WEBVTT - Daybreak Weekend: Fed Preview, UK Rate Decision, Tencent Earnings

0:00:02.920 --> 0:00:12.639
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio news. This is Bloomberg day

0:00:12.640 --> 0:00:15.000
<v Speaker 1>Break Weekend, our global look at the top stories in

0:00:15.080 --> 0:00:17.479
<v Speaker 1>the coming week from our day Break anchors all around

0:00:17.520 --> 0:00:19.680
<v Speaker 1>the world, and straight ahead on the program, we'll look

0:00:19.680 --> 0:00:23.840
<v Speaker 1>towards next week's BED meeting and its monetary policy going forward.

0:00:24.120 --> 0:00:25.640
<v Speaker 1>I'm Tom Busby in New York.

0:00:26.000 --> 0:00:28.600
<v Speaker 2>I'm callin Hepget in London, where we're looking ahead to

0:00:28.680 --> 0:00:30.200
<v Speaker 2>the UK's great decision.

0:00:30.440 --> 0:00:32.680
<v Speaker 3>I'm Brian Curtis in Hong Kong. I'll take a look

0:00:32.720 --> 0:00:36.199
<v Speaker 3>at the upcoming results from China's ten cent holdings and

0:00:36.280 --> 0:00:39.640
<v Speaker 3>whether a little less regulation is producing dividends.

0:00:43.880 --> 0:00:48.160
<v Speaker 4>That's all straight ahead on Bloomberg Daybreak Weekend on Bloomberg Eyleod,

0:00:48.200 --> 0:00:51.720
<v Speaker 4>The Free Own, New York, Bloomberg ninety nine to one, Washington, DC,

0:00:52.000 --> 0:00:56.080
<v Speaker 4>Bloomberg one O six one, Boston, Bloomberg nine sixty, San Francisco,

0:00:56.320 --> 0:01:00.560
<v Speaker 4>DAB Digital Radio, London, Sirius XM one nineteen and around

0:01:00.600 --> 0:01:03.200
<v Speaker 4>the world on Bloomberg Radio dot Com and via the

0:01:03.240 --> 0:01:04.400
<v Speaker 4>Bloomberg Business App.

0:01:08.800 --> 0:01:10.640
<v Speaker 1>Good day to you. I'm Tom Busby, and we begin

0:01:10.720 --> 0:01:13.880
<v Speaker 1>today's program with the Federal Reserve. This coming week, the

0:01:13.920 --> 0:01:16.039
<v Speaker 1>FED hosts a two day meeting on interest rates and

0:01:16.120 --> 0:01:20.480
<v Speaker 1>monetary policy, with a decision out on Wednesday. Will the

0:01:20.520 --> 0:01:23.920
<v Speaker 1>Fed leave its benchmark lending rate unchanged for the fifth

0:01:24.000 --> 0:01:27.520
<v Speaker 1>meeting in a row, and if so, why for more

0:01:27.560 --> 0:01:31.360
<v Speaker 1>we're joined by Michael McKee. He's Bloomberg's international economics and

0:01:31.440 --> 0:01:35.120
<v Speaker 1>policy correspondent. So Michael, what do you expect to see

0:01:35.160 --> 0:01:37.319
<v Speaker 1>happen this week and what do you see in the

0:01:37.319 --> 0:01:39.280
<v Speaker 1>Fed's dot plot forecast?

0:01:39.640 --> 0:01:41.360
<v Speaker 5>Well, that's the right way to look at it, because

0:01:41.400 --> 0:01:42.920
<v Speaker 5>the Fed's not going to do anything in terms of

0:01:43.000 --> 0:01:46.319
<v Speaker 5>its policy rate. It'll leave it where it is a

0:01:46.400 --> 0:01:47.880
<v Speaker 5>range of five and a quarter five and a half

0:01:47.920 --> 0:01:50.720
<v Speaker 5>percent because they basically told us that for the last

0:01:50.760 --> 0:01:52.880
<v Speaker 5>three weeks and they're not going to go back on

0:01:52.920 --> 0:01:55.960
<v Speaker 5>that and surprise the markets. They also are looking for

0:01:56.040 --> 0:01:57.960
<v Speaker 5>more data, but the dot plot is going to be

0:01:57.960 --> 0:02:01.000
<v Speaker 5>the interesting one, along with the summary of economic projections,

0:02:01.000 --> 0:02:03.640
<v Speaker 5>because are they going to raise their projection for inflation

0:02:03.880 --> 0:02:07.320
<v Speaker 5>and how would that affect their view of rake cuts

0:02:07.360 --> 0:02:10.880
<v Speaker 5>This year, since the last FED meeting on January thirty first,

0:02:11.120 --> 0:02:15.360
<v Speaker 5>we have seen CPI inflation and PPI inflation come in

0:02:15.760 --> 0:02:20.200
<v Speaker 5>stronger than expected, and so the question is do we

0:02:20.520 --> 0:02:23.320
<v Speaker 5>think that this is the new trend, that we're going

0:02:23.400 --> 0:02:27.440
<v Speaker 5>to be stuck with inflation that is stickier and harder

0:02:27.480 --> 0:02:30.800
<v Speaker 5>to bring down than the Fed anticipated, or do they

0:02:30.800 --> 0:02:34.040
<v Speaker 5>think this is kind of one off seasonal adjustment around

0:02:34.080 --> 0:02:35.880
<v Speaker 5>the first of the year. That's going to be the

0:02:35.919 --> 0:02:37.160
<v Speaker 5>real question now.

0:02:37.200 --> 0:02:40.600
<v Speaker 1>But in fairness, June of twenty twenty two, inflation nine

0:02:40.600 --> 0:02:43.799
<v Speaker 1>point one percent. Just last week we saw it down

0:02:43.840 --> 0:02:46.160
<v Speaker 1>to three point two percent, So it has accelerated a

0:02:46.200 --> 0:02:49.040
<v Speaker 1>little bit from the months prior, but and we still

0:02:49.080 --> 0:02:51.320
<v Speaker 1>got a long way to go to its two percent target,

0:02:51.360 --> 0:02:54.720
<v Speaker 1>but it is still sort of trending the right way.

0:02:54.960 --> 0:02:56.840
<v Speaker 5>Well, it depends on what you're trying to accomplish. If

0:02:56.880 --> 0:02:59.119
<v Speaker 5>j Powell were running for president, he could tout going

0:02:59.120 --> 0:03:02.239
<v Speaker 5>from nine to three. But since he's got to get

0:03:02.240 --> 0:03:04.720
<v Speaker 5>it down to the two percent target, the fact that

0:03:04.760 --> 0:03:07.239
<v Speaker 5>it's going the wrong way now is not necessarily good

0:03:07.240 --> 0:03:10.560
<v Speaker 5>news for them, and that will influence their views. If

0:03:10.560 --> 0:03:13.280
<v Speaker 5>they think that we are going to see a stickier

0:03:14.080 --> 0:03:18.760
<v Speaker 5>kind of inflation, then that might lead them to change

0:03:18.800 --> 0:03:21.240
<v Speaker 5>the dot plot. The dot plot that came out in

0:03:21.280 --> 0:03:24.679
<v Speaker 5>December the last time they did one, suggested three rate

0:03:24.760 --> 0:03:29.160
<v Speaker 5>cuts this year between the meetings, we've had several FED

0:03:29.200 --> 0:03:32.840
<v Speaker 5>officials suggest that if inflation proves to be a problem,

0:03:32.880 --> 0:03:35.640
<v Speaker 5>that maybe there will be fewer It would only take

0:03:35.680 --> 0:03:39.680
<v Speaker 5>two to move their dots up to change the consensus forecast.

0:03:39.920 --> 0:03:43.200
<v Speaker 6>So we're going to be watching that very closely now.

0:03:43.240 --> 0:03:45.680
<v Speaker 1>A few weeks ago, in testimony to Congress, FED Chair

0:03:45.760 --> 0:03:48.440
<v Speaker 1>Jerome pal did say he thinks rates are at their

0:03:48.480 --> 0:03:51.600
<v Speaker 1>peak right now, twenty three year high, and it would

0:03:51.840 --> 0:03:55.880
<v Speaker 1>quote likely be appropriate to begin dialing back policy at

0:03:55.920 --> 0:03:56.720
<v Speaker 1>some point this year.

0:03:57.600 --> 0:04:00.360
<v Speaker 5>Yeah, and asked about what it would take to do that.

0:04:00.480 --> 0:04:04.119
<v Speaker 5>He basically said, we need continued good news on inflation.

0:04:04.520 --> 0:04:06.880
<v Speaker 5>He said, we didn't need to have it be better

0:04:07.040 --> 0:04:10.560
<v Speaker 5>each month, go down significantly each month, as it did

0:04:10.640 --> 0:04:13.120
<v Speaker 5>during most of twenty twenty three, but it had to

0:04:13.120 --> 0:04:15.440
<v Speaker 5>be going in the right direction, and right now it's

0:04:15.440 --> 0:04:18.000
<v Speaker 5>not going in the right direction. So I imagine we will

0:04:18.000 --> 0:04:20.360
<v Speaker 5>get a caution from him that even if they don't

0:04:20.440 --> 0:04:24.440
<v Speaker 5>change the dot pot, that they are aware and watching

0:04:25.120 --> 0:04:29.560
<v Speaker 5>inflation right now, and that if they needed to do something,

0:04:29.640 --> 0:04:32.520
<v Speaker 5>they would. I don't think that rate increases are on

0:04:32.560 --> 0:04:35.560
<v Speaker 5>the table right now, but cutting back on the number

0:04:35.600 --> 0:04:37.919
<v Speaker 5>of rate cuts are pushing them back later in the

0:04:38.040 --> 0:04:40.719
<v Speaker 5>year is certainly a possibility now.

0:04:40.720 --> 0:04:44.560
<v Speaker 1>Inflation obviously the headline measure, but there's also job creation,

0:04:44.640 --> 0:04:49.200
<v Speaker 1>which has been unexpectedly robust. Housing and retail sales a

0:04:49.279 --> 0:04:52.080
<v Speaker 1>little uneven here and there, sometimes up, sometimes down. So

0:04:52.520 --> 0:04:55.400
<v Speaker 1>is it job creation that really has the Fed optimistic

0:04:55.440 --> 0:04:56.320
<v Speaker 1>about the economy?

