WEBVTT - Steve Rattner Talks Trump, Markets

0:00:02.440 --> 0:00:14.800
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. This is Wall Street Week.

0:00:14.840 --> 0:00:15.680
<v Speaker 1>I'm David Weston.

0:00:15.720 --> 0:00:19.000
<v Speaker 2>The attempted assassination of former President Trump and the tragic

0:00:19.000 --> 0:00:22.200
<v Speaker 2>shooting of innocent bystanders shook a nation already in the

0:00:22.200 --> 0:00:25.799
<v Speaker 2>throes of a tumultuous presidential campaign and added to the

0:00:25.800 --> 0:00:28.680
<v Speaker 2>momentum that mister Trump was already experiencing in the race.

0:00:29.000 --> 0:00:31.440
<v Speaker 2>Take us through the market reaction and what a second

0:00:31.520 --> 0:00:35.120
<v Speaker 2>term of a Trump presidency could mean for investors. Welcome now,

0:00:35.400 --> 0:00:38.880
<v Speaker 2>Stephen Rattner, chairman of Willed Advisors, which invests the personal

0:00:38.920 --> 0:00:42.720
<v Speaker 2>and philanthropic assets of Michael Bloomberg, our founder and majority shareholder.

0:00:43.120 --> 0:00:44.760
<v Speaker 2>I always a treat to have you here, Steve. Thank

0:00:44.760 --> 0:00:45.400
<v Speaker 2>you for coming back.

0:00:45.479 --> 0:00:46.480
<v Speaker 1>Thanks for having me, David.

0:00:46.640 --> 0:00:48.040
<v Speaker 2>So, one of the themes of this week is, so

0:00:48.080 --> 0:00:50.879
<v Speaker 2>this so called Trump trade, given what's going on, apparently

0:00:50.920 --> 0:00:52.519
<v Speaker 2>we don't know about what's going on. Apparently in the

0:00:52.560 --> 0:00:56.240
<v Speaker 2>campaign it seems like at least it's a substantial possibility

0:00:56.480 --> 0:00:59.120
<v Speaker 2>that Donald Trump will be our next president. What is

0:00:59.160 --> 0:01:01.120
<v Speaker 2>in the Trump trade? What are people reacting to in

0:01:01.160 --> 0:01:01.560
<v Speaker 2>the market.

0:01:01.760 --> 0:01:03.160
<v Speaker 3>Well, well, first of all, there's a number of different

0:01:03.160 --> 0:01:04.520
<v Speaker 3>things going on in the market at the moment. There

0:01:04.560 --> 0:01:06.240
<v Speaker 3>are a lot of cross currents and so forth. But

0:01:06.280 --> 0:01:08.280
<v Speaker 3>if we want to just focus on the Trump trade,

0:01:08.600 --> 0:01:11.800
<v Speaker 3>his probability of success is now close to seventy percent,

0:01:12.240 --> 0:01:14.760
<v Speaker 3>and that has made the market wake up and say, okay,

0:01:14.880 --> 0:01:17.240
<v Speaker 3>so what are we looking at? And so it really

0:01:17.800 --> 0:01:21.200
<v Speaker 3>spans a huge gamut of things, everything from gun manufacturers,

0:01:21.720 --> 0:01:24.240
<v Speaker 3>for profit education which thinks they're going to benefit if

0:01:24.280 --> 0:01:27.200
<v Speaker 3>he stops us through the loan forgiveness, to the GSS

0:01:27.240 --> 0:01:30.679
<v Speaker 3>Fanny and Freddie because maybe he won't, he won't take

0:01:30.720 --> 0:01:35.880
<v Speaker 3>the dividends sweep anymore, energy stocks, manufacturing companies that might

0:01:35.920 --> 0:01:39.400
<v Speaker 3>benefit from the tariffs, and so investors are rushing around

0:01:39.440 --> 0:01:41.800
<v Speaker 3>looking for all the different places they think they would

0:01:41.800 --> 0:01:44.000
<v Speaker 3>benefit from another Trump presidency.

0:01:44.160 --> 0:01:45.720
<v Speaker 2>One of the things I think we've seen is in

0:01:45.760 --> 0:01:49.080
<v Speaker 2>the bond curve, basically for treasuries, because there's a sense

0:01:49.080 --> 0:01:51.520
<v Speaker 2>that actually there's going to be higher rates out there

0:01:51.520 --> 0:01:53.880
<v Speaker 2>in the long end of the curve, which changes a

0:01:53.880 --> 0:01:56.760
<v Speaker 2>fair number of things. What is the possibility of a

0:01:56.840 --> 0:02:00.000
<v Speaker 2>Trump presidency with these economic policies leading to more inflation,

0:02:00.240 --> 0:02:02.160
<v Speaker 2>therefore the Fed baby having to raise rates again.

0:02:02.240 --> 0:02:04.400
<v Speaker 3>Well, the bond trades a little complicated because we did

0:02:04.440 --> 0:02:06.120
<v Speaker 3>have that good in the sense of being a slightly

0:02:06.160 --> 0:02:08.880
<v Speaker 3>soft jobs number, and the predicted number of FED rate

0:02:08.919 --> 0:02:11.680
<v Speaker 3>cuts is now up to something over two and therefore

0:02:11.800 --> 0:02:14.240
<v Speaker 3>the ten years started to come down. And now you

0:02:14.280 --> 0:02:16.480
<v Speaker 3>have the Trump piece layering on that, pushing it up

0:02:16.480 --> 0:02:18.799
<v Speaker 3>a little bit, but not hugely. But I don't think

0:02:18.800 --> 0:02:22.000
<v Speaker 3>there's a lot of doubt that his fiscal policies, as

0:02:22.040 --> 0:02:27.000
<v Speaker 3>expressed would be would be inflationary and therefore biased toward

0:02:27.080 --> 0:02:28.000
<v Speaker 3>higher interest rates.

0:02:28.240 --> 0:02:30.840
<v Speaker 2>So talk about that Tax Cutting Jobs Act specific We

0:02:30.840 --> 0:02:32.960
<v Speaker 2>had Scott Bessen on last week and he said, oh.

0:02:32.880 --> 0:02:33.600
<v Speaker 1>No, don't worry about it.

0:02:33.600 --> 0:02:35.240
<v Speaker 2>We're gonna save a lot of money. We're gonna save

0:02:35.240 --> 0:02:38.920
<v Speaker 2>a trillion dollars a year from the basically undoing the

0:02:38.919 --> 0:02:42.360
<v Speaker 2>Inflation Reduction Act. We're gonna save another trillion by redoing Medicare.

0:02:42.800 --> 0:02:44.920
<v Speaker 2>And now I will note that when President Trump had

0:02:44.919 --> 0:02:46.240
<v Speaker 2>came in the first time, he said they were going

0:02:46.280 --> 0:02:48.680
<v Speaker 2>to get rid of Obamacare. That would save us low money,

0:02:48.840 --> 0:02:50.760
<v Speaker 2>but one of the prospects that actually would cut back

0:02:50.800 --> 0:02:52.679
<v Speaker 2>into of the spending under the Bide administration.

0:02:52.720 --> 0:02:54.880
<v Speaker 3>Well, remember that we didn't get rid of Obamacare because

0:02:54.960 --> 0:02:58.440
<v Speaker 3>John McCain and because while he had technically had control

0:02:58.520 --> 0:03:01.880
<v Speaker 3>of both houses of Congress, lost a Republican that costs

0:03:01.919 --> 0:03:04.000
<v Speaker 3>him that. So a lot of this is going to

0:03:04.080 --> 0:03:06.800
<v Speaker 3>depend on what happens to Congress. If both houses of

0:03:06.840 --> 0:03:10.160
<v Speaker 3>Congress go Republican, then he's obviously got much more scope

0:03:10.320 --> 0:03:12.400
<v Speaker 3>to do a bunch of stuff. Whether he really would

0:03:12.440 --> 0:03:14.640
<v Speaker 3>do it or not, who knows. The record of the

0:03:14.680 --> 0:03:17.600
<v Speaker 3>first Trump presidency was not good from a fiscal point

0:03:17.600 --> 0:03:19.680
<v Speaker 3>of view. The deficit went up by hundreds of billions

0:03:19.720 --> 0:03:23.280
<v Speaker 3>of dollars before COVID ever arrived, in large part because

0:03:23.280 --> 0:03:26.040
<v Speaker 3>the TCJA never came close to paying for itself. It

0:03:26.080 --> 0:03:29.079
<v Speaker 3>was close to two trillion dollar costs with no offsets

0:03:29.080 --> 0:03:31.400
<v Speaker 3>in spending and no real revenues associated with it.

0:03:31.600 --> 0:03:33.920
<v Speaker 2>So that's all on the text, the revenue side, as

0:03:33.919 --> 0:03:36.320
<v Speaker 2>it were. What about tariffs? The one thing President Trouble

0:03:36.400 --> 0:03:39.360
<v Speaker 2>has always seemed to enjoy has been imposing tariffs, particularly

0:03:39.360 --> 0:03:42.000
<v Speaker 2>on China, but not only on China. Frankly, he likes tariffs.

0:03:42.120 --> 0:03:44.240
<v Speaker 2>That does, of course increase the cost to the consumers

0:03:44.240 --> 0:03:45.880
<v Speaker 2>and therefore I guess inflation.

0:03:46.000 --> 0:03:48.800
<v Speaker 3>Sure, And by the way, his last set of tariffs,

0:03:48.800 --> 0:03:51.000
<v Speaker 3>which were far less robust than what he's talking about

0:03:51.000 --> 0:03:53.000
<v Speaker 3>now rare. He's something like thirty billion of revenue. I

0:03:53.040 --> 0:03:54.920
<v Speaker 3>thought you were going to ask about revenue, very little

0:03:54.920 --> 0:03:56.160
<v Speaker 3>contribution to revenue.

0:03:56.480 --> 0:03:57.880
<v Speaker 1>The evidence is overwhelming.

0:03:58.440 --> 0:04:01.600
<v Speaker 3>Many economists have studied this that essentially one hundred percent

0:04:01.720 --> 0:04:03.720
<v Speaker 3>ninety five, one hundred and five percent something in that

0:04:03.760 --> 0:04:06.640
<v Speaker 3>ballpark was paid for by consumers. None of it was

0:04:06.640 --> 0:04:08.840
<v Speaker 3>paid for by China. Maybe a little of it came

0:04:08.840 --> 0:04:11.160
<v Speaker 3>out of the companies in terms of profit margins, but

0:04:11.280 --> 0:04:14.160
<v Speaker 3>essentially it was paid for by consumers and was therefore inflationary.

0:04:14.200 --> 0:04:16.640
<v Speaker 3>Now they were very limited tariffs. Start talking about ten

0:04:16.680 --> 0:04:18.960
<v Speaker 3>percent across the board on all imports, you're in a

0:04:19.000 --> 0:04:19.719
<v Speaker 3>different ballgame.

0:04:19.800 --> 0:04:21.279
<v Speaker 2>Well, we talked about inflation. One of the things we

0:04:21.520 --> 0:04:23.080
<v Speaker 2>naturally think about is the feder reserve.

0:04:23.160 --> 0:04:25.479
<v Speaker 1>It's their job. Actually, it has price stability.

0:04:25.560 --> 0:04:28.880
<v Speaker 2>Right. There's a lot of speculation, not necessarily coming from

0:04:28.960 --> 0:04:32.760
<v Speaker 2>Donald Trump himself, it's from people around him like Peter.

0:04:32.600 --> 0:04:34.559
<v Speaker 1>Navarro who talked about firing J. Powell.

0:04:34.920 --> 0:04:37.400
<v Speaker 2>But what are the prospects of really undermining to some

0:04:37.480 --> 0:04:38.960
<v Speaker 2>extent the independence of the Fed.

0:04:39.400 --> 0:04:43.000
<v Speaker 3>That's to me incredibly scary. I think the independence of

0:04:43.000 --> 0:04:45.760
<v Speaker 3>the Fed. They don't get everything right, they got inflation wrong.

0:04:45.800 --> 0:04:47.760
<v Speaker 3>Will stipulate to that they got some stuff wrong in

0:04:47.760 --> 0:04:50.599
<v Speaker 3>twenty nineteen. They may have gotten some stuff wrong coming

0:04:50.600 --> 0:04:52.479
<v Speaker 3>out of the GFC, although they did a great job

0:04:52.560 --> 0:04:56.080
<v Speaker 3>generally in the GFC. But let's just stipulate independence of

0:04:56.080 --> 0:04:59.359
<v Speaker 3>the FED is critical and central to our economic success.

0:04:59.440 --> 0:05:01.919
<v Speaker 3>There's no sands or butts about that. You would not

0:05:01.960 --> 0:05:03.880
<v Speaker 3>want the Congress or the White House in charge of

0:05:03.880 --> 0:05:06.920
<v Speaker 3>monetary policy. And so any step to undermine the FED

0:05:06.960 --> 0:05:09.920
<v Speaker 3>by any president of either party should be something that

0:05:09.960 --> 0:05:12.000
<v Speaker 3>we all push back as strongly as possible.

0:05:13.040 --> 0:05:15.600
<v Speaker 2>So overall, why do we find so many investors who

0:05:15.640 --> 0:05:18.919
<v Speaker 2>are backing President Trump giving everything you just said? What

0:05:19.000 --> 0:05:20.479
<v Speaker 2>do you see they don't or what do they see

0:05:20.520 --> 0:05:20.919
<v Speaker 2>you don't?

0:05:21.320 --> 0:05:23.680
<v Speaker 3>They have a variety of reasons that I understand their reasons.

0:05:23.920 --> 0:05:26.359
<v Speaker 3>For example, one of the biggest reasons you hear is

0:05:26.400 --> 0:05:29.279
<v Speaker 3>the regulatory stuff. There's no question, and now, in fairness

0:05:29.279 --> 0:05:31.600
<v Speaker 3>to the President, although he appointed these people, they are

0:05:31.640 --> 0:05:34.840
<v Speaker 3>independent regulatory agencies. But nonetheless a lot of what the

0:05:34.880 --> 0:05:36.880
<v Speaker 3>FTC has been trying to do, a lot of what

0:05:36.960 --> 0:05:39.240
<v Speaker 3>the SEC has been trying to do, even the FCC,

0:05:39.320 --> 0:05:43.440
<v Speaker 3>the FDA really has upset business, and they simply feel

0:05:43.480 --> 0:05:46.200
<v Speaker 3>that this president is too progressive, and they feel that

0:05:46.240 --> 0:05:49.240
<v Speaker 3>his vice president, should she become president, is even more progressive,

0:05:49.600 --> 0:05:50.560
<v Speaker 3>and they don't like any of that.

0:05:50.960 --> 0:05:52.719
<v Speaker 1>And there are other reasons, but that's a good.

0:05:52.600 --> 0:05:55.039
<v Speaker 3>Example, maybe the main example of what they They just

0:05:55.120 --> 0:05:58.000
<v Speaker 3>don't think this is a pro business administration. I would say,

0:05:58.040 --> 0:06:01.240
<v Speaker 3>even though I do support the president, acting businessmen with

0:06:01.320 --> 0:06:03.960
<v Speaker 3>some regularity is really not the way to get their support.

0:06:04.080 --> 0:06:05.839
<v Speaker 1>I don't think. That's not what my mother taught me.

0:06:06.880 --> 0:06:09.359
<v Speaker 2>Fair No, okay, Steve, I'm delighted to say he's going

0:06:09.400 --> 0:06:10.960
<v Speaker 2>to be staying with us as we turn to the

0:06:11.000 --> 0:06:13.719
<v Speaker 2>rest of the world, particularly whether investors might be falling

0:06:13.720 --> 0:06:16.560
<v Speaker 2>out of love with the so called Magnificent seven. That's

0:06:16.640 --> 0:06:29.760
<v Speaker 2>nextell Wall Street Week on Bloomberg. This is Wall Street Week.

0:06:29.839 --> 0:06:32.200
<v Speaker 2>I'm David Weston. Stephen Ratner of will It Advisors has

0:06:32.200 --> 0:06:34.159
<v Speaker 2>stayed with us. So see, let's talk about the rest

0:06:34.160 --> 0:06:37.280
<v Speaker 2>of the world as it were, and particularly those big

0:06:37.400 --> 0:06:39.520
<v Speaker 2>tech companies that have been getting so much money with

0:06:39.800 --> 0:06:42.880
<v Speaker 2>huge I would say huge capital investment about AI.

0:06:43.839 --> 0:06:46.039
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, look, those companies have had a great run.

0:06:46.080 --> 0:06:48.640
<v Speaker 3>Obviously in Vidia we all know about, but Microsoft, Google

0:06:48.680 --> 0:06:52.640
<v Speaker 3>and so forth Amazon, And the question really is whether

0:06:53.320 --> 0:06:57.760
<v Speaker 3>the market is valuing this situation appropriately. You're talking about

0:06:58.000 --> 0:07:01.599
<v Speaker 3>massive cap X by on estimates anywhere from six hundred

0:07:01.640 --> 0:07:04.640
<v Speaker 3>billion to one point two trillion dollars per year on

0:07:04.680 --> 0:07:07.120
<v Speaker 3>this kind of stuff. And the question the market is

0:07:07.160 --> 0:07:09.400
<v Speaker 3>starting to ask itself is are the revenues going to

0:07:09.400 --> 0:07:13.000
<v Speaker 3>be there to offset it? And that cap X is

0:07:13.040 --> 0:07:15.080
<v Speaker 3>not just a cash expense, but it runs through the

0:07:15.080 --> 0:07:18.040
<v Speaker 3>income statement and depreciation and so forth, and so.

0:07:17.960 --> 0:07:19.040
<v Speaker 1>It affects their margins.

0:07:19.080 --> 0:07:22.160
<v Speaker 3>It affects their profits, and you have to earn You

0:07:22.240 --> 0:07:24.840
<v Speaker 3>have to create a huge amount of revenue to justify

0:07:24.880 --> 0:07:27.520
<v Speaker 3>the magnitude of the cap X that is going on

0:07:27.600 --> 0:07:28.400
<v Speaker 3>right as we speak.

0:07:28.680 --> 0:07:31.160
<v Speaker 2>So see back in the olden days at capsities, for gimer,

0:07:31.160 --> 0:07:33.280
<v Speaker 2>when I was running budgets, if I had a capital expense,

0:07:33.320 --> 0:07:35.200
<v Speaker 2>I had to show what the projections were about when

0:07:35.280 --> 0:07:37.560
<v Speaker 2>I would save that money back just what And we

0:07:37.640 --> 0:07:39.600
<v Speaker 2>usually had a rule about a couple of years, maybe

0:07:39.600 --> 0:07:41.200
<v Speaker 2>two and a half years, we had to earn it back.

0:07:41.640 --> 0:07:44.560
<v Speaker 2>Is anybody taking pencil and paper, if they have it anymore,

0:07:44.680 --> 0:07:47.360
<v Speaker 2>and doing that with AI, Is anybody actually thinking about

0:07:47.440 --> 0:07:49.320
<v Speaker 2>where do we really see this in the real economy

0:07:49.320 --> 0:07:50.960
<v Speaker 2>in terms of increased productivity.

0:07:51.000 --> 0:07:53.320
<v Speaker 3>Well, that's exactly what's happening now to some degree, and

0:07:53.360 --> 0:07:55.120
<v Speaker 3>why you're starting to see a bit of a rotation.

0:07:55.160 --> 0:07:57.320
<v Speaker 3>It might be just a mean reversion after a big run.

0:07:57.520 --> 0:07:59.240
<v Speaker 3>It might be people doing what you talk about, but

0:07:59.320 --> 0:08:01.760
<v Speaker 3>people are doing it. And by the way, this is

0:08:01.760 --> 0:08:04.640
<v Speaker 3>a very debated subject. There's not a preponderance of view

0:08:04.840 --> 0:08:06.480
<v Speaker 3>on one side or the other. And I don't even

0:08:06.520 --> 0:08:09.760
<v Speaker 3>frankly have conviction myself. I think you could argue either way,

0:08:10.000 --> 0:08:12.280
<v Speaker 3>although I think the numbers are pretty daunting. But what

0:08:12.400 --> 0:08:14.520
<v Speaker 3>you're starting to see the analysts do is exactly what

0:08:14.560 --> 0:08:17.120
<v Speaker 3>you said. They're starting to pencil into their projections. This

0:08:17.160 --> 0:08:19.160
<v Speaker 3>is the level of capex, this is a level of

0:08:19.240 --> 0:08:21.520
<v Speaker 3>depreciation we're going to be taking for it. This is

0:08:21.520 --> 0:08:23.840
<v Speaker 3>the amount of revenue we have to generate to justify

0:08:23.840 --> 0:08:26.000
<v Speaker 3>that and achieve the kind of paybacks you're talking about.

0:08:26.240 --> 0:08:28.400
<v Speaker 1>And you say to yourself, is this really plausible?

0:08:28.680 --> 0:08:30.600
<v Speaker 3>Are we really going to you know, is Microsoft really

0:08:30.600 --> 0:08:32.599
<v Speaker 3>going to be able to generate thirty billion dollars of

0:08:32.679 --> 0:08:35.520
<v Speaker 3>revenue from AI? I think that's actually a roughly right number.

0:08:35.520 --> 0:08:37.960
<v Speaker 3>In the next over the two years from now, and

0:08:38.360 --> 0:08:40.720
<v Speaker 3>given that at the moment this stuff is essentially free,

0:08:40.760 --> 0:08:42.719
<v Speaker 3>you might pay ten dollars a month for this or that,

0:08:43.200 --> 0:08:45.520
<v Speaker 3>it's a real open question whether those kind of revenues

0:08:45.559 --> 0:08:45.920
<v Speaker 3>are there.

0:08:46.080 --> 0:08:47.600
<v Speaker 1>Let me just make one other point, which is.

0:08:47.559 --> 0:08:51.040
<v Speaker 3>That if you think back on the success of Microsoft, Google, Facebook,

0:08:51.160 --> 0:08:53.520
<v Speaker 3>they were essentially software companies. I mean, there was certainly

0:08:53.520 --> 0:08:56.160
<v Speaker 3>some Capex involved in that, but nothing on the scale

0:08:56.160 --> 0:08:58.439
<v Speaker 3>of what we're talking about here. And so we're in

0:08:58.480 --> 0:09:00.319
<v Speaker 3>a whole different world, a whole different boat all game

0:09:00.360 --> 0:09:02.600
<v Speaker 3>for these companies. And by the way, it's also a

0:09:02.600 --> 0:09:05.520
<v Speaker 3>competitive ballgame. Open AI is not going to own all

0:09:05.559 --> 0:09:08.680
<v Speaker 3>of AI. Microsoft is not going to own all of AI.

0:09:09.040 --> 0:09:10.760
<v Speaker 3>It's going to be very They all have to protect

0:09:10.800 --> 0:09:12.839
<v Speaker 3>their market share and it's going to be a pretty

0:09:12.840 --> 0:09:13.600
<v Speaker 3>competitive world.

0:09:13.840 --> 0:09:15.520
<v Speaker 2>So, Steve, I'm never going to ask you about specific

0:09:15.600 --> 0:09:17.800
<v Speaker 2>investments that you're making or not making it, but just

0:09:17.880 --> 0:09:21.080
<v Speaker 2>attitude investor. When you're looking at this phenomenon, you're looking

0:09:21.080 --> 0:09:23.160
<v Speaker 2>at the NVIDIAs of this world, and Microsoft and others

0:09:23.480 --> 0:09:26.240
<v Speaker 2>just take off like a rocket ship. It must be

0:09:26.320 --> 0:09:28.480
<v Speaker 2>difficult to stay out of it. I mean, if you're

0:09:28.559 --> 0:09:30.160
<v Speaker 2>running a big fund or something like that when you're

0:09:30.160 --> 0:09:33.120
<v Speaker 2>seeing the fear of being left behind must be enormous.

0:09:33.160 --> 0:09:34.800
<v Speaker 2>But what do you do when you don't know whether

0:09:34.840 --> 0:09:36.280
<v Speaker 2>it's going to work or not going to work?

0:09:37.160 --> 0:09:40.120
<v Speaker 3>Yes, this has been a challenge for active investors this

0:09:40.240 --> 0:09:43.640
<v Speaker 3>year because these big companies Microsoft is something like a

0:09:43.679 --> 0:09:46.480
<v Speaker 3>seven point three or seven point five percent waiting in

0:09:46.520 --> 0:09:49.680
<v Speaker 3>the SMP. Very few money managers have a seven percent

0:09:49.720 --> 0:09:53.360
<v Speaker 3>position in anything, and so it's very when you know,

0:09:53.400 --> 0:09:55.880
<v Speaker 3>you know the numbers, when you disaggregate the magnificent seven

0:09:55.920 --> 0:09:58.280
<v Speaker 3>from the rest of the market, what the differences are,

0:09:58.320 --> 0:10:00.520
<v Speaker 3>and so it's been very tough for active ma That's

0:10:00.520 --> 0:10:03.280
<v Speaker 3>point one point two is Look, this is no different

0:10:03.280 --> 0:10:06.240
<v Speaker 3>than any other investment. You do your best work, you

0:10:06.280 --> 0:10:07.960
<v Speaker 3>figure it out as best you can, and you make

0:10:07.960 --> 0:10:11.240
<v Speaker 3>a bet and sometimes you're right, sometimes you're wrong. I

0:10:11.280 --> 0:10:13.679
<v Speaker 3>would say we tend to be pretty conservative in our

0:10:13.760 --> 0:10:15.960
<v Speaker 3>view of this stuff, and a little bit of the

0:10:16.040 --> 0:10:18.760
<v Speaker 3>view that we've seen some of these movies before and

0:10:18.840 --> 0:10:21.280
<v Speaker 3>we want to be a little careful about piling in,

0:10:21.400 --> 0:10:23.040
<v Speaker 3>especially late in the game.

0:10:23.520 --> 0:10:26.840
<v Speaker 2>Is there a risk that the enormous success of that

0:10:26.880 --> 0:10:28.840
<v Speaker 2>Magnificent seven what are you going to call them, is

0:10:28.960 --> 0:10:32.120
<v Speaker 2>masking other weakness in stock markets. As you say, you

0:10:32.120 --> 0:10:33.720
<v Speaker 2>look at the rest of the market, it has not

0:10:33.840 --> 0:10:35.840
<v Speaker 2>done all that well. And yet we tend to gloss

0:10:35.840 --> 0:10:37.520
<v Speaker 2>over that and say a bit market and the aggregate

0:10:37.520 --> 0:10:38.280
<v Speaker 2>boys doing great.

0:10:38.400 --> 0:10:39.400
<v Speaker 1>It's totally masking it.

0:10:39.440 --> 0:10:41.880
<v Speaker 3>If you take the magnificent seven out and you start

0:10:41.920 --> 0:10:45.360
<v Speaker 3>looking at some sectors, especially things like manufacturing, industrial stuff

0:10:45.400 --> 0:10:48.240
<v Speaker 3>like that. Markets actually had a pretty poor run over

0:10:48.240 --> 0:10:50.600
<v Speaker 3>the last certainly this year and even I think last year,

0:10:50.920 --> 0:10:53.560
<v Speaker 3>and so yes, I think we're starting to see when

0:10:53.559 --> 0:10:58.000
<v Speaker 3>we listen to companies, we listen to our managers, we

0:10:58.040 --> 0:11:00.560
<v Speaker 3>are starting to see signs of softness in the economy

0:11:00.559 --> 0:11:04.000
<v Speaker 3>on the consumer side, on the manufacturing side, and so forth.

0:11:04.120 --> 0:11:06.160
<v Speaker 3>I don't think the economy is falling out of bed,

0:11:06.559 --> 0:11:09.599
<v Speaker 3>but we definitely are in the later stages of an expansion.

0:11:09.840 --> 0:11:12.080
<v Speaker 2>Let me ask about an ancillary part to the AI.

0:11:12.120 --> 0:11:14.439
<v Speaker 2>If I we talk about Nvidia and much of the things,

0:11:14.760 --> 0:11:19.360
<v Speaker 2>but the power required to drive this general AI is enormous.

0:11:19.400 --> 0:11:21.440
<v Speaker 2>I mean, I'm hearing stories now. They're just really in

0:11:21.440 --> 0:11:23.439
<v Speaker 2>a lot of story and that's really driving a lot

0:11:23.440 --> 0:11:26.400
<v Speaker 2>of demand for power. Is that an investment opportunity?

0:11:26.840 --> 0:11:31.000
<v Speaker 3>We have invested around this opportunity. I would say modestly.

0:11:31.040 --> 0:11:33.160
<v Speaker 3>We were actually kind of early to it. Others have

0:11:33.240 --> 0:11:34.600
<v Speaker 3>now caught on to it. And if you look at

0:11:34.640 --> 0:11:37.640
<v Speaker 3>the stocks, for example, of nuclear utilities that have less

0:11:37.679 --> 0:11:40.480
<v Speaker 3>regulated power and also clean power, which is important to

0:11:40.480 --> 0:11:43.560
<v Speaker 3>these hyperscalers, they've shot up. I think people have woken

0:11:43.640 --> 0:11:47.360
<v Speaker 3>up to the fact that the conventional projections of electricity

0:11:47.400 --> 0:11:50.400
<v Speaker 3>demand over the next five to ten years we're ridiculously

0:11:50.440 --> 0:11:53.120
<v Speaker 3>conservative relative to what's going to happen, and we're going

0:11:53.160 --> 0:11:55.040
<v Speaker 3>to face a major I believe we're going to face

0:11:55.040 --> 0:11:59.040
<v Speaker 3>a significant power crunch in this country unless we do something,

0:11:59.080 --> 0:12:02.000
<v Speaker 3>and so running to the conflict between the desire to

0:12:02.080 --> 0:12:04.439
<v Speaker 3>reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and.

0:12:04.400 --> 0:12:06.360
<v Speaker 1>The need for power that's right in front of us.

0:12:06.360 --> 0:12:07.840
<v Speaker 2>That's just what I was going to ask, because this

0:12:07.920 --> 0:12:10.480
<v Speaker 2>goes right against the need to deal with the climate

0:12:10.640 --> 0:12:12.960
<v Speaker 2>where we were trying to give up the fossil fuels,

0:12:12.960 --> 0:12:14.720
<v Speaker 2>and this drives us back into it. Unless you go,

0:12:14.760 --> 0:12:18.319
<v Speaker 2>for example, the nuclear maybe there's small modular reactors.

0:12:18.440 --> 0:12:20.120
<v Speaker 3>As you know, I think you may even talk about

0:12:20.120 --> 0:12:21.760
<v Speaker 3>on your show. Bill Gates has a project I think

0:12:21.760 --> 0:12:24.920
<v Speaker 3>out in Wyoming or someplace to build not a small reactor,

0:12:24.920 --> 0:12:29.480
<v Speaker 3>but a new technology that involves less less heat and

0:12:29.640 --> 0:12:32.160
<v Speaker 3>less water and so on and so forth. But it's

0:12:32.160 --> 0:12:33.640
<v Speaker 3>going to be done in twenty thirty. He doesn't have

0:12:33.640 --> 0:12:36.000
<v Speaker 3>a permit for it. So we're a long way. I

0:12:36.360 --> 0:12:39.440
<v Speaker 3>think we're a long way from nuclear happening. It could happen.

0:12:39.679 --> 0:12:42.120
<v Speaker 3>I think the technology is there, whether it's small nuclear

0:12:42.120 --> 0:12:45.240
<v Speaker 3>reactors or different kinds of nuclear technology, but I see

0:12:45.320 --> 0:12:48.040
<v Speaker 3>no support at all from people to do it. And

0:12:48.120 --> 0:12:50.560
<v Speaker 3>so the result is we're going to have probably some

0:12:50.720 --> 0:12:52.680
<v Speaker 3>coal staying around longer than any of us would like,

0:12:53.080 --> 0:12:57.080
<v Speaker 3>probably building more what it called ccgts natural gas generating

0:12:57.120 --> 0:13:00.520
<v Speaker 3>facilities in order to support the renewables, because obviously the

0:13:00.520 --> 0:13:02.600
<v Speaker 3>sun doesn't always shine, the wind doesn't always blow. We

0:13:02.640 --> 0:13:04.960
<v Speaker 3>all know that, so you have to have baseload power.

0:13:05.360 --> 0:13:07.079
<v Speaker 3>And we're going to find that we are doing more

0:13:07.120 --> 0:13:08.960
<v Speaker 3>with fossil fuels than any of us would like.

0:13:09.320 --> 0:13:11.120
<v Speaker 2>So so find as Steve gives us. Because you're a

0:13:11.160 --> 0:13:14.040
<v Speaker 2>long term investor, you're looking out their ways and you

0:13:14.080 --> 0:13:16.720
<v Speaker 2>look at the economy overall, and we've had extraordinary time

0:13:16.720 --> 0:13:19.160
<v Speaker 2>of growth from World War Two on, but certainly in

0:13:19.160 --> 0:13:22.240
<v Speaker 2>the last thirty years or so that's been challenged. More recently,

0:13:22.800 --> 0:13:25.319
<v Speaker 2>productivity has sort of backed off a bit. Maybe it's

0:13:25.320 --> 0:13:28.120
<v Speaker 2>coming back or maybe not. As you look long term,

0:13:28.320 --> 0:13:30.959
<v Speaker 2>what do you think of the opportunities for an investor

0:13:31.000 --> 0:13:33.160
<v Speaker 2>in the economy. What do you think are likely to

0:13:33.200 --> 0:13:34.840
<v Speaker 2>be with us for a while and really grow.

0:13:35.520 --> 0:13:37.080
<v Speaker 3>You have to have a view about some of the

0:13:37.080 --> 0:13:40.720
<v Speaker 3>things you just said. We definitely the real problem in

0:13:40.720 --> 0:13:44.320
<v Speaker 3>the economy is slow productivity growth. In my opinion, there's

0:13:44.360 --> 0:13:48.280
<v Speaker 3>a decent chance that AI will change that. It could

0:13:48.320 --> 0:13:50.800
<v Speaker 3>be like the Industrial Revolution or lots of other periods

0:13:50.840 --> 0:13:53.839
<v Speaker 3>in our past where we really get a transformational kind

0:13:53.840 --> 0:13:56.320
<v Speaker 3>of change, and that would really be good for all

0:13:56.400 --> 0:13:59.920
<v Speaker 3>kinds of businesses, whether manufacturing business, consumer businesses and so forth.

0:14:00.679 --> 0:14:03.120
<v Speaker 3>And so that to me is really the most interesting

0:14:03.200 --> 0:14:05.560
<v Speaker 3>thing in front of us. Hard to invest around for

0:14:05.600 --> 0:14:08.280
<v Speaker 3>all the reasons we talked about, But beyond that, I

0:14:08.320 --> 0:14:11.720
<v Speaker 3>can't tell you there's a particular sector that I would

0:14:11.760 --> 0:14:14.400
<v Speaker 3>focus on as being the place to go. I do

0:14:14.480 --> 0:14:16.880
<v Speaker 3>worry a lot in terms of economic challenges about the

0:14:16.880 --> 0:14:19.720
<v Speaker 3>budget deficit, the impact on interest rates, the fact that

0:14:19.720 --> 0:14:21.160
<v Speaker 3>we are going to have to deal with this sooner

0:14:21.240 --> 0:14:24.760
<v Speaker 3>or later. But at the moment, I think we're actually

0:14:24.760 --> 0:14:25.680
<v Speaker 3>not in a terrible place.

0:14:26.120 --> 0:14:28.160
<v Speaker 2>Okay, Steve, it's such a treat you have you here.

0:14:28.200 --> 0:14:30.680
<v Speaker 2>Thank you so much that it's Stephen Rattner of will

0:14:30.680 --> 0:14:31.360
<v Speaker 2>It Advisors