WEBVTT - NAFTA Decision will be Market Moving, Haines Says

0:00:09.840 --> 0:00:13.800
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane Jailey.

0:00:13.960 --> 0:00:17.560
<v Speaker 1>We bring you insight from the best in economics, finance, investment,

0:00:18.000 --> 0:00:23.480
<v Speaker 1>and international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

0:00:23.600 --> 0:00:33.760
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg dot Com, and of course, on the Bloomberg Let's

0:00:33.760 --> 0:00:36.599
<v Speaker 1>turn our attention now to the State of the Union message.

0:00:36.640 --> 0:00:38.440
<v Speaker 1>I know that a lot of people are waiting for this,

0:00:38.520 --> 0:00:41.200
<v Speaker 1>and Chris Rupki is among them. He is the chief

0:00:41.200 --> 0:00:45.879
<v Speaker 1>financial economist for m u f G Union Bank and

0:00:46.159 --> 0:00:49.680
<v Speaker 1>he joins us here in our studio. Chris Rupki, great

0:00:49.680 --> 0:00:52.559
<v Speaker 1>to have you here. So what kind of economy? What

0:00:52.680 --> 0:00:56.080
<v Speaker 1>kind of economy is? Is the president going to be? Uh?

0:00:56.120 --> 0:00:58.800
<v Speaker 1>What kind of economy do we have? While the president

0:00:58.880 --> 0:01:02.560
<v Speaker 1>speaks no, it was interesting. I remember during the campaign,

0:01:02.720 --> 0:01:07.360
<v Speaker 1>five percent unemployment was phony. He wouldn't be getting people

0:01:07.640 --> 0:01:11.000
<v Speaker 1>into the stadiums if unemployment was really five percent. But

0:01:11.080 --> 0:01:14.600
<v Speaker 1>now the president's crowing about how well the economy is

0:01:14.600 --> 0:01:18.240
<v Speaker 1>doing with unemployment rate at four point one and saying,

0:01:18.319 --> 0:01:21.000
<v Speaker 1>but what do you say, it's good? Yeah, it's it's

0:01:21.040 --> 0:01:24.080
<v Speaker 1>full employment. It's like, why did we do uh, tax

0:01:24.120 --> 0:01:26.920
<v Speaker 1>cuts and Jobs Act? I mean, we've never seen another

0:01:26.959 --> 0:01:33.000
<v Speaker 1>administration in history probably do fiscal stimulus tax cuts unless

0:01:33.000 --> 0:01:35.319
<v Speaker 1>we're in a recession. Why are we getting tax cuts?

0:01:35.319 --> 0:01:39.200
<v Speaker 1>By the way, I haven't seen my time. I think

0:01:39.200 --> 0:01:41.280
<v Speaker 1>it's coming at the end of this week, so I'll

0:01:41.280 --> 0:01:43.240
<v Speaker 1>take a look at it. You should be I'm excited,

0:01:43.720 --> 0:01:46.000
<v Speaker 1>you'd be excited a little bit more in the envelope. Well,

0:01:46.040 --> 0:01:49.040
<v Speaker 1>every time you hear about a company releasing its results,

0:01:49.120 --> 0:01:51.240
<v Speaker 1>they say that there's a little bit more in the envelope.

0:01:51.680 --> 0:01:55.240
<v Speaker 1>Is that not for someone at my level? That's exactly right?

0:01:55.960 --> 0:01:58.240
<v Speaker 1>So can you can you sort of opine about that,

0:01:58.320 --> 0:02:00.600
<v Speaker 1>because you know, you can spend all a talking about

0:02:00.600 --> 0:02:03.280
<v Speaker 1>whether they're going to do a dividend increase or share

0:02:03.400 --> 0:02:06.600
<v Speaker 1>buy back, or maybe they'll pay their workers a little Well,

0:02:06.800 --> 0:02:09.800
<v Speaker 1>we've kind of seen this before, right, What did companies

0:02:09.880 --> 0:02:12.560
<v Speaker 1>do when they get the money? They usually reward their

0:02:12.600 --> 0:02:16.919
<v Speaker 1>shareholders dividends, share buy backs. But yeah, they've been doing

0:02:16.960 --> 0:02:21.239
<v Speaker 1>some good. Pr been giving out some thousand dollar bonuses

0:02:21.320 --> 0:02:24.600
<v Speaker 1>to thousands of their employees, if not the upper levels

0:02:24.639 --> 0:02:27.840
<v Speaker 1>of management. So it's good. I mean, I can't say

0:02:27.840 --> 0:02:32.280
<v Speaker 1>it's it's not good in terms of money wherever it

0:02:32.320 --> 0:02:35.600
<v Speaker 1>comes from. If money circulates in the economy. We're going

0:02:35.680 --> 0:02:38.839
<v Speaker 1>to get some kind of growth. We can't say no.

0:02:39.040 --> 0:02:43.360
<v Speaker 1>It's just that usually Washington with a twenty trillion dollar

0:02:43.680 --> 0:02:47.280
<v Speaker 1>national debt, they would be doing this sort of deficit spending.

0:02:47.320 --> 0:02:49.920
<v Speaker 1>It is deficit spending, right, It's not as if we

0:02:49.919 --> 0:02:52.800
<v Speaker 1>don't have the money. But we're going to print it, right,

0:02:53.080 --> 0:02:55.519
<v Speaker 1>isn't that Well, they're going to issue bonds. That's sort

0:02:55.560 --> 0:02:59.799
<v Speaker 1>of like printing. It's like, why, why now, why are

0:02:59.800 --> 0:03:03.880
<v Speaker 1>we English? I just don't I don't quite get it. Alright,

0:03:03.919 --> 0:03:06.200
<v Speaker 1>So alright, head time I want to jump into we

0:03:06.200 --> 0:03:09.320
<v Speaker 1>get some breaking news. Here's the headline within the press release.

0:03:09.400 --> 0:03:13.119
<v Speaker 1>I love this hungry tape. Hungry Tapeworm was such a

0:03:13.160 --> 0:03:16.280
<v Speaker 1>good band. They'd play Grand Funk Railroad like no one.

0:03:16.600 --> 0:03:21.679
<v Speaker 1>The ballooning costs of healthcare act as a hungry tapeworm

0:03:22.200 --> 0:03:27.679
<v Speaker 1>on the American economy. There's the headline from Amazon, Berkshire,

0:03:27.720 --> 0:03:31.240
<v Speaker 1>haths Away and J See we did that in stereo.

0:03:31.720 --> 0:03:34.640
<v Speaker 1>We do that, Pim and I can do that anyways.

0:03:34.760 --> 0:03:38.040
<v Speaker 1>It's it's a really interesting headline talking about rip up

0:03:38.040 --> 0:03:41.920
<v Speaker 1>the script. Amazon, Berkshire, Hathaway, JP Morgan going to form

0:03:41.960 --> 0:03:45.320
<v Speaker 1>a healthcare company to go after the hungry taper Chris Rupki,

0:03:45.480 --> 0:03:49.640
<v Speaker 1>how much is healthcare is a percent of our jullion

0:03:49.680 --> 0:03:54.400
<v Speaker 1>dollar economy? Is it six or is it actually more? Well,

0:03:54.440 --> 0:03:58.800
<v Speaker 1>I mean more, and I don't have that at my fingertips,

0:03:58.920 --> 0:04:07.120
<v Speaker 1>but it is interesting the FEDS PC inflation core PC inflation.

0:04:07.640 --> 0:04:13.160
<v Speaker 1>A huge weight of that is healthcare. It's like, so

0:04:13.600 --> 0:04:17.360
<v Speaker 1>you mean to tell me financially, yeah, not even psy

0:04:18.960 --> 0:04:23.520
<v Speaker 1>of your budget, of the nation's budget ex. Food and energy.

0:04:23.600 --> 0:04:28.080
<v Speaker 1>After that is healthcare, and then it's ginormous pim Fox

0:04:28.080 --> 0:04:31.960
<v Speaker 1>A key paragraph here with Todd Coombs, Uh, Marvel Selivanberg

0:04:32.040 --> 0:04:36.920
<v Speaker 1>Told and Beth Galletti of Amazon, the three major officers,

0:04:36.960 --> 0:04:42.320
<v Speaker 1>a headquarters location and key operational details will be communicated

0:04:42.800 --> 0:04:47.080
<v Speaker 1>to take on the hungry tapeworm. The hungry tapeworm, Well,

0:04:47.560 --> 0:04:49.800
<v Speaker 1>they say that they're going to provide US employees and

0:04:49.800 --> 0:04:54.280
<v Speaker 1>their families was simplified, high quality, transparent healthcare. The thing

0:04:54.320 --> 0:04:56.080
<v Speaker 1>I would note, though, is that there is no healthcare

0:04:56.160 --> 0:05:00.480
<v Speaker 1>company in this transpriate no no. And Richard Truman mentions

0:05:00.560 --> 0:05:04.080
<v Speaker 1>the United Healthcare Trading Lower Office. To summarize, folks, because

0:05:04.080 --> 0:05:06.320
<v Speaker 1>we went into it a little bit quickly. You're trying

0:05:06.360 --> 0:05:09.440
<v Speaker 1>to get the news to Amazon. Berkshire Hathaway and JP

0:05:09.560 --> 0:05:16.400
<v Speaker 1>Morgan Chase to partner on US employee healthcare. The sub

0:05:16.400 --> 0:05:22.280
<v Speaker 1>beheading is goal is to improve US employee satisfaction while

0:05:22.320 --> 0:05:24.600
<v Speaker 1>reducing costs. I mean, that's the spin. They want their

0:05:24.600 --> 0:05:28.080
<v Speaker 1>employees to be happier with their coverage. But it's a

0:05:28.160 --> 0:05:30.200
<v Speaker 1>it's are we talk about the president and a private

0:05:30.240 --> 0:05:32.880
<v Speaker 1>initiative today? You wonder if you'll mention this in the

0:05:32.880 --> 0:05:37.360
<v Speaker 1>State of the Onion. Very good, Chris Rupki. Uh, this

0:05:37.480 --> 0:05:42.400
<v Speaker 1>kind of announcement, while interesting and perhaps will hurt, will

0:05:42.640 --> 0:05:45.800
<v Speaker 1>help a lot of people. To the point about the

0:05:45.800 --> 0:05:50.400
<v Speaker 1>current healthcare system, Uh, do you see any way to

0:05:50.560 --> 0:05:53.840
<v Speaker 1>rein in the entitlement programs in any way that would

0:05:53.880 --> 0:05:57.039
<v Speaker 1>be meaningful without cutting the quality of the care or

0:05:57.080 --> 0:06:00.520
<v Speaker 1>the quality of the service delivered. It's going to be difficult,

0:06:00.640 --> 0:06:05.560
<v Speaker 1>and I resent your use. Resent your use of the

0:06:05.600 --> 0:06:08.440
<v Speaker 1>word entitlement. When I was a young man in my thirties,

0:06:08.560 --> 0:06:14.480
<v Speaker 1>I could talk about those benefits being entitlements for some people.

0:06:15.040 --> 0:06:18.599
<v Speaker 1>But now as I can see those entitlements or something

0:06:18.640 --> 0:06:22.240
<v Speaker 1>that I will be entitled, so I would say these

0:06:22.279 --> 0:06:26.599
<v Speaker 1>are very important expecture. No, but that goes to the

0:06:26.680 --> 0:06:29.880
<v Speaker 1>absolute societal tension. The late oh they Reinhart at Princeton

0:06:30.320 --> 0:06:33.200
<v Speaker 1>really address this. What's interesting about this Chris to the

0:06:33.240 --> 0:06:41.640
<v Speaker 1>President's speech tonight on infrastructure. Here's private enterprise basically saying enough, yeah,

0:06:41.640 --> 0:06:46.560
<v Speaker 1>but they gotta make money off it. Reducing overall costs

0:06:46.640 --> 0:06:51.000
<v Speaker 1>is called making money to Mr Diamond, I'm not sure that. Yeah,

0:06:51.040 --> 0:06:53.880
<v Speaker 1>it sounds a little suspect, doesn't it. I mean, it's

0:06:53.920 --> 0:06:57.560
<v Speaker 1>a nice idea, but it's kind of like infrastructure spending

0:06:57.600 --> 0:07:00.760
<v Speaker 1>you know that's going to be h have dependent on

0:07:00.880 --> 0:07:05.040
<v Speaker 1>private money? Is It's like, well, what what sort of

0:07:05.320 --> 0:07:07.600
<v Speaker 1>private money is going to come in to do infrastructure?

0:07:07.640 --> 0:07:09.880
<v Speaker 1>How are you? How does the business get paid? How

0:07:09.880 --> 0:07:13.520
<v Speaker 1>do investors get paid? Mr? It's not easy, Mr Bezos

0:07:13.760 --> 0:07:17.200
<v Speaker 1>picking avocados for whole foods. Quote. The health care system

0:07:17.240 --> 0:07:21.480
<v Speaker 1>is complex, and we enter into this challenge open eyed

0:07:21.840 --> 0:07:25.520
<v Speaker 1>about the degree of difficulty. That's not the usual spin.

0:07:25.600 --> 0:07:28.680
<v Speaker 1>Pim Uh, Well, I hope he's got both eyes open,

0:07:28.800 --> 0:07:32.200
<v Speaker 1>because it is a complex system and one that many

0:07:32.240 --> 0:07:35.920
<v Speaker 1>people depend on. Chris to that point, though, about the

0:07:36.000 --> 0:07:41.600
<v Speaker 1>programs and the ability of this society to pay for them, Uh, taxes,

0:07:42.520 --> 0:07:45.800
<v Speaker 1>we cut taxes. That means it's less money to spend

0:07:45.800 --> 0:07:49.160
<v Speaker 1>on these kinds of things. I don't understand the How

0:07:49.200 --> 0:07:52.000
<v Speaker 1>does that not offer a contradiction? Yeah, well there's a

0:07:52.160 --> 0:07:54.800
<v Speaker 1>it is a contradiction. You know, how do how do

0:07:54.840 --> 0:07:57.320
<v Speaker 1>you pay for these moneys? I mean, I mean, how

0:07:57.320 --> 0:08:00.400
<v Speaker 1>do you pay for these programs? Uh? You know. I

0:08:00.440 --> 0:08:04.960
<v Speaker 1>think the current leadership in Washington, you know, has felt

0:08:05.040 --> 0:08:10.280
<v Speaker 1>that we need less Washington, we need less federal government services.

0:08:10.360 --> 0:08:14.080
<v Speaker 1>But I don't know, the next crew that comes in

0:08:14.160 --> 0:08:16.040
<v Speaker 1>might want to do something else. The reason I want

0:08:16.120 --> 0:08:19.160
<v Speaker 1>to focus on healthcare is because of the demographic bulge

0:08:19.160 --> 0:08:22.520
<v Speaker 1>of the baby boom generations could be very expiring and

0:08:22.600 --> 0:08:24.800
<v Speaker 1>so the cost is going to go up. And then

0:08:25.280 --> 0:08:29.240
<v Speaker 1>I recently was at a conference and heard one theory

0:08:29.320 --> 0:08:34.240
<v Speaker 1>about why we have such sluggish growth and low unemployee

0:08:34.360 --> 0:08:38.640
<v Speaker 1>low inflation. It's because as the baby boomers age, right,

0:08:38.760 --> 0:08:42.760
<v Speaker 1>you have an economy is they're pulling out of there. Uh,

0:08:43.160 --> 0:08:46.000
<v Speaker 1>They're they're exiting the job market. Can I can I

0:08:46.040 --> 0:08:49.240
<v Speaker 1>make a surveillance correction? Go ahead? It's so important. I

0:08:49.559 --> 0:08:52.840
<v Speaker 1>M know, Mr Bezos, Mr Diamond, and Mr Buffett go

0:08:52.920 --> 0:08:57.600
<v Speaker 1>to the hungry tapeworm. That is our medical system. Daniel

0:08:57.679 --> 0:09:01.800
<v Speaker 1>Anger to the rescue. It was late. Tape rooms don't

0:09:01.800 --> 0:09:05.680
<v Speaker 1>make you hungry, that's the research. Not that I've ever

0:09:05.760 --> 0:09:08.000
<v Speaker 1>had a tapewroom. You had a tapeworm? M not going

0:09:08.280 --> 0:09:12.240
<v Speaker 1>I've not. I've not had a tapeworm. But they can

0:09:12.280 --> 0:09:16.040
<v Speaker 1>cause a vitamin B twelve deficiency in some patients. But

0:09:16.120 --> 0:09:19.040
<v Speaker 1>they just they don't make you hungry. You just are

0:09:19.040 --> 0:09:24.160
<v Speaker 1>not interested in you know, maybe he would have saved that, Chris.

0:09:24.559 --> 0:09:27.199
<v Speaker 1>You know, Chris ROPI, thank you so much, greatly appreciated

0:09:27.200 --> 0:09:41.959
<v Speaker 1>this morning. Some terrific respective across television in radios. One,

0:09:45.200 --> 0:09:47.160
<v Speaker 1>let's go to healthcare. Why don't you bring in our

0:09:47.200 --> 0:09:51.880
<v Speaker 1>good guest here who's expert on hungry tapework, Max Neeson.

0:09:51.960 --> 0:09:53.880
<v Speaker 1>Let's not go with tape rooms. It's too early in

0:09:53.880 --> 0:09:58.880
<v Speaker 1>the morning everywhere, and some places it's too early for dinner. Um,

0:09:59.000 --> 0:10:02.360
<v Speaker 1>JP Morgan, Berkshire, Hathaway and Amazon say they're going to

0:10:02.440 --> 0:10:05.520
<v Speaker 1>get together and help their employees. They're going to provide better,

0:10:05.920 --> 0:10:10.959
<v Speaker 1>less expensive healthcare. What's your reaction? So my initial reaction

0:10:11.040 --> 0:10:13.800
<v Speaker 1>was this was not the Amazon for a into healthcare

0:10:13.880 --> 0:10:16.360
<v Speaker 1>that that has been expected. You know for about a

0:10:16.440 --> 0:10:19.400
<v Speaker 1>year now, which was something like a more aggressive for

0:10:19.559 --> 0:10:23.680
<v Speaker 1>it into mail order pharmaceuticals from pseudo benefit managers. What

0:10:23.720 --> 0:10:27.160
<v Speaker 1>they're doing is I think even more interesting. UM they're

0:10:27.200 --> 0:10:29.880
<v Speaker 1>potentially going to run along with these two other companies,

0:10:30.360 --> 0:10:33.840
<v Speaker 1>UM their own health plans entirely from plays and since

0:10:33.880 --> 0:10:37.000
<v Speaker 1>they're not just doing this informally, they're creating a company

0:10:37.040 --> 0:10:38.760
<v Speaker 1>that suggests if they figure out how to do this

0:10:38.800 --> 0:10:41.760
<v Speaker 1>well and given the people involved that that's a decent bet,

0:10:42.280 --> 0:10:44.320
<v Speaker 1>um they might try to bring it to other employers.

0:10:44.440 --> 0:10:49.400
<v Speaker 1>Is it Kaiser Permante from forty years ago, where you

0:10:49.440 --> 0:10:53.080
<v Speaker 1>know the heritage out West? They did it different out

0:10:53.120 --> 0:10:56.679
<v Speaker 1>West with Kaiser. I think ultimately, you know, if if

0:10:56.720 --> 0:10:59.559
<v Speaker 1>you they have grand ambitions, and I think if they're

0:10:59.600 --> 0:11:01.520
<v Speaker 1>going to take this kind of step that they probably

0:11:01.520 --> 0:11:03.920
<v Speaker 1>do that's something of the model that they're going to

0:11:04.040 --> 0:11:07.360
<v Speaker 1>look to emulate. UM, you know, doing things starting from

0:11:07.360 --> 0:11:10.240
<v Speaker 1>a different point of view, with a different set of priorities,

0:11:10.440 --> 0:11:13.040
<v Speaker 1>not attempting to to make a profit. UM. As they

0:11:13.080 --> 0:11:15.920
<v Speaker 1>kind of highlighted repeatedly in their press release, UM that

0:11:16.040 --> 0:11:19.720
<v Speaker 1>being the great frustration that so much in American healthcare

0:11:19.800 --> 0:11:22.679
<v Speaker 1>is not geared at bringing cost down, but for um,

0:11:22.840 --> 0:11:25.160
<v Speaker 1>you know, eating out a profit margin for every single

0:11:25.200 --> 0:11:28.880
<v Speaker 1>person along the way ensures PBMs providers. Any chance that

0:11:28.960 --> 0:11:31.600
<v Speaker 1>this is going to present the conflict of interest with

0:11:31.640 --> 0:11:35.679
<v Speaker 1>what their real businesses are, I don't think so, at

0:11:35.760 --> 0:11:38.040
<v Speaker 1>least that at the start, considering that they're you know,

0:11:38.080 --> 0:11:42.600
<v Speaker 1>initially focusing just on their own employees and on other employers. Um,

0:11:42.679 --> 0:11:44.320
<v Speaker 1>you know, at the end of the day, they're they're

0:11:44.360 --> 0:11:47.120
<v Speaker 1>just attempting to to keep costs down from the employees.

0:11:47.120 --> 0:11:48.560
<v Speaker 1>It will be more interesting when they bring it to

0:11:48.600 --> 0:11:51.040
<v Speaker 1>other companies or if they try to get into providers.

0:11:51.080 --> 0:11:53.320
<v Speaker 1>And we know that everybody with Jeff Bezos is cut

0:11:53.320 --> 0:11:55.600
<v Speaker 1>and chiseled. Maybe I can't say that a Mruture half

0:11:55.600 --> 0:12:00.120
<v Speaker 1>away and JP Morgan. But is this the beginning of

0:12:00.440 --> 0:12:05.080
<v Speaker 1>companies saying enough is enough. We're gonna essentially self insures.

0:12:05.120 --> 0:12:08.680
<v Speaker 1>All we're talking about here, they're gonna self ensure where

0:12:08.679 --> 0:12:15.439
<v Speaker 1>you begin to separate healthy employed America away from unhealthy,

0:12:15.679 --> 0:12:19.600
<v Speaker 1>lesser or unemployed America. I mean that that's already a

0:12:19.640 --> 0:12:22.440
<v Speaker 1>reality in our health care system. If you work at

0:12:22.440 --> 0:12:26.760
<v Speaker 1>a large complayer, your your health care is subsidized to

0:12:27.400 --> 0:12:31.440
<v Speaker 1>an extent that that nobody really realizes unless you later

0:12:31.559 --> 0:12:35.040
<v Speaker 1>end up unemployer on the individual market, where um, the

0:12:35.080 --> 0:12:37.000
<v Speaker 1>burden falls much more a question and you pay much

0:12:37.000 --> 0:12:39.280
<v Speaker 1>more out of pocket, You pay higher prices because you

0:12:39.320 --> 0:12:43.240
<v Speaker 1>don't have the benefit of that enormous employer tax exclusion

0:12:43.559 --> 0:12:46.120
<v Speaker 1>for healthcare benefits and the power you know, all of

0:12:46.120 --> 0:12:48.800
<v Speaker 1>that negotiating power aggregated in the form and not just

0:12:48.880 --> 0:12:51.319
<v Speaker 1>your employer, but you know everyone who they participate in

0:12:51.360 --> 0:12:55.200
<v Speaker 1>the PBM or or bigger insure with. What the what

0:12:55.280 --> 0:12:59.080
<v Speaker 1>are some of the competitive challenges to putting together something

0:12:59.120 --> 0:13:02.200
<v Speaker 1>like this, um, I mean, they're gonna have to basically

0:13:02.280 --> 0:13:05.680
<v Speaker 1>learn how to operate, you know, however much they're gonna do.

0:13:05.800 --> 0:13:08.920
<v Speaker 1>You know, they might still contract with an insure man

0:13:09.040 --> 0:13:12.199
<v Speaker 1>for parts of of the business, like self insured companies

0:13:12.240 --> 0:13:14.439
<v Speaker 1>currently do. But every piece that they're going to pick

0:13:14.520 --> 0:13:16.120
<v Speaker 1>up on their own and run on their own, they're

0:13:16.160 --> 0:13:17.800
<v Speaker 1>gonna have to learn how to do from the start,

0:13:17.880 --> 0:13:19.880
<v Speaker 1>and you know, they put the challenge on themselves to

0:13:19.920 --> 0:13:22.559
<v Speaker 1>figure out how to do it better with more technology.

0:13:22.840 --> 0:13:25.960
<v Speaker 1>Max I'm begging Max needs of course, folks. With Bloomberg

0:13:25.960 --> 0:13:29.640
<v Speaker 1>gut Fly, he writes these terrific chart paragraph charts stories.

0:13:29.640 --> 0:13:31.760
<v Speaker 1>Are you go to write about this today? I'm I've

0:13:31.800 --> 0:13:34.960
<v Speaker 1>already started really really looking forward to this already brought

0:13:35.120 --> 0:13:38.280
<v Speaker 1>also brought in his his medicine kit to help you

0:13:38.320 --> 0:13:41.360
<v Speaker 1>get over the plague. So he cares it's a plague.

0:13:41.360 --> 0:13:44.880
<v Speaker 1>It's like a thirteenth century Thix. Seriously. Fortunately you're in

0:13:44.920 --> 0:13:48.760
<v Speaker 1>the surveillance cone of silence, so you're hermetically sealed away

0:13:48.800 --> 0:13:51.400
<v Speaker 1>from me. Is that why I'm hermetically so you see

0:13:51.440 --> 0:13:54.319
<v Speaker 1>the car. I thought Max and I were together. No,

0:13:54.520 --> 0:14:00.320
<v Speaker 1>Max is gonna get the play. But an interesting concept, right,

0:14:00.679 --> 0:14:04.320
<v Speaker 1>It's it's absolutely fascinating up particularly the notion and this

0:14:04.400 --> 0:14:06.560
<v Speaker 1>is probably the thing I'm gonna focus on um that

0:14:06.679 --> 0:14:09.280
<v Speaker 1>this is kind of a pilot among themselves to figure

0:14:09.280 --> 0:14:11.920
<v Speaker 1>out can we make a company out of this for

0:14:11.960 --> 0:14:25.600
<v Speaker 1>other people? Max, Thank you so much. Terry Haynes is

0:14:25.680 --> 0:14:29.040
<v Speaker 1>ever Cores I s E. Senior political strategist. He's the

0:14:29.040 --> 0:14:32.240
<v Speaker 1>head of political analysis and a managing director. He is

0:14:32.280 --> 0:14:36.000
<v Speaker 1>also experienced in the ways of Washington, d C. Former

0:14:36.280 --> 0:14:38.880
<v Speaker 1>Chief Council Staff director of the U. S. House Committee

0:14:38.880 --> 0:14:42.440
<v Speaker 1>on Financial Services and Senior Council on US House Energy

0:14:42.480 --> 0:14:46.280
<v Speaker 1>and Commerce Committee, and a variety of other government positions. Terry,

0:14:46.320 --> 0:14:48.360
<v Speaker 1>good to have you with us here on Bloomberg. What

0:14:48.400 --> 0:14:50.840
<v Speaker 1>are you going to be listening for from the President

0:14:50.880 --> 0:14:54.440
<v Speaker 1>Donald Trump's State of the Union message? Good to be here, Pim,

0:14:54.440 --> 0:14:57.640
<v Speaker 1>and thank you the well I'm going to be you know,

0:14:57.720 --> 0:15:00.400
<v Speaker 1>the President essentially is going to divide this each into

0:15:00.520 --> 0:15:03.360
<v Speaker 1>three parts. Uh, and I think everybody knows what the

0:15:03.600 --> 0:15:05.640
<v Speaker 1>what those three parts will be, so I won't spend

0:15:05.680 --> 0:15:08.040
<v Speaker 1>long on them. First will be the I think the

0:15:08.080 --> 0:15:12.040
<v Speaker 1>first year achievements. You know they uh, we all dip

0:15:12.040 --> 0:15:14.680
<v Speaker 1>into the Trump Show on a daily basis, but this

0:15:14.720 --> 0:15:17.440
<v Speaker 1>is an opportunity to to provide the best of a

0:15:17.480 --> 0:15:20.520
<v Speaker 1>framing device for the president in his first year in office.

0:15:20.520 --> 0:15:22.480
<v Speaker 1>So I think they'll do that. They'll run through a

0:15:22.480 --> 0:15:25.760
<v Speaker 1>bunch of priorities. Infrastructure, of course, is going to get

0:15:25.760 --> 0:15:28.200
<v Speaker 1>hammered in quite a bit. I expect him to talk

0:15:28.280 --> 0:15:32.000
<v Speaker 1>about trade, housing, finance, a bunch of other things, and

0:15:32.040 --> 0:15:35.520
<v Speaker 1>finally a national security focus. The two things I'm going

0:15:35.560 --> 0:15:40.600
<v Speaker 1>to listen to with particularly closely, one I think will

0:15:40.640 --> 0:15:44.640
<v Speaker 1>be housing finance. Uh. I expect Secretary Manution to testify

0:15:44.680 --> 0:15:47.480
<v Speaker 1>this morning on the Hill that he remains interested now

0:15:47.560 --> 0:15:49.800
<v Speaker 1>in finance it's not a secret that he is. But

0:15:50.240 --> 0:15:53.080
<v Speaker 1>at the same time, renewed commitment to trying to get

0:15:53.120 --> 0:15:58.480
<v Speaker 1>something done UH from the administration UH will will be

0:15:58.520 --> 0:16:01.640
<v Speaker 1>important for markets, and I can leave whatever signals on

0:16:01.760 --> 0:16:04.600
<v Speaker 1>trade the President wants to send. I've always said the

0:16:04.600 --> 0:16:07.560
<v Speaker 1>trades one of the three big unknowns UH this year,

0:16:08.640 --> 0:16:12.240
<v Speaker 1>certainly trade policy as the top that. And the question

0:16:12.280 --> 0:16:14.360
<v Speaker 1>really is UH. You know, we got a positive read

0:16:14.360 --> 0:16:16.360
<v Speaker 1>out of NAFTA yesterday out of the end of the

0:16:16.360 --> 0:16:19.680
<v Speaker 1>Montreal round from from U. S. T. R. Lightheiser. UH.

0:16:19.720 --> 0:16:23.320
<v Speaker 1>The question is does the President continue that kind of

0:16:23.440 --> 0:16:28.320
<v Speaker 1>pro pro business, pro market approach that he first talked

0:16:28.320 --> 0:16:31.280
<v Speaker 1>about in Davos last week and was underscored by Lightheiser,

0:16:31.960 --> 0:16:34.680
<v Speaker 1>or does he go back to a more saber rattling

0:16:34.960 --> 0:16:37.440
<v Speaker 1>If I don't like it, I'll get rid of its

0:16:37.440 --> 0:16:40.040
<v Speaker 1>sort of approach where it comes to NAFTA, and that

0:16:40.080 --> 0:16:43.320
<v Speaker 1>will be market moving as well. Terry, based on your

0:16:43.400 --> 0:16:46.560
<v Speaker 1>experience to whom is the President really going to be

0:16:46.640 --> 0:16:51.480
<v Speaker 1>speaking tonight, Well, but my experience is that the President

0:16:52.080 --> 0:16:54.800
<v Speaker 1>uses this speech to speak directly to the American people.

0:16:54.840 --> 0:16:57.920
<v Speaker 1>It's it's the largest audience that the president will have

0:16:58.000 --> 0:17:01.760
<v Speaker 1>all year. Uh, non la, there's some disaster of course

0:17:01.800 --> 0:17:05.919
<v Speaker 1>that that requires. But UH, presidents always look at this

0:17:05.960 --> 0:17:09.560
<v Speaker 1>opportunity as one where they get to actually talk to

0:17:09.600 --> 0:17:14.639
<v Speaker 1>the American people. They get to characterize their own presidency directly, UH,

0:17:14.800 --> 0:17:18.600
<v Speaker 1>and they get to lay out their priorities directly, so

0:17:18.640 --> 0:17:21.440
<v Speaker 1>that they can you know, not only frame you know,

0:17:21.720 --> 0:17:24.720
<v Speaker 1>what it is, how it is uh that they want

0:17:24.760 --> 0:17:28.680
<v Speaker 1>to move forward, but also you know, frankly in political terms, uh,

0:17:28.760 --> 0:17:31.000
<v Speaker 1>put the opposition on the back foot too. Well, That's

0:17:31.000 --> 0:17:32.879
<v Speaker 1>where I was going with this, because of course, this

0:17:33.000 --> 0:17:37.199
<v Speaker 1>the first president that really uses the social media world

0:17:37.400 --> 0:17:41.200
<v Speaker 1>of Twitter and a variety of other mechanisms to speak

0:17:41.240 --> 0:17:45.320
<v Speaker 1>directly to his constituents and indeed to the country in

0:17:45.320 --> 0:17:48.760
<v Speaker 1>the world. Sure, and he gets to use but he

0:17:49.160 --> 0:17:53.639
<v Speaker 1>gets to use the the cameras in the more conventional

0:17:53.680 --> 0:17:57.720
<v Speaker 1>media here to uh to to do something other than

0:17:58.240 --> 0:18:01.919
<v Speaker 1>uh other then kind of you know, the message at

0:18:01.960 --> 0:18:05.280
<v Speaker 1>the moment, and actually gets to frame his own presidency

0:18:05.440 --> 0:18:08.680
<v Speaker 1>and uh and have people to try to understand exactly

0:18:08.720 --> 0:18:11.800
<v Speaker 1>what he's up to as president beyond beyond the Twitter

0:18:11.880 --> 0:18:14.240
<v Speaker 1>of the day and uh. And that's I think that's

0:18:14.280 --> 0:18:16.880
<v Speaker 1>particularly important for this president Frankly, all right, what would

0:18:16.880 --> 0:18:22.160
<v Speaker 1>you like to hear about regarding housing finance? What I'd

0:18:22.160 --> 0:18:23.760
<v Speaker 1>like to I don't have the luxury I'll tell you

0:18:23.800 --> 0:18:25.680
<v Speaker 1>what I'd like to hear. What I think is, uh,

0:18:26.280 --> 0:18:28.919
<v Speaker 1>what I'll be interested in is whether or not that

0:18:29.000 --> 0:18:32.200
<v Speaker 1>makes the speech Frankly, Uh that it has been a

0:18:32.200 --> 0:18:35.040
<v Speaker 1>as I say, by priority of Secretary minutions for some time.

0:18:35.600 --> 0:18:38.399
<v Speaker 1>He first talked about his desire to want to do

0:18:38.480 --> 0:18:41.920
<v Speaker 1>something on housing finance before he was even Treasury secretary,

0:18:41.960 --> 0:18:45.639
<v Speaker 1>after he was nominated. But the end of and every

0:18:45.680 --> 0:18:49.639
<v Speaker 1>time he talks about this, the markets blip in a

0:18:49.680 --> 0:18:56.280
<v Speaker 1>positive way, housing stocks a rise. And I'd like to see, frankly,

0:18:56.359 --> 0:18:58.600
<v Speaker 1>is whether there's a commitment from the President himself to

0:18:58.600 --> 0:19:00.920
<v Speaker 1>invest political capital in this, because if that's the case,

0:19:00.960 --> 0:19:03.920
<v Speaker 1>then you might get something. What what what's your read

0:19:03.960 --> 0:19:07.960
<v Speaker 1>on Fannie Mae and Freddie mac My My read generally

0:19:08.160 --> 0:19:10.880
<v Speaker 1>is that you know, we've got a situation where, uh

0:19:10.920 --> 0:19:15.280
<v Speaker 1>the enterprises have been in conservatorship for a decade. Uh,

0:19:15.600 --> 0:19:17.840
<v Speaker 1>it's uh, it's time to take a serious look at

0:19:17.880 --> 0:19:19.520
<v Speaker 1>whether to get them out or not to the previous

0:19:19.560 --> 0:19:23.480
<v Speaker 1>administration's policy was that we'll get them out one Congress

0:19:23.480 --> 0:19:25.320
<v Speaker 1>tells us to get them out, but not before then.

0:19:25.880 --> 0:19:29.840
<v Speaker 1>And uh. And what needs to happen fundamentally is, UH

0:19:30.560 --> 0:19:33.120
<v Speaker 1>is there needs to be an understanding and some kind

0:19:33.119 --> 0:19:35.439
<v Speaker 1>of coming together in Congress and you know, with the

0:19:35.440 --> 0:19:38.719
<v Speaker 1>President and Secretary Munition as well, UH, to talk about

0:19:39.280 --> 0:19:41.320
<v Speaker 1>what housing finance is going to look like going forward.

0:19:41.359 --> 0:19:43.600
<v Speaker 1>I mean, are we gonna get are we gonna if

0:19:43.600 --> 0:19:47.400
<v Speaker 1>we're gonna get greater participation from financial institutions? What does

0:19:47.440 --> 0:19:50.760
<v Speaker 1>that look like? Uh? There is some policy difference between

0:19:51.240 --> 0:19:54.399
<v Speaker 1>Democrats and Republicans and whether there should be whether the

0:19:55.160 --> 0:19:59.040
<v Speaker 1>g SC structure should still be maintained. Uh, that's compromisable

0:19:59.119 --> 0:20:03.280
<v Speaker 1>in my view. But what you're you know, the fundamental

0:20:03.320 --> 0:20:04.800
<v Speaker 1>issue is going to be whether or not we're going

0:20:04.840 --> 0:20:07.000
<v Speaker 1>to get more capital into the housing market or not.

0:20:07.280 --> 0:20:09.240
<v Speaker 1>And uh, and whether we're gonna get a greater focus

0:20:09.240 --> 0:20:11.520
<v Speaker 1>on housing finance because our view has always been here

0:20:12.000 --> 0:20:14.960
<v Speaker 1>has always been that the current state of affairs has

0:20:14.960 --> 0:20:17.359
<v Speaker 1>been a negative for the housing market and a negative

0:20:17.400 --> 0:20:20.920
<v Speaker 1>for the markets generally. Based on your understanding of Secretary

0:20:21.000 --> 0:20:24.040
<v Speaker 1>Minutions background, what does he bring that special to the

0:20:24.119 --> 0:20:28.600
<v Speaker 1>conversation and debate about housing finance. I think two things. One,

0:20:28.680 --> 0:20:31.920
<v Speaker 1>he's actually he's actually been in the markets. He actually

0:20:32.000 --> 0:20:34.840
<v Speaker 1>understands the markets on the first firsthand the basis, and

0:20:34.880 --> 0:20:39.360
<v Speaker 1>I think that's important. We have not had, Uh, it's

0:20:39.359 --> 0:20:42.200
<v Speaker 1>been a while since we've had a Treasury secretary that

0:20:41.840 --> 0:20:44.760
<v Speaker 1>that that that had that kind of direct knowledge. I mean,

0:20:45.119 --> 0:20:48.600
<v Speaker 1>certainly i'd give I'd give Secretary Geithner and Secretary Paulson

0:20:49.000 --> 0:20:52.080
<v Speaker 1>both both marks for that, but it's been a little while.

0:20:52.119 --> 0:20:55.520
<v Speaker 1>Secretary Louse certainly didn't have that that sort of fundamental background.

0:20:55.600 --> 0:20:59.040
<v Speaker 1>Number one. Number two, he brings a he brings a

0:20:59.080 --> 0:21:03.200
<v Speaker 1>commitment to it and what you need fundamentally on this issue.

0:21:03.200 --> 0:21:05.640
<v Speaker 1>And I think this was proved in the last time

0:21:05.680 --> 0:21:08.320
<v Speaker 1>anybody tried to do something like this. Um, you need

0:21:08.359 --> 0:21:10.600
<v Speaker 1>commitment from the highest levels of the government and the

0:21:10.680 --> 0:21:13.920
<v Speaker 1>executive branch, particularly to try to uh trying to knock

0:21:14.000 --> 0:21:16.480
<v Speaker 1>heads together in the Congress and get something done here,

0:21:16.920 --> 0:21:20.520
<v Speaker 1>and that hasn't existed for a while. And Secretary Munition

0:21:20.840 --> 0:21:23.800
<v Speaker 1>would like to do this. He's been clear about it. Uh.

0:21:23.840 --> 0:21:27.560
<v Speaker 1>And now that now that he's used some political capital

0:21:27.600 --> 0:21:30.720
<v Speaker 1>on tax reform, uh, he appears to be interested in

0:21:30.760 --> 0:21:33.000
<v Speaker 1>doing it again. So we'll see where he goes, and

0:21:33.040 --> 0:21:34.840
<v Speaker 1>we'll see if the President agrees and wants to say

0:21:34.880 --> 0:21:37.320
<v Speaker 1>something about it in the speech. We'll be listening and

0:21:37.440 --> 0:21:39.960
<v Speaker 1>we'll also be looking for your reaction to it as well.

0:21:40.000 --> 0:21:44.159
<v Speaker 1>Thank you very much. Terry Haynes is Evercore i SES

0:21:44.320 --> 0:21:47.679
<v Speaker 1>senior political strategist. He's the head of political analysis and

0:21:47.880 --> 0:22:04.560
<v Speaker 1>a managing director. Our guest is Emily Rowland, head of

0:22:04.600 --> 0:22:08.560
<v Speaker 1>Capital markets research at John Hancock Investments. Joining us from Boston,

0:22:08.800 --> 0:22:11.639
<v Speaker 1>home to Bloomberg one oh six one Boston, Newburyport and

0:22:11.760 --> 0:22:14.760
<v Speaker 1>thirteen thirty in Metro West and the South Shore. Emily,

0:22:14.800 --> 0:22:18.800
<v Speaker 1>thank you very much for being with us. Complacency and volatility.

0:22:18.840 --> 0:22:21.240
<v Speaker 1>I'm wondering if you could describe your thinking about both

0:22:21.240 --> 0:22:23.639
<v Speaker 1>of those as they affect investors. You know, when I

0:22:23.640 --> 0:22:26.639
<v Speaker 1>think about our outlook heading into I would say it

0:22:26.720 --> 0:22:29.720
<v Speaker 1>was probably a bit more optimistic than consensus. We really

0:22:29.760 --> 0:22:33.560
<v Speaker 1>felt that Pact reform and earnings growth were likely under

0:22:33.600 --> 0:22:37.679
<v Speaker 1>appreciated catalysts that would drive markets higher, and really looking

0:22:37.680 --> 0:22:40.880
<v Speaker 1>at the extraordinary returns that we've seen so far this year,

0:22:40.960 --> 0:22:43.720
<v Speaker 1>markets are up seven percent in one of the best

0:22:43.760 --> 0:22:46.160
<v Speaker 1>starts to a year in recent history, and in our view,

0:22:46.160 --> 0:22:49.240
<v Speaker 1>would be pretty difficult to keep up this pace. We

0:22:49.320 --> 0:22:52.000
<v Speaker 1>really think it's it's highly likely that we'll see some

0:22:52.119 --> 0:22:55.920
<v Speaker 1>sort of pull back in the cards, some increased volatility

0:22:55.960 --> 0:23:00.000
<v Speaker 1>as we continue into and we think investors really probably

0:23:00.080 --> 0:23:04.200
<v Speaker 1>aren't prepared for this. Just looking back last year, the

0:23:04.280 --> 0:23:07.240
<v Speaker 1>maximum draw down we saw in the SMP five hundred

0:23:07.720 --> 0:23:10.840
<v Speaker 1>was three percent. That means that even if you chose

0:23:10.880 --> 0:23:14.720
<v Speaker 1>the worst day to invest in, the mostly losses three percent.

0:23:14.800 --> 0:23:19.000
<v Speaker 1>Now that hadn't happened since and the average is about four.

0:23:20.440 --> 0:23:22.400
<v Speaker 1>So we think we're going to get back to those

0:23:22.440 --> 0:23:25.520
<v Speaker 1>averages and investors might be caught off guard when volatility

0:23:25.560 --> 0:23:27.960
<v Speaker 1>really does start to pick up. Here. Well, what should

0:23:28.000 --> 0:23:30.600
<v Speaker 1>investors do in order to heads or prepare for this

0:23:30.680 --> 0:23:33.520
<v Speaker 1>increased volatility that you say we're going to get. Well,

0:23:33.560 --> 0:23:36.479
<v Speaker 1>we think it's important for investors to simply revisit their

0:23:36.600 --> 0:23:40.320
<v Speaker 1>risk tolerances make sure that they're investing in a way

0:23:40.359 --> 0:23:42.960
<v Speaker 1>that aligns with their longer term goals, because if you

0:23:43.000 --> 0:23:46.200
<v Speaker 1>think about it, you know, the investors psychology is sort

0:23:46.240 --> 0:23:49.120
<v Speaker 1>of pointing to this environment where we're kind of moving

0:23:49.200 --> 0:23:53.520
<v Speaker 1>into and maybe not quite yet excessive optimism, but we're

0:23:53.520 --> 0:23:55.679
<v Speaker 1>sort of moving into I would call it sort of

0:23:55.680 --> 0:23:59.120
<v Speaker 1>the excitement phase now, and we're really starting to see

0:23:59.119 --> 0:24:02.399
<v Speaker 1>that evidence with the flow data. If you look at

0:24:02.440 --> 0:24:05.840
<v Speaker 1>the first couple of weeks of from a flow into

0:24:05.840 --> 0:24:09.920
<v Speaker 1>global equity standpoint, we're seeing about four times the flows

0:24:09.920 --> 0:24:13.080
<v Speaker 1>into equities that we saw this time last year. So

0:24:13.119 --> 0:24:16.639
<v Speaker 1>we're seeing investors get excited and potentially the sort of

0:24:16.680 --> 0:24:19.760
<v Speaker 1>the wrong time in the market. So we're suggesting that

0:24:19.840 --> 0:24:21.640
<v Speaker 1>they really kind of take a look at their long

0:24:21.760 --> 0:24:25.280
<v Speaker 1>term plan. Okay, So having sort of said that, is

0:24:25.320 --> 0:24:27.800
<v Speaker 1>there anything specific that you would offer. Is it to

0:24:27.880 --> 0:24:32.199
<v Speaker 1>rebalance the portfolio based on the performance of the constituent parts,

0:24:32.760 --> 0:24:35.720
<v Speaker 1>Is it actually maybe taking a profit? I mean, as

0:24:35.720 --> 0:24:39.159
<v Speaker 1>you mentioned, SMP five has a gain right now of

0:24:39.200 --> 0:24:41.959
<v Speaker 1>almost seven percent for the year, the Nasdaq is up

0:24:42.000 --> 0:24:47.760
<v Speaker 1>more than eight percent. Market timing is not necessarily a

0:24:47.760 --> 0:24:52.040
<v Speaker 1>a shore fire away to financial success. But having said that,

0:24:52.760 --> 0:24:55.240
<v Speaker 1>you don't get you don't go broke taking a profit,

0:24:55.720 --> 0:24:58.280
<v Speaker 1>right you know, So we certainly believe that rebalancing is

0:24:58.560 --> 0:25:01.120
<v Speaker 1>a good thing to you at all times. But don't

0:25:01.119 --> 0:25:03.760
<v Speaker 1>get me wrong, I'm calling for a pullback in the markets,

0:25:03.800 --> 0:25:08.199
<v Speaker 1>But actually our view is quite positive. More broadly, you know,

0:25:08.320 --> 0:25:11.480
<v Speaker 1>thinking about our longer term outlook twelve to eighteen months

0:25:11.480 --> 0:25:14.880
<v Speaker 1>to synchronized global growth story really is a powerful one.

0:25:15.280 --> 0:25:19.840
<v Speaker 1>Earnings growth remains supportive. We're seeing significant upgrades in terms

0:25:19.840 --> 0:25:22.280
<v Speaker 1>of the earnings outlook for next year. You know, when

0:25:22.280 --> 0:25:24.200
<v Speaker 1>I look at the numbers at the beginning of this year,

0:25:24.280 --> 0:25:27.680
<v Speaker 1>is about eleven percent outlook for earnings growth next year

0:25:27.720 --> 0:25:30.639
<v Speaker 1>and that's been bumped up the sixteen percent on the

0:25:30.680 --> 0:25:35.399
<v Speaker 1>back of tax reform and other positive momentum here. So

0:25:35.440 --> 0:25:39.359
<v Speaker 1>as long as we continue to see inflation remains somewhat subdued,

0:25:39.440 --> 0:25:41.960
<v Speaker 1>which which we think is our real base case here,

0:25:42.440 --> 0:25:44.960
<v Speaker 1>we think that this cycle can continue and that there

0:25:44.960 --> 0:25:50.440
<v Speaker 1>are opportunities for risk assets heading into It's just important

0:25:50.480 --> 0:25:53.760
<v Speaker 1>to remember that we are going to experience more normal

0:25:53.880 --> 0:25:57.399
<v Speaker 1>levels of volatility. Okay, having said that, then where do

0:25:57.480 --> 0:26:01.120
<v Speaker 1>you look for this relative value you? Is it outside

0:26:01.160 --> 0:26:04.960
<v Speaker 1>the United States? Is it in specific industry groups or

0:26:05.000 --> 0:26:08.800
<v Speaker 1>specific asset classes? Yeah? Sure, Um, we are positive on

0:26:08.880 --> 0:26:12.679
<v Speaker 1>both US and non US equities today. Um, there is

0:26:12.760 --> 0:26:18.360
<v Speaker 1>a good valuation opportunity looking overseas. Typically, the US trades

0:26:18.440 --> 0:26:22.399
<v Speaker 1>to UH non US equities at about an eight percent premium,

0:26:22.400 --> 0:26:26.200
<v Speaker 1>and that's actually about twenty four percent today, So comparing

0:26:26.359 --> 0:26:30.359
<v Speaker 1>US versus non US from evaluation standpoint, we think that

0:26:30.400 --> 0:26:35.000
<v Speaker 1>there's an opportunity overseas. We also are suggesting that investors

0:26:35.040 --> 0:26:39.199
<v Speaker 1>consider international small cap equities. Not only do they have

0:26:39.520 --> 0:26:43.480
<v Speaker 1>a historical performance advantage over their large cap piers, but

0:26:43.520 --> 0:26:47.639
<v Speaker 1>the earnings outlook for small cap equities overseas is actually

0:26:47.640 --> 0:26:51.680
<v Speaker 1>outpacing the outlook for international small cap equities. And really

0:26:51.680 --> 0:26:56.640
<v Speaker 1>the idea here is that those domestically oriented companies overseas,

0:26:56.640 --> 0:27:00.359
<v Speaker 1>those smaller companies are really going to be the itative

0:27:00.440 --> 0:27:05.000
<v Speaker 1>beneficiaries of this strong synchronized global growth we're seeing particularly

0:27:05.040 --> 0:27:08.960
<v Speaker 1>picking up overseas alright, but international small cap won't that

0:27:09.000 --> 0:27:12.640
<v Speaker 1>be effected if the US dollar continues to weaken. Yeah,

0:27:12.680 --> 0:27:15.720
<v Speaker 1>we're seeing a continued a weakening of the US a

0:27:15.800 --> 0:27:19.480
<v Speaker 1>dollar here, which will be an advantage to US investors

0:27:19.520 --> 0:27:23.880
<v Speaker 1>that are investing overseas. And again, the strengthening euro, if

0:27:23.880 --> 0:27:28.040
<v Speaker 1>you think about investing overseas, will have a put some

0:27:28.080 --> 0:27:32.240
<v Speaker 1>pressure on those large European multinational firms. But again, those

0:27:32.280 --> 0:27:36.560
<v Speaker 1>domestically oriented companies will be more insulated from that dynamic.

0:27:36.880 --> 0:27:39.400
<v Speaker 1>Give you ten seconds to tell us what investment would

0:27:39.440 --> 0:27:43.400
<v Speaker 1>you absolutely positively stay away from Yeah, I mean certainly,

0:27:43.440 --> 0:27:46.600
<v Speaker 1>I think you know, U. S. Treasuries. We're starting to

0:27:46.640 --> 0:27:50.439
<v Speaker 1>see a pretty meaningful backup in yields here. We've been

0:27:50.520 --> 0:27:54.000
<v Speaker 1>negative on you know, corporate a government debt for quite

0:27:54.040 --> 0:27:58.760
<v Speaker 1>some time. Here, there's simply better opportunities in this reflationary

0:27:58.880 --> 0:28:02.440
<v Speaker 1>environment to invest equities over fixed income. Thank you very

0:28:02.520 --> 0:28:04.679
<v Speaker 1>much for being with us. Emily Rowland is the head

0:28:04.720 --> 0:28:08.719
<v Speaker 1>of capital markets Research at John Hancock Investments and joining

0:28:08.800 --> 0:28:19.760
<v Speaker 1>us from Boston. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast.

0:28:20.119 --> 0:28:25.080
<v Speaker 1>Subscribe and listen to interviews on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or

0:28:25.240 --> 0:28:29.520
<v Speaker 1>whichever podcast platform you prefer. I'm on Twitter at Tom

0:28:29.640 --> 0:28:33.520
<v Speaker 1>Keene before the podcast. You can always catch us worldwide.

0:28:33.960 --> 0:28:35.040
<v Speaker 1>I'm Bloomberg Radio.