker 1: I run to bring clean water to sub Saharan Africa
Speaker 1: in ten countries. And when I launched it, I had
Speaker 1: President Clinton to my right and First Lady Laura Bush
Speaker 1: to my left. But as we started to execute the
Speaker 1: project on the ground in Africa, things weren't going so well.
Speaker 1: And it's a bit of a longer story, but after
Speaker 1: trying to course correct and make things right. We had
Speaker 1: to acknowledge the failure, and I did so very publicly
Speaker 1: by writing a blog the painful acknowledgement of coming up short.
Speaker 1: This is a very public failure I had, and I
Speaker 1: like to tell that story because you know, entrepreneurs can
Speaker 1: be a little more comfortable with failure. But in the
Speaker 1: world more broadly, people are stopped in their tracks and
Speaker 1: they think it's over. And part of the reason I
Speaker 1: wrote the book Be Fairly is, you know, to really
Speaker 1: tell the stories of well known and less well known
Speaker 1: success stories, better lines and failure along the way. What's
Speaker 1: so important here? And we have a surveillance dumpster wory
Speaker 1: throw in all the business books that don't have the
Speaker 1: interior visceral energy. Be Fearless has you talk about being
Speaker 1: normal and about avoiding normal. Let's start with that sweat
Speaker 1: condition right now. How do our listeners, how do our
Speaker 1: listeners kids get away from normal? Sure? Well, of course
Speaker 1: that's all a play on the words of the town
Speaker 1: I was born in, which was normal, Illinois, as the
Speaker 1: youngest afoe being raised by a single mom, and no
Speaker 1: I had vignettes, but this is mostly a storytelling book
Speaker 1: about others. And the real message of it is that
Speaker 1: it's ordinary people who do extraordinary things. But to get
Speaker 1: too extraordinary, we have to get uncomfortable, get outside of normal.
Speaker 1: You know. I like to say nothing great comes from
Speaker 1: the comfort zone. And we did some research about six
Speaker 1: years ago really to study the core qualities of successful
Speaker 1: entrepreneurs and innovators. How many times do they feel? How
Speaker 1: many times do they fail before they found success? Oh?
Speaker 1: In some cases multiple times, you know. I like to
Speaker 1: talk about Oprah who was told she just wasn't right
Speaker 1: for TV, and yet look at the media empire she
Speaker 1: has created. Steve Jobs fired from the very company he founded,
Speaker 1: which then enabled him to go back later and totally
Speaker 1: transformed that company. So time and time again. You know,
Speaker 1: that chapter is called fail and the Footsteps of Giants.
Speaker 1: So it really is an important message that we have
Speaker 1: to get a little uncomfortable, we have to be bold
Speaker 1: and take some risks, but that it's really available to
Speaker 1: anyone to break well. So what we'll do. Gene cases
Speaker 1: ringing my colleague Paul Sweeney, who saw Duke go down
Speaker 1: in flames a week and a half ago and find
Speaker 1: resurrection here over the week. Paul Gee, one of the
Speaker 1: principles in your book. I found interesting was the concept
Speaker 1: of making the big bet. And that's something that I
Speaker 1: don't think is really is intuitive for you know, most people,
Speaker 1: the more conservative. Why it's important to think about making
Speaker 1: a big bet. And you have an example of somebody
Speaker 1: who's who's done it and done it well, sure, well,
Speaker 1: you know what I say is make a big bet
Speaker 1: and make history. It turns out what our research showed
Speaker 1: was across geographies and across sectors where transformational change happened
Speaker 1: is where people really start out with a big bet,
Speaker 1: not really dry for incremental change, but keep an eye
Speaker 1: on the price. Now, of course, how you're going to
Speaker 1: get there is one step at a time. Um. But
Speaker 1: you know, a big bet, I would say is a
Speaker 1: great company warby Parker. You know Fast Companies referred to
Speaker 1: them as the They've won the most Innovative Company award
Speaker 1: from Fast Company. You know, those are just a couple
Speaker 1: of guys. One of them needed a pair of eyeglasses,
Speaker 1: you know, several years back and found out they were
Speaker 1: just they were in college. Was too expensive, too much
Speaker 1: of a hassle, And they said, hey, how about we
Speaker 1: try to think about selling some glasses online? Which, of
Speaker 1: course at that time you can imagine what they were
Speaker 1: met with. No one's ever going to order a pair
Speaker 1: of glasses online. Well, fast forward the tape today and
Speaker 1: not only are they being recognized as you know, the
Speaker 1: most innovative company, but more importantly, their model is so
Speaker 1: cool because you can order them online, you can get
Speaker 1: them brought to your home. They're affordable, but they have
Speaker 1: this one for one model, so when you buy a
Speaker 1: pair of glasses from them, another person in the developing
Speaker 1: world gets pair of glasses that couldn't afford us. So
Speaker 1: they've given away four million pairs of eyeglasses while they
Speaker 1: become one of the hottest brands. That's thinking big obviously,
Speaker 1: UM Junior Chairman of the Board of the National Geographic UM.
