WEBVTT - Will Fed Cut Rates After Better-Than-Expected June Core PCE? 0:00:00.600 --> 0:00:10.719 Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio news. This is Bloomberg business 0:00:10.720 --> 0:00:13.960 Week Inside from the reporters and editors who bring you 0:00:14.000 --> 0:00:18.360 America's most trusted business magazine, plus global business, finance and 0:00:18.400 --> 0:00:22.880 tech news. The Bloomberg Business Week Podcast with Carol Messer 0:00:23.040 --> 0:00:25.800 and Tim Stenebeck from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:27.960 --> 0:00:31.160 Interesting story right through about history being on the side 0:00:31.160 --> 0:00:33.680 of stock and bond balls as FED officials kicked off 0:00:33.720 --> 0:00:36.519 that two day policy meeting. Today, equities and bonds have 0:00:36.600 --> 0:00:39.800 posted weekly gains amid six of the eight FED meetings 0:00:39.840 --> 0:00:42.559 over the past year. This according to an analysis team 0:00:42.640 --> 0:00:43.280 by City Group. 0:00:43.400 --> 0:00:46.400 And yet the devil always in the details with the 0:00:46.440 --> 0:00:49.400 key points to focus on in tomorrow's FED decision. Back 0:00:49.440 --> 0:00:52.479 with us, we have Steven Skanke, chief economic advisor at 0:00:52.479 --> 0:00:55.080 the Wealth Advisor kill Point. Steve also a former US 0:00:55.160 --> 0:00:58.240 Treasury in White House National Security Council staff member serving 0:00:58.320 --> 0:01:01.440 during the Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Reagan administration. Steve joins 0:01:01.520 --> 0:01:04.480 us from Washington, DC. Also here in the studio Bloomberg 0:01:04.600 --> 0:01:08.360 Economics US economist Stuart Paul Stewart. Good to have you 0:01:08.480 --> 0:01:09.880 here in the studio with us. I do want to 0:01:09.880 --> 0:01:13.120 start with you because the FED is not expected to 0:01:13.120 --> 0:01:16.480 make any move tomorrow, but we do are a lot 0:01:16.520 --> 0:01:18.640 of investors that I should say expect to hear signals of 0:01:19.040 --> 0:01:22.600 perhaps a move come September. How do they thread that 0:01:22.640 --> 0:01:24.200 needle where they say, Okay, we're not going to do 0:01:24.240 --> 0:01:28.080 anything in July. Maybe we're not gonna do anything. You know, 0:01:28.160 --> 0:01:30.200 we're not gonna do anything until September. How do you 0:01:30.240 --> 0:01:30.600 do that? 0:01:30.920 --> 0:01:33.040 There are a few different ways that they could sort 0:01:33.080 --> 0:01:36.600 of gently modify the FMC statement, the formal statement that 0:01:36.680 --> 0:01:39.920 comes out, For example, in the opening paragraph, there's a 0:01:39.959 --> 0:01:43.000 line in recent months there has been modest for the 0:01:43.040 --> 0:01:45.880 progress there's a committee two percent inflation target. Just stripping 0:01:45.880 --> 0:01:49.320 out the word modest, just there's been further progress would 0:01:49.320 --> 0:01:50.760 be one of those little gentle. 0:01:50.440 --> 0:01:53.440 Signs we said the devil was in the details. One word, 0:01:53.760 --> 0:01:54.240 that's right. 0:01:54.360 --> 0:01:57.080 They could be a bit more bold and say things 0:01:57.120 --> 0:01:59.360 that if the data evolves as the committee expects, it 0:01:59.400 --> 0:02:02.760 will soon be appropriate to begin cutting rates. That would 0:02:02.800 --> 0:02:06.360 be a much bolder, clearer call for illuming rate cut 0:02:06.400 --> 0:02:06.960 in September. 0:02:07.120 --> 0:02:08.480 All right, I want to bring in Steve and I'm 0:02:08.520 --> 0:02:11.720 just pulling it up on the Bloomberg. So September eighteenth 0:02:12.200 --> 0:02:16.400 is a long way off I think about, you know, Steve, 0:02:16.400 --> 0:02:19.440 We've made progress, a lot of progress in the past year. 0:02:19.480 --> 0:02:21.880 When it comes to inflation, it seems to be settling 0:02:21.919 --> 0:02:25.000 down consistently. We continue to see US economic growth. That's 0:02:25.000 --> 0:02:29.080 a good thing. We got some data today consumer confidence 0:02:29.200 --> 0:02:32.240 rising on an improved outlook for the economy, job openings 0:02:32.280 --> 0:02:36.280 beating forecast. It's this delicate balance. If you were still 0:02:36.280 --> 0:02:38.400 advising the White House, what would you be telling them 0:02:38.440 --> 0:02:39.840 about tomorrow's FED decision? 