0:04:56.480 --> 0:04:59.760
<v Speaker 5>It is, and also the idea that companies are spending

0:04:59.800 --> 0:05:03.480
<v Speaker 5>money in a little more than they had been as

0:05:04.120 --> 0:05:08.240
<v Speaker 5>they get perhaps some of the federal government's fiscal assistance

0:05:08.360 --> 0:05:11.080
<v Speaker 5>in the Infrastructure Act and the Chips Act. There is

0:05:11.120 --> 0:05:13.359
<v Speaker 5>a concern that maybe the economy gets too hot, but

0:05:13.600 --> 0:05:17.000
<v Speaker 5>it's not proving out. We're seeing strong job creation, we're

0:05:17.000 --> 0:05:21.200
<v Speaker 5>seeing weak jobless claims. They went down again this last week,

0:05:21.839 --> 0:05:25.000
<v Speaker 5>but we are not seeing strong retail sales at this point. Now,

0:05:25.040 --> 0:05:28.920
<v Speaker 5>retail sales are pretty much only goods, and so we'll

0:05:28.920 --> 0:05:30.679
<v Speaker 5>have to wait till the end of the month after

0:05:30.720 --> 0:05:32.920
<v Speaker 5>the FED meeting to see whether people are spending on

0:05:33.040 --> 0:05:36.800
<v Speaker 5>services and how strong consumer spending overall is.

0:05:37.320 --> 0:05:40.440
<v Speaker 6>But it doesn't suggest that the consumer.

0:05:39.960 --> 0:05:43.600
<v Speaker 5>Spending, which is two thirds of the economy, is benefiting

0:05:43.640 --> 0:05:44.600
<v Speaker 5>from any of this yet.

0:05:44.839 --> 0:05:45.000
<v Speaker 3>Now.

0:05:45.040 --> 0:05:48.120
<v Speaker 1>In housing, we've seen rates this past week go down

0:05:48.120 --> 0:05:50.279
<v Speaker 1>below seven percent. If there was ever a time of

0:05:50.320 --> 0:05:53.000
<v Speaker 1>the year right now March April May when we're going

0:05:53.080 --> 0:05:55.760
<v Speaker 1>to see housing accelerate a little bit, This is it,

0:05:55.880 --> 0:05:58.719
<v Speaker 1>So I imagine that is being very closely watched as well.

0:05:58.960 --> 0:05:59.880
<v Speaker 6>It's being closely watched.

0:05:59.880 --> 0:06:02.360
<v Speaker 5>But the general feeling is that people really won't come

0:06:02.400 --> 0:06:04.800
<v Speaker 5>out to buy houses until you get mortgage rates down

0:06:05.360 --> 0:06:07.760
<v Speaker 5>close to four percent. It's going to be a while

0:06:08.440 --> 0:06:11.320
<v Speaker 5>until we get there. They aren't going to come down

0:06:11.360 --> 0:06:12.839
<v Speaker 5>to where they were. You're not going to get a

0:06:12.960 --> 0:06:16.039
<v Speaker 5>three percent mortgage anymore, but you might get one between

0:06:16.080 --> 0:06:19.719
<v Speaker 5>four and five if inflation continues to fall, and.

0:06:19.800 --> 0:06:21.440
<v Speaker 6>That's what we have to watch.

0:06:21.760 --> 0:06:24.560
<v Speaker 5>There isn't expectation that we're going to see at Gangbuster's

0:06:24.880 --> 0:06:27.599
<v Speaker 5>housing market this spring, even though it is the time

0:06:27.640 --> 0:06:29.080
<v Speaker 5>of year when you normally do.

0:06:29.120 --> 0:06:32.279
<v Speaker 1>Well our thanks to Michael McKee, Bloomberg inter National Economics

0:06:32.320 --> 0:06:36.240
<v Speaker 1>and Policy Correspondent. Now we move next to the athletic

0:06:36.240 --> 0:06:40.000
<v Speaker 1>footwear and apparel giant Nike, the Dow component, reporting third

0:06:40.120 --> 0:06:44.000
<v Speaker 1>quarter results this coming Thursday. Many analysts are wondering whether

0:06:44.080 --> 0:06:47.520
<v Speaker 1>economic headwinds in China will impact the company's sales and

0:06:47.600 --> 0:06:50.799
<v Speaker 1>for more. We're joined by Poonam Goyle, senior US e

0:06:50.839 --> 0:06:53.760
<v Speaker 1>commerce and retail analysts at Bloomberg Intelligence.

0:06:53.760 --> 0:06:56.000
<v Speaker 6>Poonum, thanks for being here, Thanks for having me.

0:06:56.320 --> 0:06:58.720
<v Speaker 1>Well, what are you expecting to see from the sneaker

0:06:58.760 --> 0:07:02.040
<v Speaker 1>in sportswear giant and how big a role will sales

0:07:02.080 --> 0:07:03.320
<v Speaker 1>in China play into that?

0:07:03.760 --> 0:07:07.119
<v Speaker 7>Sure, the fiscal third quarter, which is largely in line

0:07:07.160 --> 0:07:10.000
<v Speaker 7>with the fourth quarter for most other retailers, for Nike,

0:07:10.520 --> 0:07:14.440
<v Speaker 7>we expect sales to fall slightly. That's largely a function

0:07:14.600 --> 0:07:18.320
<v Speaker 7>of just lackluster consumer demand, largely on the apparel side.

0:07:18.320 --> 0:07:20.760
<v Speaker 7>I would say, not as much on the footwaar side.

0:07:21.080 --> 0:07:24.960
<v Speaker 7>And where we're seeing weakness is across the board. Really,

0:07:25.600 --> 0:07:28.160
<v Speaker 7>we're expecting Emia to be weak. It's expected to be

0:07:28.240 --> 0:07:31.480
<v Speaker 7>downlow single digits. North America as well, and these two

0:07:31.520 --> 0:07:36.280
<v Speaker 7>markets collectively are the largest markets for Nike. That said,

0:07:36.560 --> 0:07:39.160
<v Speaker 7>China is important, and you know you asked how important

0:07:39.280 --> 0:07:42.480
<v Speaker 7>is China's about fifteen percent of their sales and we're

0:07:42.520 --> 0:07:45.080
<v Speaker 7>only expecting to see a low single digit gain about

0:07:45.080 --> 0:07:47.920
<v Speaker 7>two percent in China, So that's not as robust as

0:07:47.920 --> 0:07:50.960
<v Speaker 7>you would have expected earlier last year, when you know

0:07:51.120 --> 0:07:54.800
<v Speaker 7>China had ended at zero COVID policy. So things are

0:07:55.160 --> 0:07:58.000
<v Speaker 7>a little markye, but I would say that that's all

0:07:58.080 --> 0:08:01.040
<v Speaker 7>near term. I do think the Nike still remains a

0:08:01.080 --> 0:08:04.520
<v Speaker 7>solid brand, fifty billion dollars plus in sales, the largest

0:08:04.560 --> 0:08:07.600
<v Speaker 7>sportswear brand in the world, and we don't think its

0:08:07.600 --> 0:08:09.520
<v Speaker 7>position is at risk at all.

0:08:09.680 --> 0:08:13.120
<v Speaker 1>Well, let's talk about Nike's initiative on direct to consumer sales.

0:08:13.200 --> 0:08:16.120
<v Speaker 1>Has it made a material impact and has the affected

0:08:16.120 --> 0:08:17.840
<v Speaker 1>some of the retailers that it supplies.

0:08:18.240 --> 0:08:21.120
<v Speaker 7>So Nike had a few years ago made a big

0:08:21.160 --> 0:08:23.880
<v Speaker 7>push towards DTC, you know, pulling out a lot of

0:08:23.960 --> 0:08:28.000
<v Speaker 7>key wholesale accounts, including moderating its exposure to some of

0:08:28.000 --> 0:08:31.040
<v Speaker 7>the department stores as well as Footlocker. We saw that

0:08:31.200 --> 0:08:33.480
<v Speaker 7>flip on its heels last year, right when they said

0:08:33.520 --> 0:08:37.560
<v Speaker 7>that they're going back into Footlocker in a more strategic way.

0:08:37.880 --> 0:08:42.040
<v Speaker 7>They're also entering thes W and they're pushing more so

0:08:42.280 --> 0:08:45.120
<v Speaker 7>in wholesale. Now what does this mean? Right? You know,

0:08:45.400 --> 0:08:49.160
<v Speaker 7>DTC has higher margins and therefore when they had announced

0:08:49.200 --> 0:08:52.640
<v Speaker 7>this move a few years back, it was good for margin.

0:08:52.720 --> 0:08:55.600
<v Speaker 7>And now as they're pulling away, I wouldn't say they're

0:08:55.600 --> 0:08:57.559
<v Speaker 7>pulling away from DTC, but I would say they're leaning

0:08:57.600 --> 0:09:01.160
<v Speaker 7>more into wholesale. The margins do have a headwind from

0:09:01.240 --> 0:09:03.960
<v Speaker 7>that mixshift, kind of flip flopping, but I would say

0:09:03.960 --> 0:09:07.640
<v Speaker 7>wholesale is important. Their partnership with foot Locker is important

0:09:07.679 --> 0:09:10.360
<v Speaker 7>because if you live in the suburbs of New Jersey

0:09:10.440 --> 0:09:13.600
<v Speaker 7>like I do, it's hard to get to a Nike store.

0:09:13.920 --> 0:09:16.880
<v Speaker 7>Right The flagship store in New York City is great,

0:09:16.960 --> 0:09:19.680
<v Speaker 7>but it's two hours to get there. So where do

0:09:19.760 --> 0:09:23.920
<v Speaker 7>you buy good Nike product? The outlets have usually, you know,

0:09:24.000 --> 0:09:26.360
<v Speaker 7>product that came out maybe a year ago or six

0:09:26.400 --> 0:09:29.760
<v Speaker 7>months ago, or stuff that's left over. And the only

0:09:29.800 --> 0:09:32.640
<v Speaker 7>place really that you can find compelling Nike product in

0:09:32.720 --> 0:09:36.200
<v Speaker 7>a suburb is at Dick's Sporting Goods. So coming back

0:09:36.240 --> 0:09:38.960
<v Speaker 7>to some of these wholesale accounts, I think is a

0:09:38.960 --> 0:09:42.200
<v Speaker 7>good move for Nike as it will make it be

0:09:42.320 --> 0:09:44.720
<v Speaker 7>available to all of America. Again.

0:09:45.040 --> 0:09:48.080
<v Speaker 1>Now to that point you've written about Nike finally getting

0:09:48.080 --> 0:09:51.960
<v Speaker 1>control of its pandemic era inventory and supply chain problems.

0:09:52.240 --> 0:09:55.000
<v Speaker 1>Are things back where they should be and is it

0:09:55.040 --> 0:09:57.239
<v Speaker 1>supplying all this new product for consumers?

0:09:57.520 --> 0:09:59.520
<v Speaker 7>I think supply is back and where it should be,

0:09:59.520 --> 0:10:02.120
<v Speaker 7>so we don't for see any supply chain disruptions at

0:10:02.200 --> 0:10:06.199
<v Speaker 7>Nike this year. In terms of supply within the marketplace,

0:10:06.280 --> 0:10:09.520
<v Speaker 7>I think that's a little next. There are still excess

0:10:09.559 --> 0:10:13.160
<v Speaker 7>inventories in the wholesale channels, so in North America specifically,

0:10:13.240 --> 0:10:16.559
<v Speaker 7>we do think that that headman will persist at least

0:10:16.880 --> 0:10:19.400
<v Speaker 7>through the first half of this calendar year or for

0:10:19.520 --> 0:10:23.400
<v Speaker 7>Nike's fiscal fourth quarter. But around the world, as inventories

0:10:23.440 --> 0:10:26.400
<v Speaker 7>are stabilized and the supply chains are operating at i

0:10:26.400 --> 0:10:29.480
<v Speaker 7>would say near normal levels, we do think that there

0:10:29.520 --> 0:10:32.360
<v Speaker 7>are tailwinds from this to be had in the second

0:10:32.440 --> 0:10:34.800
<v Speaker 7>half of the calendar year twenty twenty four.

0:10:35.120 --> 0:10:38.920
<v Speaker 1>And Nike is already the biggest women's athletic apparel and

0:10:38.960 --> 0:10:41.720
<v Speaker 1>shoe brands, So are they banking a lot of growth

0:10:41.840 --> 0:10:43.400
<v Speaker 1>on women customers.

0:10:43.800 --> 0:10:46.800
<v Speaker 7>Yeah, So women's is actually a very very important category,

0:10:46.880 --> 0:10:48.800
<v Speaker 7>not just for Nike but really for all the at

0:10:48.880 --> 0:10:52.480
<v Speaker 7>leisure brands. It's a growing category and Nike does have

0:10:52.520 --> 0:10:54.360
<v Speaker 7>a lead there. But I would say when you look

0:10:54.400 --> 0:10:57.880
<v Speaker 7>at women's versus total sports, where the lead that Nike has,

0:10:58.240 --> 0:11:01.319
<v Speaker 7>the gap between that is very different. So Nike is

0:11:01.960 --> 0:11:05.040
<v Speaker 7>by far the largest sportswear brand and it has a

0:11:05.160 --> 0:11:08.520
<v Speaker 7>large lead to its competitors, but when you look at

0:11:08.640 --> 0:11:12.199
<v Speaker 7>women's the lead isn't as wide, right, So to me,

0:11:12.400 --> 0:11:15.679
<v Speaker 7>the woman's playing field is anyone's game. So Nike is

0:11:15.720 --> 0:11:18.360
<v Speaker 7>a leader today, but that doesn't mean that it will

0:11:18.400 --> 0:11:22.040
<v Speaker 7>stay a leader forever if others also step up their

0:11:22.120 --> 0:11:25.920
<v Speaker 7>efforts because they don't have a wide margin lead versus

0:11:25.960 --> 0:11:27.040
<v Speaker 7>the rest of the competition.

0:11:27.360 --> 0:11:29.800
<v Speaker 1>And how is it compared to like Lulu Lemon, which

0:11:29.960 --> 0:11:32.200
<v Speaker 1>you know here in New York you see on all

0:11:32.200 --> 0:11:36.920
<v Speaker 1>over women wearing everything right, Lulu Lemon also some athleta

0:11:36.960 --> 0:11:40.040
<v Speaker 1>that's the gap brand is Nike moving into those types

0:11:40.080 --> 0:11:42.600
<v Speaker 1>of products, the yoga pants, the stuff you wear to

0:11:42.640 --> 0:11:44.719
<v Speaker 1>the supermarket or wherever they are.

0:11:44.840 --> 0:11:49.560
<v Speaker 7>So the push for lifestyle athleticware has been something that

0:11:49.679 --> 0:11:52.800
<v Speaker 7>most at leisure brands, including Nike, have been going after.

0:11:53.440 --> 0:11:55.960
<v Speaker 7>It's a little different of a customer still, you know,

0:11:56.000 --> 0:11:59.439
<v Speaker 7>we think where Lululemon shines is that it understands the

0:11:59.440 --> 0:12:01.400
<v Speaker 7>women custom and are probably better than any of the

0:12:01.440 --> 0:12:04.480
<v Speaker 7>other brands because that is where they shine. They have

0:12:04.600 --> 0:12:06.920
<v Speaker 7>the right fit, they have the right material, they have

0:12:06.960 --> 0:12:09.880
<v Speaker 7>the right function, they know how it works and they

0:12:09.960 --> 0:12:14.120
<v Speaker 7>understand it. Nike has performance built into its women's war,

0:12:14.440 --> 0:12:17.000
<v Speaker 7>but I don't know if it has the fashion right.

0:12:17.200 --> 0:12:18.720
<v Speaker 7>Not to say that it's wrong, but I think it

0:12:18.800 --> 0:12:21.680
<v Speaker 7>leans more towards performance versus where you have a little

0:12:21.800 --> 0:12:25.360
<v Speaker 7>lemon yoga pant. It's performance and fashion. So I think

0:12:25.480 --> 0:12:28.320
<v Speaker 7>that intersection is where Nike is trying to go to

0:12:28.400 --> 0:12:31.120
<v Speaker 7>as well with women's but I think that will take time.

0:12:31.160 --> 0:12:32.800
<v Speaker 7>It's not something that they can do overnight.

0:12:33.200 --> 0:12:35.640
<v Speaker 1>Well, we're going to find out a lot more on Thursday. Well,

0:12:35.640 --> 0:12:38.840
<v Speaker 1>our thanks to Blunham Goyle. She's senior US e Commerce

0:12:38.840 --> 0:12:42.480
<v Speaker 1>and retail analysts at Bloomberg Intelligence and coming up on

0:12:42.480 --> 0:12:44.840
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg day Break weekend, a big decision this week on

0:12:44.920 --> 0:12:48.199
<v Speaker 1>interest rates from the Bank of England. I'm Tom Busby

0:12:48.280 --> 0:13:02.240
<v Speaker 1>and this is Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg day Break Weekend,

0:13:02.280 --> 0:13:04.640
<v Speaker 1>our global look ahead at the top stories for investors

0:13:04.720 --> 0:13:07.200
<v Speaker 1>in the coming week. I'm Tom Busby in New York.

0:13:07.440 --> 0:13:10.080
<v Speaker 1>Up later in our program, earnings from one of China's

0:13:10.120 --> 0:13:13.440
<v Speaker 1>biggest names in technology, and a look ahead to the

0:13:13.480 --> 0:13:16.880
<v Speaker 1>next move from Australia's Central Bank. But first, with UK

0:13:17.000 --> 0:13:19.840
<v Speaker 1>interest rates at historic highs, pressure is mounting on the

0:13:19.880 --> 0:13:23.439
<v Speaker 1>Bank of England. While recent economic data suggests the economy

0:13:23.480 --> 0:13:26.120
<v Speaker 1>may be moving in the right direction, one wrong move

0:13:26.240 --> 0:13:29.160
<v Speaker 1>could undo all the progress made to date. The situation

0:13:29.240 --> 0:13:32.280
<v Speaker 1>makes for a difficult choice for central bank policymakers who

0:13:32.320 --> 0:13:35.160
<v Speaker 1>will vote where to move rates in the coming days.

0:13:35.160 --> 0:13:36.880
<v Speaker 1>And for more, let's go to London and bring in

0:13:36.920 --> 0:13:40.360
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg daybreak, europe Banker Caroline hepger Tom.

0:13:40.400 --> 0:13:42.120
<v Speaker 2>The last time we heard from the Bank of England

0:13:42.160 --> 0:13:44.280
<v Speaker 2>Governor Andrew Bailey, he told us that when it comes

0:13:44.320 --> 0:13:47.280
<v Speaker 2>to cutting interest rates in the UK, it's a question

0:13:47.480 --> 0:13:49.040
<v Speaker 2>of when, not if.

0:13:49.360 --> 0:13:54.040
<v Speaker 8>I think we've now changed the question really from how

0:13:54.080 --> 0:13:56.520
<v Speaker 8>restrictive do we need to be for how long do

0:13:56.600 --> 0:13:59.160
<v Speaker 8>we need to be restricted? That's important. We've also tokened

0:13:59.200 --> 0:14:03.880
<v Speaker 8>the upside bias off. We haven't cleared a risk, by

0:14:03.920 --> 0:14:06.040
<v Speaker 8>the way, a new risk actually, which is we're really

0:14:06.040 --> 0:14:08.520
<v Speaker 8>reflecting obviously tragic events of them at least and the

0:14:08.559 --> 0:14:12.840
<v Speaker 8>impact that can have through the Red Sea effects. So

0:14:12.880 --> 0:14:15.520
<v Speaker 8>I think now the question is for us as really

0:14:15.679 --> 0:14:17.599
<v Speaker 8>is for how long do we need to maintain the

0:14:17.720 --> 0:14:20.600
<v Speaker 8>stance going forwards? You know I've said a number of

0:14:20.640 --> 0:14:24.840
<v Speaker 8>times going We're not making predictions at this point we're

0:14:24.840 --> 0:14:27.920
<v Speaker 8>setting up the framework. The things that we think are

0:14:27.960 --> 0:14:31.840
<v Speaker 8>important to look at really haven't changed. Actually, so services, inflation,

0:14:32.280 --> 0:14:35.680
<v Speaker 8>aspects of the labor market, the domestic drivers of inflation.

0:14:36.240 --> 0:14:39.160
<v Speaker 2>That was Andrew Bailey speaking to Bloomberg Television after the

0:14:39.320 --> 0:14:43.520
<v Speaker 2>last rates decision. Now, in the meantime, recent economic data

0:14:44.120 --> 0:14:47.480
<v Speaker 2>signals really a step in the right direction, the Rank

0:14:47.520 --> 0:14:51.520
<v Speaker 2>of England having emphasized its data driven approach. The UK

0:14:51.600 --> 0:14:55.640
<v Speaker 2>economy rebounded in January after falling into a technical recession

0:14:55.640 --> 0:14:59.000
<v Speaker 2>in the second half of last year. In addition to that,

0:14:59.120 --> 0:15:04.680
<v Speaker 2>Britain's jobs market, which fueled inflationary pay rises immediately after

0:15:04.720 --> 0:15:08.880
<v Speaker 2>the pandemic, does seem to be cooling, and cooling pretty sharply,

0:15:09.120 --> 0:15:14.320
<v Speaker 2>with the first increase in unemployment since July. Despite those signs, though,

0:15:14.360 --> 0:15:17.280
<v Speaker 2>the recent communication has suggested that the Bank of England

0:15:17.360 --> 0:15:20.520
<v Speaker 2>is really in no hurry to ease policy, and signs

0:15:20.520 --> 0:15:23.520
<v Speaker 2>of a rebound give it cover to wait a little

0:15:23.520 --> 0:15:27.320
<v Speaker 2>bit longer for confirmation that inflation is on course for

0:15:27.400 --> 0:15:31.760
<v Speaker 2>the durabile return to the two percent target. Now, Northern

0:15:31.800 --> 0:15:34.920
<v Speaker 2>Trust chief economist Carl Tannenbaum has told us that the

0:15:34.920 --> 0:15:38.760
<v Speaker 2>Bank of England does now have a difficult choice to make.

0:15:39.200 --> 0:15:41.440
<v Speaker 9>I think it's the most complicated of the Big three.

0:15:41.840 --> 0:15:44.040
<v Speaker 9>Even the Bank of Japan, which you'll meet later this month,

0:15:44.560 --> 0:15:47.840
<v Speaker 9>is right pleased with what they're seeing on their inflation numbers.

0:15:47.960 --> 0:15:49.840
<v Speaker 9>Most of us think that rates will be in positive

0:15:49.960 --> 0:15:52.920
<v Speaker 9>territory before long. But the Bank of England, certainly a

0:15:53.000 --> 0:15:55.480
<v Speaker 9>last monetary policy committee was the first that I can

0:15:55.520 --> 0:15:57.880
<v Speaker 9>ever remember. They had votes for a hike, voste to

0:15:57.920 --> 0:16:02.480
<v Speaker 9>remain stable and votes to cut, signifying that within the

0:16:02.480 --> 0:16:05.440
<v Speaker 9>group there is a lot of disagreement over the diagnosis

0:16:05.440 --> 0:16:09.480
<v Speaker 9>of inflation. I can understand why, given the conflicting signals

0:16:09.480 --> 0:16:11.080
<v Speaker 9>that we're getting from labor markets.

0:16:11.600 --> 0:16:14.760
<v Speaker 2>How would you characterize the state of the UK economy now?

0:16:15.720 --> 0:16:18.400
<v Speaker 9>Stand still at best, I would say the quarterlyase have

0:16:18.960 --> 0:16:22.440
<v Speaker 9>barely been a positive effectslight negative, I believe, and certainly

0:16:22.440 --> 0:16:25.000
<v Speaker 9>the momentum that we're seeing in the United States is

0:16:25.040 --> 0:16:28.320
<v Speaker 9>not present here in Europe. Part of that is attributable

0:16:28.360 --> 0:16:30.680
<v Speaker 9>to the massive amount of fiscal spending that has been

0:16:30.720 --> 0:16:33.480
<v Speaker 9>done still in the United States, even past the pandemic.

0:16:33.880 --> 0:16:36.000
<v Speaker 9>That is an option that has not been available to

0:16:36.040 --> 0:16:40.000
<v Speaker 9>Europe where budget constraints. Certainly that's around Jeremy Hunt's budget

0:16:40.040 --> 0:16:43.800
<v Speaker 9>proposal illustrate how hard it will be to achieve any

0:16:43.880 --> 0:16:46.000
<v Speaker 9>kind of fiscal expansion in Europe.

0:16:46.560 --> 0:16:49.479
<v Speaker 2>That was the chief economist at Northern Trust, Carl Tannembaum,

0:16:49.560 --> 0:16:53.680
<v Speaker 2>speaking to me on Bloomberg Radio. It's also worth considering

0:16:53.760 --> 0:16:56.680
<v Speaker 2>how the decisions of international central banks will affect the

0:16:56.720 --> 0:16:59.680
<v Speaker 2>policy makers here in the UK. So recently, the US

0:16:59.720 --> 0:17:02.880
<v Speaker 2>treasure Sexuary Janet Yellen said that it is unlikely that

0:17:02.960 --> 0:17:07.600
<v Speaker 2>market interest rates will return to levels that prevailed before

0:17:07.680 --> 0:17:12.520
<v Speaker 2>the COVID nineteen pandemic. Bloomberg's chief UK economist, Dan Hansen

0:17:12.600 --> 0:17:16.560
<v Speaker 2>tells me that the UK could see a sustained raft

0:17:16.680 --> 0:17:20.560
<v Speaker 2>of rate cuts to come, but probably not at the

0:17:20.600 --> 0:17:21.440
<v Speaker 2>next meeting.

0:17:22.040 --> 0:17:22.240
<v Speaker 6>Yeah.

0:17:22.280 --> 0:17:23.800
<v Speaker 10>I mean, I think this one's going to be a

0:17:23.840 --> 0:17:27.560
<v Speaker 10>relatively they're say, boring meeting in the sense that no

0:17:27.600 --> 0:17:30.200
<v Speaker 10>one's expecting any action. There was quite a big shift

0:17:30.240 --> 0:17:34.560
<v Speaker 10>I think between November December and then to February. You know,

0:17:34.640 --> 0:17:37.240
<v Speaker 10>the bank dropped its tightening bias, we got to vote

0:17:37.240 --> 0:17:39.679
<v Speaker 10>for a cut, So we've had quite a big had

0:17:39.720 --> 0:17:42.680
<v Speaker 10>quite a big shift, and now they've made it very clear.

0:17:42.720 --> 0:17:45.359
<v Speaker 10>I mean you mentioned they're the communication they've made it

0:17:45.440 --> 0:17:49.359
<v Speaker 10>very clear that they're pretty patient about the timing of

0:17:49.400 --> 0:17:51.760
<v Speaker 10>the first rate cut and they're looking to the data.

0:17:52.080 --> 0:17:53.760
<v Speaker 10>And I think that that will continue to be the

0:17:53.760 --> 0:17:56.040
<v Speaker 10>story at this meeting, that they're just waiting for more information.

0:17:56.400 --> 0:17:59.520
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, we saw that three way split quite unusual, didn't

0:17:59.520 --> 0:18:02.679
<v Speaker 2>we about of England hawks, doves and some in the middle.

0:18:03.320 --> 0:18:07.840
<v Speaker 2>Is that likely to return in future meetings? How much

0:18:08.119 --> 0:18:10.240
<v Speaker 2>do you think that these individuals are going to coalesce

0:18:10.280 --> 0:18:11.320
<v Speaker 2>around the decision making.

0:18:11.600 --> 0:18:13.639
<v Speaker 10>Yeah, I mean, I actually think that's the thing to

0:18:13.720 --> 0:18:16.720
<v Speaker 10>watch at this meeting. So remember back in February we

0:18:16.760 --> 0:18:19.080
<v Speaker 10>had two for a hike, so Catherine Mann and Jonathan Haskell,

0:18:19.080 --> 0:18:21.840
<v Speaker 10>one for a cut, Swatidinger and the rest went for

0:18:21.880 --> 0:18:25.280
<v Speaker 10>a hold. We thought in February Jonathan Haskell would go

0:18:25.400 --> 0:18:28.080
<v Speaker 10>for a hold. I think with what's happened to the

0:18:28.119 --> 0:18:32.720
<v Speaker 10>pay data, there's a chance that he'll move to a hold.

0:18:33.280 --> 0:18:37.080
<v Speaker 10>He's been very focused on the labor market. We get

0:18:37.119 --> 0:18:39.760
<v Speaker 10>a CPI print the day before the decision that will

0:18:39.800 --> 0:18:42.400
<v Speaker 10>be very important, particularly what happens to service his inflation.

0:18:42.640 --> 0:18:45.040
<v Speaker 10>So our base case for the meeting is that he

0:18:45.080 --> 0:18:46.959
<v Speaker 10>does go for a hold, So we get a slight

0:18:47.119 --> 0:18:50.080
<v Speaker 10>shift in the makeup of the vote split. But to

0:18:50.119 --> 0:18:52.919
<v Speaker 10>sort of answer your question directly, there will still be

0:18:52.960 --> 0:18:55.120
<v Speaker 10>this three way split where you've got Catherine Mann going

0:18:55.160 --> 0:18:57.800
<v Speaker 10>for a hike, seven of them going for a hold,

0:18:57.920 --> 0:19:00.000
<v Speaker 10>and Swortidinger continuing to call for a cup.

0:19:00.000 --> 0:19:02.600
<v Speaker 2>But I mean that the labor market and the wage

0:19:02.640 --> 0:19:05.639
<v Speaker 2>data is so important. The ECB has said similar also,

0:19:06.440 --> 0:19:09.000
<v Speaker 2>the labor market in the UK does seem to be cooling.

0:19:09.680 --> 0:19:12.719
<v Speaker 2>We notice, for example, redundancies have started to tick up,

0:19:12.760 --> 0:19:15.479
<v Speaker 2>okay from a low base, but they have, but the

0:19:15.520 --> 0:19:18.680
<v Speaker 2>wage pressure is still there. There's still you know, some

0:19:18.800 --> 0:19:20.879
<v Speaker 2>sizeable wage gains being offered.

0:19:21.119 --> 0:19:21.880
<v Speaker 6>Yeah, there are.

0:19:21.920 --> 0:19:25.040
<v Speaker 10>And that's the combination of that and services inflation, of

0:19:25.080 --> 0:19:27.359
<v Speaker 10>the two things that they're just looking for information on

0:19:27.440 --> 0:19:30.639
<v Speaker 10>and some more to gain the confidence to cut. I

0:19:30.640 --> 0:19:32.640
<v Speaker 10>actually think looking at the wage data that we had

0:19:32.680 --> 0:19:35.760
<v Speaker 10>the most recent wage data, it came in pretty weak

0:19:35.840 --> 0:19:38.000
<v Speaker 10>actually on an underlying basis. I know, on a headline

0:19:38.040 --> 0:19:39.920
<v Speaker 10>basis we're still up at six percent, which is way

0:19:39.960 --> 0:19:43.399
<v Speaker 10>too high for the Bank of England to tolerate. But

0:19:43.480 --> 0:19:45.879
<v Speaker 10>actually if you look at sort of underlying measures of

0:19:45.920 --> 0:19:49.479
<v Speaker 10>pay and more timely measures of pay within that data set,

0:19:50.080 --> 0:19:52.440
<v Speaker 10>things are calling off pretty quickly, and I think we're

0:19:52.440 --> 0:19:54.960
<v Speaker 10>heading for an undershoot. On the Bank's February forecast on

0:19:55.000 --> 0:19:58.480
<v Speaker 10>private sector regular pay, quite a big undershoot. The big

0:19:58.560 --> 0:20:00.679
<v Speaker 10>risk on the horizon is the h in the national

0:20:00.680 --> 0:20:01.639
<v Speaker 10>minimum wage.

0:20:02.920 --> 0:20:03.360
<v Speaker 2>April.

0:20:03.560 --> 0:20:06.880
<v Speaker 10>Yeah, yeah, exactly, so that that will be something that

0:20:06.920 --> 0:20:09.720
<v Speaker 10>they're going to have they're going to be focused on.

0:20:09.800 --> 0:20:11.239
<v Speaker 10>I think they're going to want to see data on

0:20:11.280 --> 0:20:15.159
<v Speaker 10>that before they go ahead and cut. So, but I

0:20:15.160 --> 0:20:17.080
<v Speaker 10>think the news on pay has been actually since the

0:20:17.080 --> 0:20:19.560
<v Speaker 10>start of the year, and on inflation generally has been

0:20:19.880 --> 0:20:23.240
<v Speaker 10>been pretty good. Things are tracking their forecast, if anything,

0:20:23.280 --> 0:20:25.840
<v Speaker 10>coming in slightly below it, so that's that's good news.

0:20:27.119 --> 0:20:29.920
<v Speaker 2>In terms of cuts them for the rest of the year.

0:20:30.280 --> 0:20:32.720
<v Speaker 2>You know, we're pricing in less for the Bank of

0:20:32.760 --> 0:20:35.600
<v Speaker 2>England than for other major central backs. Do you think

0:20:35.640 --> 0:20:36.840
<v Speaker 2>that that holds this year?

0:20:36.880 --> 0:20:39.000
<v Speaker 10>That view, so we have a slightly different view on

0:20:39.040 --> 0:20:42.040
<v Speaker 10>all of this. I think one interesting thing with market

0:20:42.080 --> 0:20:44.120
<v Speaker 10>pricing is that you have to remember it's a mean

0:20:44.240 --> 0:20:49.080
<v Speaker 10>or an average, so that that could potentially be reflecting

0:20:49.080 --> 0:20:51.479
<v Speaker 10>two scenarios, one where they don't cut a tool and

0:20:51.480 --> 0:20:53.600
<v Speaker 10>one where they actually cut quite a lot. And actually

0:20:53.680 --> 0:20:57.040
<v Speaker 10>we're in that second camp. So we're in the view

0:20:57.040 --> 0:20:59.720
<v Speaker 10>that once they start, at least for a time, they'll

0:20:59.760 --> 0:21:02.199
<v Speaker 10>cut once a meeting, they'll probably get the base rate

0:21:02.240 --> 0:21:05.280
<v Speaker 10>down to about four percent, and then they'll take stock.

0:21:05.320 --> 0:21:08.720
<v Speaker 10>Because the question really with this easing cycle is where

0:21:08.720 --> 0:21:11.560
<v Speaker 10>it's neutral, like where is the sort of long term rate,

0:21:11.600 --> 0:21:14.560
<v Speaker 10>where long term level where rates will settle, And there's

0:21:14.560 --> 0:21:17.639
<v Speaker 10>obviously an enormous amount of uncertainty about that. But I

0:21:17.640 --> 0:21:19.439
<v Speaker 10>think the reason why they will be able to go

0:21:19.480 --> 0:21:21.040
<v Speaker 10>one A meeting, one of the big reasons they'll be

0:21:21.080 --> 0:21:22.919
<v Speaker 10>able to go one A meeting is that in the

0:21:22.920 --> 0:21:24.879
<v Speaker 10>second half of or from the spring and into the

0:21:24.880 --> 0:21:26.760
<v Speaker 10>second half of the year, inflation is likely to be

0:21:26.760 --> 0:21:29.320
<v Speaker 10>below two percent because of what we're going to see

0:21:29.320 --> 0:21:32.080
<v Speaker 10>with energy prices. Yes, there's going to be core inflation

0:21:32.200 --> 0:21:34.920
<v Speaker 10>still going to be around three percent, but I think

0:21:35.280 --> 0:21:38.960
<v Speaker 10>the sort of risk to inflation expectations has gone. Bailey

0:21:39.040 --> 0:21:41.640
<v Speaker 10>sort of hinted at that in his recent comments that

0:21:42.119 --> 0:21:45.440
<v Speaker 10>they're less worried about second round effects. So I think

0:21:45.480 --> 0:21:48.520
<v Speaker 10>there is a case of taking away some of that restrictiveness,

0:21:48.520 --> 0:21:50.680
<v Speaker 10>and in argue, even if you're at four percent, the

0:21:50.840 --> 0:21:52.800
<v Speaker 10>monetary party would still be weighing on the economy, it

0:21:52.800 --> 0:21:54.919
<v Speaker 10>would still be restrictive. So I think there is a

0:21:54.960 --> 0:21:58.440
<v Speaker 10>case for bringing rates down relatively quickly and then taking stock.

0:21:58.840 --> 0:21:59.439
<v Speaker 6>Yeah.

0:22:00.080 --> 0:22:03.560
<v Speaker 2>Interesting, I mean that sort of reflected in what Janet

0:22:03.600 --> 0:22:06.080
<v Speaker 2>Yellen and the US Treasury sectory has been talking about

0:22:06.119 --> 0:22:09.040
<v Speaker 2>in recent days. You know that we would be unlikely

0:22:09.080 --> 0:22:12.040
<v Speaker 2>to return to pre pandemic levels in terms of yields.

0:22:12.119 --> 0:22:14.520
<v Speaker 2>US treasure yields in the twenty ten on average two

0:22:14.560 --> 0:22:16.880
<v Speaker 2>point three nine percent, but we're not likely to get

0:22:16.880 --> 0:22:18.840
<v Speaker 2>back to that. But interesting that you say, you know,

0:22:18.880 --> 0:22:21.120
<v Speaker 2>for five and a quarter to come down to four

0:22:21.200 --> 0:22:24.040
<v Speaker 2>is the expectation. Do you think that the Bank of

0:22:24.080 --> 0:22:28.320
<v Speaker 2>England will be influenced decisively by the Federal Reserve? I mean,

0:22:28.400 --> 0:22:30.159
<v Speaker 2>history surely would say yes.

0:22:31.000 --> 0:22:33.440
<v Speaker 10>I don't know about that. So I think the market

0:22:33.440 --> 0:22:38.040
<v Speaker 10>perception is that the Fed leads the way in this

0:22:38.119 --> 0:22:41.000
<v Speaker 10>inflation cycle. You can see why that would be the

0:22:41.080 --> 0:22:44.359
<v Speaker 10>case because inflation is about six months ahead in the US.

0:22:44.400 --> 0:22:46.800
<v Speaker 10>The sort of pro the disinflationary process is about six

0:22:46.840 --> 0:22:49.440
<v Speaker 10>months ahead. The challenge to it, I guess, would be

0:22:49.600 --> 0:22:51.720
<v Speaker 10>what happened in at the end of twenty twenty one,

0:22:51.720 --> 0:22:54.160
<v Speaker 10>where the Bank started its hiking cycle, and the FED

0:22:54.200 --> 0:22:58.280
<v Speaker 10>didn't start until early twenty twenty two, so it's not

0:22:59.119 --> 0:23:00.560
<v Speaker 10>completely bound either FED.

0:23:00.600 --> 0:23:01.240
<v Speaker 6>I mean it can't.

0:23:01.440 --> 0:23:04.080
<v Speaker 10>Obviously, it can't completely disconnect purely because of the sort

0:23:04.080 --> 0:23:06.199
<v Speaker 10>of what might happen to the exchange rate as a result.

0:23:07.200 --> 0:23:11.080
<v Speaker 10>But I think it the economic picture, the sort of

0:23:11.080 --> 0:23:14.640
<v Speaker 10>growth picture is very different in the UK, and as

0:23:14.680 --> 0:23:16.920
<v Speaker 10>I say, there's going to be this story around below

0:23:16.960 --> 0:23:19.679
<v Speaker 10>two percent inflation here. Granted it's as a result of

0:23:19.760 --> 0:23:23.760
<v Speaker 10>energy prices, but nonetheless that that changes the picture dramatically.

0:23:24.200 --> 0:23:26.320
<v Speaker 10>And I think the other thing to play in. You've

0:23:26.359 --> 0:23:28.000
<v Speaker 10>got the FED on one side, you've got the political

0:23:28.040 --> 0:23:30.639
<v Speaker 10>picture of the domestic political picture on the other, and

0:23:30.680 --> 0:23:34.680
<v Speaker 10>the noises coming from MPs. If inflation is below two

0:23:34.680 --> 0:23:36.560
<v Speaker 10>percent and the Bank of England isn't seen to be

0:23:36.600 --> 0:23:39.080
<v Speaker 10>sort of doing something about that and responding to it,

0:23:39.600 --> 0:23:40.560
<v Speaker 10>the pressure is going to mount.

0:23:40.640 --> 0:23:45.719
<v Speaker 2>I think, yeah, election general election expected in the coming months.

0:23:45.720 --> 0:23:48.520
<v Speaker 2>Of course, do you think that it could be good

0:23:48.560 --> 0:23:51.879
<v Speaker 2>news for UK equities if we get right cuts of

0:23:51.920 --> 0:23:53.560
<v Speaker 2>the magnitude that you've talked about.

0:23:54.680 --> 0:23:58.520
<v Speaker 10>I mean I would, I would differentiate between cyclical and

0:23:58.560 --> 0:24:01.040
<v Speaker 10>structural here. So when you when you cut rates. It's

0:24:01.080 --> 0:24:03.280
<v Speaker 10>a cyclical boost to the economy, and I guess it

0:24:03.320 --> 0:24:06.639
<v Speaker 10>goes to the problem why UKs have underperformed even if

0:24:06.640 --> 0:24:08.760
<v Speaker 10>it's one hundred basis points of rate cuts two hundred

0:24:08.760 --> 0:24:10.520
<v Speaker 10>basis points of raightcuts. Are we going to get a

0:24:10.520 --> 0:24:13.360
<v Speaker 10>cyclical boost to the economy. Does that change the underlying

0:24:13.400 --> 0:24:16.880
<v Speaker 10>structural picture of wheat productivity growth? No, so, I don't

0:24:16.920 --> 0:24:18.440
<v Speaker 10>think it's going to be a long term boost to

0:24:18.800 --> 0:24:19.520
<v Speaker 10>the exity picture.

0:24:19.560 --> 0:24:19.720
<v Speaker 7>Now.

0:24:20.000 --> 0:24:23.240
<v Speaker 2>That was Bloomberg's chief for UK economist Dan Hanson discussing

0:24:23.320 --> 0:24:26.240
<v Speaker 2>the path ahead for UK rates as we await the

0:24:26.320 --> 0:24:30.000
<v Speaker 2>twenty first of March Bank of England decision. I'm Caroline

0:24:30.000 --> 0:24:32.520
<v Speaker 2>Hepgar here in London. You can catch us every weekday

0:24:32.560 --> 0:24:36.000
<v Speaker 2>morning for Bloomberg Daybreak. You're at beginning at five am

0:24:36.080 --> 0:24:38.399
<v Speaker 2>in London and one am on Wall Street.

0:24:38.680 --> 0:24:39.040
<v Speaker 7>Tom.

0:24:39.359 --> 0:24:42.480
<v Speaker 1>Thank you, Caroline, and coming up on Bloomberg day Break weekend.

0:24:42.760 --> 0:24:45.680
<v Speaker 1>What could be a big move from Australia's Central Bank

0:24:45.720 --> 0:24:49.399
<v Speaker 1>this week and earnings from one of China's biggest tech companies.

0:24:49.720 --> 0:25:04.479
<v Speaker 1>I'm Tom Busby and this is Bloomberg. I'm Tom Busby

0:25:04.480 --> 0:25:06.119
<v Speaker 1>in New York with your global look ahead at the

0:25:06.119 --> 0:25:09.040
<v Speaker 1>top stories for investors in the coming week. The Reserve

0:25:09.080 --> 0:25:12.280
<v Speaker 1>Bank of Australia set to announce its next decision on

0:25:12.440 --> 0:25:15.800
<v Speaker 1>interest rates. We'll have more shortly with Doug Chrisner, but

0:25:15.920 --> 0:25:19.479
<v Speaker 1>first let's head to Hong Kong and Brian Curtis.

0:25:19.240 --> 0:25:22.080
<v Speaker 3>Tom we look ahead to earnings from ten cent holdings.

0:25:22.520 --> 0:25:24.480
<v Speaker 3>It might be a little early, but we want to

0:25:24.520 --> 0:25:27.639
<v Speaker 3>see if a little less scrutiny on the regulatory front

0:25:28.000 --> 0:25:31.359
<v Speaker 3>might grease the wheels a bit four ten cent In China,

0:25:31.400 --> 0:25:34.240
<v Speaker 3>the NPC approved a ten percent increase in the budget

0:25:34.280 --> 0:25:38.600
<v Speaker 3>for science and technology, and policymakers are desperate to unleash

0:25:38.680 --> 0:25:43.440
<v Speaker 3>what's referred to as quality productive forces. Bloomberg Intelligence says

0:25:43.440 --> 0:25:46.120
<v Speaker 3>that ten Cents should be able to increase revenues by

0:25:46.119 --> 0:25:49.600
<v Speaker 3>double digits in twenty twenty four. To talk a little

0:25:49.640 --> 0:25:53.639
<v Speaker 3>bit about the earnings, were joined by Robert Lee, Bloomberg.

0:25:53.119 --> 0:25:54.680
<v Speaker 6>Intelligence Senior analyst.

0:25:55.440 --> 0:25:58.000
<v Speaker 3>Thanks very much Robert for being with us. So ten

0:25:58.040 --> 0:26:00.720
<v Speaker 3>Cents third quarter revenue was twenty one point five billion

0:26:00.760 --> 0:26:03.920
<v Speaker 3>dollars and that was up ten percent year over a year.

0:26:04.840 --> 0:26:07.199
<v Speaker 3>Let's start off with this, what are you expecting on

0:26:07.320 --> 0:26:10.360
<v Speaker 3>revenue and profit in this latest reporting period.

0:26:10.160 --> 0:26:13.639
<v Speaker 11>So I don't expect any major surprises from the results

0:26:13.720 --> 0:26:16.639
<v Speaker 11>when we hear them next week. The company should have

0:26:16.720 --> 0:26:20.800
<v Speaker 11>experienced a solid rebound driven by the reopening of China's economy,

0:26:21.119 --> 0:26:24.719
<v Speaker 11>with earnings increasing in the thirty percent plus range, so

0:26:25.040 --> 0:26:27.560
<v Speaker 11>that you know they're set to report strong figures. But

0:26:27.680 --> 0:26:30.200
<v Speaker 11>clearly the stock market's always looking ahead into this year,

0:26:30.440 --> 0:26:32.960
<v Speaker 11>and as you already said in your introduction, whilst the

0:26:33.040 --> 0:26:35.760
<v Speaker 11>growth is likely to normalize this year, this is a

0:26:35.800 --> 0:26:40.080
<v Speaker 11>company that's still capable of delivering solid double digit free

0:26:40.080 --> 0:26:42.720
<v Speaker 11>cash flow growth for the next three years at least.

0:26:42.840 --> 0:26:45.880
<v Speaker 3>So you're more constructive obviously on the company now than

0:26:45.920 --> 0:26:47.879
<v Speaker 3>you have been over the past year. What's at the

0:26:47.880 --> 0:26:48.399
<v Speaker 3>center of that.

0:26:48.480 --> 0:26:51.600
<v Speaker 11>When we launched coverage on ten Cent approximately a year ago,

0:26:52.000 --> 0:26:55.520
<v Speaker 11>I think there were very high expectations, driven by the

0:26:55.640 --> 0:26:58.720
<v Speaker 11>optimism that came with the reopening of China's economy, and

0:26:58.760 --> 0:27:00.280
<v Speaker 11>there was a view out there in the market that

0:27:00.320 --> 0:27:02.760
<v Speaker 11>the company we'd be back to business as usual. We

0:27:02.800 --> 0:27:06.760
<v Speaker 11>didn't believe that view, and core thesis focused on some

0:27:06.960 --> 0:27:12.159
<v Speaker 11>medium term structural headwinds that the company's likely to experience.

0:27:12.240 --> 0:27:16.440
<v Speaker 11>So we maintain that view. But since we launched coverage

0:27:16.440 --> 0:27:17.480
<v Speaker 11>on them close.

0:27:17.280 --> 0:27:17.880
<v Speaker 6>To a year ago.

0:27:17.960 --> 0:27:21.560
<v Speaker 11>The stock prices as substantially underperformed. I mean it's down

0:27:21.600 --> 0:27:25.280
<v Speaker 11>over thirty percent in absolute terms. And also there's been

0:27:25.520 --> 0:27:28.440
<v Speaker 11>a rebalancing of expectations in the market, and I think

0:27:28.480 --> 0:27:31.240
<v Speaker 11>the market is taking a more realistic view as to

0:27:31.400 --> 0:27:35.040
<v Speaker 11>what level of growth this company can realistically deliver over

0:27:35.400 --> 0:27:37.840
<v Speaker 11>as I said, the next few years. So to expect

0:27:37.840 --> 0:27:40.800
<v Speaker 11>this company to deliver double digit cash growth in the

0:27:40.920 --> 0:27:44.520
<v Speaker 11>low to mid teen rage is totally appropriate. And I

0:27:44.520 --> 0:27:47.120
<v Speaker 11>think there's now you know, things are more imbalanced, which

0:27:47.119 --> 0:27:49.760
<v Speaker 11>is why we recently added it to our focus list

0:27:49.800 --> 0:27:51.000
<v Speaker 11>as an idea.

0:27:51.200 --> 0:27:55.360
<v Speaker 3>I mentioned a possible lighter touch from regulators that might

0:27:55.400 --> 0:27:55.919
<v Speaker 3>be coming.

0:27:55.960 --> 0:27:57.280
<v Speaker 6>What are you hearing on that level?

0:27:57.400 --> 0:27:59.680
<v Speaker 11>Okay, I think on that again. Winding the clock back

0:27:59.720 --> 0:28:03.120
<v Speaker 11>to two three years ago, China's tech sectors dominated by

0:28:03.160 --> 0:28:06.720
<v Speaker 11>these two internet LIFs so Tencent and Ali Baba, which

0:28:06.720 --> 0:28:09.840
<v Speaker 11>have been arguably become too powerful. I mean they had

0:28:09.880 --> 0:28:11.880
<v Speaker 11>fingers in a lot of pies. They dominated a lot

0:28:11.880 --> 0:28:15.760
<v Speaker 11>of industries, with allegations that they potentially abuse their power

0:28:15.800 --> 0:28:18.200
<v Speaker 11>in some way, you know, trying to shut out competition

0:28:18.280 --> 0:28:20.440
<v Speaker 11>or whatever. So I think of a lot of regulation

0:28:20.520 --> 0:28:22.200
<v Speaker 11>that we've seen come through in the last couple of

0:28:22.320 --> 0:28:24.720
<v Speaker 11>years as being trying to level the playing field. That's

0:28:24.760 --> 0:28:27.440
<v Speaker 11>one thing. I think the second focus that the regulator

0:28:27.680 --> 0:28:31.600
<v Speaker 11>has been to protect the more vulnerable in society, particularly children, etc.

0:28:32.560 --> 0:28:34.399
<v Speaker 11>So all of that has now worked through and I

0:28:34.400 --> 0:28:37.280
<v Speaker 11>think we're you know, we're entering a period of more

0:28:37.320 --> 0:28:40.960
<v Speaker 11>stability on the regulatory front, and particularly given the economic

0:28:41.000 --> 0:28:44.080
<v Speaker 11>challenges that China faces, I think the Chinese government has

0:28:44.120 --> 0:28:46.520
<v Speaker 11>now come to realize that actually we need the support

0:28:46.560 --> 0:28:49.080
<v Speaker 11>of these two companies and you know, their core to

0:28:49.320 --> 0:28:52.320
<v Speaker 11>the future direction of the tech sector and you know,

0:28:52.400 --> 0:28:55.000
<v Speaker 11>major drivers of economic growth. So I think we've seen

0:28:55.000 --> 0:28:58.720
<v Speaker 11>a more constructive tone from central government and expect that

0:28:58.760 --> 0:29:00.840
<v Speaker 11>to continue over the next few years.

0:29:01.160 --> 0:29:04.640
<v Speaker 3>What have we seen with game approvals by the authorities

0:29:05.160 --> 0:29:07.920
<v Speaker 3>and also how tough are the curbs that are in

0:29:08.000 --> 0:29:11.720
<v Speaker 3>place on trying to monetize from withinside these games.

0:29:11.800 --> 0:29:16.360
<v Speaker 11>We've seen a normalization of the game approvals, having previously experienced,

0:29:16.440 --> 0:29:19.960
<v Speaker 11>you know, a couple of hiatus where the approvals completely stopped.

0:29:20.440 --> 0:29:22.760
<v Speaker 11>So we're now back to a run rate of around

0:29:22.760 --> 0:29:25.600
<v Speaker 11>one hundred or so approvals a month, which is still

0:29:25.680 --> 0:29:27.960
<v Speaker 11>well down on where we were two or three years ago.

0:29:28.240 --> 0:29:29.800
<v Speaker 11>But as I said, I think we've hit a steady

0:29:29.800 --> 0:29:32.680
<v Speaker 11>state on that front. Ten Cent and its closest competitive

0:29:32.760 --> 0:29:35.520
<v Speaker 11>net Ease are picking up a reasonable number of approvals,

0:29:35.800 --> 0:29:39.080
<v Speaker 11>which helps give you some confidence that this business can

0:29:39.120 --> 0:29:42.760
<v Speaker 11>again achieve double digit earnings growth over the next few years. Now,

0:29:42.800 --> 0:29:46.720
<v Speaker 11>again that does not match the strong twenty thirty percent

0:29:46.800 --> 0:29:50.440
<v Speaker 11>growth they delivered two three years ago, and again tying

0:29:50.480 --> 0:29:54.120
<v Speaker 11>in with the structural headwinds that I hinted at a

0:29:54.160 --> 0:29:56.440
<v Speaker 11>few minutes ago, I think the business is entering a

0:29:56.480 --> 0:30:00.200
<v Speaker 11>period of slower growth. But still I don't I think

0:30:00.200 --> 0:30:02.640
<v Speaker 11>there's any major concern with a business that can grow

0:30:02.720 --> 0:30:05.000
<v Speaker 11>double digit So I think, you know, we're seeing more

0:30:05.040 --> 0:30:06.120
<v Speaker 11>stability on that front.

0:30:06.640 --> 0:30:10.000
<v Speaker 3>Most companies are somewhat reliant on the general levels of

0:30:10.080 --> 0:30:13.840
<v Speaker 3>growth in the country in which they operate. With ten Cent,

0:30:13.960 --> 0:30:16.440
<v Speaker 3>it has so many irons in the fire, from cloud

0:30:16.480 --> 0:30:21.560
<v Speaker 3>computing to gaming to fintech. I'm kind of curious when

0:30:21.600 --> 0:30:24.960
<v Speaker 3>we look at the total pie. Does Tencent move and

0:30:25.000 --> 0:30:28.560
<v Speaker 3>groove more on how the economy is doing, or do

0:30:28.600 --> 0:30:31.560
<v Speaker 3>they have enough separate drivers that they can if they're

0:30:31.600 --> 0:30:34.400
<v Speaker 3>relatively left alone by the regulators that they can make

0:30:34.480 --> 0:30:37.240
<v Speaker 3>money even during difficult times. How do you see that balance.

0:30:37.520 --> 0:30:41.200
<v Speaker 11>That's a great question. I mean, first observation is whilst

0:30:41.200 --> 0:30:44.400
<v Speaker 11>again people often mentioned Ali Baba and Tenset and the

0:30:44.480 --> 0:30:48.560
<v Speaker 11>same breadth breath, they're very different businesses. Ali Baba's far

0:30:48.600 --> 0:30:52.080
<v Speaker 11>more focused on the e commerce side, which is a

0:30:52.080 --> 0:30:55.640
<v Speaker 11>smaller element with intencent So I think relative to Ali

0:30:55.640 --> 0:30:58.160
<v Speaker 11>Baba and some of the e commerce peers who are

0:30:58.160 --> 0:31:02.840
<v Speaker 11>suffering from heightened competition from low cost new entrance, that's

0:31:02.880 --> 0:31:04.720
<v Speaker 11>not an issue for ten Cents. It's a far more

0:31:04.760 --> 0:31:09.080
<v Speaker 11>diversified business with the benefits from stronger technical barriers to

0:31:09.200 --> 0:31:12.240
<v Speaker 11>entry in its core markets. So it's a much better,

0:31:12.320 --> 0:31:15.840
<v Speaker 11>more diversified story. It is still tied to economic growth.

0:31:15.920 --> 0:31:18.520
<v Speaker 11>But again if you look at their fintech business and

0:31:18.600 --> 0:31:21.000
<v Speaker 11>you look at their waihin or we Chat super app,

0:31:21.280 --> 0:31:24.000
<v Speaker 11>I mean, this is a ubiquitous part of life in China.

0:31:24.160 --> 0:31:26.920
<v Speaker 11>If you look at the process that everyday payments, so

0:31:27.400 --> 0:31:30.920
<v Speaker 11>buying coffees, buying taxis, you know, eating out restaurants, So

0:31:30.960 --> 0:31:34.560
<v Speaker 11>it's sort of every day spend which is still sensitive

0:31:34.640 --> 0:31:37.200
<v Speaker 11>to the overall economic outlook to some degree. But I

0:31:37.240 --> 0:31:40.200
<v Speaker 11>would argue is less sensitive than the pure e commerce

0:31:40.240 --> 0:31:45.040
<v Speaker 11>plays who are more dependent on larger purchases, which are

0:31:45.120 --> 0:31:47.880
<v Speaker 11>things that people could cut back on if they're looking

0:31:47.880 --> 0:31:48.880
<v Speaker 11>to tighten their belts.

0:31:49.040 --> 0:31:53.400
<v Speaker 3>Robert, Thank you, Robert Lee, Bloomberg Intelligence Senior Analyst. Now

0:31:53.480 --> 0:31:54.640
<v Speaker 3>let's get too Doug.

0:31:54.520 --> 0:31:58.360
<v Speaker 12>Grisner, Thanks Brian. Australia's Central Bank will be meeting in

0:31:58.400 --> 0:32:01.280
<v Speaker 12>the weak ahead, and policy makers down Under will consider

0:32:01.360 --> 0:32:04.360
<v Speaker 12>whether now is the time to begin lowering interest rates.

0:32:04.760 --> 0:32:08.320
<v Speaker 12>Let's preview the meeting with Bloomberg's James McIntyre, our economist

0:32:08.440 --> 0:32:12.960
<v Speaker 12>covering Australia and New Zealand. I'm wondering, James, whether now

0:32:13.080 --> 0:32:15.600
<v Speaker 12>is the time to talk about a rate cut or

0:32:15.680 --> 0:32:16.640
<v Speaker 12>maybe it's too soon.

0:32:16.760 --> 0:32:18.760
<v Speaker 13>Well, in our of you, we think it's too soon.

0:32:19.480 --> 0:32:22.400
<v Speaker 13>So the RBA has received some data that they that

0:32:22.440 --> 0:32:26.000
<v Speaker 13>they've liked. Over since their February meeting. We're on the

0:32:26.080 --> 0:32:29.120
<v Speaker 13>new eight meetings a year, no longer monthly meeting schedule

0:32:29.160 --> 0:32:32.000
<v Speaker 13>for the RBA, so our next meeting won't come before May,

0:32:32.440 --> 0:32:36.800
<v Speaker 13>and they've had GDP data CPI data. They've said in

0:32:36.880 --> 0:32:39.640
<v Speaker 13>comments that they've been broadly in line with what they

0:32:39.640 --> 0:32:43.560
<v Speaker 13>are expecting and what their February forecast suggested, So there's

0:32:43.720 --> 0:32:46.280
<v Speaker 13>likely to be nothing that's really going to give them

0:32:46.280 --> 0:32:48.360
<v Speaker 13>any kind of burning platform or push them to do

0:32:48.400 --> 0:32:50.920
<v Speaker 13>anything other than stay on hold of this meeting.

0:32:50.720 --> 0:32:52.520
<v Speaker 12>Here in the US, one of the debates that we're

0:32:52.560 --> 0:32:55.440
<v Speaker 12>having is whether or not there is a risk that

0:32:55.480 --> 0:32:58.640
<v Speaker 12>the Fed may need to remain higher for longer because

0:32:58.720 --> 0:33:02.160
<v Speaker 12>inflation is just too sticky, too stubborn. Is there the

0:33:02.200 --> 0:33:03.960
<v Speaker 12>same risk in Australia.

0:33:03.480 --> 0:33:05.320
<v Speaker 13>There has been that concern, and in fact, some of

0:33:05.320 --> 0:33:07.840
<v Speaker 13>the narrative that we've seen around the RBA is that

0:33:08.240 --> 0:33:10.880
<v Speaker 13>because they were late to the party on hiking rates

0:33:10.880 --> 0:33:12.640
<v Speaker 13>and haven't lifted as much as the fair that they

0:33:12.720 --> 0:33:16.120
<v Speaker 13>might be slow slow to begin easing as well, or

0:33:16.200 --> 0:33:18.680
<v Speaker 13>might be one of the laggards when the using cycle

0:33:18.720 --> 0:33:23.480
<v Speaker 13>eventually arises. Our viyw on that is that this pain

0:33:23.520 --> 0:33:28.360
<v Speaker 13>that is actually much much more effective when it comes

0:33:28.400 --> 0:33:31.480
<v Speaker 13>to monetary policy within the Australian economy is something that

0:33:31.560 --> 0:33:34.440
<v Speaker 13>means that well, even though the RBA might be seeing

0:33:34.960 --> 0:33:37.880
<v Speaker 13>inflation that they're not quite comfortable with, they know that

0:33:37.920 --> 0:33:41.000
<v Speaker 13>the damage that's being done to households is extreme enough

0:33:41.240 --> 0:33:44.200
<v Speaker 13>that will be guaranteeing inflation will be going where it

0:33:44.240 --> 0:33:47.920
<v Speaker 13>wants to. There's nothing like a pretty weak demand environment

0:33:48.240 --> 0:33:50.920
<v Speaker 13>to mean that some of that stickiness inflation actually becomes

0:33:50.960 --> 0:33:53.760
<v Speaker 13>a lot less sticky, and some of those price rises

0:33:53.880 --> 0:33:56.920
<v Speaker 13>or increases eroad a little bit fast than some are expecting.

0:33:57.080 --> 0:33:59.000
<v Speaker 13>We think that's where the economy is likely to go

0:33:59.040 --> 0:34:00.720
<v Speaker 13>down under the coming months.

0:34:00.800 --> 0:34:03.760
<v Speaker 12>So we've talked about the mortgage market, touched on households.

0:34:03.960 --> 0:34:06.720
<v Speaker 12>How are businesses feeling right now and what's showing up

0:34:06.760 --> 0:34:08.080
<v Speaker 12>when you look at the labor market.

0:34:08.160 --> 0:34:12.360
<v Speaker 13>Well, business confidence, it's okay, some of the conditions are soft.

0:34:12.680 --> 0:34:15.880
<v Speaker 13>We did get a reading from businesses about their investment

0:34:15.920 --> 0:34:19.919
<v Speaker 13>plans and they are actually indicating that things are very

0:34:20.000 --> 0:34:22.960
<v Speaker 13>very strong, quite good, especially in the non mining sector,

0:34:23.160 --> 0:34:25.160
<v Speaker 13>which is something that the RBA has been wanting to

0:34:25.160 --> 0:34:28.000
<v Speaker 13>see for close to a decade now, since the mining

0:34:28.000 --> 0:34:31.080
<v Speaker 13>of the previous mining boom peaked back in twenty twelve

0:34:31.120 --> 0:34:34.719
<v Speaker 13>twenty thirteen, looking for those non mining firms to step up.

0:34:35.040 --> 0:34:38.319
<v Speaker 13>A population boom has seen them step up, But we

0:34:38.360 --> 0:34:41.319
<v Speaker 13>are still at this point where I think that you know,

0:34:41.360 --> 0:34:44.359
<v Speaker 13>even though things are looking good, you can still have

0:34:44.440 --> 0:34:47.799
<v Speaker 13>a good old fashioned demand downturn that could see those

0:34:47.800 --> 0:34:52.520
<v Speaker 13>businesses decide that a prospective investment plan might not make sense,

0:34:52.800 --> 0:34:55.239
<v Speaker 13>and if they all pull back on mass with the

0:34:55.280 --> 0:34:58.680
<v Speaker 13>economy looking potentially a bit weaker than many might have suggested,

0:34:59.080 --> 0:35:03.000
<v Speaker 13>that's that's the RBA could create by staying too high

0:35:03.000 --> 0:35:04.759
<v Speaker 13>for too long, and it's one that we think that

0:35:04.760 --> 0:35:06.839
<v Speaker 13>they'll want to avoid. And that's why we think that

0:35:06.880 --> 0:35:09.480
<v Speaker 13>some of that softening on rates will come through, maybe

0:35:09.520 --> 0:35:12.719
<v Speaker 13>not this month, but definitely when we see them meet

0:35:12.760 --> 0:35:14.359
<v Speaker 13>again later in May.

0:35:14.520 --> 0:35:16.520
<v Speaker 12>Well, that was my next question. If you could kind

0:35:16.520 --> 0:35:19.560
<v Speaker 12>of lay out the pivoting. Let's accept your notion right

0:35:19.600 --> 0:35:22.879
<v Speaker 12>now and the notion that Bloomberg Economics is operating under,

0:35:23.120 --> 0:35:25.320
<v Speaker 12>which is that the cash rate will be held steady

0:35:25.440 --> 0:35:27.840
<v Speaker 12>at four point three five percent in the coming week

0:35:28.360 --> 0:35:31.760
<v Speaker 12>when it's time to pivot, can we talk about magnitude

0:35:31.800 --> 0:35:34.239
<v Speaker 12>and trajectory. What might that look like?

0:35:34.360 --> 0:35:36.360
<v Speaker 13>Look it really depends how the economy is shaping up.

0:35:36.440 --> 0:35:36.600
<v Speaker 3>Right.

0:35:36.680 --> 0:35:40.040
<v Speaker 13>We could have a scenario where if there is some

0:35:40.080 --> 0:35:42.240
<v Speaker 13>sort of shock that comes out of left field, obviously

0:35:42.239 --> 0:35:44.800
<v Speaker 13>not our base case, then we could see the RBA

0:35:44.920 --> 0:35:48.000
<v Speaker 13>move quite sharply. That's what they've done before, even with

0:35:48.080 --> 0:35:52.200
<v Speaker 13>inflation outcomes in the rear view mirror remaining quite high.

0:35:52.440 --> 0:35:55.800
<v Speaker 13>They still cut and cut aggressively. But let's talk about

0:35:56.160 --> 0:35:59.120
<v Speaker 13>not the kind of hypothetical risk case, but what is

0:35:59.680 --> 0:36:02.560
<v Speaker 13>more our base case scenario. Well, we see the RBA

0:36:02.719 --> 0:36:07.480
<v Speaker 13>beginning to deliver our more gradual twenty five basis points

0:36:07.520 --> 0:36:10.719
<v Speaker 13>maybe once a quarter hikes as sorry cuts, I should say,

0:36:11.080 --> 0:36:13.400
<v Speaker 13>as the easing cycle goes through. So we think that

0:36:13.840 --> 0:36:17.800
<v Speaker 13>could begin in May. However, the next sort of set

0:36:17.960 --> 0:36:21.000
<v Speaker 13>of opportunities we think would then be if they decide

0:36:21.040 --> 0:36:23.400
<v Speaker 13>to stay on hold in May and see what's going

0:36:23.400 --> 0:36:25.719
<v Speaker 13>on through the middle of the year in Australia, That

0:36:25.800 --> 0:36:29.680
<v Speaker 13>around about August could be the next opportunity. That February, May,

0:36:29.800 --> 0:36:32.320
<v Speaker 13>August and November they're those key meetings where the RBA

0:36:32.440 --> 0:36:35.879
<v Speaker 13>does their big quarterly forecast reviews, and we think that

0:36:35.960 --> 0:36:38.880
<v Speaker 13>once they do do the review this time around, it

0:36:38.880 --> 0:36:41.399
<v Speaker 13>could be enough to justify a cut. If not, we'll

0:36:41.440 --> 0:36:44.920
<v Speaker 13>see that cut coming in August and a steady stream

0:36:45.000 --> 0:36:48.759
<v Speaker 13>of ongoing twenty five basis point cuts. If there's no

0:36:49.160 --> 0:36:53.359
<v Speaker 13>emergency situation which suggesting that demand is really really weak

0:36:53.480 --> 0:36:55.160
<v Speaker 13>and they need to do a lot more and a

0:36:55.160 --> 0:36:56.080
<v Speaker 13>lot more in a hurry.

0:36:56.239 --> 0:36:58.960
<v Speaker 12>Great insights. James, thanks for stopping by to help us

0:36:58.960 --> 0:37:03.359
<v Speaker 12>set up the ring. In the coming week, Bloomberg's James McIntyre,

0:37:03.760 --> 0:37:08.000
<v Speaker 12>our economist covering Australia and New Zealand. I'm Doug Prisner.

0:37:08.000 --> 0:37:10.920
<v Speaker 12>You can join Brian Curtis and myself weekdays here from

0:37:10.920 --> 0:37:13.839
<v Speaker 12>Bloomberg day Break Asia, beginning at eight am in Hong

0:37:13.960 --> 0:37:16.360
<v Speaker 12>Kong eight pm on Wall Street.

0:37:16.600 --> 0:37:19.239
<v Speaker 1>Tom, Thank you, Doug, and that does it for this

0:37:19.400 --> 0:37:22.120
<v Speaker 1>edition of Bloomberg day Break Weekend. Join us again Monday

0:37:22.160 --> 0:37:24.240
<v Speaker 1>morning at five am Wall Street time for the latest

0:37:24.239 --> 0:37:26.680
<v Speaker 1>on markets overseas and the news you need to start

0:37:26.680 --> 0:37:29.600
<v Speaker 1>your day. I'm Tom Buzzby. Stay with us. Top stories

0:37:29.600 --> 0:37:32.000
<v Speaker 1>and global business headlines are coming up right now.