Speaker 1: How does be fearless applied to the world of science
Speaker 1: and exploration? Yeah? Well, first of all, I know we
Speaker 1: talked about Gaga last night at the Here We Go. Yeah,
Speaker 1: free solo one. I was National Geographic Films were very
Speaker 1: very proud. How did that happen? How did that happen?
Speaker 1: How did that movie? Let's make a movie about a
Speaker 1: guy in a cliff and he may die? But then
Speaker 1: how did your chairman of the National Geographic How did
Speaker 1: that Oscar happen? So I think it happened through an
Speaker 1: extraordinary story and an extraordinary talent around it to bring
Speaker 1: that story to life. But it's emblematic of the fearlessness
Speaker 1: that has been in the National Geographic Society since its
Speaker 1: founding a hundred and thirty one years ago. Time and
Speaker 1: time again, the organization is willing to take risks be
Speaker 1: out there on the front lines of the unknown, and
Speaker 1: free Solo is a great example of that. Geane How
Speaker 1: about the I think another concept that kind of goes
Speaker 1: along those lines is reached beyond your bubble. You know,
Speaker 1: I think you know a lot of us can probably
Speaker 1: say you we were pretty comfortable in our bubble. Why
Speaker 1: should we reach outside of our bubble? Yeah, well, you know,
Speaker 1: I think we'd all love to stay in our comfort
Speaker 1: zone or a bubble if we could. But the fact
Speaker 1: of the matter is what success looks like is when
Speaker 1: people reach outside of their bubbles. And today in the
Speaker 1: world of finance, for instance, you know, we're not so
Speaker 1: aware of our some growing trends in the nation, and
Speaker 1: that is where some of the newest startup activity of
Speaker 1: new companies is coming from. Is from women and people
Speaker 1: of color, and yet the data is stark. Last year,
Speaker 1: just two percent of enture capital went to firms with
Speaker 1: a female founder, less than one percent of firms with
Speaker 1: an African American founder. But more stunning than that, seventy
Speaker 1: five percent of inenture capital went to just three places California, Massachusetts,
Speaker 1: in New York. So a state like Florida, the third
Speaker 1: largest in the nation, got two percent of injure capital.
Speaker 1: So we've really got to start focusing on making sure
Speaker 1: there isn't this consolidation of capital to a few places,
Speaker 1: but really make an extra effort to get out there,
Speaker 1: reach beyond our bubble and find the new classes of
Speaker 1: entrepreneurs who are driving the future. The chairman of National
Speaker 1: Geographic is Paul Sweeney. Sweed said all of us grew
Speaker 1: up with yards of National geographics saved by parents and grandparents.
Speaker 1: Tell me the National Geographic magazine, it's Susan Goldber and
Speaker 1: you it will never go away, right, I really hope not.
Speaker 1: You know, we love our National Geographic Magazine. We treasure
Speaker 1: it as much as those who have been reading it
Speaker 1: for years and years. We do have a digital form
Speaker 1: of the magazine on iPad, on the iPad, which is
Speaker 1: super cool because we can put video assets and you know,
Speaker 1: linked in there that can take you even further. But
Speaker 1: we love the magazine as well, and our channels and
Speaker 1: our digital footprint. You know, just last week we passed
Speaker 1: a hundred million Instagram followers, the first brand in the
Speaker 1: world to do that. Very cool. That's that's a huge
Speaker 1: number of folks, way different than any Facebook calculation. Gene Case,
Speaker 1: thank you so much. The book is Be Fearless, folks.
Speaker 1: I really can't say enough about it. This book came out,
Speaker 1: it made a modest splash gene Case and all that,
Speaker 1: but it is gathered momentum in steam through two thousand
Speaker 1: eighteen and into two thousand nineteen. Five principles for a
Speaker 1: life of breakthroughs in purpose, and as Paul Sweeney said,
Speaker 1: it's just about courage. It's just about what you need
Speaker 1: to do to try to move things for for you
Speaker 1: and your family as well. Be Fearless, gene Case. Thanks
Speaker 1: for listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and listen
Speaker 1: to interviews on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whichever podcast platform
Speaker 1: you prefer. I'm on Twitter at Tom Keane. Before the podcast,
Speaker 1: you can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio.