WEBVTT - BOJ Allows Japan To Keep QE In Place For Another Three Years

0:00:05.800 --> 0:00:08.720
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg P and L Podcast. I'm Pim Fox.

0:00:08.760 --> 0:00:11.520
<v Speaker 1>Along with my co host Lisa Abramowitz. Each day we

0:00:11.640 --> 0:00:15.120
<v Speaker 1>bring you the most important, noteworthy, and useful interviews for

0:00:15.200 --> 0:00:17.840
<v Speaker 1>you and your money, whether you're at the grocery store

0:00:17.960 --> 0:00:20.720
<v Speaker 1>or the trading floor. Find the Bloomberg P and L

0:00:20.840 --> 0:00:32.880
<v Speaker 1>Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and Bloomberg dot com. Bank

0:00:32.920 --> 0:00:37.040
<v Speaker 1>of Japan Governor Haruhiko Kuroda said that he's going to

0:00:37.159 --> 0:00:39.720
<v Speaker 1>let a key interest rate increase by a tenth of

0:00:39.720 --> 0:00:43.680
<v Speaker 1>a percentage point, but otherwise he's sticking to the bank's

0:00:43.760 --> 0:00:48.559
<v Speaker 1>ultra easy monetary policy that seems to defy a global

0:00:48.600 --> 0:00:51.080
<v Speaker 1>trend toward tightening. Here to tell us about this is

0:00:51.159 --> 0:00:54.320
<v Speaker 1>Jeff Usher. He has had of research for Japan Insider.

0:00:54.320 --> 0:00:58.480
<v Speaker 1>They're based in Jeffersonville, New York. Jeff Usher, thanks very

0:00:58.560 --> 0:01:01.640
<v Speaker 1>much for being with us. Tell us about this move

0:01:01.880 --> 0:01:04.080
<v Speaker 1>or non move by the Bank of Japan. What does

0:01:04.120 --> 0:01:07.280
<v Speaker 1>it mean? Well, I think what it really means is

0:01:07.600 --> 0:01:11.800
<v Speaker 1>we're going to have what they call quantitative and qualitative

0:01:11.800 --> 0:01:17.440
<v Speaker 1>easing forever um. The key point that was in today's

0:01:17.480 --> 0:01:20.560
<v Speaker 1>meeting was that the Bank of Japan is going to

0:01:20.640 --> 0:01:24.640
<v Speaker 1>be unable to meet its two percent inflation target at

0:01:24.760 --> 0:01:28.840
<v Speaker 1>least until the end of March of and probably even

0:01:28.920 --> 0:01:33.559
<v Speaker 1>further so. Because we've had such easy money for so long,

0:01:33.959 --> 0:01:37.440
<v Speaker 1>it's putting pressure on Japanese banks and it's also affecting

0:01:37.520 --> 0:01:41.840
<v Speaker 1>the Japanese government bond market. And so what they did

0:01:41.920 --> 0:01:45.240
<v Speaker 1>today is essentially apply a few tweaks to allow them

0:01:45.280 --> 0:01:49.320
<v Speaker 1>to keep q QUO E in place for at least

0:01:49.320 --> 0:01:52.440
<v Speaker 1>another three years. Jeff, I'd love to talk about the

0:01:52.520 --> 0:01:55.480
<v Speaker 1>Japanese economy because by a lot of measures, it's doing

0:01:55.800 --> 0:01:57.680
<v Speaker 1>really well. I mean, the job market is the best

0:01:57.720 --> 0:02:01.440
<v Speaker 1>in this nineteen four There do appear to be some

0:02:01.760 --> 0:02:04.400
<v Speaker 1>very small shoots of inflation. So what's the Bank of

0:02:04.440 --> 0:02:08.360
<v Speaker 1>Japan waiting for here? Well, um, I think they're just

0:02:08.480 --> 0:02:12.160
<v Speaker 1>waiting for, um, you know, the overall inflation to to

0:02:12.200 --> 0:02:14.839
<v Speaker 1>get up towards two percent. I mean, my personal view

0:02:14.880 --> 0:02:19.320
<v Speaker 1>is that two percent is actually unrealistic target. Uh that

0:02:19.440 --> 0:02:21.440
<v Speaker 1>you know, if you look at a chart of inflation

0:02:21.520 --> 0:02:24.440
<v Speaker 1>going back thirty years, the only time they've hit that

0:02:24.800 --> 0:02:28.160
<v Speaker 1>is when you've had a consumption tax increase, and that's

0:02:28.200 --> 0:02:31.680
<v Speaker 1>not really the kind of inflation that you want. So uh,

0:02:31.720 --> 0:02:34.000
<v Speaker 1>you know, the job market is great. We're getting a

0:02:34.080 --> 0:02:37.799
<v Speaker 1>lot of older workers, post retirement workers, a lot more

0:02:37.840 --> 0:02:42.359
<v Speaker 1>women entering the workforce, but wages are not rising as

0:02:42.400 --> 0:02:45.359
<v Speaker 1>quickly as you'd expect because most of the new people

0:02:45.400 --> 0:02:48.480
<v Speaker 1>coming into the workforce actually get paid less than the

0:02:48.520 --> 0:02:52.720
<v Speaker 1>full time workers. Jeff, you were the first non Japanese

0:02:52.760 --> 0:02:55.680
<v Speaker 1>individual to work on the floor of the Tokyo Stock

0:02:55.720 --> 0:03:00.840
<v Speaker 1>Exchange back in correct, Yes, when you had a floor. Okay,

0:03:00.919 --> 0:03:07.000
<v Speaker 1>can you explain to people how the Japanese economy is

0:03:07.440 --> 0:03:11.400
<v Speaker 1>different then let's say the economy in the United States

0:03:11.480 --> 0:03:17.960
<v Speaker 1>and its relationship to let's say you are Japanese government debt. Okay,

0:03:18.480 --> 0:03:22.040
<v Speaker 1>people are very worried about Japanese government debt, and I

0:03:22.080 --> 0:03:25.000
<v Speaker 1>think that, um, you know, one of the issues here

0:03:25.600 --> 0:03:29.760
<v Speaker 1>is that, unlike the US, most Japanese government debt is

0:03:29.800 --> 0:03:33.760
<v Speaker 1>owned owned, excuse me, by Japanese and so you don't

0:03:33.760 --> 0:03:38.840
<v Speaker 1>really have to worry about capital flight. Uh. The in fact,

0:03:39.040 --> 0:03:42.800
<v Speaker 1>there's a real shortage of long term debt right now

0:03:43.160 --> 0:03:46.360
<v Speaker 1>because again the Japanese economy has been very wealthy for

0:03:46.400 --> 0:03:51.000
<v Speaker 1>a very long time. And UH, insurance companies, UH, the

0:03:51.080 --> 0:03:53.600
<v Speaker 1>g p i F, which is the government pension fund,

0:03:54.240 --> 0:03:57.200
<v Speaker 1>all of these big investors really don't have a lot

0:03:57.240 --> 0:04:01.880
<v Speaker 1>of places to put yen to work in the domestic market,

0:04:02.440 --> 0:04:04.720
<v Speaker 1>so um, you know, I think as far as the

0:04:04.760 --> 0:04:09.920
<v Speaker 1>economy goes, it's a very diversified economy, much different say

0:04:10.680 --> 0:04:15.080
<v Speaker 1>the Chinese market or other emerging markets, and in many

0:04:15.120 --> 0:04:18.360
<v Speaker 1>ways people might be surprised to hear that it's similar

0:04:18.400 --> 0:04:22.799
<v Speaker 1>to the US, and that Japan's dependence on exports is

0:04:23.320 --> 0:04:25.960
<v Speaker 1>about the same as the United States. It's only about

0:04:26.560 --> 0:04:30.000
<v Speaker 1>seventeen or eighteen vent of GDP where it's ay a

0:04:30.000 --> 0:04:33.960
<v Speaker 1>country like Germany relies on about on exports for about

0:04:33.720 --> 0:04:37.320
<v Speaker 1>forty of their GDP. The reason why people have been

0:04:37.320 --> 0:04:40.839
<v Speaker 1>watching Japan so closely recently, I mean not not to

0:04:40.880 --> 0:04:43.200
<v Speaker 1>mention that it's one of the major economies of the world,

0:04:43.480 --> 0:04:46.359
<v Speaker 1>but also because it was clear that the Bank of

0:04:46.440 --> 0:04:51.400
<v Speaker 1>Japan's moves are having a pretty significant impact on global

0:04:51.440 --> 0:04:54.240
<v Speaker 1>bond yields. I mean, even the sort of suspicion that

0:04:54.279 --> 0:04:56.920
<v Speaker 1>they might make some sort of policy tweak. Last night,

0:04:57.320 --> 0:05:00.240
<v Speaker 1>UH sent longer term yields in the US U in

0:05:00.279 --> 0:05:03.680
<v Speaker 1>Germany higher. That has obviously reversed as they show that

0:05:03.720 --> 0:05:06.520
<v Speaker 1>they were not willing to make those tweaks. Um, the

0:05:06.560 --> 0:05:10.440
<v Speaker 1>idea that you're saying q E forever to me indicates

0:05:10.720 --> 0:05:15.000
<v Speaker 1>that will be a consistent and ongoing pressure on yields globally.

0:05:15.520 --> 0:05:18.960
<v Speaker 1>Uh do you see it that way? Yeah? Absolutely, There's

0:05:19.120 --> 0:05:23.960
<v Speaker 1>there's no doubt about. Um. Japanese investors are being forced

0:05:24.000 --> 0:05:27.240
<v Speaker 1>to put more of their money overseas, and in a sense,

0:05:27.560 --> 0:05:30.920
<v Speaker 1>it makes it a very easy trade because, uh, if

0:05:30.960 --> 0:05:32.520
<v Speaker 1>you know that the b o J is going to

0:05:32.600 --> 0:05:35.400
<v Speaker 1>be keeping interest rates pretty much where they are for

0:05:35.440 --> 0:05:39.000
<v Speaker 1>at least the next three years, but let's say yields

0:05:39.000 --> 0:05:43.200
<v Speaker 1>in the US or Germany are rising, Um, you know,

0:05:43.279 --> 0:05:47.080
<v Speaker 1>you're just gonna get wider spreads between Japan and uh,

0:05:47.160 --> 0:05:49.200
<v Speaker 1>you know, the US and Europe, and that's going to

0:05:49.279 --> 0:05:55.000
<v Speaker 1>attract more Japanese outflows to these markets. And Uh again,

0:05:55.000 --> 0:05:58.839
<v Speaker 1>as those spreads widen, it becomes much more profitable for

0:05:58.920 --> 0:06:03.000
<v Speaker 1>Japanese investors hedge their currency as well, So that makes

0:06:03.000 --> 0:06:05.280
<v Speaker 1>it even easier for them to to put more money

0:06:05.320 --> 0:06:08.839
<v Speaker 1>let's say into ten your treasury, Jeff, does this based

0:06:08.839 --> 0:06:11.400
<v Speaker 1>on your analysis, do you see the Japanese end weakening

0:06:11.480 --> 0:06:16.320
<v Speaker 1>against the U. S. Dollar? Um? Just marginally. I actually

0:06:16.360 --> 0:06:18.880
<v Speaker 1>think the dollar again is pretty much stuck in a

0:06:18.960 --> 0:06:22.320
<v Speaker 1>trading range. Um, I think that you know, we're kind

0:06:22.320 --> 0:06:24.600
<v Speaker 1>of trading between one oh seven at the low end

0:06:24.640 --> 0:06:29.160
<v Speaker 1>and one thirteen at the upper end. And uh, honestly,

0:06:29.160 --> 0:06:32.120
<v Speaker 1>if you look at how the Japanese economy operates, if

0:06:32.160 --> 0:06:36.040
<v Speaker 1>the end gets a whole lot weaker than say one fifteen,

0:06:36.520 --> 0:06:39.680
<v Speaker 1>it's actually bad for the domestic economy because don't forget,

0:06:40.000 --> 0:06:43.400
<v Speaker 1>Japan imports all of its food, all of its energy,

0:06:43.880 --> 0:06:47.160
<v Speaker 1>and so um. You know, once once you start raising

0:06:47.200 --> 0:06:51.840
<v Speaker 1>those import prices, you leave less money available for discretionary

0:06:51.880 --> 0:06:56.920
<v Speaker 1>purchases like say, refrigerators, and that keeps the economies, uh

0:06:57.320 --> 0:07:00.320
<v Speaker 1>consumption weak. Jeff Fusher, thank you so much for being

0:07:00.320 --> 0:07:03.719
<v Speaker 1>with us. Jeff Usher, head of research at Japan Insider,

0:07:04.080 --> 0:07:08.080
<v Speaker 1>talking about that b o J decision that we got overnight,

0:07:08.320 --> 0:07:12.040
<v Speaker 1>definitely causing a reversal of some of the yield curve widening.

0:07:12.080 --> 0:07:31.480
<v Speaker 1>Now you're getting flattening once again. Apple reports its results

0:07:31.520 --> 0:07:33.680
<v Speaker 1>after the close of trading today, and here to help

0:07:33.760 --> 0:07:36.640
<v Speaker 1>us understand what to expect is our own John Butler.

0:07:36.680 --> 0:07:41.200
<v Speaker 1>He's our senior telecom services and equipment analysts for Bloomberg Intelligence.

0:07:41.400 --> 0:07:44.640
<v Speaker 1>Please follow John on Twitter as we all do at

0:07:44.760 --> 0:07:50.800
<v Speaker 1>John Underscore Butler twenty five all right, John Underscore Butler

0:07:51.920 --> 0:07:55.280
<v Speaker 1>revenue annual revenue for Apple in the neighborhood of two

0:07:55.320 --> 0:07:59.800
<v Speaker 1>hundred and fifty billion dollars. What are you going to

0:07:59.880 --> 0:08:03.400
<v Speaker 1>be looking for when Apple reports results after the close?

0:08:04.200 --> 0:08:08.000
<v Speaker 1>I am looking at services, which includes the App Store,

0:08:08.200 --> 0:08:11.920
<v Speaker 1>and I'm looking at the other products category which includes

0:08:12.040 --> 0:08:16.920
<v Speaker 1>air pods and HomePod and Apple Watch, and together those

0:08:16.960 --> 0:08:22.360
<v Speaker 1>two divisions are really driving future growth at Apple. Right

0:08:22.400 --> 0:08:24.080
<v Speaker 1>if you look at the current quarter, we're in a

0:08:24.200 --> 0:08:28.040
<v Speaker 1>very good iPhone cycle. Right now, people expect iPhone revenue

0:08:28.080 --> 0:08:31.680
<v Speaker 1>to be up fifteen percent year on year, same with

0:08:31.760 --> 0:08:35.760
<v Speaker 1>the total growth at Apple. We should get top lene

0:08:35.800 --> 0:08:38.840
<v Speaker 1>growth in that same range. But as you look down

0:08:38.880 --> 0:08:41.800
<v Speaker 1>the road, this is a company and transition from a

0:08:41.920 --> 0:08:46.200
<v Speaker 1>hardware centric model to a much more balanced model of

0:08:46.280 --> 0:08:50.280
<v Speaker 1>hardware and software sales services. So that's the important thing

0:08:50.360 --> 0:08:52.480
<v Speaker 1>right now is to show is for Apple to show

0:08:52.520 --> 0:08:57.040
<v Speaker 1>people that it is successfully diverse fating away from the iPhone. Yes,

0:08:57.160 --> 0:09:01.400
<v Speaker 1>because all iPhone sales are close to all iPhone sales

0:09:01.440 --> 0:09:05.000
<v Speaker 1>now are coming from existing users who are upgrading to

0:09:06.000 --> 0:09:10.240
<v Speaker 1>new phones, better phones. So it's driving decent sales. But

0:09:10.360 --> 0:09:13.960
<v Speaker 1>what you really want is to leverage that platform to

0:09:14.120 --> 0:09:18.040
<v Speaker 1>sell services and to sell your other products that work

0:09:18.120 --> 0:09:21.160
<v Speaker 1>well now with the iPhone all right now, you know,

0:09:21.320 --> 0:09:24.720
<v Speaker 1>in the interest of trying to find an expert to

0:09:25.160 --> 0:09:27.400
<v Speaker 1>sort of really put the questions to you, because we

0:09:27.480 --> 0:09:29.760
<v Speaker 1>know that, you know, we are a little older in

0:09:29.800 --> 0:09:33.520
<v Speaker 1>the demographic for the iPhone and the Apple products. We

0:09:33.640 --> 0:09:37.760
<v Speaker 1>have a guest here in the studio, Zeke Abramowitz, who

0:09:38.200 --> 0:09:42.080
<v Speaker 1>is nine years old. And you know, it's always good

0:09:42.080 --> 0:09:46.199
<v Speaker 1>to go right to the to the customer when when

0:09:47.640 --> 0:09:51.120
<v Speaker 1>the yeah, well yeah, mother pays the bills, parents pay

0:09:51.200 --> 0:09:53.120
<v Speaker 1>the bills. But Zeke, I know you have a question

0:09:53.160 --> 0:09:55.800
<v Speaker 1>for John Butler because you are an Apple efficient now

0:09:55.840 --> 0:09:58.280
<v Speaker 1>to go ahead and ask John a question why are

0:09:58.360 --> 0:10:03.640
<v Speaker 1>so many people buying? But you know it, it's what

0:10:03.760 --> 0:10:06.120
<v Speaker 1>I was just talking about a moment ago, which is

0:10:06.240 --> 0:10:10.880
<v Speaker 1>the software and the services matter most now. And so

0:10:11.000 --> 0:10:13.920
<v Speaker 1>people love playing games on their phones. So if you

0:10:13.960 --> 0:10:16.600
<v Speaker 1>take a look around the train at night, everyone has

0:10:16.640 --> 0:10:19.800
<v Speaker 1>a game up on their phone and that's paying for

0:10:19.840 --> 0:10:25.000
<v Speaker 1>those games. And do an Apple do Apple customers pay

0:10:25.080 --> 0:10:30.360
<v Speaker 1>for games versus Android users. I'm not a gamer, so

0:10:30.720 --> 0:10:33.160
<v Speaker 1>I'm gonna say apps in general. I mean, because I

0:10:33.200 --> 0:10:36.840
<v Speaker 1>think there's that note that Apple users they're more willing

0:10:36.880 --> 0:10:41.360
<v Speaker 1>to actually spend money. Yes, so, so people are spending

0:10:41.440 --> 0:10:44.840
<v Speaker 1>up and a third of App store sales are games,

0:10:45.559 --> 0:10:48.680
<v Speaker 1>believe it or not. And the App store is growing

0:10:48.840 --> 0:10:51.720
<v Speaker 1>over thirty percent a year, or it seems so, because

0:10:51.760 --> 0:10:54.680
<v Speaker 1>if you look at services as a whole, it's growing

0:10:54.760 --> 0:11:00.280
<v Speaker 1>well over thirty. So. Um. Back to the question Sun,

0:11:00.480 --> 0:11:03.560
<v Speaker 1>why do people are people buying games on the iPhone?

0:11:03.600 --> 0:11:07.160
<v Speaker 1>The answer is yes, and it really is driving growth

0:11:07.160 --> 0:11:10.720
<v Speaker 1>at Apple. I guess you know, it's sort of interesting.

0:11:11.200 --> 0:11:13.679
<v Speaker 1>I was reading a story and frankly, this was something

0:11:13.720 --> 0:11:16.160
<v Speaker 1>that Zeke and I were talking about this morning, that

0:11:16.200 --> 0:11:19.480
<v Speaker 1>there were some reports that Fortnite that the popularity has

0:11:19.520 --> 0:11:23.880
<v Speaker 1>actually helped Apple. And the question is, when you have

0:11:24.040 --> 0:11:28.160
<v Speaker 1>a free game like that, how does it translate to

0:11:28.280 --> 0:11:31.200
<v Speaker 1>money for Apple? How does Apple profit from these games?

0:11:31.800 --> 0:11:34.920
<v Speaker 1>That's a great question. I'm not quite sure, except to

0:11:34.960 --> 0:11:38.760
<v Speaker 1>say you make in game purchases of sort of added

0:11:38.840 --> 0:11:41.760
<v Speaker 1>items for your character in the game, So Fortnite is

0:11:41.840 --> 0:11:46.240
<v Speaker 1>actually generating a lot of revenue as people buy these

0:11:46.280 --> 0:11:49.840
<v Speaker 1>sort of ancillary shields and swords and all this stuff.

0:11:50.400 --> 0:11:54.199
<v Speaker 1>And I have to believe. Given Apple's model of charging

0:11:55.440 --> 0:12:00.920
<v Speaker 1>roughly for all app store sales app sales, they're probably

0:12:00.960 --> 0:12:03.880
<v Speaker 1>making a portion of that, so that may help them.

0:12:04.000 --> 0:12:06.520
<v Speaker 1>What's the breakdown right now? What are you looking for

0:12:06.600 --> 0:12:10.360
<v Speaker 1>in terms of services versus iPhone sales with respect to

0:12:10.440 --> 0:12:14.199
<v Speaker 1>the sheriff revenue for Apple? So I I'll go back

0:12:14.240 --> 0:12:17.320
<v Speaker 1>to that thought of I look at services and other

0:12:17.360 --> 0:12:20.400
<v Speaker 1>products together because the other products are all the new

0:12:20.480 --> 0:12:24.160
<v Speaker 1>products including air pods and home pod and so forth,

0:12:24.720 --> 0:12:28.920
<v Speaker 1>and together with services, they're over of revenue where they

0:12:28.920 --> 0:12:33.560
<v Speaker 1>were last quarter, they were close to total sales, that's

0:12:33.679 --> 0:12:38.760
<v Speaker 1>versus the iPhone at over sixty of sales. But over

0:12:38.840 --> 0:12:42.040
<v Speaker 1>time you'll see that mixed shift. And that's very important

0:12:42.120 --> 0:12:46.600
<v Speaker 1>because those services and other products are more profitable than

0:12:46.679 --> 0:12:49.800
<v Speaker 1>the iPhone and so it will boost not only the

0:12:49.840 --> 0:12:52.560
<v Speaker 1>top line and help to boid growth on the top line,

0:12:52.600 --> 0:12:55.360
<v Speaker 1>but it's going to fuel bottom line growth. So that

0:12:55.520 --> 0:12:59.800
<v Speaker 1>is a key factor. And I noticed the street is

0:13:00.000 --> 0:13:02.360
<v Speaker 1>focused on it more and more every quarter. You can

0:13:02.400 --> 0:13:04.760
<v Speaker 1>just hear it in the Q and a Zeke has

0:13:04.800 --> 0:13:09.240
<v Speaker 1>another question, John, are money people buying the Apple Watch. Yes,

0:13:09.320 --> 0:13:11.800
<v Speaker 1>the Apple Watch is doing quite well. I don't have

0:13:11.840 --> 0:13:14.040
<v Speaker 1>the numbers in front of me. But I think it's

0:13:14.080 --> 0:13:16.400
<v Speaker 1>fair to say that has been a real hit product

0:13:16.440 --> 0:13:19.200
<v Speaker 1>for them, and it's here to stay for a while.

0:13:19.520 --> 0:13:21.600
<v Speaker 1>It's hurt a lot of the watch companies, hasn't it.

0:13:22.480 --> 0:13:25.000
<v Speaker 1>I'm not sure on that. It's in a different category.

0:13:25.040 --> 0:13:27.560
<v Speaker 1>It probably has hurt Fitbit and some of the sport

0:13:27.640 --> 0:13:33.600
<v Speaker 1>and fitness watches. Um do you think, yes, Okay, that

0:13:34.080 --> 0:13:37.559
<v Speaker 1>a given. But just to connect that with the facial

0:13:38.280 --> 0:13:41.160
<v Speaker 1>I D recognition that is coming with all of the

0:13:41.200 --> 0:13:45.559
<v Speaker 1>new Apple iPhones, combine that with the watch, can we

0:13:45.720 --> 0:13:51.960
<v Speaker 1>see personalized medical information coming to a digital assistant near us?

0:13:52.120 --> 0:13:55.120
<v Speaker 1>I actually would love to see that. And health and

0:13:55.200 --> 0:13:59.480
<v Speaker 1>fitness is a big silo that Apple is is very

0:13:59.559 --> 0:14:03.120
<v Speaker 1>focused stun they haven't made as much headway as as

0:14:03.160 --> 0:14:05.280
<v Speaker 1>you would think. I mean, I look at the world

0:14:05.280 --> 0:14:10.200
<v Speaker 1>of healthcare and how you could really leverage that iPhone

0:14:10.200 --> 0:14:13.000
<v Speaker 1>and watch combination to take advantage of that and grow

0:14:13.080 --> 0:14:16.120
<v Speaker 1>your business there. So stay tuned. I think there's more

0:14:16.160 --> 0:14:18.319
<v Speaker 1>to come on that front. Well. It should be interesting

0:14:18.320 --> 0:14:20.480
<v Speaker 1>to see whether Apple can give people a sense of

0:14:20.560 --> 0:14:23.160
<v Speaker 1>confidence that big tech in the US is here to stay,

0:14:23.160 --> 0:14:26.720
<v Speaker 1>because certainly people worry about that, So this is going

0:14:26.760 --> 0:14:29.480
<v Speaker 1>to be the moment of truth upon us at four

0:14:29.520 --> 0:14:32.160
<v Speaker 1>thirty pm Eastern time today. I think the stuff that

0:14:32.200 --> 0:14:36.520
<v Speaker 1>ailed Facebook and Google is not in Apple's wheelhouse, so

0:14:36.560 --> 0:14:39.680
<v Speaker 1>they may be safe there. But we'll see, we will see.

0:14:39.880 --> 0:14:42.080
<v Speaker 1>John Butler, thank you so much as always for being

0:14:42.120 --> 0:14:44.920
<v Speaker 1>with us. John Butler, Senior Telecom Service as an equipment

0:14:44.960 --> 0:15:05.920
<v Speaker 1>analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence. The leverage loan market is the

0:15:06.040 --> 0:15:09.320
<v Speaker 1>sister asset class to the US junk bond market, but

0:15:09.360 --> 0:15:12.640
<v Speaker 1>it has grown so quickly that it is now eclipsed

0:15:12.920 --> 0:15:15.920
<v Speaker 1>the bond market, and a lot of people are wondering

0:15:16.040 --> 0:15:18.720
<v Speaker 1>has it gone too far too fast? Here to talk

0:15:18.760 --> 0:15:21.480
<v Speaker 1>about that. Jim Schafer Co. Had a public fixed income

0:15:21.480 --> 0:15:25.160
<v Speaker 1>and deputy chief investment officer at a gun USA asset

0:15:25.240 --> 0:15:29.200
<v Speaker 1>management in managing over a hundred billion dollars. He comes

0:15:29.200 --> 0:15:33.120
<v Speaker 1>to us from Chicago. Jim, A lot of focus is

0:15:33.240 --> 0:15:37.320
<v Speaker 1>on the collateralized loan obligation part of this world. Just

0:15:37.400 --> 0:15:40.760
<v Speaker 1>before we get into talking about about this issue, what

0:15:41.000 --> 0:15:45.000
<v Speaker 1>is a collateralized loan obligation? Well, it's a structured vehicle.

0:15:45.000 --> 0:15:47.240
<v Speaker 1>At first off, thanks for having me. It's a structured

0:15:47.360 --> 0:15:49.880
<v Speaker 1>vehicle where the collateral is loans, and you have a

0:15:49.920 --> 0:15:54.240
<v Speaker 1>capital structure that's tronched and the investors in vast where

0:15:54.240 --> 0:15:55.720
<v Speaker 1>they wanted on the triple A is the double A

0:15:55.760 --> 0:15:57.240
<v Speaker 1>all the way down to the equity component of the

0:15:57.240 --> 0:16:00.920
<v Speaker 1>capital structure. It's just the tronched vehicle where the loans

0:16:00.920 --> 0:16:03.200
<v Speaker 1>are the collateral and there's a series of investors and

0:16:03.320 --> 0:16:06.000
<v Speaker 1>you as a manager by loans and they as the investors,

0:16:06.000 --> 0:16:07.840
<v Speaker 1>get to return profile depending where they are in the

0:16:07.840 --> 0:16:13.400
<v Speaker 1>capital structure. And as far as the actual loans are concerned,

0:16:13.520 --> 0:16:19.520
<v Speaker 1>how did they differ significantly from bonds, shorter life, shorter maturities. Yeah,

0:16:19.560 --> 0:16:21.880
<v Speaker 1>I mean they're number when they're not securities first off,

0:16:21.920 --> 0:16:24.280
<v Speaker 1>so their their governance provisions are a little bit different.

0:16:24.280 --> 0:16:26.800
<v Speaker 1>But generally speaking, they don't have call protection and they're

0:16:26.800 --> 0:16:30.040
<v Speaker 1>generally floating rate obligations so they reacht on libor and

0:16:30.040 --> 0:16:31.960
<v Speaker 1>then they can be refinanced at any time. And those

0:16:32.000 --> 0:16:36.680
<v Speaker 1>are the two fundamental key aspect that the markets focuses on. Okay,

0:16:36.760 --> 0:16:40.400
<v Speaker 1>so sort of fast forwarding to today, we've seen record

0:16:40.520 --> 0:16:43.720
<v Speaker 1>issue ince in recent years in the leveraged loans space,

0:16:43.760 --> 0:16:47.720
<v Speaker 1>with the market uh surpassing a trillion dollars and a

0:16:47.760 --> 0:16:50.560
<v Speaker 1>lot of it's been driven by these clos that basically

0:16:50.600 --> 0:16:57.240
<v Speaker 1>packaged loans into bonds. Is this market getting frauthy right now? Well,

0:16:57.360 --> 0:16:59.320
<v Speaker 1>let's let's step back for a minute. I mean, the

0:16:59.320 --> 0:17:02.000
<v Speaker 1>demand makes ends because you've got a floating rate obligation

0:17:02.040 --> 0:17:04.200
<v Speaker 1>and you've got a potential for a rising rate environment,

0:17:04.200 --> 0:17:06.440
<v Speaker 1>and you have a strong fundamentals and so the strong

0:17:06.440 --> 0:17:09.720
<v Speaker 1>fundamental picture makes the fault environment remain low, and that

0:17:09.800 --> 0:17:12.840
<v Speaker 1>gets Barrow comfortable that they're gonna invest in lower quality

0:17:12.880 --> 0:17:15.040
<v Speaker 1>credits like high heel bonds or leverage loans. And you've

0:17:15.040 --> 0:17:17.160
<v Speaker 1>got a floating rate component that can protect you against

0:17:17.200 --> 0:17:20.160
<v Speaker 1>writing rates. So the demand makes sense. Is the market

0:17:20.240 --> 0:17:22.520
<v Speaker 1>getting sloppy? Well, what you see as you move later

0:17:22.520 --> 0:17:25.679
<v Speaker 1>on any business cycle and you see a supply demand

0:17:25.680 --> 0:17:27.320
<v Speaker 1>and bounce. So we see a lot of demand for

0:17:27.359 --> 0:17:30.040
<v Speaker 1>this sloating right asset class and that because of that,

0:17:30.119 --> 0:17:32.640
<v Speaker 1>Barrows can take advantage of that, they can take advantage

0:17:32.640 --> 0:17:35.639
<v Speaker 1>of because they can get better pricing, better covenants and

0:17:35.640 --> 0:17:37.600
<v Speaker 1>really push the envelope if you will, on that those

0:17:37.600 --> 0:17:40.600
<v Speaker 1>two elements. And so does it get sloppy, Well, it

0:17:40.600 --> 0:17:44.360
<v Speaker 1>gets more aggressive and you lose covenant protections you loose,

0:17:44.440 --> 0:17:47.040
<v Speaker 1>you get a lot of really you know, really aggressive pricing,

0:17:47.119 --> 0:17:50.200
<v Speaker 1>so you're the riff to the downsid becomes slightly higher.

0:17:50.240 --> 0:17:51.919
<v Speaker 1>And if you do see a market turn, and we

0:17:51.960 --> 0:17:54.680
<v Speaker 1>don't look at we're comfortable with fundamentals. We don't think

0:17:54.680 --> 0:17:56.760
<v Speaker 1>the market's gonna We don't see defaults taking up in

0:17:56.800 --> 0:17:59.680
<v Speaker 1>the near term. But when it does, the types of

0:17:59.720 --> 0:18:02.040
<v Speaker 1>trans fashions get that get done later in a cycle

0:18:02.119 --> 0:18:04.199
<v Speaker 1>in more of an aggressive form are the ones that

0:18:04.240 --> 0:18:06.760
<v Speaker 1>caused some concerns. So you could see you could be

0:18:06.760 --> 0:18:10.080
<v Speaker 1>sowing the seeds of a more more of the next

0:18:10.080 --> 0:18:12.239
<v Speaker 1>wave of default in the market. Ten tends to get

0:18:12.240 --> 0:18:15.560
<v Speaker 1>a little bit sloppy as it gets later in the cycle. So, Jim,

0:18:15.680 --> 0:18:19.199
<v Speaker 1>there was an article on the Bloomberg yesterday talking about

0:18:19.320 --> 0:18:23.200
<v Speaker 1>how there does seem to be an increasing amount of caution.

0:18:23.240 --> 0:18:25.320
<v Speaker 1>I guess you would say on the part of some

0:18:25.400 --> 0:18:29.480
<v Speaker 1>banks certainly releasing reports that note some of the issues

0:18:29.520 --> 0:18:32.000
<v Speaker 1>with the leverage loan market, are you also seeing it

0:18:32.040 --> 0:18:35.919
<v Speaker 1>in terms of their supplying you with credit lines for

0:18:36.359 --> 0:18:39.800
<v Speaker 1>leverage loan investments or warehousing housing loans? What are you

0:18:39.840 --> 0:18:42.280
<v Speaker 1>seeing on that front? Yeah, so what we saw, you know,

0:18:42.359 --> 0:18:46.800
<v Speaker 1>we saw tremendous UH demand for collateralized loans and a

0:18:46.840 --> 0:18:50.720
<v Speaker 1>willingness from providers in the capital structure to be very

0:18:50.720 --> 0:18:53.359
<v Speaker 1>active participants. There's been you know, the CLO demand is

0:18:53.400 --> 0:18:56.200
<v Speaker 1>an extremely strong for what I mentioned slower and apsid

0:18:56.280 --> 0:18:59.919
<v Speaker 1>strong fundamentals. Uh and and so you'd expect that as

0:19:00.040 --> 0:19:02.800
<v Speaker 1>we went to do our next CELLO, we saw in

0:19:02.840 --> 0:19:05.560
<v Speaker 1>the warehouse facilities where you ramp up you buy loans

0:19:05.600 --> 0:19:08.359
<v Speaker 1>to ramp up for the next issuance of a CLO,

0:19:08.480 --> 0:19:10.000
<v Speaker 1>we saw a little bit of a pause from a

0:19:10.000 --> 0:19:11.760
<v Speaker 1>few of the providers. And I don't know if that's

0:19:11.920 --> 0:19:15.000
<v Speaker 1>a function of the aggressiveness of the structures or just

0:19:15.400 --> 0:19:19.199
<v Speaker 1>there's been such a strong amount of issuance in the

0:19:19.240 --> 0:19:21.040
<v Speaker 1>first part of the early for the last year, they're

0:19:21.080 --> 0:19:22.800
<v Speaker 1>just standing back and take a little bit of pause

0:19:22.840 --> 0:19:25.040
<v Speaker 1>to say, okay, let's let's take a look at this market.

0:19:25.119 --> 0:19:27.480
<v Speaker 1>But generally speaking, a little bit of pause is what

0:19:27.520 --> 0:19:30.320
<v Speaker 1>we saw. So you're seeing a little bit more caution

0:19:30.480 --> 0:19:33.520
<v Speaker 1>on behalf of banks that that would have to pay

0:19:33.560 --> 0:19:36.320
<v Speaker 1>more money to hold onto assets that become riskier. In

0:19:36.320 --> 0:19:38.440
<v Speaker 1>other words, UH, there does seem to be a little

0:19:38.480 --> 0:19:41.600
<v Speaker 1>bit more risk aversion or hard. I don't know if

0:19:41.600 --> 0:19:42.800
<v Speaker 1>that's the right I don't know if that's the right

0:19:42.800 --> 0:19:44.520
<v Speaker 1>way to look at it. Actually, I'd say what we

0:19:44.560 --> 0:19:48.240
<v Speaker 1>saw is in those who provide warehouses, so warehouse facilities,

0:19:48.280 --> 0:19:50.680
<v Speaker 1>when you're ramping up the CLO, there's a period of

0:19:50.720 --> 0:19:53.000
<v Speaker 1>time you need to aggregate a number of loans that

0:19:53.040 --> 0:19:54.800
<v Speaker 1>you get the scale you need them to issue the

0:19:54.840 --> 0:19:57.880
<v Speaker 1>CELLO in the warehouse facilities. And there's still demand, there's

0:19:57.880 --> 0:20:00.320
<v Speaker 1>still interest in warehouse it just was not as much

0:20:00.320 --> 0:20:03.040
<v Speaker 1>as we had seen the last twelve months previously. So

0:20:03.760 --> 0:20:05.960
<v Speaker 1>those providers a warehouse this is a light or ramp

0:20:06.040 --> 0:20:08.280
<v Speaker 1>up and put loans that you can then issue to PELO,

0:20:08.800 --> 0:20:10.639
<v Speaker 1>there were just as not as many people interested in

0:20:10.680 --> 0:20:13.240
<v Speaker 1>doing that piece of that piece of the of the puzzle,

0:20:13.400 --> 0:20:17.280
<v Speaker 1>if you will. So these warehouse providers they don't have

0:20:17.480 --> 0:20:21.160
<v Speaker 1>the inventory that they previously had. Is that accurate? Well,

0:20:21.400 --> 0:20:23.359
<v Speaker 1>I wouldn't use the inventory of loans. We're in the

0:20:23.359 --> 0:20:26.160
<v Speaker 1>market as the manager buying the loans and putting them

0:20:26.200 --> 0:20:29.800
<v Speaker 1>in the warehouse facility. They're the ones backstopping, if you will,

0:20:29.800 --> 0:20:32.560
<v Speaker 1>taking the first lost piece or back stopping or providing

0:20:32.560 --> 0:20:35.399
<v Speaker 1>the capital to support the warehouse they're the ones that

0:20:35.480 --> 0:20:36.879
<v Speaker 1>took a little bit of a pause. So that's not

0:20:36.920 --> 0:20:39.760
<v Speaker 1>that there's not you know, actually the supplying the loan

0:20:39.840 --> 0:20:43.040
<v Speaker 1>market picked up a little bit recently and again that

0:20:43.160 --> 0:20:45.240
<v Speaker 1>so that supplied the man in balance we saw for

0:20:45.320 --> 0:20:47.399
<v Speaker 1>the twelve months previously where you had a lot of

0:20:47.440 --> 0:20:50.600
<v Speaker 1>demand from the clo marketplace and really the mutual fund

0:20:50.640 --> 0:20:54.720
<v Speaker 1>marketplace and okay, supply decent supplying the low mark grade

0:20:54.760 --> 0:20:57.199
<v Speaker 1>that's applied to man and bounce the gay borrowers a

0:20:57.200 --> 0:20:59.520
<v Speaker 1>lot of you know, the abilty to really you know,

0:20:59.600 --> 0:21:03.119
<v Speaker 1>drive lower pricing and better covenant protections or more beneficial

0:21:03.119 --> 0:21:06.200
<v Speaker 1>covenant protections to them. That changed a little bit because

0:21:06.560 --> 0:21:09.320
<v Speaker 1>now if the warehouse providers pause a little bit, it

0:21:09.400 --> 0:21:11.720
<v Speaker 1>kind of goes the other way, whether there's slightly less

0:21:11.760 --> 0:21:14.119
<v Speaker 1>of ability to do more cellos and thus that strong

0:21:14.160 --> 0:21:17.520
<v Speaker 1>technical support we've seen in loans slows a little bit,

0:21:17.880 --> 0:21:19.240
<v Speaker 1>and you've had a lot of you know, a lot

0:21:19.240 --> 0:21:21.800
<v Speaker 1>of loans come in at prices that are priced very aggressively.

0:21:22.359 --> 0:21:24.400
<v Speaker 1>If demand falls is a little bit, you can see

0:21:24.440 --> 0:21:26.760
<v Speaker 1>those prey those loans back up a little bit. For

0:21:26.840 --> 0:21:28.479
<v Speaker 1>this the last thing I saved that is from our

0:21:28.600 --> 0:21:31.760
<v Speaker 1>perspective that would be kind of welcome. We wouldn't mind

0:21:31.760 --> 0:21:34.280
<v Speaker 1>seeing loans back up, but we're still pretty comfortable fundamentally

0:21:34.600 --> 0:21:38.280
<v Speaker 1>with the loan market and the underlying borrowers. But pricing

0:21:38.320 --> 0:21:40.480
<v Speaker 1>has gotten you get to aggressively. You see that supply

0:21:40.520 --> 0:21:43.520
<v Speaker 1>demand and balance. So Jim, I'd love to broaden out here.

0:21:43.600 --> 0:21:46.200
<v Speaker 1>I'd sort of put loans in the perspective of the

0:21:46.280 --> 0:21:49.560
<v Speaker 1>fixed income spectrum. What are you seeing that you really

0:21:49.600 --> 0:21:52.200
<v Speaker 1>like right now? And where do you see the least

0:21:52.200 --> 0:21:57.080
<v Speaker 1>attractive investments within fixed income? That's interesting question. I mean,

0:21:57.080 --> 0:21:59.520
<v Speaker 1>I think the fixed income marketplace because where it kind

0:21:59.520 --> 0:22:02.480
<v Speaker 1>of depends in your outlook for rates. Um. You know,

0:22:02.520 --> 0:22:04.400
<v Speaker 1>we actually have become a little more comforted high yel

0:22:04.440 --> 0:22:07.000
<v Speaker 1>bonds right now. We've seen a kind of a you know,

0:22:07.040 --> 0:22:09.280
<v Speaker 1>we are our told of return expectation for high heel

0:22:09.280 --> 0:22:11.439
<v Speaker 1>bonds in the first of this year was you know,

0:22:11.520 --> 0:22:13.600
<v Speaker 1>three quarter five percent. We saw kind of a flat

0:22:13.680 --> 0:22:15.680
<v Speaker 1>first half of the year, a lot of it driven

0:22:15.720 --> 0:22:17.600
<v Speaker 1>to the big the big move in rates, the big

0:22:17.640 --> 0:22:19.520
<v Speaker 1>jump in the ten uere had. It got people a

0:22:19.520 --> 0:22:21.680
<v Speaker 1>little bit concerned about how the velocity of the rate move.

0:22:21.960 --> 0:22:24.240
<v Speaker 1>But as that's leveled out a little bit. We now

0:22:24.440 --> 0:22:26.800
<v Speaker 1>see that the high yiel aft because the faults remain low,

0:22:26.800 --> 0:22:29.320
<v Speaker 1>fundamentals remain strong. We think that could be an interesting

0:22:29.359 --> 0:22:31.480
<v Speaker 1>asset class the back half of the year. We don't

0:22:31.480 --> 0:22:34.760
<v Speaker 1>mind the leverage loan asset class as well. It's it's

0:22:34.800 --> 0:22:37.320
<v Speaker 1>been on a very consistent return had on this year.

0:22:37.320 --> 0:22:38.920
<v Speaker 1>We thought it was going to be a fortified percent

0:22:38.960 --> 0:22:41.679
<v Speaker 1>toldal return year with and it really we saw that

0:22:41.720 --> 0:22:43.119
<v Speaker 1>the first half of the year was up you know,

0:22:43.160 --> 0:22:45.119
<v Speaker 1>two and a half odd percent, and we kind of

0:22:45.160 --> 0:22:47.879
<v Speaker 1>expect that to continue. So we although we really like

0:22:48.000 --> 0:22:49.840
<v Speaker 1>loans to start a little more balanced there, but like

0:22:49.920 --> 0:22:52.480
<v Speaker 1>high yield, we like some of the structured asset classes.

0:22:52.640 --> 0:22:55.040
<v Speaker 1>You know, we were a the egan is a is

0:22:55.080 --> 0:22:57.760
<v Speaker 1>across the six income spectrum. We've got a deep focused

0:22:57.800 --> 0:23:00.840
<v Speaker 1>on research across boat not only UM, not only credit,

0:23:00.880 --> 0:23:03.280
<v Speaker 1>but AFRA structured asset classes. So we like the structured

0:23:03.320 --> 0:23:06.280
<v Speaker 1>asset classes a lot. Think there's some value there. We've

0:23:06.280 --> 0:23:08.520
<v Speaker 1>got to leave it there. Jim Schaeffer, thank you very

0:23:08.600 --> 0:23:11.040
<v Speaker 1>much for being with us CO Head of Public Fixed Income,

0:23:11.440 --> 0:23:16.520
<v Speaker 1>Deputy Chief Investment Officer for Agon USA Asset Management, helping

0:23:16.520 --> 0:23:35.240
<v Speaker 1>to manage over three hundred billion dollars worldwide. President Trump's

0:23:35.240 --> 0:23:39.120
<v Speaker 1>administration is considering going around Congress and granting a one

0:23:39.200 --> 0:23:43.639
<v Speaker 1>hundred billion dollar tax cut, mainly to the wealthiest individuals

0:23:43.680 --> 0:23:45.360
<v Speaker 1>in the United States. This according to a New York

0:23:45.359 --> 0:23:48.359
<v Speaker 1>Times report. We want to find out more, so we're

0:23:48.400 --> 0:23:50.920
<v Speaker 1>going to turn to Andrew Mayeta. He's global trade and

0:23:50.960 --> 0:23:53.600
<v Speaker 1>economy reporter for Bloomberg News, as well as Andrew Silverman,

0:23:53.880 --> 0:23:58.439
<v Speaker 1>government analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence. Andrew Mayeta, thank you so

0:23:58.520 --> 0:24:02.439
<v Speaker 1>much for joining us from d C. What is this

0:24:02.520 --> 0:24:05.320
<v Speaker 1>that we're talking about here? Yeah, So the Time spoke

0:24:05.400 --> 0:24:09.600
<v Speaker 1>to Secretary Manution at the G twenty and he indicated

0:24:09.760 --> 0:24:14.119
<v Speaker 1>that the Treasury Department is looking at potentially allowing people

0:24:14.200 --> 0:24:19.480
<v Speaker 1>to account for inflation in calculating capital gains taxes. I mean,

0:24:19.480 --> 0:24:21.960
<v Speaker 1>what does that mean in plain English? What it means

0:24:21.960 --> 0:24:25.480
<v Speaker 1>in plain English is if I bought a hundred dollars

0:24:25.520 --> 0:24:29.360
<v Speaker 1>worth of stock, say five years ago, if I can

0:24:29.440 --> 0:24:33.040
<v Speaker 1>account for inflation, uh, it might actually be worth a

0:24:33.119 --> 0:24:36.919
<v Speaker 1>hundred and fifty in present terms. And that means that

0:24:37.000 --> 0:24:40.440
<v Speaker 1>the taxit that I take is going to be lower.

0:24:40.720 --> 0:24:44.359
<v Speaker 1>So that's what that's what they're considering. Andrew Silverman, just

0:24:44.800 --> 0:24:47.480
<v Speaker 1>follow up with this affect both short term and long

0:24:47.600 --> 0:24:51.639
<v Speaker 1>term capital gains. Lately, just on long term couple of

0:24:51.840 --> 0:24:54.760
<v Speaker 1>short term coupital gains are tanks of the ordinary income taks. Right, So,

0:24:55.000 --> 0:24:57.760
<v Speaker 1>Andrew Silverman, can you give us a sense of whether

0:24:57.800 --> 0:25:00.399
<v Speaker 1>this has been tried before and what the pros cons

0:25:00.400 --> 0:25:03.359
<v Speaker 1>are for this? Well, so this has been suggested before.

0:25:03.440 --> 0:25:06.159
<v Speaker 1>President H. W. Bush thought about doing this in nine

0:25:07.320 --> 0:25:10.240
<v Speaker 1>There was a memorandum that was written by a few

0:25:10.320 --> 0:25:14.760
<v Speaker 1>lawyers in Washington and Sean Pittman are now Pillsbury, went

0:25:14.800 --> 0:25:19.760
<v Speaker 1>through UM and they suggested that Uh it was it

0:25:19.800 --> 0:25:24.159
<v Speaker 1>was perfectly legal. UM and the president UM consider this, UH,

0:25:24.400 --> 0:25:26.800
<v Speaker 1>talk to Treasury about it. They actually decided against it.

0:25:27.320 --> 0:25:29.919
<v Speaker 1>But when Bob Dole ran for president nine six, he

0:25:30.080 --> 0:25:32.600
<v Speaker 1>said that he wanted to do this by FIAT and

0:25:33.040 --> 0:25:36.360
<v Speaker 1>those lawyers who are the memorandum in in UM UH

0:25:36.400 --> 0:25:40.640
<v Speaker 1>in nineteen UH eighty nine, then reissued it in in twelve

0:25:40.800 --> 0:25:42.640
<v Speaker 1>UM saying that they still supported the idea and thought

0:25:42.680 --> 0:25:46.920
<v Speaker 1>it was perfectly legal. Andrew Mayda just to run down

0:25:46.960 --> 0:25:50.520
<v Speaker 1>the capital gains tax structure right now. It has to

0:25:50.600 --> 0:25:55.240
<v Speaker 1>do with where you fall in terms of your income, right, Uh,

0:25:55.280 --> 0:25:57.160
<v Speaker 1>if you make let's say, I think over a hundred

0:25:57.200 --> 0:26:00.000
<v Speaker 1>and what what four hundred and twenty five thousand dollars

0:26:00.080 --> 0:26:03.760
<v Speaker 1>year as a single taxpayer, you're going to pay long term,

0:26:03.840 --> 0:26:06.520
<v Speaker 1>long term capital gains. Is that accurate? Well, I'm not

0:26:06.600 --> 0:26:08.760
<v Speaker 1>a tax expert, so I'm going to pass on that,

0:26:09.800 --> 0:26:12.280
<v Speaker 1>but I will say, I mean, there's no question that

0:26:12.400 --> 0:26:16.919
<v Speaker 1>this is going to primarily benefit the wealthy. And you know,

0:26:17.240 --> 0:26:19.359
<v Speaker 1>you have to remember the context of this. This is

0:26:19.400 --> 0:26:23.199
<v Speaker 1>coming months before mid term elections. If you look at

0:26:23.200 --> 0:26:26.720
<v Speaker 1>a tax plan that is going to potentially have more

0:26:26.760 --> 0:26:33.000
<v Speaker 1>appeal to voters. Chairman Kevin Brady, the Republican chairman of

0:26:33.040 --> 0:26:36.920
<v Speaker 1>the Tax the House Ways and Means Committee, came out