0:02:41.880 --> 0:02:45.400 Whether they just need to be patient and not seem 0:02:45.480 --> 0:02:48.240 anxious and not jump the gun on it. The Fed 0:02:48.280 --> 0:02:52.120 is navigating this very carefully and really very doubtfully. You know, 0:02:52.160 --> 0:02:56.240 a week or so ago, the FED Chair, the New 0:02:56.320 --> 0:03:00.520 York Fed Bank President, we're all talking about the you know, 0:03:00.639 --> 0:03:06.000 the concern about what was happening in labor markets, and 0:03:06.240 --> 0:03:09.560 are really signaling they're eager to start cutting rates, but 0:03:09.600 --> 0:03:11.680 they really need to see good inflation numbers and then 0:03:11.680 --> 0:03:15.600 lo and behold, they get a reprieve because we get 0:03:15.680 --> 0:03:21.760 better than disinflation numbers with the PCE flator down at 0:03:21.840 --> 0:03:23.920 two and a half percent for the last year, and 0:03:23.960 --> 0:03:27.400 then better expected than expected second quarter economic growth at 0:03:27.400 --> 0:03:30.320 two point eight percent annualized, even though when you dig 0:03:30.360 --> 0:03:32.360 into it it's not quite as good as it looks, 0:03:32.919 --> 0:03:36.480 but kind of is slowing, but not in the tank. 0:03:36.600 --> 0:03:41.840 Inflation is coming down, and even the hard to squeeze 0:03:43.000 --> 0:03:48.920 housing or shelter component of the CPI and PCE to 0:03:49.000 --> 0:03:52.200 flator has started to give up. But you know, it 0:03:52.200 --> 0:03:54.320 had been trending at six and a half to seven 0:03:54.400 --> 0:03:56.160 percent inflation and now it's at four. 0:03:56.360 --> 0:03:58.320 So, Steve, would you be telling, if you were advising 0:03:58.320 --> 0:04:00.520 the White House right now, say hey, listen, guys, go 0:04:00.560 --> 0:04:03.200 take that vacation. We got plenty of time. Just cut 0:04:03.240 --> 0:04:04.760 to the chases. Would you say that? 0:04:06.000 --> 0:04:09.200 I certainly would say that because anything that they could say, Carol, 0:04:09.800 --> 0:04:12.760 is not going to be helpful to the FED doing 0:04:12.800 --> 0:04:14.840 what it really wants to do, and that is cutting 0:04:14.880 --> 0:04:20.279 rates in September. Now they can applaud positive economic growth, 0:04:20.320 --> 0:04:23.680 they can applaud in plation coming down. But I would 0:04:23.960 --> 0:04:26.799 tell the folks in the White House to say absolutely 0:04:26.920 --> 0:04:30.159 nothing about the FED meeting and what the FED is doing. 0:04:30.880 --> 0:04:34.120 They're independent, of course, Carol, Remember the Fed. The FED 0:04:34.200 --> 0:04:38.840 is politically in the parent You've heard Stuart. Economic data 0:04:38.839 --> 0:04:41.680 that you have an eye on at Bloomberry Economics as 0:04:41.760 --> 0:04:45.200 US economist, Where are you starting to see concerns? Do 0:04:45.240 --> 0:04:47.839 you think the Fed is acting too slowly on these concerns. 0:04:48.240 --> 0:04:51.200 I don't, So you might want to rewind the clock 0:04:51.200 --> 0:04:53.320 a little bit and think back to Q four of 0:04:53.400 --> 0:04:55.920 twenty twenty three when the inflation data were so good 0:04:55.960 --> 0:04:58.279 and everybody was expecting a rate cut to come in March. 0:04:58.480 --> 0:05:02.159 And so things can change pretty quickly. 0:05:02.200 --> 0:05:04.520 We have had a little sibling and you psych them 0:05:04.560 --> 0:05:06.040 and you pull something away or like, you know, the 0:05:06.920 --> 0:05:09.279 right psych that happening. 0:05:09.880 --> 0:05:12.239 Speaking from experience, Carol, Yeah, there's a lot of siblings. 