Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg p m L Podcast. I'm Pim
Speaker 1: Fox along with my co host Lisa A. Bramowitz. Each
Speaker 1: day we bring you the most important, noteworthy, and useful
Speaker 1: interviews for you and your money, whether you're at the
Speaker 1: grocery store or the trading floor. Find the Bloomberg p
Speaker 1: m L Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and Bloomberg dot com.
Speaker 1: And for details. Now and more details about what's going
Speaker 1: on in Iraq, we want to bring in Julian Lee,
Speaker 1: oil strategist for a Bloomberg first Word, and I encourage
Speaker 1: everyone to read his latest column having to do with
Speaker 1: the tensions with the Kurdish separatists. And I'm just wondering,
Speaker 1: you know, Julian, great to have you with us. It's
Speaker 1: kind of difficult to even put the nomenclature this correctly
Speaker 1: because Curtis Stan has a regional government and it just
Speaker 1: voted for full independence, and yet Iraq's government doesn't want
Speaker 1: to have anything to do with this and now has
Speaker 1: launched an assault on the city of kirk Kut. I
Speaker 1: wonder if you could explain why this is relevant and
Speaker 1: what do you believe is going on behind the scenes. Okay, well,
Speaker 1: thank you for for having me. I mean, it's it's
Speaker 1: great to be on the show. Um, I think we
Speaker 1: have to to sort of look at a little bit
Speaker 1: of history here. The city of Kirkuk has been disputed
Speaker 1: between the Kurdish government and the government in Baghdad really
Speaker 1: since the fall of Saddam Hussein, and has been a
Speaker 1: disputed city long before that. Um. It's not in the
Speaker 1: Kurdish region of Iraq, it's just outside it, so it
Speaker 1: wasn't under control of the Kurdish regional government. When Iraqi
Speaker 1: forces fled northern Iraq in fourteen in the face of
Speaker 1: the insurgency from the so called Islamic State, the Kurds
Speaker 1: moved in. Kurdish forces moved into protect Ka Cook, protects
Speaker 1: surrounding oil fields, and effectively established de facto control over
Speaker 1: the city of Kurdistan and over neighboring oil fields, a
Speaker 1: couple of which subsequently were taken over and managed by
Speaker 1: a Kurdish company. Now that Islamic State has been kicked
Speaker 1: out of northern Iraq, the federal government wants the city
Speaker 1: of Kerkook and wants those oil fields back. Um. The
Speaker 1: the Kurdish referendum really has has thrown fuel on the
Speaker 1: fire because the Baghdad government doesn't want to see Iraq
Speaker 1: split up, and indeed nor do international governments, particularly those
Speaker 1: of Iraq's neighbors. So how much of this Julian is
Speaker 1: a purely economic issue? Who gets control over these oil fields?
Speaker 1: And how important are these oil fields strategically? I think
Speaker 1: the issue is is it's certainly for for Iraqis and
Speaker 1: for Kords, is much bigger than just control of oil.
Speaker 1: It is about national destiny and the shape of Iraq
Speaker 1: going forwards. The oil is undoubtedly important, it's we're not
Speaker 1: talking huge volumes in terms of the total production of
Speaker 1: Iraq itself. Most of Iraq's oil production comes from the south,
Speaker 1: near the Persian Gulf. They're exporting something over three million
Speaker 1: barrels a day from the Persian Gulf. From northern Iraq,
Speaker 1: they're exporting about six hundred thousand barrels today, so you know,
Speaker 1: roughly a fifth of what they're exporting from the south.
Speaker 1: But the reason that it's important is that it's delivered
Speaker 1: by pipeline directly to an export terminal on Turkey's Mediterranean coast.
Speaker 1: That makes it a very close source of supply for
Speaker 1: Mediterranean refiners. And that is very attractive to them. So
Speaker 1: the loss of this oil, or even a part of it,
Speaker 1: would I think cause a dislocation for Mediterranean refiners as
Speaker 1: they look to replace this Kurdish and Northern Iraqi oil
Speaker 1: with supplies from elsewhere. And that's where I think the
Speaker 1: real importance lies. Add to that the fact that we
Speaker 1: seem to be in a situation again where Middle Eastern
Speaker 1: geopolitics and the threat of conflict or indeed the actuality
Speaker 1: of conflict in oil producing countries in the Middle East
Speaker 1: is starting to have an impact on prices. And what
Speaker 1: about the ability of Iraqi oil producers to get the
Speaker 1: product to market. Producers in the south of the country
Speaker 1: in the who, well, yeah, I know that the south
Speaker 1: is find producers in the north have a big problem.
Speaker 1: The only way at the moment to get oil out
Speaker 1: of northern Iraqi is through a Kurdish pipeline which runs
Speaker 1: from the northern end of the kirk cook Field, which
Speaker 1: Kurdistan has operated for a decade and a half U
Speaker 1: and that runs up to the Turkish border and then
Speaker 1: across Turkey to a terminal on on Turkey's Mediterranean coast.
Speaker 1: That is the only way of getting oil out of
Speaker 1: northern Iraq in any significant quantity, whether that's Kurdish produced
Speaker 1: and controlled oil or oil that is produced and controlled
Speaker 1: by the national government. So everybody needs the pipeline to
Speaker 1: keep running. Julian real quick, I'm trying to get an
Speaker 1: understanding of why we're seeing oil prices rise on this news.