0:26:36.920 --> 0:26:38.720
<v Speaker 1>with a plan that, to me, I think sounds a

0:26:38.720 --> 0:26:42.040
<v Speaker 1>little bit more palatable to the electorate. He said. He proposed,

0:26:42.040 --> 0:26:46.679
<v Speaker 1>for example, just making permanent the tax cuts that the

0:26:46.720 --> 0:26:50.320
<v Speaker 1>Republican Party passed earlier this year. So that seems to

0:26:50.359 --> 0:26:52.840
<v Speaker 1>me like a little bit more of a vote winner

0:26:52.880 --> 0:26:55.160
<v Speaker 1>than than this hype of tax which is which will

0:26:55.160 --> 0:26:57.960
<v Speaker 1>primarily benefit the wealthy. Yeah, that's exactly what I was

0:26:57.960 --> 0:27:00.159
<v Speaker 1>gonna say. I don't really understand how this appeal is

0:27:00.200 --> 0:27:02.840
<v Speaker 1>to sort of the populous movement that President Trump kind

0:27:02.840 --> 0:27:07.520
<v Speaker 1>of is known for. Aiming at Andrew Silverman, I guess

0:27:07.560 --> 0:27:11.560
<v Speaker 1>I'm struggling to understand what's the economic benefit that that

0:27:11.640 --> 0:27:16.040
<v Speaker 1>they argue is achieved by this tax cut. Well, I

0:27:16.080 --> 0:27:19.040
<v Speaker 1>think that you can spend it a number of different ways.

0:27:19.080 --> 0:27:21.160
<v Speaker 1>But you know, you can say it's a it's um

0:27:22.040 --> 0:27:24.080
<v Speaker 1>to the wealthy, and certainly a lot of all the

0:27:24.080 --> 0:27:26.760
<v Speaker 1>people are investors and would benefit from this, but it's

0:27:26.800 --> 0:27:29.120
<v Speaker 1>also a benefit to for win ks and pension funds,

0:27:29.160 --> 0:27:31.480
<v Speaker 1>and that helps all of us. So it's not necessarily

0:27:31.520 --> 0:27:33.760
<v Speaker 1>something that just helps the wealthy, and it really helps

0:27:33.800 --> 0:27:37.439
<v Speaker 1>everybody that's an investor. It hurts the government collect Andrewmata,

0:27:37.480 --> 0:27:39.960
<v Speaker 1>can you jump on in here. I mean, what's the

0:27:40.040 --> 0:27:42.720
<v Speaker 1>economic sort of throw down on this. Is there some

0:27:42.800 --> 0:27:44.960
<v Speaker 1>kind of consensus on whether this is helpful or hurtful

0:27:45.000 --> 0:27:47.879
<v Speaker 1>for the economy, this kind of policy, Well, it's a

0:27:47.920 --> 0:27:50.560
<v Speaker 1>it's a good question. I mean, you know, in the

0:27:50.600 --> 0:27:55.119
<v Speaker 1>New York Times article, I read that somebody who's justifying

0:27:55.200 --> 0:27:57.919
<v Speaker 1>this any idea that you know, people will be buying

0:27:57.960 --> 0:28:02.640
<v Speaker 1>and selling more assets. But generally speaking, when economists look

0:28:02.680 --> 0:28:04.800
<v Speaker 1>at the biggest bang for the buck, they're looking at

0:28:04.880 --> 0:28:10.400
<v Speaker 1>measures that actually increase income or increase consumption. Uh. So,

0:28:10.520 --> 0:28:13.320
<v Speaker 1>you know, all of those things being equal, you're probably

0:28:13.320 --> 0:28:15.280
<v Speaker 1>going to get more of a bank for the buck

0:28:15.359 --> 0:28:18.240
<v Speaker 1>by doing something that benefits, you know, the lower class

0:28:18.280 --> 0:28:22.359
<v Speaker 1>of the middle class, people who have less disposable income. So, UM,

0:28:22.640 --> 0:28:24.360
<v Speaker 1>I don't know, I guess the jury the jury would

0:28:24.400 --> 0:28:27.440
<v Speaker 1>still be out on exactly what which type of approach

0:28:27.440 --> 0:28:31.840
<v Speaker 1>would would generate more of an economic boost. Andrew Silverman

0:28:31.920 --> 0:28:34.440
<v Speaker 1>just quickly, Uh, you said four oh one ks and

0:28:34.560 --> 0:28:38.120
<v Speaker 1>iras would be uh favorably treated. Why is that because

0:28:38.120 --> 0:28:39.800
<v Speaker 1>when you withdraw the money from them, it will be

0:28:39.800 --> 0:28:42.760
<v Speaker 1>at a lower tax rate. Well, they're investors, they're large investors,

0:28:43.200 --> 0:28:45.400
<v Speaker 1>but they don't have any tax consequences, right, I mean,

0:28:45.400 --> 0:28:49.440
<v Speaker 1>it's all tax deferred, but their investors do when they

0:28:49.480 --> 0:28:51.840
<v Speaker 1>take the money out. You mean, that's right, exactly, Okay,

0:28:52.280 --> 0:28:53.840
<v Speaker 1>all right, So when you withdraw let's say from the

0:28:53.840 --> 0:28:55.840
<v Speaker 1>four oh one K or you end up with drawing

0:28:55.880 --> 0:28:58.440
<v Speaker 1>from the RA, you take the minimum distribution whatever it is,

0:28:58.920 --> 0:29:02.680
<v Speaker 1>then you would end up being less because the actual

0:29:02.720 --> 0:29:05.960
<v Speaker 1>investment would be index to inflation as a result of

0:29:06.000 --> 0:29:09.800
<v Speaker 1>this potential change. That's exactly right, so so um uh

0:29:10.000 --> 0:29:12.680
<v Speaker 1>like like Andrew was saying, if you invest a hundred

0:29:12.720 --> 0:29:15.000
<v Speaker 1>dollars thirty years ago and it goes up to a

0:29:15.080 --> 0:29:19.320
<v Speaker 1>hundred and ten dollars, um uh and uh you know

0:29:19.320 --> 0:29:21.400
<v Speaker 1>if you have gains, you know, a hundred and ten

0:29:21.440 --> 0:29:24.680
<v Speaker 1>dollars um you have no um, no capital gains tax

0:29:24.680 --> 0:29:27.200
<v Speaker 1>of you indexit to inflation. Well done, all right, thanks

0:29:27.280 --> 0:29:30.240
<v Speaker 1>very much for explaining this, gentleman. Andrew Silverman our government

0:29:30.280 --> 0:29:34.800
<v Speaker 1>analysts for Bloomberg Intelligence. And Andrew Mayeta are global Trade

0:29:34.880 --> 0:29:38.760
<v Speaker 1>and Economy reporter for Bloomberg News, joining us from our

0:29:38.960 --> 0:29:46.640
<v Speaker 1>Washington bureau. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg P and

0:29:46.720 --> 0:29:49.760
<v Speaker 1>L podcast. You can subscribe and listen to interviews at

0:29:49.800 --> 0:29:54.280
<v Speaker 1>Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whatever podcast platform you prefer. I'm

0:29:54.280 --> 0:29:57.720
<v Speaker 1>pim Fox. I'm on Twitter at pim Fox. I'm on

0:29:57.760 --> 0:30:01.200
<v Speaker 1>Twitter at Lisa abramowits one before the podcast. You can

0:30:01.240 --> 0:30:03.600
<v Speaker 1>always catch us worldwide on Bloomberg Radio.