0:05:12.360 --> 0:05:12.560 Yeah. 0:05:12.760 --> 0:05:16.200 The data in the economic landscape can change relatively quickly, 0:05:16.279 --> 0:05:18.680 and where we've seen the most change so far has 0:05:18.720 --> 0:05:20.599 been in the loosening of the labor market. It was 0:05:20.760 --> 0:05:23.039 just in the June Summary of Economic Projections that the 0:05:23.040 --> 0:05:25.760 FED is expecting to end the year with four point 0:05:25.800 --> 0:05:28.920 one percent unemployment and we're already there, and I think 0:05:28.920 --> 0:05:31.560 that odds are favoring us triggering the PSALM rule that 0:05:31.640 --> 0:05:33.960 real time recession indicator in August. 0:05:34.120 --> 0:05:35.360 Remind us what that rule is. 0:05:35.480 --> 0:05:38.400 So if the three month moving average of the unemployment 0:05:38.520 --> 0:05:42.240 rate exceeds the twelve month minimum by more than fifty 0:05:42.279 --> 0:05:45.159 bases points by half a percentage point, it's typically a 0:05:45.160 --> 0:05:47.760 good indicator that a recession has already begun, that you're 0:05:47.760 --> 0:05:50.680 in the early innings of a recession. So we're expecting, 0:05:51.560 --> 0:05:53.880 not only are we expecting to not end the year 0:05:54.040 --> 0:05:56.200 at four point one percent unemployment, which is where we 0:05:56.240 --> 0:05:58.359 are and which is where the FED expects to end 0:05:58.400 --> 0:06:00.200 the year, we think that we're going to trigger or 0:06:00.200 --> 0:06:03.720 that real time recession indicator before the September meeting, which 0:06:03.760 --> 0:06:05.200 would warrant that cut in September. 0:06:05.279 --> 0:06:06.919 Is there a chance it's triggered on Friday? 0:06:07.560 --> 0:06:10.359 Very low probability that is triggered on Friday. We basically 0:06:10.400 --> 0:06:13.000 need to get a move to four point two and 0:06:13.000 --> 0:06:16.640 a half, right, So four point twenty five percent unemployment, 0:06:17.800 --> 0:06:21.400 so a bit out of range. Consensus is expecting four 0:06:21.400 --> 0:06:24.960 point one percent unemployment rate. We think that it's more 0:06:25.080 --> 0:06:26.359 likely going to be the case that it's going to 0:06:26.360 --> 0:06:28.599 be triggered in the August job report, which comes just 0:06:28.640 --> 0:06:30.239 a few days before the September meeting. 0:06:30.320 --> 0:06:31.880 Well, I kept saying, I kept thinking, you know, we 0:06:31.920 --> 0:06:33.640 had that inverted yield curve for so long. I mean, 0:06:33.640 --> 0:06:35.800 do we get off Scott's free you know that we 0:06:35.839 --> 0:06:38.960 don't ultimately get a recession. I mean, Steve Skanke, if 0:06:39.000 --> 0:06:41.640 we get a recession, is it touch and go because 0:06:41.800 --> 0:06:44.360 we have enough growth or could it be something more 0:06:44.440 --> 0:06:45.920 dramatic and problematic. 0:06:47.680 --> 0:06:49.880 Well, the thing about it, Carol, that's a very good 0:06:49.960 --> 0:06:54.000 question is is that these things are never linear. It's 0:06:54.040 --> 0:06:57.000 not that it just sort of eases into recession. Something 0:06:57.920 --> 0:07:02.080 triggers that and pushes it, And most likely it would 0:07:02.080 --> 0:07:04.279 be mild, just given everything else that's going on in 0:07:04.279 --> 0:07:10.040 the economy. But it isn't necessarily a mild recession. And 0:07:10.120 --> 0:07:13.640 so the Fed treads very carefully. And as Stewart said, 0:07:13.720 --> 0:07:18.600 this so rule. It's a statistical observation. It's not a 0:07:20.280 --> 0:07:25.040 syllogistic argument as to why it happens. But it has 0:07:25.120 --> 0:07:28.840 a good enough statistical basis that we really need to 0:07:28.880 --> 0:07:31.800 be careful about that and watch for it. The other 0:07:31.880 --> 0:07:35.040 thing is, and I agree with Stewart, it's very unlikely 0:07:35.560 --> 0:07:39.840 that we would see unemployment trigger up to what would 0:07:39.840 --> 0:07:44.000 be needed to trigger the Son rule. But the household 0:07:44.160 --> 0:07:49.680 survey has been so quirky since since COVID and the 0:07:49.800 --> 0:07:53.920 shutdown of the economy that and it digresses so much 0:07:53.960 --> 0:07:57.640 from the employer survey that we could actually end up 0:07:57.640 --> 0:08:01.080 with something. It pushes unemployment to four point two or 0:08:01.080 --> 0:08:04.040 four point two and a half. Yeah, and then we've 0:08:04.400 --> 0:08:06.960 we've got this phenomenon of well what does it mean? 0:08:07.160 --> 0:08:09.200 And of course markets would go crazy. Will they try 0:08:09.240 --> 0:08:09.960 to figure that out? 0:08:10.080 --> 0:08:10.440 Got it? 0:08:10.520 --> 0:08:10.840 Stuart? 0:08:10.920 --> 0:08:13.320 Ten seconds, One hundred and seventy five thousand is the 0:08:13.360 --> 0:08:16.960 number that economists are expecting with the jobs report on Friday. 0:08:17.000 --> 0:08:18.240 Does it come in above or below that? 0:08:18.560 --> 0:08:21.400 We're a smidge above, but we see the downside risk 0:08:21.400 --> 0:08:23.640 to one seventy five. The effects of Hurricane Beryl are 0:08:23.680 --> 0:08:25.320 likely showing up in the data. We've already seen it 0:08:25.360 --> 0:08:28.720 effect the unemployment insurance claims data just two weeks ago 0:08:28.720 --> 0:08:29.280 in Texas. 0:08:29.400 --> 0:08:32.240 All right, there we go, so ten seconds, he did it. 0:08:33.400 --> 0:08:35.800 Love when people listen. Thank you so much, Jeeves Skanky, 0:08:35.880 --> 0:08:39.040 chief economic advisor at keel Point, and of course our 0:08:39.080 --> 0:08:41.640 own Steward Paul Blueberg Economics US economists. 0:08:42.400 --> 0:08:45.920 You're listening to the Bloomberg Business Week podcast. Catch us 0:08:45.960 --> 0:08:49.199 live weekday afternoons from two to five pm Eastern Listen 0:08:49.240 --> 0:08:51.400 on Apple card Play, and then brought auto with a 0:08:51.400 --> 0:08:54.880 Bloomberg Business app, or watch just Live on YouTube. 0:08:55.920 --> 0:08:56.320 And much. 0:08:56.360 --> 0:08:59.440 President Kamala Harris is kicking off a push to compete 0:08:59.480 --> 0:09:02.800 against the Republican Donald Trump in a wider swath of 0:09:02.840 --> 0:09:06.400 battleground states with a rally today in Atlanta. Harris's event 0:09:06.440 --> 0:09:09.520 in George's largest city is her first major effort to 0:09:09.520 --> 0:09:12.400 put a larger group of states back into place since 0:09:12.480 --> 0:09:14.760 launching her campaign back on July twenty first. 0:09:14.920 --> 0:09:18.240 Meantime, the presidential race is on the money race that 0:09:18.400 --> 0:09:21.000 is among our most read on the Bloomberg terminal today 0:09:21.040 --> 0:09:23.560 is an exclusive about hedge fund billionaire Ken Griffin, who's 0:09:23.600 --> 0:09:26.800 spending tens of millions of dollars to back Republican primary 0:09:26.800 --> 0:09:30.280 candidates across the US. The story reported by Bloomberg News 0:09:30.360 --> 0:09:33.439 national reporter Mike Smith and Bill Allison. Bloomberg News campaign 0:09:33.520 --> 0:09:36.480 finance reporter Mike joins us from Miami. Bill in our 0:09:36.640 --> 0:09:38.720 DC bureau. Mike, I do want to start with you, 0:09:39.200 --> 0:09:42.640 how would you characterize the type of candidate that Griffin 0:09:42.840 --> 0:09:44.439 is giving to right now? Because there's a lot of 0:09:44.520 --> 0:09:45.120 nuance here. 0:09:46.280 --> 0:09:49.839 Yeah, there is a lot of nuance and it's not 0:09:50.000 --> 0:09:52.920 entirely clear exactly what he's looking for, but in general, 0:09:53.000 --> 0:09:58.520 it's sort of old school, pro business, conservative values that 0:09:58.640 --> 0:10:04.080 he is backing. For example, sample national defense, and one 0:10:04.120 --> 0:10:08.680 of the main things his promoting is sort of helping 0:10:08.720 --> 0:10:12.800 the American dream, which is obviously a very broad description, 0:10:13.080 --> 0:10:14.600 but that's how he describes him. 0:10:14.600 --> 0:10:19.400 Does that backing Mike include Donald Trump at this point. 0:10:20.320 --> 0:10:23.360 Well, so far, No, as far as we can see 0:10:23.360 --> 0:10:27.480 in the most recent filings in terms of money, he's 0:10:27.600 --> 0:10:29.800 yet to give money to Donald Trump. He hasn't ever 0:10:29.840 --> 0:10:32.679 given money to Donald Trump that we know of, and 0:10:32.760 --> 0:10:35.640 he's quite guarded in saying whether he's going to back 0:10:35.640 --> 0:10:38.160 Trump or not. He's certainly a Republican. He gives to 0:10:38.200 --> 0:10:43.200 Republican causes and candidates, but Trump has yet to be seen. 0:10:43.520 --> 0:10:45.160 So Bill, let's go through the money. What do we 0:10:45.280 --> 0:10:48.640 know about Ken Griffin and his donations to the GOP 0:10:49.480 --> 0:10:51.560 going back the last decade or so, what has he 0:10:51.600 --> 0:10:54.320 typically supported, how much has he given up and where 0:10:54.320 --> 0:10:55.960 does it go? And what is he doing today? 0:10:57.280 --> 0:11:01.719 Really since twenty sixteenocused on Congress, both the Senate and 0:11:01.760 --> 0:11:04.760 the House, he's given I think two hundred and forty 0:11:04.800 --> 0:11:08.520 eight million dollars since twenty fifteen, which is an office 0:11:08.520 --> 0:11:11.120 a lot of money, about a quarter billion dollars, and 0:11:11.160 --> 0:11:14.840 he's focused largely on super packs that again elect members 0:11:14.840 --> 0:11:18.400 of Congress. And in the last couple of cycles, he's 0:11:18.400 --> 0:11:23.320 really looked at early money and having an influence on primaries, 0:11:23.320 --> 0:11:26.760 like who gets chosen to be to get elected to Congress, 0:11:27.840 --> 0:11:29.959 you know, like you'll look at safe Republican districts. He'll 0:11:29.960 --> 0:11:31.840 put a lot of money in behind what he used 0:11:31.840 --> 0:11:34.439 as a superior candidate and try to get that person 0:11:34.440 --> 0:11:37.560 into Congress. And so far this cycle, he's spent more 0:11:37.600 --> 0:11:40.839 than seventy five million dollars into political committees at the 0:11:40.840 --> 0:11:41.440 federal level. 0:11:42.679 --> 0:11:45.280 Mike, how successful has he been over the last decade, 0:11:45.400 --> 0:11:48.120 because it seems like he hasn't always bet on the 0:11:48.160 --> 0:11:51.680 right horse, so to speak. He supported the opponent to JD. 0:11:51.800 --> 0:11:54.680 Vance and is a Ohio Senate race that JD Vance 0:11:54.760 --> 0:11:57.560 ended up who Jdvans ended up beating. He's thinking about 0:11:57.600 --> 0:12:01.319 supporting somebody who could challenge Matt Gates. He has supported 0:12:01.360 --> 0:12:04.600 Nicky Haley in the past, Kevin McCarthy in the past 0:12:04.640 --> 0:12:06.360 as well. How successful has he been? 0:12:07.360 --> 0:12:10.320 Yeah, I mean, that's an illusive thing to answer, but 0:12:10.400 --> 0:12:14.319 we can say that this this year, this this cycle, 0:12:14.760 --> 0:12:19.680 he's gotten behind sixty different candidates in congressional races and 0:12:19.720 --> 0:12:22.319 he's you know, they've they've won about two thirds of 0:12:22.360 --> 0:12:24.520 those or a little bit more. So it's not a 0:12:24.559 --> 0:12:28.600 bad record. He has won a lot, but he's also 0:12:28.720 --> 0:12:31.000 lost some And a lot of his money has gone 0:12:31.000 --> 0:12:33.960 into losing races and a lot has gone into winning races. 0:12:34.320 --> 0:12:36.960 You know, And I do wonder too, Bill, You know, 0:12:38.080 --> 0:12:40.760 we often kid, but it's it's very true. Money talks, right, 0:12:40.800 --> 0:12:45.040 and money gets attention. How influential has he been really 0:12:45.120 --> 0:12:48.560 in kind of shaping what's going on in the Republican Party? 0:12:48.600 --> 0:12:51.400 We talked so much about it being, you know, Donald 0:12:51.400 --> 0:12:55.080 Trump's party right now, but how much has he really 0:12:55.800 --> 0:12:59.679 been influential over the GOP overall? 