WEBVTT - Musk Drives Even Some Twitter Founders to Mastodon 0:00:01.840 --> 0:00:04.440 This is Bloomberg Business Week. I'm Carol Masser and I'm 0:00:04.440 --> 0:00:06.800 Tim Stanevik. We're here every day bringing you the latest 0:00:06.840 --> 0:00:11.000 news from the world's of business in finance, clus technology, politics, economics, 0:00:11.039 --> 0:00:14.000 all harnessing the power of Business Week reporters and editors, 0:00:14.160 --> 0:00:17.000 not to mention our journalists and analyst in more than 0:00:17.040 --> 0:00:21.160 one twenty countries. You can download Bloomberg Business Weekend iTunes, SoundCloud, 0:00:21.239 --> 0:00:23.279 or Bloomberg dot com. You can also listen to our 0:00:23.360 --> 0:00:25.759 radio show at the two pm Eastern time on Bloomberg 0:00:25.880 --> 0:00:31.080 Radio or stream us live on YouTube and Bloomberg dot com. 0:00:31.120 --> 0:00:33.640 But Elon Musk used to being in the driver's seat 0:00:33.720 --> 0:00:36.440 or seats considering all that he's involved, and sometimes that 0:00:36.479 --> 0:00:40.360 even means driving some Twitter founders to a competing social network. 0:00:40.400 --> 0:00:42.559 It's kind of like, wait, what are you doing? This 0:00:42.600 --> 0:00:44.920 is really interesting with who and where they're going in 0:00:44.960 --> 0:00:46.920 the latest on the Twitter situation. Here with us is 0:00:46.960 --> 0:00:50.400 at Bloomberg News Technology reporter Alex Brenka. She joins us 0:00:50.520 --> 0:00:53.120 on camera from our l A bureau. Alex, good to 0:00:53.159 --> 0:00:57.040 have you back with us. Uh Mastodon, what is going 0:00:57.080 --> 0:01:00.880 on with Mastodon? And if you haven't heard of Massodon. 0:01:01.000 --> 0:01:03.320 I'll also kind of just explain it to you. It's 0:01:03.360 --> 0:01:06.039 this kind of new ish social network that a lot 0:01:06.080 --> 0:01:09.000 of folks who perhaps are unhappy with Twitter or who 0:01:09.040 --> 0:01:12.520 are looking for a different platform to share news or 0:01:12.560 --> 0:01:16.399 short purse of information have been migrating to Massadon. Now, 0:01:16.640 --> 0:01:21.160 Mathadon started is kind of a techie community. Um. They 0:01:21.200 --> 0:01:25.880 call their kind of groups, servers or instances. Initially it 0:01:25.959 --> 0:01:27.559 was a lot of folks who were kind of deep 0:01:27.600 --> 0:01:30.839 in tech, but they started to attract a general audience, 0:01:31.040 --> 0:01:35.120 including a couple of really notable names like Twitter co 0:01:35.240 --> 0:01:39.560 founders Biz Stone and Ev Williams, who have now moved 0:01:39.560 --> 0:01:42.600 on the platform and said they are taggering and trying 0:01:42.600 --> 0:01:45.120 it out. A big complaint that I've heard about Mastodon 0:01:45.200 --> 0:01:47.680 and full disclosure, I have not tried it. I've tried post. 0:01:47.720 --> 0:01:50.480 I'm on post news, but I haven't like signed in 0:01:50.480 --> 0:01:52.320 in two weeks. This is what happens, by the way, 0:01:52.360 --> 0:01:57.720 with competing social networks, UM is that it's complicated that 0:01:57.840 --> 0:02:00.840 mass Diodon is like, it's kind of tough to find servers. 0:02:01.080 --> 0:02:03.480 What has your experience been based on what you've done, 0:02:03.480 --> 0:02:05.680 and also like the people you've spoken to you know, 0:02:05.760 --> 0:02:09.960 someone someone on Twitter uh compared it to like using 0:02:10.040 --> 0:02:13.360 Linux as an operating system. It sort of is, you 0:02:13.400 --> 0:02:17.240 know it is um. It's open source software that has 0:02:17.280 --> 0:02:19.639 these communities on it. I've gotten on it, and I'll 0:02:19.639 --> 0:02:22.280 tell you I had the same experience. It's um kind 0:02:22.320 --> 0:02:24.880 of gorpy, it's kind of tricky. I don't quite know 0:02:24.880 --> 0:02:27.360 how to use it. I only have a whopping three 0:02:27.480 --> 0:02:31.320 followers there versus you know, almost eight thousand on Twitter. UM, 0:02:31.400 --> 0:02:34.520 so there's a lot of differences. I also don't think, frankly, 0:02:34.600 --> 0:02:37.359 if I were to go to my non tech friends 0:02:37.440 --> 0:02:40.240 and say, hey, try this thing, they wouldn't know how 0:02:40.240 --> 0:02:42.400 to sign up either. So I think that's one of 0:02:42.400 --> 0:02:46.799 the kind of uh hills to climb for mass it on, 0:02:47.120 --> 0:02:50.160 and also probably why they're excited to be kind of 0:02:50.160 --> 0:02:54.080 connected with Ev Williams Um, that Twitter co founder in particular. 0:02:54.280 --> 0:02:59.160 You'll remember Ev also founded a blogging platform called Medium, 0:02:59.240 --> 0:03:01.360 and in this kind of shift over to mass it on, 0:03:01.480 --> 0:03:04.040 Medium has set up its own instance, its own server 0:03:04.280 --> 0:03:06.840 or community, where it's going to set its own rules 0:03:06.840 --> 0:03:09.480 and encourage its authors to go over there and perhaps 0:03:09.560 --> 0:03:12.640 bring some of their users. UM. As of recently, even 0:03:12.680 --> 0:03:15.160 after this rush of new users massed on and said 0:03:15.200 --> 0:03:18.000 that they have about two point five million people using 0:03:18.000 --> 0:03:21.560 the platform. Compare that to the around two hundred and 0:03:21.560 --> 0:03:25.000 thirty million daily active users that Twitter has. So a 0:03:25.040 --> 0:03:27.840 bit more tricky, it's not as user friendly, and they 0:03:27.880 --> 0:03:30.960 don't have the user base. But it's really interesting that 0:03:31.080 --> 0:03:33.000 some of the moves that Twitter is making is is 0:03:33.040 --> 0:03:35.840 forcing some people to even jump onto a platform that 0:03:35.920 --> 0:03:38.120 has a few more hurdles than something like Twitter might. 0:03:38.280 --> 0:03:40.560 Alex makes me think, Okay, if somebody can set something 0:03:40.640 --> 0:03:43.839 up that can really challenge Twitter, you could quickly see 0:03:43.880 --> 0:03:46.000 people move to it. At the same time, it made 0:03:46.000 --> 0:03:48.720 me think, you know what Twitter's power is. They've got 0:03:48.840 --> 0:03:51.600 so many people already in that universe and that's where 0:03:51.960 --> 0:03:53.880 you know, the tricky wick is what does Ellen do 0:03:53.960 --> 0:03:57.640 with it and to keep those people there. Yeah. Absolutely, 0:03:57.680 --> 0:04:00.160 you've seen some changes in recent days. Right now, your 0:04:00.200 --> 0:04:02.800 feed is now split. There's your following feed, which is 0:04:02.840 --> 0:04:04.640 like the old school Twitter feed are the folks that 0:04:04.640 --> 0:04:07.080 you've chosen to follow. And I also have something called 0:04:07.080 --> 0:04:10.120 my four you feed now, which for folks who watched 0:04:10.120 --> 0:04:13.160 the social media industry that seems to be lifted from TikTok, 0:04:13.200 --> 0:04:16.480 who has an algorithmically kind of driven for you feed 0:04:17.240 --> 0:04:20.360 that is interesting too. On Twitter, My Twitter currently has 0:04:20.400 --> 0:04:22.800 a for you and it has a following. The for 0:04:23.000 --> 0:04:27.039 you are the for you people interspersed within your timeline, 0:04:27.080 --> 0:04:28.800 Like I've noticed, my timeline is full of people that 0:04:28.839 --> 0:04:31.240 don't follow. Is that what you mean? That's what I mean. 0:04:31.279 --> 0:04:33.280 It's full of people I don't follow, and I'm seeing 0:04:33.320 --> 0:04:37.560 things like tweets from two days ago. I'm seeing things, uh, 0:04:37.680 --> 0:04:40.839 like tweets about topics that I haven't historically kind of 0:04:40.880 --> 0:04:43.800 engaged with. So this could be a play from Twitter 0:04:43.960 --> 0:04:46.159 to try to drive engagement, to kind of lift some 0:04:46.240 --> 0:04:49.719 of the tactics that TikTok's using that Instagram has borrowed 0:04:49.720 --> 0:04:52.840 from TikTok of introducing you to new kind of interest 0:04:52.920 --> 0:04:55.680 areas or new people to get you more engaged on 0:04:55.680 --> 0:04:58.320 the platform. Whether or not that bears out in more 0:04:58.360 --> 0:05:01.719 engagement and more users in more advertise or interest, that 0:05:01.800 --> 0:05:04.200 will be kind of a to be determined. But it 0:05:04.240 --> 0:05:07.240 does seem like as folks like Massadon and even you 0:05:07.240 --> 0:05:10.760 know Instagram TikTok LinkedIn start to take some of the 0:05:10.760 --> 0:05:13.320 typical users away from Twitter, it seems like they have 0:05:13.440 --> 0:05:17.239 to try some new things. Why doesn't Why doesn't um, 0:05:17.480 --> 0:05:22.000 Facebook just do this? Facebook has the people, right, you know, 0:05:22.040 --> 0:05:25.240 there's so many people who are on Facebook and Instagram. 0:05:25.320 --> 0:05:28.719 Why don't they try to sort of, I don't know, 0:05:28.760 --> 0:05:31.440 become a place where for for people who are disenfranchised 0:05:31.520 --> 0:05:33.920 or field disenfranchised by Twitter. Is they're building the metaverse? 0:05:33.920 --> 0:05:36.719 Come on, Tim, did you not get the mask? Alex? Okay, 0:05:37.800 --> 0:05:42.320 they're building the metaverse, but they're also it's part of it. 0:05:42.400 --> 0:05:44.560 But they're also investing a lot in AI that's not 0:05:44.600 --> 0:05:47.080 only applicable to photos and videos, but also to tax 0:05:47.200 --> 0:05:50.520 So it seems like whether you're interested in something that 0:05:50.560 --> 0:05:52.600 could be a place to go. But for someone like 0:05:52.680 --> 0:05:55.239 me in the journalism industry, for folks who care about 0:05:55.279 --> 0:05:58.520 finance news, um, for folks who are you know, a 0:05:58.560 --> 0:06:01.400 lot of the news so says Twitter has kind of 0:06:01.440 --> 0:06:03.800 in the space for that. Facebook, on the other hand, 0:06:03.839 --> 0:06:06.440 has gotten into a lot of trouble um for its 0:06:06.480 --> 0:06:09.599 dealings in misinformation. Um that's been a bit of a 0:06:09.880 --> 0:06:12.320 debate now on Twitter. But when when you think about 0:06:12.320 --> 0:06:16.040 like why you go to certain platforms, Uh, Facebook seems 0:06:16.080 --> 0:06:18.520 to be meta with Facebook and Instagram, moving in a 0:06:18.560 --> 0:06:20.720 little bit of a different direction than where Twitter has 0:06:20.760 --> 0:06:24.360 historically been as a kind of de facto place of news, 0:06:24.520 --> 0:06:28.359 political conversation, and conversation around live events like the Super 0:06:28.400 --> 0:06:30.880 Bowl or major sports event. All right, alex so net Net, 0:06:30.880 --> 0:06:34.360 does Ellen need to be worried about mastadon? I think 0:06:34.480 --> 0:06:38.040 right now the users don't don't give him any worry. Um, 0:06:38.040 --> 0:06:40.479 But in the future, if folks continue flocking there, then 0:06:40.960 --> 0:06:42.479 you know, I think he's a lot of worries on 0:06:42.520 --> 0:06:44.760 his table and this might be another one. All right, 0:06:44.960 --> 0:06:47.680 while we're talking about worries, what about Twitter employees? You know, 0:06:47.720 --> 0:06:50.279 there's another story on the terminal talks about workers at 0:06:50.320 --> 0:06:53.520 Twitter Singapore office told to empty at their desks, vacate 0:06:53.560 --> 0:06:56.239 the premises. According to those familiar as Ellen must continues 0:06:56.279 --> 0:06:58.200 to pair expenses around the globe. All right, so that's 0:06:58.200 --> 0:07:01.040 like go to work from home, but you do wonder Okay, 0:07:01.080 --> 0:07:03.600 do that and then maybe what's the next step. But anyway, 0:07:03.640 --> 0:07:06.640 I'm just reading into this, maybe incorrectly, but how do 0:07:06.680 --> 0:07:09.240 you see it? Yeah, so this is kind of one 0:07:09.279 --> 0:07:11.440 of the moves that we're seeing happen under mask where 0:07:11.480 --> 0:07:15.240 costs are being cut basically the offices the leases are expiring, UM, 0:07:15.280 --> 0:07:17.400 they need to kind of figure out another plan. Twitter 0:07:17.440 --> 0:07:20.200 employees have have had a lot of whiplash lately, UM, 0:07:20.360 --> 0:07:22.760 and it seems like there's been kind of a month 0:07:22.840 --> 0:07:26.000 long refocusing on things. So whether you're working from home 0:07:26.120 --> 0:07:28.400 and that's kind of changing your day to day, whether 0:07:28.480 --> 0:07:31.520 it's you know, changing the feed like we've seen, whether 0:07:31.560 --> 0:07:35.040 it's trying to roll out new kind of valuable offerings 0:07:35.040 --> 0:07:37.960 to advertisers, a lot of which have left or pause 0:07:38.040 --> 0:07:41.320 spending on the platform. The Twitter employees that are left 0:07:41.440 --> 0:07:44.040 are not only doing their jobs but also having to 0:07:44.080 --> 0:07:46.440 deal with a little bit of the chaos UM that 0:07:46.480 --> 0:07:49.240 we've seen over the last few months. So Singapore is 0:07:49.280 --> 0:07:51.880 one of the offices. We'll see if they continue to 0:07:51.920 --> 0:07:54.600 kind of shrink their footprint and shift to a UM 0:07:54.680 --> 0:07:57.800 kind of grand work from home model, which Ellen has 0:07:57.840 --> 0:08:00.760 also said he is not interested in. UM. So I 0:08:01.080 --> 0:08:03.720 think that the read through is the chaos or the 0:08:03.720 --> 0:08:06.480 whiplash seems to kind of continue for folks both on 0:08:06.520 --> 0:08:08.960 the platform and those behind the scenes who are keeping 0:08:08.960 --> 0:08:11.120 the lights on. Is it just me Alex or is 0:08:11.120 --> 0:08:13.640 Elon Musk kind of toned it down a bit on Twitter. 0:08:13.760 --> 0:08:16.960 Over the last couple of weeks, he's been a little quieter. 0:08:17.200 --> 0:08:19.440 I don't know if that's the holidays, or if that's 0:08:19.480 --> 0:08:22.240 the New year rush, or if their annual planning, but 0:08:22.320 --> 0:08:24.600 it does seem like the drama has calmed down. But 0:08:24.640 --> 0:08:27.120 you remember, there's some big beads still to come, right. 0:08:27.400 --> 0:08:29.960 He said they're looking for a new CEO to take 0:08:30.000 --> 0:08:32.240 over a lot of the operations. He's got a big 0:08:32.280 --> 0:08:35.520 debt bill do in January, so I think we'll still 0:08:35.559 --> 0:08:37.920 have enough drama and fodder to talk about even if 0:08:37.960 --> 0:08:41.120 he's not taking it to Twitter and listen, he told 0:08:41.240 --> 0:08:43.920 us at fourteen hours ago, maybe we should spend less 0:08:43.960 --> 0:08:46.640 time on social media. I mean, come on, he's got 0:08:46.640 --> 0:08:50.720 other things to Oh my god, it's going to be 0:08:50.720 --> 0:08:53.640 an interesting year. Um, Alex Brenka, thank you as always. 0:08:53.880 --> 0:08:56.160 We're getting a double dose of Alex this week and 0:08:56.559 --> 0:08:59.640 really good to check in with their um Twitter. Yeah, 0:08:59.760 --> 0:09:02.160 well see, we'll see you are going to try mastered 0:09:02.200 --> 0:09:06.760 on No, there's also post news which post news? Do 0:09:06.800 --> 0:09:08.200 you are you on it? I'm on that, but I 0:09:08.200 --> 0:09:10.760 haven't been. Do you use it? No? I haven't been. 0:09:10.800 --> 0:09:12.559 I gotta get this is the guy who liked eletes 0:09:12.600 --> 0:09:14.120 Twitter and then put it back on. Yeah, it's just 0:09:14.160 --> 0:09:16.719 I'm an addict, no offense. I loved him, but I 0:09:16.760 --> 0:09:18.760 don't know that I'm going to follow you follow me 0:09:18.800 --> 0:09:20.319 on Twitter. I follow you on Twitter, but I don't 0:09:20.559 --> 0:09:23.160 want to follow what you do here. Thanks, Hey, thanks 0:09:23.240 --> 0:09:28.840 Thanks co anchor Carol Heart Love Love Love. You're listening 0:09:28.880 --> 0:09:31.800 to Bloomberg Business Week with Carol mess Here and Tim 0:09:31.840 --> 0:09:35.600 Stenovic on Bloomberg Radio. All Right, we talked earlier about 0:09:35.640 --> 0:09:38.440 today's CPI report. The US is making progress, it seems 0:09:38.440 --> 0:09:42.680 on inflation. Uh. It has also made progress on COVID, 0:09:42.679 --> 0:09:44.160 and yet we also talk a lot about how we're 0:09:44.160 --> 0:09:47.440 not completely over the pandemic, how a new omicron sab 0:09:47.480 --> 0:09:50.439 variants out and the cases are once again rising around 0:09:50.440 --> 0:09:52.480 the United States. Back with us for an update on 0:09:52.520 --> 0:09:54.560 the virus and where we are in the US and 0:09:54.679 --> 0:09:57.679 around the world. We've got Dr Amish Adulges, senior scholar 0:09:57.760 --> 0:10:00.600 and infectious disease physician at the Center for Security at 0:10:00.600 --> 0:10:02.800 the Bloomberg School of Public Health. It is of course 0:10:02.800 --> 0:10:05.439 supported by Michael R. Bloomberg, the founder of Bloomberg LP 0:10:05.640 --> 0:10:10.360 and Bloomberg Philanthropies. He joins us from Pittsburgh this afternoon. 0:10:10.440 --> 0:10:12.079 Dr A. Dodge, It's good to talk with you again. 0:10:12.320 --> 0:10:14.040 It's been a while, which I guess is kind of 0:10:14.080 --> 0:10:16.600 good because you know, it's it's not good when we 0:10:16.600 --> 0:10:18.680 were speaking with you every single week and the only 0:10:18.679 --> 0:10:20.959 thing we were talking about was COVID. But like you said, 0:10:21.080 --> 0:10:22.760 you know, over the last two and a half years, 0:10:22.760 --> 0:10:24.480 as we've been talking to you, this is a virus 0:10:24.520 --> 0:10:26.840 that's going to change. It's a virus that's here to stay. 0:10:26.880 --> 0:10:28.920 How are you looking at it being part of our 0:10:28.960 --> 0:10:33.240 lives right now? I'm looking at it as something that 0:10:33.400 --> 0:10:35.959 we are going to continue to have to deal with 0:10:36.160 --> 0:10:38.160 that people are going to have to continue to learn 0:10:38.160 --> 0:10:41.719 how to risk calculate within science and technology are going 0:10:41.760 --> 0:10:44.520 to continue to have to advance to give us new 0:10:44.520 --> 0:10:47.920 tools to be able to make it as manageable as possible. 0:10:48.320 --> 0:10:50.000 But I do think that it's going to be something 0:10:50.040 --> 0:10:54.239 that is always going to be generating new variants and headlines. 0:10:54.720 --> 0:10:58.720 But it's something that is now much like other respiratory 0:10:58.800 --> 0:11:01.280 viruses because of all of those tools that science and 0:11:01.320 --> 0:11:06.120 medicine have given them. So Okay, I mean it's interesting, 0:11:06.200 --> 0:11:07.880 Like I think, first of all, I can't believe we're 0:11:08.080 --> 0:11:10.719 what two years out here now three years out um, 0:11:10.800 --> 0:11:12.719 so much has happened, so much in terms of how 0:11:12.720 --> 0:11:14.920 we think about these things and understanding that on a 0:11:14.960 --> 0:11:18.520 health basis, you know, the unthinkable can hit a developed 0:11:18.760 --> 0:11:21.839 in many developed nations like the US and others. So 0:11:22.480 --> 0:11:25.160 way forward here, Um, I think about this a lot. 0:11:25.240 --> 0:11:26.880 Five shots in, I mean, do I just have to 0:11:26.960 --> 0:11:31.440 keep getting shots? Well? I think if you're somebody that's 0:11:31.440 --> 0:11:33.920 of average risk, that you don't have any high risk conditions, 0:11:33.960 --> 0:11:36.480 that you're not older, you don't have harder vascular disease, 0:11:36.520 --> 0:11:41.079 you don't have obesity, you're not pregnant, immunocompromise. The actual 0:11:41.200 --> 0:11:44.240 regular vaccine, the standard dose does hold up really well 0:11:44.280 --> 0:11:48.000 against what matters serious illness, hospitalization and depth and boosting 0:11:48.080 --> 0:11:50.720 is really important for people that have risk factors for 0:11:50.800 --> 0:11:54.120 severe disease. I don't think that for the average healthy person, 0:11:54.160 --> 0:11:56.360 boosters do much. They don't cause it harm, but they're 0:11:56.400 --> 0:11:59.199 not really going to give you much protection against infection 0:11:59.440 --> 0:12:02.160 because this virus has sort of evolved away from being 0:12:02.160 --> 0:12:05.840 able to be protected by our first generation vaccines. And 0:12:05.880 --> 0:12:09.240 I think it's really about protection against serious illness, when 0:12:09.280 --> 0:12:12.079 it comes to vaccines and boosters, maybe we'll get better 0:12:12.160 --> 0:12:15.440 vaccines that are more that are more broad, that are 0:12:15.480 --> 0:12:19.160 not as susceptible to being kind of kind of limited 0:12:19.160 --> 0:12:21.880 by variants. But right now with these first generation vaccines, 0:12:22.000 --> 0:12:24.000 is really about protection against serious illness, and that's why 0:12:24.000 --> 0:12:27.440 I think boosters should be targeted to high risk individuals. 0:12:27.880 --> 0:12:29.760 That's really surprising to hear from you. I mean, I 0:12:30.040 --> 0:12:33.559 thought the general guidance was everybody who's eligible should be 0:12:33.600 --> 0:12:37.360 getting a booster. I've always been sort of a booster skeptic. 0:12:37.400 --> 0:12:39.880 I thought that when you look at what the vaccine 0:12:39.920 --> 0:12:43.000 was doing, it was protection against serious illness, hospitalization, and depth, 0:12:43.040 --> 0:12:44.840 and so you have to actually have a baseline risk 0:12:44.880 --> 0:12:47.160 of that for the boosters to give you benefit. And 0:12:47.200 --> 0:12:49.640 what we see is the boosters don't really do so much, 0:12:49.800 --> 0:12:52.040 especially in the age of omicron, when it comes to 0:12:52.040 --> 0:12:55.040 protection against infection. What they really do is protect you 0:12:55.040 --> 0:12:57.840 against serious illness. So that's why I think it's really 0:12:57.880 --> 0:13:01.160 almost mandatory that if you're old there and have or 0:13:01.160 --> 0:13:04.719 any high risk condition, you should be boosted. And in fact, 0:13:04.800 --> 0:13:07.720 I think we we have kind of this wrong situation 0:13:07.720 --> 0:13:09.160 in the United States where there are people who are 0:13:09.200 --> 0:13:11.720 at low risks, who tend to be boosted to a 0:13:11.800 --> 0:13:13.679 very high degree. And then you look at the three 0:13:13.720 --> 0:13:15.520 hundred to four hundred people that die every day in 0:13:15.559 --> 0:13:17.840 the United States from COVID, and none of them are boosted. 0:13:18.200 --> 0:13:21.200 So I think that we diluted the message by pushing 0:13:21.200 --> 0:13:24.160 for universal boosting, and the people who actually needed to 0:13:24.160 --> 0:13:26.520 be boost who needed to hear that they should prioritize 0:13:26.520 --> 0:13:29.480 getting boosted, that really didn't reach them. And I think 0:13:29.559 --> 0:13:32.079 that's the problem. You know, we nursing home residents to 0:13:32.120 --> 0:13:34.680 be boosted, not healthy thirty year olds. Is there a 0:13:34.679 --> 0:13:38.120 difference between the antibodies that are formed as a result 0:13:38.160 --> 0:13:41.400 of getting boosted versus the antibodies that are formed as 0:13:41.400 --> 0:13:46.319 a result of a prior prior infection. Not? Not. Really, 0:13:46.320 --> 0:13:48.360 they're in the same general category. There may be some 0:13:48.400 --> 0:13:51.760 tweaks depending upon which variant you are infected with, which 0:13:51.760 --> 0:13:53.840 booster you've got, If you've got the original booster, the 0:13:53.840 --> 0:13:56.600 bi valent booster, how strong they are, and and there 0:13:56.640 --> 0:13:59.960 is some evidence that you're getting repeated boosters. You don't 0:14:00.320 --> 0:14:02.960 even with the bible and booster, you don't make different 0:14:02.960 --> 0:14:07.079 types of antibodies. You still continue to overwhelmingly make the 0:14:07.280 --> 0:14:10.280 antibody to the one virus that you first were exposed to, 0:14:10.360 --> 0:14:12.360 or the one type of slike protein you were first 0:14:12.480 --> 0:14:14.520 exposed to. That's something called imprinting, which is a little 0:14:14.520 --> 0:14:17.800 bit complicated, but in general, the bottom line of boosters is, yes, 0:14:17.840 --> 0:14:21.080 they're helpful, but it's really about protecting a high risk 0:14:21.120 --> 0:14:24.760 populations with them, not necessarily the average person. And I 0:14:24.760 --> 0:14:27.560 think what's surprising to me is just the anecdotal And 0:14:27.680 --> 0:14:29.600 you know, it's so dangerous to use anecdotes when it 0:14:29.600 --> 0:14:33.440 comes to anything about medicine, because medicine is you know, 0:14:33.560 --> 0:14:35.440 when we would you get this stuff. It's approved, it's 0:14:35.440 --> 0:14:38.600 pure viewed, there are follows the scientific method and so on. 0:14:39.120 --> 0:14:40.520 You know. But it's like, Okay, my mother in law 0:14:40.520 --> 0:14:42.360 comes and stays with us. It turns out she had 0:14:42.400 --> 0:14:45.000 COVID the whole time, you know, and the three of 0:14:45.080 --> 0:14:47.160 us don't end up getting COVID. And I kind of 0:14:47.160 --> 0:14:50.440 attribute to that too, well, okay we previously had COVID 0:14:51.200 --> 0:14:54.480 or because we were recently vaccinated. I don't know, Dr Adulge. 0:14:54.560 --> 0:14:57.160 It's like hard to explain this stuff that you know, 0:14:57.240 --> 0:15:00.520 you feel protected, but you don't necessarily feel protected. Yeah, 0:15:00.520 --> 0:15:04.680 there's a lot of variables that really influence whether somebody 0:15:04.680 --> 0:15:06.960 gets infected. When was the person that you're exposed to, 0:15:06.960 --> 0:15:09.600 When where they contagious? What kind of immunity do you have? 0:15:09.800 --> 0:15:12.600 We know now that people who have hybrid immunity, a 0:15:12.600 --> 0:15:17.160 combination of being vaccinated plus natural infection have the strongest 0:15:17.200 --> 0:15:20.080 type of immunity. How fresh was your last vaccine or 0:15:20.080 --> 0:15:22.800 booster or last infection, all of that plays a role 0:15:23.640 --> 0:15:28.080 in how likely somebody is to get infected. And it's 0:15:28.080 --> 0:15:30.360 there's a lot of variables that that are at play, 0:15:30.440 --> 0:15:34.440 but it's this is a ubiquitous virus, and we're always 0:15:34.440 --> 0:15:36.320 going to be getting exposed to it. We're always going 0:15:36.360 --> 0:15:38.840 to know someone that has covid uh. This is now 0:15:38.960 --> 0:15:40.960 part of kind of the infectious disease mill you that 0:15:41.000 --> 0:15:43.800 we all will face, you know, all humans will face, 0:15:44.080 --> 0:15:46.600 you know, for the foreseeable future on this planet. All right, 0:15:46.680 --> 0:15:49.240 So if we are thinking about moving beyond this one, 0:15:50.200 --> 0:15:53.960 the coronavirus or covid um, is there another one that's 0:15:54.000 --> 0:15:58.160 likely to hit us probably in a few years or sooner. 0:15:58.200 --> 0:16:00.160 I mean, is that just kind of the fabric of 0:16:00.200 --> 0:16:03.520 our life now? Well? And not now it's always been 0:16:03.520 --> 0:16:05.000 the fabric of our life. If you look at the 0:16:05.040 --> 0:16:07.720 history of the human the human species on this planet, 0:16:07.720 --> 0:16:11.640 it's been pandemic, epidemic, famine, infectious disease threat after infectious 0:16:11.640 --> 0:16:14.960 disease threat. It's only in the last hundred or so 0:16:15.080 --> 0:16:17.680 years where we've had somewhat of arrestpite because of sanitation, 0:16:17.920 --> 0:16:20.200 because of the development of vaccines, because of the development 0:16:20.200 --> 0:16:23.320 of antibiotics and modern medicine. But for you know, if 0:16:23.320 --> 0:16:24.840 you talk to somebody, if you look at that, if 0:16:24.840 --> 0:16:27.760 you plot the whole human species time on this planet 0:16:27.760 --> 0:16:32.240 on almost just a little lit bit from around nineteen 0:16:34.080 --> 0:16:36.200 oh I think we're having some problems with that cell 0:16:36.240 --> 0:16:39.240 phone target. If you want to finish your thought in 0:16:39.320 --> 0:16:41.560 terms of like historical you say, this has always been 0:16:41.600 --> 0:16:43.600 a part of it, but it really in modern times 0:16:43.600 --> 0:16:46.960 it feels like it hasn't, right, I think, but only 0:16:46.960 --> 0:16:49.680 because we kind of had the luxury of vaccines and 0:16:49.760 --> 0:16:53.240 sanitation and antibiotics and anti virals. But if you look 0:16:53.280 --> 0:16:55.400 at the the entire world, you know there were still 0:16:55.440 --> 0:16:58.160 tens of thousands of people dying from measles. Uh. Even 0:16:58.200 --> 0:16:59.920 in the United States we have tens of thousands dying, 0:17:00.000 --> 0:17:01.520 I mean flenz. I think that was kind of a 0:17:01.520 --> 0:17:03.920 false sense of security, just based on the fact that 0:17:03.920 --> 0:17:06.520 people weren't paying attention to what was going on in 0:17:06.560 --> 0:17:10.080 the infectious disease world. So it's hard to predict when 0:17:10.080 --> 0:17:12.560 the next pandemic will be. But it's it's always not 0:17:12.720 --> 0:17:15.879 a question of whether one will occur. It's it's it's 0:17:15.920 --> 0:17:19.200 when it occurs, it's not if. And there are other viruses, 0:17:19.240 --> 0:17:23.560 other respiratory viruses, flu viruses, particularly topical list including AVI 0:17:23.680 --> 0:17:25.639 and flu viruses that that I think we have to 0:17:25.680 --> 0:17:28.199 continue to prepare for you. I've heard also just the 0:17:28.240 --> 0:17:30.480 general flu or the seasonal flu. This this time around 0:17:30.520 --> 0:17:32.760 has been really rough on a lot of people. Um 0:17:32.960 --> 0:17:35.919 Dr Amos Sadalja, thank you so much, appreciated senior scholar 0:17:35.920 --> 0:17:38.760 and infectious disease physician at the Center for Health Security 0:17:38.960 --> 0:17:41.119 at the Bloomberg School of Public Health. Supported as you 0:17:41.119 --> 0:17:44.639 know by Michael R. Bloomberg, Founder, Bloomberg ALP and Bloomberg philanthropist, 0:17:44.720 --> 0:17:47.720 joining us on the phone from Pittsburgh. I don't know 0:17:47.720 --> 0:17:50.159 about you. I mean, I'm gonna probably still if I can. 0:17:50.280 --> 0:17:52.760 I was surprised to hear those comments about boosters that 0:17:52.800 --> 0:17:54.560 he made. But it's he's right that you know, it 0:17:54.600 --> 0:17:57.280 needs they need to get to the people who really 0:17:57.280 --> 0:17:59.920 need it. Yeah, but I also I'm watching China because 0:18:00.000 --> 0:18:04.159 its delinations, you know, fighting it. These is Bloomberg Business 0:18:04.240 --> 0:18:08.800 Week with Carol Messer and Tim Stanovic on Bloomberg Radio. 0:18:09.280 --> 0:18:11.400 The new issue of Bloomberg Business Week. It is out 0:18:11.560 --> 0:18:14.480 on newsstands, online at Bloomberg dot com, slash business Week 0:18:14.520 --> 0:18:16.879 and of course always on the Bloomberg Terminal. It's the 0:18:16.920 --> 0:18:20.880 annual the Year Ahead issue, the major trends, disruptions, breakthrough products, 0:18:20.920 --> 0:18:23.800 innovations and movements to watch in the coming year. It 0:18:23.880 --> 0:18:26.960 compliments this week's Bloomberg Live event in Davos that's happening 0:18:27.240 --> 0:18:29.960 as the World Economic Forum hosts its annual meeting there, 0:18:30.280 --> 0:18:33.520 and the cover story has to do with the economic outlook. 0:18:33.840 --> 0:18:37.120 It's written by Stephanie Flanders. She's Bloomberg News Senior Executive 0:18:37.200 --> 0:18:39.920 editor for Economics and the Government. She's here with us 0:18:40.000 --> 0:18:42.920 now in the Bloomberg Interactive Brokers studio. It's a real 0:18:42.920 --> 0:18:44.879 treat to have her on this side of the pond 0:18:45.040 --> 0:18:48.119 because she's usually of course based in our London office. 0:18:48.119 --> 0:18:50.760 Stephanie how are you. I'm alright, I'm alright looking at 0:18:50.760 --> 0:18:53.240 the year ahead. Yeah, well, let's talk about the year ahead, 0:18:53.280 --> 0:18:55.600 because you're write about these three pillars that kind of 0:18:55.640 --> 0:18:59.960 held together the global economy. Was helpful to have low rates, 0:19:00.000 --> 0:19:02.800 but it's also helpful to have a kind of a 0:19:02.840 --> 0:19:08.040 conflict free world, you know, notwithstanding some minor conflicts here 0:19:08.080 --> 0:19:11.080 and there. And then also of course energy prices were 0:19:11.119 --> 0:19:13.400 kept low for for quite a while. If we look 0:19:13.400 --> 0:19:17.119 back on those pillars are kind of crumbled. Yes, And 0:19:17.160 --> 0:19:19.320 that's what I was thinking. So what's useful about doing 0:19:19.320 --> 0:19:22.040 this exercise for for Business Week? And I have done 0:19:22.040 --> 0:19:24.760 it a few years now? Is you sort of Obviously 0:19:24.760 --> 0:19:27.399 you're quite caught up in especially these days, on exactly 0:19:27.440 --> 0:19:29.159 what's going to happen to the economy this year? And 0:19:29.359 --> 0:19:32.040 are we going to get at heads around inflation? Is 0:19:32.040 --> 0:19:35.680 the FED going to stop tightening? But you also want 0:19:35.680 --> 0:19:37.919 to step back and think, okay, what how is the 0:19:37.960 --> 0:19:40.399 world fundamentally changed? And I think this was one of 0:19:40.440 --> 0:19:43.240 those years where I thought, Wow, we really have had 0:19:43.800 --> 0:19:48.159 these fundamental assumptions underpinning maybe thirty forty years of global 0:19:48.200 --> 0:19:51.760 economic history. Certainly my lifetime of thinking about economics and 0:19:51.840 --> 0:19:55.560 thinking about the world all having kind of been kicked 0:19:55.560 --> 0:19:58.080 away over the last couple of years. It's not just 0:19:58.200 --> 0:20:02.359 cheap energy prices, it's not just cheap labor costs and 0:20:02.400 --> 0:20:05.520 transportation costs. And as you said, the sort of friction 0:20:05.680 --> 0:20:09.119 free period for geopolitics, at least when it came to 0:20:09.440 --> 0:20:11.639 you know, am I going to find it fairly easy 0:20:11.720 --> 0:20:15.639 to set up a complicated supply chain in Asia or China? 0:20:16.160 --> 0:20:19.199 And all of that has gone away. And then on 0:20:19.280 --> 0:20:21.240 top of all that, you know you kind of every time, 0:20:21.280 --> 0:20:23.760 but any one of those pillars was sort of shaky. 0:20:23.920 --> 0:20:26.879 You always had the FED put right, You always had 0:20:26.920 --> 0:20:31.000 the FED there um super easy money, kind of free 0:20:31.000 --> 0:20:34.080 money to make everything still make the numbers still add up. 0:20:34.400 --> 0:20:38.159 And when you start looking ahead and thinking, okay, if if, 0:20:38.359 --> 0:20:42.800 if those have gone in quite a lasting way, decoupling 0:20:42.840 --> 0:20:45.639 whatever you want to call it, as well as potentially 0:20:45.720 --> 0:20:47.960 kind of higher interest rates sticking around for a while, 0:20:48.520 --> 0:20:51.119 you know that that could mean something quite fundamental, not 0:20:51.200 --> 0:20:53.919 just for economic growth, but also for global politics. You know, 0:20:53.960 --> 0:20:56.159 we talk about pivots, and I do think about Stephanie, 0:20:56.200 --> 0:20:58.119 is it just a case of a reset? Certainly here 0:20:58.119 --> 0:21:00.679 in the United States, but elsewhere this whole dea of 0:21:00.800 --> 0:21:03.760 cheap money no more. Yeah, and I think I mean, 0:21:04.000 --> 0:21:06.280 as you know, I'm normally in London and that the 0:21:06.680 --> 0:21:10.240 sheer pace of change there has been extraordinary. I mean people, 0:21:10.280 --> 0:21:13.560 you know, the difference between getting a mortgage in July 0:21:13.840 --> 0:21:16.840 and getting it in September, partly thanks to the sort 0:21:16.840 --> 0:21:18.959 of craziness we had in Parliament, but actually not just 0:21:19.000 --> 0:21:22.520 that you had rates double or treble. In many cases, 0:21:22.520 --> 0:21:23.960 people are going to be going up in the next 0:21:24.040 --> 0:21:27.360 few months, renegotiating their mortgages and going from a one 0:21:27.359 --> 0:21:30.439 percent rate to six and they're going to fail their 0:21:30.480 --> 0:21:33.000 affordability tests and you know, so, yeah, we don't know 0:21:33.040 --> 0:21:35.080 how that's going to play out. Well, how do you 0:21:35.119 --> 0:21:36.840 think about this, Like this whole idea of the Fed 0:21:36.920 --> 0:21:38.440 still thinks they're going to get down to two percent 0:21:38.560 --> 0:21:40.680 right in terms of inflation, and that that's their target. 0:21:40.720 --> 0:21:43.960 There are many people say, no, way, things have changed dramatically. 0:21:44.280 --> 0:21:47.119 How do you think about that globally? Like has something 0:21:47.280 --> 0:21:49.480 is it different this time around? Is there kind of 0:21:49.480 --> 0:21:52.359 a new rate because of some global macro forces that 0:21:52.400 --> 0:21:55.280 have changed forever? Yeah? I think so, there's as you know, 0:21:55.359 --> 0:21:57.600 a big debate about this, and there are plenty of 0:21:57.680 --> 0:21:59.959 economists on both sides as always, so we can keep 0:22:00.000 --> 0:22:04.160 about keep up the debate. But I think, um, it's 0:22:04.200 --> 0:22:06.440 gonna I think this year it's going to depend quite 0:22:06.440 --> 0:22:09.480 a lot on China. So you have the very rapid 0:22:09.560 --> 0:22:13.200 reopening actually may be unhelpful to the j pals of 0:22:13.240 --> 0:22:15.160 this world, because, as you know, we could then see 0:22:15.200 --> 0:22:17.400 maybe an extra one percentage point, maybe an extra two 0:22:17.400 --> 0:22:21.000 percentage points on global inflation just because of faster China 0:22:21.080 --> 0:22:25.199 growth and higher energy prices from that. But looking further ahead, 0:22:25.200 --> 0:22:27.919 has there been a more fundamental shift between the relationship 0:22:28.000 --> 0:22:32.560 between unemployment and wages? You know, we've had all these 0:22:32.640 --> 0:22:34.960 years where you had super low unemployment, you know, very 0:22:35.000 --> 0:22:38.399 tight labor market, but wages didn't budge. Now you know, 0:22:38.440 --> 0:22:42.400 the dam is kind of broken, and you have got 0:22:42.440 --> 0:22:45.399 these much bigger wage rises coming down the track in 0:22:45.440 --> 0:22:48.520 many countries. If they get locked in, then you're right, 0:22:48.560 --> 0:22:50.280 you know, we're in a we're in a different world. 0:22:51.200 --> 0:22:53.320 You right at the end of the piece that the 0:22:53.359 --> 0:22:57.560 microeconomic trend for three is going to be near shoring 0:22:57.720 --> 0:23:00.639 the idea of untangling some of these fly chains that 0:23:00.720 --> 0:23:04.520 companies have spent a generation building as they've gotten concerned 0:23:04.520 --> 0:23:08.360 about Okay, maybe COVID zero in China or trade relationships 0:23:08.400 --> 0:23:11.520 with countries including China. Um, how do you think that's 0:23:11.560 --> 0:23:13.520 going to continue to play out, Because at the same time, 0:23:15.359 --> 0:23:19.000 it does seem like labor is so you know, you 0:23:19.040 --> 0:23:20.760 don't want to you don't want to unravel too much 0:23:20.760 --> 0:23:23.360 in a company like Apple, for example, is so inextricably 0:23:23.400 --> 0:23:26.080 bound to a to a country like China. And I 0:23:26.080 --> 0:23:28.320 actually think that's one of the fundamental tensions. And that's 0:23:28.320 --> 0:23:30.400 actually it's why I've I've set up a whole squad. 0:23:30.600 --> 0:23:32.840 Now I've got control of the economics and government. Here 0:23:32.840 --> 0:23:36.560 at Bloomberg, We've got a geoeconomic squad. And precisely because 0:23:36.640 --> 0:23:39.119 the economics and the politics is really kind of coming 0:23:39.160 --> 0:23:41.880 into into tention at the moment. I don't think any 0:23:41.920 --> 0:23:45.240 of these big companies wanted niche near shore. Particularly, it 0:23:45.240 --> 0:23:47.320 wouldn't be their first choice. They certainly it wouldn't be 0:23:47.359 --> 0:23:50.120 their choice to come out of China, and they're resisting 0:23:50.160 --> 0:23:52.320 that in many areas. But they're also looking at the 0:23:52.400 --> 0:23:55.640 riding on the wall. But as the geopolitical trends that 0:23:56.119 --> 0:23:58.240 we talked about, from the last thirty years have gone 0:23:58.280 --> 0:24:00.520 into reverse. You know, the politicians in sense and no 0:24:00.560 --> 0:24:04.480 longer on the side of closer and closer integration and globalization. 0:24:04.840 --> 0:24:06.679 So I think businesses for the first time in a 0:24:06.720 --> 0:24:10.359 long time, have to reckon with you know, if you 0:24:10.440 --> 0:24:13.680 like the kind of the current of history running against them. 0:24:13.760 --> 0:24:17.399 You know, whereas previously, you know, in most places people 0:24:17.440 --> 0:24:19.879 wanted to make things easier for global business, that's not 0:24:19.920 --> 0:24:22.919 the case. Now you've got President Biden, You've got politicians 0:24:22.960 --> 0:24:27.440 all around the world actively making their lives harder. Um, 0:24:27.440 --> 0:24:32.600 it feels kind of glum if you're not alone. Even 0:24:32.640 --> 0:24:35.720 the good news in China is exactly like and there's 0:24:35.720 --> 0:24:37.520 a lot of individuals. So maybe it's not so great 0:24:37.520 --> 0:24:39.040 in the first half, better in the second half. But 0:24:39.080 --> 0:24:40.720 I think there's a lot of debate over that too. 0:24:41.080 --> 0:24:44.200 Could things actually come in better? Could the US fear 0:24:44.240 --> 0:24:46.359 better too than the rest of the world? Are are 0:24:46.359 --> 0:24:48.120 a lot of the world. Yeah, And actually I even 0:24:48.119 --> 0:24:51.400 say that there. I think there's a scenario which says, um, 0:24:51.760 --> 0:24:55.040 the US dodges recession or has a very shallow recession. 0:24:55.119 --> 0:24:57.440 Even in the Eurozone, it's looking like I don't think 0:24:57.440 --> 0:25:00.439 my optimism extends to the UK at last, but in 0:25:00.440 --> 0:25:02.040 the Eurozone it's looking like it's going to be a 0:25:02.119 --> 0:25:03.959 very shallow recession, and quite a lot of the country's 0:25:04.000 --> 0:25:07.280 may even dodge a formal recession. If we get to 0:25:07.320 --> 0:25:09.720 the end of the year and central banks have also 0:25:09.920 --> 0:25:12.919 kind of have basically got control of inflation, and that 0:25:13.000 --> 0:25:15.800 we are within sight of two, then as I say 0:25:15.840 --> 0:25:17.639 at the end of the piece, everything does become a 0:25:17.680 --> 0:25:20.520 bit easier. You know, we may still have these structural trends, 0:25:20.560 --> 0:25:23.399 these question marks, but it's on a slower burn and 0:25:23.400 --> 0:25:26.520 you're not talking about these relationships just kind of going 0:25:26.600 --> 0:25:28.760 up in smoke. Definitely, does it feel since you've said, 0:25:28.760 --> 0:25:30.520 you've done this a couple of times for Business Week, 0:25:30.600 --> 0:25:33.200 kind of setting what the economic outlook is for the year, 0:25:33.280 --> 0:25:35.200 does it how does it feel different from last year? 0:25:35.200 --> 0:25:37.840 Do you remember like does it feel more certain or 0:25:38.000 --> 0:25:41.120 still uncertain? But different debates. I think the fundamental sort 0:25:41.160 --> 0:25:43.720 of narratives are actually clearer, and actually going back to 0:25:43.760 --> 0:25:46.679 that point of geoeconomics, I sort of feel like I 0:25:46.760 --> 0:25:49.640 know what the story is or what the different elements 0:25:49.680 --> 0:25:51.600 of the story are going forward, but of course I 0:25:51.680 --> 0:25:53.280 never know what's going to happen, and that's what makes 0:25:53.359 --> 0:25:55.960 life so interesting. Okay, thirty seconds just to end on 0:25:56.000 --> 0:25:58.520 Russia's invasion of Ukraine. I think it's been most a 0:25:58.520 --> 0:26:03.280 full year, uh at the end of February and thirty 0:26:03.280 --> 0:26:05.800 seconds against Stephanie, I mean, how does this How does 0:26:05.800 --> 0:26:08.200 this play out in Europe? I would say one positive. 0:26:08.240 --> 0:26:10.639 I mean, of course it's a massively negative event for 0:26:10.680 --> 0:26:13.119 the continent to have a war on its on its shots. 0:26:13.560 --> 0:26:15.639 But the way that Europe has hung together, not just 0:26:15.680 --> 0:26:18.320 the governments but the people I think is a source 0:26:18.440 --> 0:26:22.399 of inspiration and potential optimism. We'll just we'll see how 0:26:22.400 --> 0:26:24.760 whether they managed to carry that forward. Well, it's a 0:26:24.760 --> 0:26:26.640 great set up for the year, which should turn out 0:26:26.640 --> 0:26:29.000 to be. It sounds like another interesting one, Stephanie, Thank 0:26:29.000 --> 0:26:31.800 you so much, really appreciate it. Stephanie Flanders. Of course, 0:26:31.800 --> 0:26:34.600 she's senior executive editor for Economics and Government here at 0:26:34.600 --> 0:26:37.520 Bloomberg News. This is the cover story of the new 0:26:37.600 --> 0:26:40.000 issue of Bloomberg Business Week. It's the year ahead issue. 0:26:40.280 --> 0:26:42.320 You can find it on newsstand. You can find it 0:26:42.359 --> 0:26:45.320 online at Bloomberg dot com, slash business Week, and of 0:26:45.359 --> 0:26:49.080 course always on the Bloomberg terminal. You're listening to Bloomberg 0:26:49.080 --> 0:26:53.040 Business Week with Carol Messer and Tim Stenovic on Bloomberg 0:26:53.119 --> 0:26:55.600 Radio and Shares of Disney. They're up again. They're now 0:26:55.640 --> 0:26:58.800 up about four this year. Last night a flur of 0:26:58.920 --> 0:27:03.120 headlines as the company squares off against activist investor Nielson Peltz, 0:27:03.240 --> 0:27:05.960 who nominated himself to the board. What happens though, now 0:27:06.080 --> 0:27:09.400 is the responsibility of longtime CEO Bob Iger, who, as 0:27:09.440 --> 0:27:12.080 you all know, he retired. Then he came back to 0:27:12.160 --> 0:27:14.520 run the company late last year. So there's a lot 0:27:14.520 --> 0:27:16.560 going on here. Yeah, We've got a great group of 0:27:16.640 --> 0:27:19.280 voices with us this afternoon. We've got Bloomberg News Entertainment 0:27:19.359 --> 0:27:21.600 nitor Chris Paul Mary, who's on the phone from l A. 0:27:21.720 --> 0:27:22.960 He's going to give us the news, and then we 0:27:23.040 --> 0:27:26.119 get some more analysis from Bloomberg Intelligence Technology and media 0:27:26.119 --> 0:27:29.199 analysts Gita ron Ganathan, who's with us via zoom from 0:27:29.240 --> 0:27:32.720 our Bloomberg Intelligence headquarters in Princeton, New Jersey. Chris, I 0:27:32.720 --> 0:27:35.000 want to start with you because I met this comment 0:27:35.040 --> 0:27:38.760 to Carol earlier today. Uh, Bob Iger, the return of 0:27:38.760 --> 0:27:43.280 the Bob. He has not wasted any time in undoing 0:27:43.359 --> 0:27:46.600 some of the changes that his predecessor and successor, I 0:27:46.600 --> 0:27:49.480 don't know if there's a word for predecessor and successor. Uh. 0:27:49.560 --> 0:27:53.320 Bob Japeck made starting with, you know, some some rules 0:27:53.320 --> 0:27:57.080 at uh the parks, some rules at corporate HQ, and 0:27:57.119 --> 0:28:01.800 then also squaring off with with Pelts, bring us the latest, right, Yeah, 0:28:01.840 --> 0:28:04.439 so you're right out to the bat. He indicated he 0:28:04.480 --> 0:28:07.959 was gonna do away with is sort of controversial distribution 0:28:08.440 --> 0:28:10.800 arm Disney that sort of made decisions about where all 0:28:10.840 --> 0:28:13.679 the movies and TV shows go and to rankle a 0:28:13.680 --> 0:28:15.720 lot of staff internally. He hasn't really come up with 0:28:15.800 --> 0:28:17.879 that new plan yet, but he's indicated that on the 0:28:17.920 --> 0:28:20.639 way out the door this week. Also, as you noted, UH, 0:28:20.640 --> 0:28:23.240 and it changes to the parks, you know under tape 0:28:23.240 --> 0:28:25.840 that was known for, you know, squeezing every dollar that 0:28:25.880 --> 0:28:30.200 he could at park guests and UH and now uh 0:28:30.320 --> 0:28:33.320 I was offering things like simplice photo passes this year 0:28:33.359 --> 0:28:36.320 and other things, UH to to sort of win them 0:28:36.359 --> 0:28:39.200 back a bit. UH and now yes, going to war 0:28:39.280 --> 0:28:43.440 with Nelson Pelts, one of the most formidable corporate activists 0:28:43.760 --> 0:28:46.000 have been doing this for decades, you know, taking on 0:28:46.120 --> 0:28:49.800 big companies Parker and gamble, hinds uh and uh, and 0:28:49.960 --> 0:28:53.280 Disney's warn't saying no, thanks, Nelson, we we'd rather not 0:28:53.320 --> 0:28:56.880 have you on it. So a proxy war, you know, 0:28:57.040 --> 0:28:59.120 shaping up over the next two weeks. All right, to 0:28:59.160 --> 0:29:03.560 come on in on it. It's wrong with Disney, too 0:29:03.560 --> 0:29:06.760 many things, unfortunately, Carol. So this, you know, this whole 0:29:06.760 --> 0:29:09.760 timing by Pelts seems to be very very smart. Obviously, 0:29:09.800 --> 0:29:12.720 I think Disney is in a lot of turmoil right now. 0:29:13.240 --> 0:29:16.160 We had a dismal, you know, earnings report when they 0:29:16.160 --> 0:29:19.480 reported in November. You know, we saw streaming losses kind 0:29:19.480 --> 0:29:22.680 of balloon to about one and a half billion dollars 0:29:22.680 --> 0:29:25.200 for just that quarter. And if you kind of look 0:29:25.280 --> 0:29:29.080 at Pels's slide presentation, which he calls Restore the Magic, 0:29:29.200 --> 0:29:32.000 he says that a website. Yeah, he's got a website. 0:29:32.000 --> 0:29:34.000 He's got a website. Yes, Restore the Magic is the 0:29:34.040 --> 0:29:37.560 name of that website, and he basically says that, you know, 0:29:37.640 --> 0:29:41.760 streaming losses are huge, they are going to reach fifteen 0:29:41.800 --> 0:29:46.280 billion dollars by twenty four which we kind of agree with. Um, 0:29:46.320 --> 0:29:47.920 you know, so all of those things, and then of 0:29:47.960 --> 0:29:50.440 course you had that huge management upheaval with the Ouster 0:29:50.560 --> 0:29:53.200 of shapeg the reinstatement of Bob Iger. So obviously the 0:29:53.200 --> 0:29:56.200 timing is is kind of very astute on the part 0:29:56.400 --> 0:29:58.800 part of Pells. But having said that, I mean a 0:29:58.800 --> 0:30:01.960 lot of the critiques he has leveled against Disney and 0:30:02.320 --> 0:30:04.600 the board and the management, I mean, these are all 0:30:04.680 --> 0:30:07.920 all these are all already on the radar, and Bob Iger, 0:30:08.320 --> 0:30:12.160 as Chris pointed out, is is already working on these. 0:30:12.320 --> 0:30:14.560 So you know, yes, he's given all of these, he 0:30:14.600 --> 0:30:16.640 has given this londly list of items to do, but 0:30:16.760 --> 0:30:21.720 he hasn't necessarily given us a plan. Well, I guess 0:30:21.720 --> 0:30:24.360 that brings me to my question next question for Chris, 0:30:24.440 --> 0:30:27.600 which is, you know, when we think about a succession 0:30:27.640 --> 0:30:30.120 plan here or any sort of plan, you know, Iger 0:30:30.160 --> 0:30:32.880 had fifteen years to to make his plan at Disney 0:30:32.880 --> 0:30:35.920 when he led it from five to Chris, and then 0:30:35.960 --> 0:30:39.280 he hand picked Bob Jpeck. So his next step is 0:30:39.280 --> 0:30:41.280 is figuring out not only what to do in terms 0:30:41.280 --> 0:30:45.960 of strategy, but also who's going to take the helm right. 0:30:46.080 --> 0:30:50.440 And you know they've made proactively some announcements along that route. 0:30:50.440 --> 0:30:53.200 When they rehired I, they said, you've got some years 0:30:53.200 --> 0:30:55.200 and what one of your main missions is going to 0:30:55.280 --> 0:30:59.000 be you know, groom that replacement. As part of this 0:30:59.080 --> 0:31:02.320 week's news did they announced the retirement of their current 0:31:02.720 --> 0:31:06.440 chairman of the board, replacing her with Mark Palmer, Nike's 0:31:06.480 --> 0:31:10.200 former executive and he is now heading a specific subset 0:31:10.240 --> 0:31:12.720 of the board that's going to be um passed with 0:31:12.880 --> 0:31:15.520 finding that replacement. I mean, this is certainly one of 0:31:15.520 --> 0:31:18.640 the things that you know, Iger is well well respected 0:31:18.680 --> 0:31:22.840 in the industry, but there's no one, no corporate government's effort, 0:31:22.840 --> 0:31:26.360 no analysts, who really believes that this, uh, this succession 0:31:26.400 --> 0:31:28.880 plan worked very well. And so this is definitely a 0:31:28.920 --> 0:31:31.560 weak point from him and something he didn't expect. Nelson 0:31:31.640 --> 0:31:34.600 Felts to hammer away at. You know, Chris, I'm listening 0:31:34.640 --> 0:31:36.040 to you and I think about you know, years ago, 0:31:36.160 --> 0:31:37.640 right and I did you know we did a deep 0:31:37.640 --> 0:31:39.920 dive into Disney and it was Tom Stags and I 0:31:39.960 --> 0:31:44.480 can't remember um Rasulo right, the CFO where they switched places. 0:31:44.600 --> 0:31:46.120 And these are the two guys that were said to 0:31:46.120 --> 0:31:48.720 be you know, kind of getting different perspectives of the company, 0:31:49.000 --> 0:31:51.560 and one of them was going to maybe possibly likely 0:31:52.280 --> 0:31:54.840 take over for IGOR and then it didn't happen. So 0:31:55.160 --> 0:31:58.040 you know. I mean, is Bob okay about handing over 0:31:58.080 --> 0:32:05.280 the mantel? Uh? That depends that you ask. Uh. You know, 0:32:05.520 --> 0:32:08.480 there's certainly the school and thought that that says he's 0:32:08.520 --> 0:32:10.920 not a guy you know and historically, by the way, 0:32:11.280 --> 0:32:14.960 Disney CEOs if you have had a hard time given 0:32:15.040 --> 0:32:19.080 up the job, remember Vitaliser. So uh, yeah, you know 0:32:19.160 --> 0:32:22.760 it's you know, he stayed. We knew his contract four 0:32:22.760 --> 0:32:26.200 times at least five mouth counts this one. Um, you know, 0:32:26.280 --> 0:32:29.320 he is he is one who very much wanted to 0:32:29.320 --> 0:32:32.000 stay in that role. Gita, what's your thoughts in terms 0:32:32.000 --> 0:32:34.480 of Bob Iger back at the helm, Is this exactly 0:32:34.520 --> 0:32:38.000 what the company needs? Um to kind of set it straight? 0:32:38.080 --> 0:32:40.840 And then ultimately do you think he'll be comfortable in 0:32:40.880 --> 0:32:45.400 two years time handing over the top spot. Yeah, that's 0:32:45.400 --> 0:32:49.200 that's a loaded question, Carol. So you know, um, I 0:32:49.240 --> 0:32:51.200 think he is absolutely the best person to leave the 0:32:51.200 --> 0:32:53.520 company right now. He knows what needs to be done. 0:32:53.560 --> 0:32:55.800 He's very very familiar with all of the assets, all 0:32:55.840 --> 0:32:58.200 of the I p uh you know. He he clearly 0:32:58.280 --> 0:33:01.360 understands that some of the content, especially the animated content, 0:33:01.440 --> 0:33:06.920 has been underperforming. So there is a clear task on hand. Uh, 0:33:07.080 --> 0:33:10.160 for for Bob Bikers. So I'm sure he knows exactly 0:33:10.160 --> 0:33:13.480 what he's doing. Now the question comes to succession, and 0:33:13.560 --> 0:33:16.200 this has you know, this has been botched by either 0:33:16.360 --> 0:33:18.720 I mean he's for all the successes that he's had, 0:33:18.760 --> 0:33:22.640 I mean, this is one consistent area where he has failed. Uh. 0:33:22.680 --> 0:33:24.560 And you know it's going to be interesting to see 0:33:24.600 --> 0:33:27.840 because he has I mean it really ultimately, I think 0:33:27.840 --> 0:33:31.240 comes down to creative expertise. And this is something what 0:33:31.400 --> 0:33:35.400 all the other prior candidates I think have have collectively lacked, right, 0:33:35.440 --> 0:33:37.280 whether it was a Tom Stags or whether it was 0:33:37.280 --> 0:33:39.640 a j Rossulo and even Tom jay Bick. I mean 0:33:39.680 --> 0:33:41.520 he was a Parks guy. So you know it kind 0:33:41.560 --> 0:33:46.800 of that whole creative process managing talent. I mean that 0:33:46.800 --> 0:33:49.440 that is something that only very few people can do. Um. 0:33:49.560 --> 0:33:51.000 And so it's going to be interesting to see if 0:33:51.040 --> 0:33:53.760 they can really find somebody within two years. My sister, 0:33:53.920 --> 0:33:56.600 My suspicion is, you know, this is again going to 0:33:56.680 --> 0:34:00.200 be a deja wo situation, because yes, he's invigorating think 0:34:00.240 --> 0:34:03.520 the content right now, he's you know, rejiggering the whole 0:34:03.560 --> 0:34:07.239 creative process. But I don't think two years is going 0:34:07.280 --> 0:34:11.239 to be enough for him to really uh complete what 0:34:11.360 --> 0:34:15.400 he starts. So if he's doing really well, is it 0:34:15.440 --> 0:34:20.560 possible that he sticks around? And yes, yeah, he's gotta 0:34:21.000 --> 0:34:23.719 he's gotta update that autobiography that he released a couple 0:34:23.719 --> 0:34:26.600 of years ago. I think he gita Um. In terms 0:34:26.600 --> 0:34:29.000 of names, is there any chance that Disney would go 0:34:29.080 --> 0:34:33.399 outside of the company to find someone, I definitely think 0:34:33.440 --> 0:34:35.759 that's possible. I mean, there are a few names that 0:34:35.960 --> 0:34:40.520 you know, keep coming up internally. You know, obviously Christine McCarthy, 0:34:40.600 --> 0:34:43.720 she's the CFO. She has a lot of experience. But again, 0:34:43.760 --> 0:34:47.479 if they're really looking for somebody with that creative kind 0:34:47.520 --> 0:34:50.359 of genius, I don't know if she necessarily fits the bill. 0:34:50.440 --> 0:34:52.880 Of course, you have Dana Walden who comes from Fox 0:34:53.719 --> 0:34:56.520 who probably you know, does have a lot of creative expertise. 0:34:56.560 --> 0:34:58.920 She's you know, kind of managed the TV and entertainment business. 0:34:59.239 --> 0:35:00.960 But I wouldn't be surp rise if they if they 0:35:01.000 --> 0:35:04.360 look outside as well. Uh And again here also, you know, 0:35:04.400 --> 0:35:07.279 a very interesting point by Belts about why they would 0:35:07.320 --> 0:35:10.680 have chosen you know, Bob Japeck and not Kevin Mayer. 0:35:10.760 --> 0:35:14.239 And that's something that we were all kind of scratching. 0:35:14.680 --> 0:35:18.080 Kevin Mayor's long gone at this point, he is, Yes, 0:35:18.200 --> 0:35:21.440 he's he's doing his own thing now. But um, you 0:35:21.480 --> 0:35:24.440 know that that was that was a big shock, actually 0:35:24.480 --> 0:35:26.799 a big surprise when when that whole announcement came out, 0:35:26.880 --> 0:35:31.080 just kind of given his involvement in the whole streaming initiative, 0:35:31.160 --> 0:35:33.799 just kind of given his whole expertise with content. Yeah, 0:35:33.960 --> 0:35:36.040 what about the Hey, Chris, what with the Marvel head? 0:35:36.080 --> 0:35:41.600 I mean, uh, Kevin fahey, I mean, is that a possibility? Yeah, 0:35:41.680 --> 0:35:45.440 I don't think so. You know, Kevin is, without adapt 0:35:45.480 --> 0:35:48.880 the most successful bruiser in the history of Hollywood. Uh, 0:35:48.960 --> 0:35:51.759 And so you know, he's had plenty of opportunities if 0:35:51.760 --> 0:35:54.880 he wanted to to to rise within the organization or 0:35:54.920 --> 0:35:59.680 go to another studio. I think he's very content running 0:35:59.719 --> 0:36:04.240 mar and um, you know, probably it would be arguably 0:36:04.280 --> 0:36:06.319 doesn't have the bottom experience it would take to run 0:36:06.360 --> 0:36:09.279 the Wall Basy company. Well, it's an incredible company. When 0:36:09.320 --> 0:36:11.799 we talk about, you know, world where content matters, this 0:36:11.840 --> 0:36:13.400 is a company that has so much and it's so 0:36:13.400 --> 0:36:16.080 good about kind of mixing it across the platform. So 0:36:16.239 --> 0:36:19.520 it will be interesting to see one that's reinvented itself 0:36:19.600 --> 0:36:23.640 many times over a century. Yeah, I mean absolutely, Um, 0:36:23.719 --> 0:36:25.719 so we'll keep an eye on it, I know, so 0:36:25.800 --> 0:36:28.480 will our team. Chris. Thank you, Chris, Paul Mary Entertainment 0:36:28.640 --> 0:36:30.880 edit up Bloomberg News on the phone from l a 0:36:31.000 --> 0:36:33.719 and always always our thanks to Gita ran Ganathan. She's 0:36:33.760 --> 0:36:36.759 technology media analysts with our Bloomberg Intelligence team from our 0:36:36.800 --> 0:36:44.520 BI headquarters in Princeton Road, marrow a Journal. Yeah, but 0:36:44.640 --> 0:36:49.440 you let me drive? Oh no, no, no no, no, an please, 0:36:49.560 --> 0:36:56.080 I'll do I want to drive. It's a good question. 0:36:56.719 --> 0:37:06.160 Drive is the drive to the globe on blue Bird Radio. 0:37:06.440 --> 0:37:09.440 I just got about ATMs left in the Thursday trading session, 0:37:09.440 --> 0:37:12.040 getting ready to wrap that up. Stocks. You just heard 0:37:12.080 --> 0:37:14.560 the numbers and the overall market numbers from Doug. But 0:37:15.040 --> 0:37:18.360 stocks coming off their highs of the session, So let's 0:37:18.360 --> 0:37:20.480 see what our next guest has to say about the outlook. 0:37:20.600 --> 0:37:22.520 Very pleased to have with us this afternoon, Chris. I 0:37:22.560 --> 0:37:25.320 go c I O at the asset Manager Access Investment 0:37:25.400 --> 0:37:28.480 Managers with us via zoom from London. Chris, how are 0:37:28.480 --> 0:37:31.759 you very well? Thanks thanks for having me well, thanks 0:37:31.800 --> 0:37:33.920 so much for joining us. Really appreciate it. So the 0:37:34.160 --> 0:37:36.400 CPI report here in the US has come and gone 0:37:37.160 --> 0:37:41.000 and it will really just hit expectations. My feeling is 0:37:41.040 --> 0:37:44.839 that investors were kind of pricing in something even softer. Carol, Yeah, 0:37:44.880 --> 0:37:47.560 I think so helpful. Yeah, they were hor hopeful about that. 0:37:47.719 --> 0:37:50.840 Um what do you make of it? Chris? Yeah, I 0:37:50.880 --> 0:37:52.960 mean I think that there was the expectation it could 0:37:52.960 --> 0:37:55.520 have come in lower. But I think the trend is 0:37:55.719 --> 0:37:59.440 is very encouraging. We had all the nasty surprises in 0:37:59.480 --> 0:38:01.720 the middle of last year, and the last few months 0:38:02.280 --> 0:38:04.880 the numbers have come in line with with what economists 0:38:04.880 --> 0:38:08.240 of forecasts, So that's encouraging, and it suggests that inflation 0:38:08.320 --> 0:38:12.040 is going to gradually ease as we go through three Hey, Chris, 0:38:12.040 --> 0:38:15.400 one thing I do wonder you know, bonds have definitely 0:38:15.440 --> 0:38:18.520 gotten more competitive when it comes to the equity side 0:38:18.560 --> 0:38:20.200 of things. If you look at you know, what we're 0:38:20.239 --> 0:38:22.759 seeing in terms of yields versus what you yield on 0:38:22.760 --> 0:38:24.680 the S and P five hundred, How do you think 0:38:24.719 --> 0:38:28.759 about bond stock let's go basic bond stock allocations. How 0:38:28.800 --> 0:38:32.120 do they compare? Well? I think bonds are back. I 0:38:32.120 --> 0:38:35.359 mean we've got yields now which are attractive and for 0:38:35.440 --> 0:38:38.520 many years they weren't. So I think investors who are 0:38:38.560 --> 0:38:42.160 managing or running multi asset portfolios can really see a 0:38:42.200 --> 0:38:45.799 more interesting role for bonds this year. You're getting high 0:38:45.880 --> 0:38:49.439 yield or the same amount of duration or credit risk, 0:38:49.960 --> 0:38:51.920 and at a time when the outlook freak, which is 0:38:51.920 --> 0:38:54.680 is still somewhat uncertain because we're just about to head 0:38:54.719 --> 0:38:57.840 into earning season. Most of the forecast for a modest 0:38:57.880 --> 0:39:00.759 recession in the US this year, I think bonds give 0:39:00.840 --> 0:39:03.439 that certainty of return which we haven't had for some time. 0:39:04.160 --> 0:39:05.600 Having said that, you know, we just talked with their 0:39:05.600 --> 0:39:08.359 Stephanie Flanders. The year ahead issue of Bloomberg Business Week 0:39:08.440 --> 0:39:10.600 is out, and she really you know, sets the tone 0:39:10.640 --> 0:39:14.080 in terms of talking about the global economic outlook for 0:39:15.000 --> 0:39:18.400 three and how it too could hold some surprises. Right. 0:39:18.440 --> 0:39:22.600 Whod thought we'd see a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Whoda 0:39:22.680 --> 0:39:25.000 thought going back to that would be in the midst 0:39:25.040 --> 0:39:28.920 of a global pandemic that shut down the economy. You know, Wow, 0:39:29.520 --> 0:39:33.120 a reminder that things come out of nowhere. And I 0:39:33.160 --> 0:39:36.000 do wonder how do you think about that in regards 0:39:36.000 --> 0:39:39.000 to this year. Yeah, I mean, I think these things 0:39:39.040 --> 0:39:42.000 are always unfoecastable. Aren't they. But what I would say 0:39:42.040 --> 0:39:45.600 is that today markets are cheaper than they were this 0:39:45.640 --> 0:39:48.120 time last year on the eve of the Russian invasion 0:39:48.120 --> 0:39:50.919 of Ukraine. We're going back to bonds. You've got more 0:39:51.080 --> 0:39:55.600 yield providing a cushion two returns, and equities are still 0:39:55.640 --> 0:40:00.520 you know, ten off their high. So I don't see 0:40:00.520 --> 0:40:02.680 as much downside. And I don't know what the big 0:40:02.680 --> 0:40:05.480 shot will be this year. But you know, we've had 0:40:05.560 --> 0:40:07.720 the war, we've had the invasion, we've had four hundred 0:40:07.760 --> 0:40:11.040 basis points of FED tightening. Hopefully we won't get those 0:40:11.080 --> 0:40:13.960 things again. So I'm hoping for a more boring year 0:40:14.040 --> 0:40:17.120 where you can get decent returns, and boring boring in 0:40:17.160 --> 0:40:20.200 decent returns, that certainly would be nice. I think the 0:40:20.640 --> 0:40:24.040 five hundred seven right now. Earlier on our program, our 0:40:24.120 --> 0:40:27.239 colleague on TV Remained Bostick mentioned that it was close 0:40:27.320 --> 0:40:30.160 to its two day moving average is certainly an important 0:40:30.160 --> 0:40:33.960 technical level to you looking out across the at least 0:40:34.000 --> 0:40:36.000 this cycle. Do you think we've seen the bottom in 0:40:36.000 --> 0:40:39.600 the cycle. I tend to think we have. Yeah. I think, 0:40:39.680 --> 0:40:41.359 you know, a lot of the d rating last year 0:40:41.480 --> 0:40:44.879 was because yields were going up and particularly real yields 0:40:44.920 --> 0:40:49.080 that they seem to have peaked. Now. Um, we've we've 0:40:49.239 --> 0:40:53.560 you know, we've had the uncertainty about how much they're 0:40:53.560 --> 0:40:55.800 fed will need to tighten. That seems to be clearing 0:40:55.880 --> 0:40:57.600 up a bit. We know there's going to be a 0:40:57.640 --> 0:41:00.040 growth slow down. I think that the swing fact to 0:41:00.160 --> 0:41:02.560 at the moment is the earning numbers and how they're 0:41:02.560 --> 0:41:06.200 going to look over the next several quarters. But to me, 0:41:06.280 --> 0:41:08.960 it would take some really, really bad news for us 0:41:09.000 --> 0:41:11.200 to test last year's lows. I want to go back 0:41:11.239 --> 0:41:13.759 to fixed income income because you say, Chris, that fixed 0:41:13.760 --> 0:41:17.520 income really stands to benefit most when inflation interest rates peak, 0:41:17.560 --> 0:41:19.160 and it does feel like we're going to get to it, 0:41:19.600 --> 0:41:22.320 whether it's this year or maybe at least. The thinking 0:41:22.680 --> 0:41:24.600 is that the FED is coming near an end, and 0:41:24.640 --> 0:41:27.600 maybe global central banks are as well. So what's the 0:41:27.640 --> 0:41:31.719 fixed income play? Um, is it sovereign debt? Is a 0:41:31.880 --> 0:41:35.680 corporate debt? What is it? I think the speech sweet 0:41:35.680 --> 0:41:40.480 spot is investment grade credit. And actually it's the short 0:41:40.600 --> 0:41:43.440 end of the curve. It's the short maturities because the 0:41:43.520 --> 0:41:46.880 yield curve is inverted, so you're getting higher yields at 0:41:46.920 --> 0:41:49.200 the short end. Of the market that you are in 0:41:49.280 --> 0:41:52.359 the five, ten or fifteen year sectors. So why take 0:41:52.400 --> 0:41:55.560 on that additional maturity risk when you can get nice 0:41:55.680 --> 0:41:59.120 yields today? So investment grade looks good. We're we're quite 0:42:00.000 --> 0:42:02.719 as on the fundamentals for great credit and if you're 0:42:02.719 --> 0:42:05.160 feeling really optimistic, going to high yield where you can 0:42:05.160 --> 0:42:08.600 get six seven eight percent yield without taking too much 0:42:08.680 --> 0:42:10.880 duration with risk, and I think given where we are 0:42:10.880 --> 0:42:15.760 in the cycle, that's a very attractive proposition. Any any 0:42:15.800 --> 0:42:18.800 you know companies sectors in particular, or any regions of 0:42:18.840 --> 0:42:22.520 the world when it comes to corporate well, we like 0:42:22.719 --> 0:42:25.600 we like dollar debt, we like US dollar denominated debt, 0:42:25.640 --> 0:42:29.360 and it extends to things like emerging market hard currency 0:42:29.400 --> 0:42:32.360 debt as well. We're already seeing, i think, some signs 0:42:32.360 --> 0:42:36.560 where the fundamentals are improving. And we've already had quite 0:42:36.560 --> 0:42:39.360 a bit of issuance this year so far. Saudi Arabia 0:42:39.400 --> 0:42:42.000 came with a big deal, Israel came with a big deal. 0:42:42.360 --> 0:42:44.480 You know, US rates are peaking, the dollars seems to 0:42:44.520 --> 0:42:47.200 have peaked. These are all good signs for emerging markets. 0:42:47.920 --> 0:42:51.200 What about Europe closer to home? How does the how 0:42:51.200 --> 0:42:52.960 does the year look. I mean, we spent a lot 0:42:52.960 --> 0:42:55.200 of last year talking about concerns that we could hit 0:42:55.200 --> 0:42:57.320 a recession, and Carol you mentioned it at Stephanie Flanders 0:42:57.360 --> 0:43:01.160 essentially saying that, you know, reset in Europe might be 0:43:01.600 --> 0:43:04.440 more shallow than many people thought. It's pretty interesting to 0:43:04.440 --> 0:43:07.920 hear this, although UK she wasn't so sure about it exactly. Um, 0:43:08.000 --> 0:43:10.280 do you see opportunities there, Chris, as a result of 0:43:10.320 --> 0:43:14.040 the continued strength that we're seeing. Well, you know, I 0:43:14.040 --> 0:43:16.600 think the big the big issue for Europe was was 0:43:16.600 --> 0:43:19.360 the energy situation and the turning off of the Russian 0:43:19.360 --> 0:43:21.560 supplies of gas, and they seem to have dealt with 0:43:21.600 --> 0:43:24.759 it pretty well. We're having a relatively mild winter so far, 0:43:24.880 --> 0:43:27.280 so but how about those energy prices that you're paying 0:43:27.320 --> 0:43:30.200 for for what you are paying for heat. They're coming 0:43:30.200 --> 0:43:33.040 down and eventually they'll come down for the consumer as well. 0:43:33.840 --> 0:43:36.440 China reopening is actually pretty good for Europe as well, 0:43:36.480 --> 0:43:40.080 because a lot of the industrial goods will get a 0:43:40.120 --> 0:43:44.040 boost from when China starts to demand more imports again. 0:43:44.360 --> 0:43:47.080 And I see more opportunity on the equity side really there, 0:43:47.080 --> 0:43:49.720 on the fixed income side in Europe because equity markets 0:43:49.760 --> 0:43:52.320 here got smashed last year. They were training on you know, 0:43:52.440 --> 0:43:56.880 below ten times this year's expected earnings and if things 0:43:57.040 --> 0:44:00.279 aren't going to play out quite as badly as they 0:44:00.640 --> 0:44:04.440 as as thought a few months ago, and there's certainly 0:44:04.560 --> 0:44:07.600 some significant upside for for equities. It's more of a 0:44:07.719 --> 0:44:10.960 value cyclical play. But in contrast to the US market 0:44:10.960 --> 0:44:14.120 which remains dominated by take, I think Europe has got 0:44:14.160 --> 0:44:17.040 some upside on the equities side. Well, Chris, really appreciate 0:44:17.040 --> 0:44:19.759 getting some time with you today. Chris i Go his 0:44:19.880 --> 0:44:23.160 chief investment officer at Accent Investment Managers, joining us via 0:44:23.239 --> 0:44:27.040 zoom from London on this Thursday. Thanks for listening to 0:44:27.040 --> 0:44:30.640 Bloomberg Business Week. Download the podcast on iTunes, SoundCloud, or 0:44:30.640 --> 0:44:33.320 Bloomberg dot com. You can also listen to our radio 0:44:33.360 --> 0:44:36.720 show at two pm Eastern on Bloomberg Radio or stream 0:44:36.800 --> 0:44:46.840 us live on YouTube and Bloomberg dot com.