0:13:00.640 --> 0:13:03.240 Well, the Republican operatives that we talk to, the people 0:13:03.280 --> 0:13:05.959 who run super packs, the people who recruit candidates, the 0:13:06.000 --> 0:13:08.800 people who really kind of do that nuts and bolts 0:13:08.840 --> 0:13:11.240 work of running the party say that, you know, he's 0:13:11.240 --> 0:13:15.679 fundamental to their success. He's he's very influential. He's very important. Uh, 0:13:15.720 --> 0:13:17.719 if you have an idea for a super pack, you 0:13:17.760 --> 0:13:21.120 want to elect veterans, you want to elect uh, women 0:13:21.160 --> 0:13:23.840 with business experience. There's a whole broad range of folks 0:13:23.880 --> 0:13:27.400 who do different kinds of superpacks. He's somebody who's definitely 0:13:27.400 --> 0:13:29.120 gonna be on your list to try to get, you know, 0:13:29.280 --> 0:13:31.360 to at least to his advisors to make your pitch 0:13:31.440 --> 0:13:32.880 to say, this is what my plan is, this is 0:13:32.880 --> 0:13:35.160 what I'd like to do. And you know, if he 0:13:35.200 --> 0:13:37.120 decides to fund you, you have a good chance of 0:13:37.480 --> 0:13:39.720 of you know, also drawing money from other donors. 0:13:40.760 --> 0:13:42.800 Bill, somebody might read a story like this and and 0:13:42.920 --> 0:13:46.040 come away with a really cynical view that, you know, 0:13:46.920 --> 0:13:50.679 politicians can be I'm not gonna say they can be bought, 0:13:50.720 --> 0:13:53.880 but certainly people with power are able to donate a 0:13:53.880 --> 0:13:57.920 lot of money, uh, to super packs that go around 0:13:57.960 --> 0:14:02.680 traditional campaign finance. Just give some context as to how 0:14:02.720 --> 0:14:06.000 something like this is is legal and how super PACs 0:14:06.000 --> 0:14:10.400 are able to operate in this world when certain individuals 0:14:10.400 --> 0:14:12.800 are only allowed to give a small, a relatively small 0:14:12.840 --> 0:14:15.600 amount of money to individual candidates. 0:14:16.520 --> 0:14:19.160 Boy, there's you know, there's a famous saying in politics 0:14:19.200 --> 0:14:21.760 that you know, there are three important things in politics 0:14:21.840 --> 0:14:24.360 money and I forget what the other two are. And 0:14:24.440 --> 0:14:27.200 this is this has been kind of consistent throughout history. 0:14:28.280 --> 0:14:31.120 Super PACs are legal because of basically the First Amendment. 0:14:31.200 --> 0:14:33.320 The Supreme Court held that you know, if you're if 0:14:33.360 --> 0:14:36.960 you're speaking independently, i e. Not donating to donating to 0:14:37.000 --> 0:14:39.360 a politician, but donating to a group that tries to 0:14:39.400 --> 0:14:43.520 elect politicians at that's First Amendment protected activity. And that 0:14:43.960 --> 0:14:46.480 something called the Citizens United Case gave us these these 0:14:46.520 --> 0:14:50.440 creatures or these super PACs, and you know, you know, 0:14:50.520 --> 0:14:54.120 it's it is fairly you know, it is fairly important 0:14:54.160 --> 0:14:56.960 in US politics that you know, you be able to 0:14:57.040 --> 0:15:00.320 have you know, there's there's three different kinds of owns. 0:15:00.320 --> 0:15:02.640 There's small dollar donors which are very important, but you 0:15:02.680 --> 0:15:04.760 need millions and millions of them to add up to 0:15:05.080 --> 0:15:06.800 you know, a lot of money. And then you have 0:15:06.880 --> 0:15:09.800 a handful of people there's the folks in the middle, 0:15:09.840 --> 0:15:11.520 and you have the handful of people at the top 0:15:11.840 --> 0:15:14.760 who can with one check, you know, fund you know, 0:15:15.640 --> 0:15:18.280 a huge, huge advise. You know, we've seen already in 0:15:18.280 --> 0:15:21.880 this campaign an investor named Timothy Mellon who put fifty 0:15:21.880 --> 0:15:24.640 million dollars into a super pack backing Donald Trump. I 0:15:24.680 --> 0:15:28.680 mean it's we've had, you know, we've done stories that 0:15:28.760 --> 0:15:31.120 Elon Musk is thinking of putting forty five million dollars 0:15:31.160 --> 0:15:34.200 into a super pack each month to help Donald Trump 0:15:34.240 --> 0:15:37.120 with his ground game. So obviously it's hugely important and 0:15:37.160 --> 0:15:38.400 it's perfectly legal. 0:15:40.040 --> 0:15:43.920 You know, Mike, I think about Ken Griffin, right, he's 0:15:43.920 --> 0:15:45.680 been in Florida, what now, maybe a couple of years 0:15:45.800 --> 0:15:47.440 or it's been a couple of years since he announced 0:15:47.480 --> 0:15:50.200 moving down there, has become very influential, certainly on the state. 0:15:51.280 --> 0:15:53.800 But I do think about as you guys are laying 0:15:53.800 --> 0:15:57.560 out the causes that are of importance to him. He 0:15:57.640 --> 0:16:01.960 doesn't necessarily buy into the polism, does he that Donald 0:16:02.000 --> 0:16:04.040 Trump seems to espouse along with JD. 0:16:04.160 --> 0:16:04.520 Van's. 0:16:05.640 --> 0:16:07.680 Yeah, I think that's a good way to put it. 0:16:08.200 --> 0:16:12.520 He stresses that, and the people that are close to 0:16:12.600 --> 0:16:17.440 him stressed that what he's looking for is candidates we're conservative, Republican, 0:16:17.760 --> 0:16:20.760 but also candidates that can govern governance. He likes to 0:16:20.840 --> 0:16:23.040 use that word a lot in a lot of things 0:16:23.040 --> 0:16:25.760 that he does in terms of giving and I think he, 0:16:26.080 --> 0:16:28.200 you know, he strives, or he says he strives to 0:16:28.360 --> 0:16:31.640 apply that to the candidates and the politicians that he 0:16:31.680 --> 0:16:34.080 decides to back. And he's quite loyal. You know, he 0:16:34.120 --> 0:16:37.040 will stick with a politician that he believes in or 0:16:37.480 --> 0:16:41.360 feels like is worth backing through wins and through losses. 0:16:43.000 --> 0:16:45.880 And that seems to be a key driver what he does. 0:16:45.960 --> 0:16:51.000 He wants leaders in Congress, especially who will actually get 0:16:51.000 --> 0:16:53.360 things done, who will legislate the kind of things he 0:16:53.400 --> 0:16:58.440 wants Congress to do that he supports, and he shies 0:16:58.480 --> 0:17:04.200 away from backing candidates that are are less effective in governing, 0:17:04.200 --> 0:17:04.520 as he. 0:17:04.560 --> 0:17:05.159 Likes to call it. 0:17:05.560 --> 0:17:08.160 Mike, what do we know about Citadel Public Affairs head 0:17:08.240 --> 0:17:08.879 case and Carter? 0:17:10.680 --> 0:17:14.959 Well, he's, uh, he's he's he's very key to this process. Uh, 0:17:15.160 --> 0:17:18.240 he wouldn't talk to us for this story, but he 0:17:18.800 --> 0:17:22.640 u is plays a pivotal role in helping Ken Griffin 0:17:24.400 --> 0:17:27.479 decide where where to put his money, not just in 0:17:27.960 --> 0:17:32.120 political giving, but also in philanthropy for example. So he's 0:17:32.119 --> 0:17:35.000 a pivotal, uh sort of advisor in. 0:17:34.920 --> 0:17:38.240 That realm Hey, Bill, when you look at the money, uh, 0:17:38.400 --> 0:17:41.159 that's been drummed up in this race so far, I 0:17:41.160 --> 0:17:43.600 think about, you know, Kamala Harris, the money that she's 0:17:43.720 --> 0:17:48.359 raised since she has essentially taken over the mantle from 0:17:48.520 --> 0:17:51.120 from Joe Biden. I think about We just talked about 0:17:51.160 --> 0:17:54.639 Elon Moss. We're talking about Bill Griffin, Pill Griffin, Ken Griffin. 0:17:55.760 --> 0:17:57.800 It's a lot of money. I'm just curious, is this 0:17:57.880 --> 0:18:00.199 turning out to be one of the more expensive of 0:18:01.200 --> 0:18:02.760 campaigns or rases. 0:18:04.840 --> 0:18:06.600 It's like it's going to be. I mean, it's you know, 0:18:07.920 --> 0:18:11.879 every presidential record sort of sets a record. Presidential election 0:18:11.920 --> 0:18:14.600 sets a record because you know, contribution limits go up, 0:18:15.280 --> 0:18:18.359 things get more expensive. Super packs are you know, play 0:18:18.359 --> 0:18:20.760 a bigger role. You know, there was some thought that 0:18:20.800 --> 0:18:23.560 maybe the twenty twenty election because of COVID, whether it 0:18:23.600 --> 0:18:25.439 be less spending. It turned out there was more spending 0:18:25.480 --> 0:18:28.240 than ever. So I think we'll see more spending. And 0:18:28.280 --> 0:18:31.200 it's in part because, you know, as Ken Griffin said 0:18:31.320 --> 0:18:34.160 or told us in the article, it's you know, there's 0:18:34.160 --> 0:18:36.360 a lot at stake in this election. It's an important 0:18:36.359 --> 0:18:39.639 time for the country, and you know kind of you know, 0:18:41.400 --> 0:18:42.680 you know, all the money is coming out. 0:18:43.200 --> 0:18:47.520 Bill just twenty seconds left. Any whispers of campaign finance 0:18:47.560 --> 0:18:50.800 reform around the halls of Washington, DC these days. 0:18:52.440 --> 0:18:54.960 It's you know, there are people who still plug away 0:18:54.960 --> 0:18:57.400 at it. It is not really a priority for Congress 0:18:58.080 --> 0:19:01.160 or this administration. And it hasn't been for years and years. 0:19:01.160 --> 0:19:04.360 I mean, the closest thing we have is some bills 0:19:04.400 --> 0:19:06.639 to disclose dark money, but you know they get stuck 0:19:06.680 --> 0:19:09.280 in the senator of the House and don't really go anywhere. 0:19:09.920 --> 0:19:11.719 All Right, Well, if you weren't depressed enough, we're going 0:19:11.760 --> 0:19:13.760 to have some talk of climate change coming up in 0:19:13.840 --> 0:19:16.800 just a moment to keep the mood going. Bloomberg News 0:19:16.880 --> 0:19:19.600 National Reporter Mike Smith and Bill Allison, Bloomberg News Campaign 0:19:19.640 --> 0:19:22.320 Finance Reporter. This is a Bloomberg exclusive and among our 0:19:22.359 --> 0:19:23.879 most read on the Bloomberg terminal. 0:19:26.280 --> 0:19:30.120 You're listening to the Bloomberg Business Week Podcast. Listen live 0:19:30.240 --> 0:19:33.440 each weekday starting at two pm Eastern down Applecar Play 0:19:33.440 --> 0:19:36.320 and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business Ad. You can 0:19:36.359 --> 0:19:39.600 also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New 0:19:39.640 --> 0:19:43.280 York station, Just say Alexa Play Bloomberg eleven thirty. 0:19:45.080 --> 0:19:47.399 Well, rural students lagged behind the rest of the country 0:19:47.400 --> 0:19:49.800 in college attendance, and one of the world's top bankers 0:19:49.840 --> 0:19:53.080 is spending a lot of money to address that. Byron Trott, 0:19:53.080 --> 0:19:55.120 who grew up in a small Missouri town and became 0:19:55.160 --> 0:19:57.520 one of the world's top Bankers will spend one hundred 0:19:57.520 --> 0:19:59.880 and fifty million dollars over ten years to help more 0:20:00.080 --> 0:20:03.000 the colleges and public universities recruit ural students. 0:20:03.000 --> 0:20:05.119 That's right, Tim. The new donation builds on a twenty 0:20:05.119 --> 0:20:08.119 million dollar initiative his family foundation started last year with 0:20:08.160 --> 0:20:11.000 schools such as Yale, Ohio State, and the University of Chicago, 0:20:11.440 --> 0:20:15.119 his alma mater. Bloomberg News Higher education finance reporter Janet 0:20:15.160 --> 0:20:17.919 Lauren writing about this in recent days, She joins us 0:20:17.920 --> 0:20:21.320 now here in our Bloomberg Interactive Broker studio. Also with 0:20:21.400 --> 0:20:24.440 us is Jim Nondorf. He's Dean of college Admissions at 0:20:24.440 --> 0:20:28.159 the University of Chicago, along with Margie Bettley, who is 0:20:28.280 --> 0:20:31.400 Deputy Director of Admissions at the University of Chicago. They 0:20:31.440 --> 0:20:34.800 both join us from that city, and Jenna, I want 0:20:34.840 --> 0:20:38.399 to start with you because Byron Trott is somebody we 0:20:38.440 --> 0:20:40.480 used to talk about. I feel like a lot well 0:20:40.520 --> 0:20:43.240 known in the financial industry, although maybe not as of late. 0:20:43.280 --> 0:20:45.320 Tell us little bit more about him and what he's 0:20:45.359 --> 0:20:46.320