Speaker 1: Is it because of the threat of a wider conflict
Speaker 1: or is it because this could potentially take oil offline.
Speaker 1: I think it's it's that it could potentially take oil offline.
Speaker 1: It could take as much as six hundred thousand barrels
Speaker 1: a day. There doesn't seem to be risk of the
Speaker 1: conflict spreading, although Turkey did threaten at the time of
Speaker 1: the referendum that if if Kurdistan went ahead with independence,
Speaker 1: it could and would close the pipeline. Julian Lee, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for joining us, and your story was
Speaker 1: really terrific. I recommend everyone read it. Bloomberg dot Com,
Speaker 1: slash goad Fly Julian Lee, oil strategist for Bloomberg, First
Speaker 1: Word and a Gadfly columnists. President Trump last week asked
Speaker 1: the US Congress to toughen the terms of a fifteen
Speaker 1: Iranian nuclear agreement saying it doesn't do enough to contain
Speaker 1: Iranian ambitions. Here to discuss this Ariel Cohen, Senior Fellow
Speaker 1: at the Atlantic Council, also Director of the Center for Energy,
Speaker 1: Natural Resources and Geopolitics at the Institute for Analysis of
Speaker 1: Global Security. Ariel, thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 1: Can we just go over what the main issues are
Speaker 1: that President Trump is responding to and how widely his
Speaker 1: UH skepticism about this deal really is. It is shared,
Speaker 1: fest of all. Thank you for having me, fest of all.
Speaker 1: Because Trump is consistent. He criticized the deal with Iron
Speaker 1: called j C p o A the Obama era deal,
Speaker 1: because it is not a good deal for the United States. UH.
Speaker 1: The deal allows Iran to continue uranium enrichment, although this
Speaker 1: is low enriched uranium that is used in medical research
Speaker 1: and in civilian UM power stations, but the capacity can
Speaker 1: be easily upgraded UH to UM create the uranium for
Speaker 1: nuclear weapons. Secondly, the deal does not stop Iranian development
Speaker 1: of ballistic missiles, including we get indications the development of
Speaker 1: I C B M intercontinental ballistic myself in the longer term. UH. Thirdly,
Speaker 1: the deal does not fate to stop Iran from interfering
Speaker 1: throughout the Middle East. Iran is a major supporter of
Speaker 1: the brutal regime of Vashar Alasta in Syria. It interferes
Speaker 1: in Yemen. It effectively pursues policy of surrounding our allied
Speaker 1: Saudi Arabia both from the north. It supports Katar UH.
Speaker 1: It supports Shia minority inside Saudi, it supports Shia majority
Speaker 1: in Bahrain and the Ushia rebels and Yemen. So both
Speaker 1: in terms of geopolitics, in terms of facts on the
Speaker 1: ground in the Middle East, and in terms of nuclear capability,
Speaker 1: the deal did not achieve u S strategic goals, and
Speaker 1: this is why Trump is not UH scuttling it. But
Speaker 1: it is the company of Ministrusion is trying to push
Speaker 1: Iran to get to the negotiating table and to renegotiate
Speaker 1: the deal. Is there any evidence, Ariel, that the strategy
Speaker 1: that the Trump administration is employing has ever worked. UH.
Speaker 1: The strategy has not been fully announced. I believe that
Speaker 1: des certifying Iran is the first step, but the strategy
Speaker 1: has not been articulated, and if there is one, UH,
Speaker 1: they probably are not going to fully expose it for
Speaker 1: public consumption. UH. In a game with the Iranians that
Speaker 1: I cracked around for decades. In the game of the Iranians,
Speaker 1: you don't show your cards. You keep your cards closed
Speaker 1: to your chest. Iran is a place where the chess
Speaker 1: they was invented. Granted, the Russians played the chest well,
Speaker 1: but the Iranians other original auctors their tough nego shares.
Speaker 1: They've been in the area for over three thousand years,
Speaker 1: even before UH the introduction of Islam occupation by the
Speaker 1: Arabs in the seventh century a d uh. So these
Speaker 1: guys built a huge empire that you remember from history,
Speaker 1: clashed with ancient Greece and Rome, and fought with Greece
Speaker 1: and Rome for over a thousand years. So these are
Speaker 1: masters of political games. We should not tell them what
Speaker 1: we're planning to do. Well, Ariel, I want to talk
Speaker 1: a little bit about the broader reaction to President Trump's moves.
Speaker 1: The European Union is opposed to bringing Iran back to
Speaker 1: the table and trying to renegotiate this. They're hoping that
Speaker 1: US Congress keeps this nuclear agreement intact. I'm just wondering,
Speaker 1: you know, there has been talk that perhaps UH taking
Speaker 1: a hard line could actually be advantageous for Russia, what's
Speaker 1: your take on how much political will there is to
Speaker 1: really renegotiate this. Uh. The European position, the Russian position,
Speaker 1: and the Chinese position are all going to be crucial
Speaker 1: UH in the strategy of the U S is pursuing.
Speaker 1: And of course, UH, just as in case of North Korea,
Speaker 1: we would much rather achieve our strateistic goals through negotiations
Speaker 1: and not for war. UH, not through the use of force.
Speaker 1: Having said that, we still have a lot of means
Speaker 1: short of the use of force, short of war, including
Speaker 1: banking and economic sections against terrorist organization UH and the
Speaker 1: Iranian Revolutionary Guard core mega terrorist organization that has an
Speaker 1: air force UH, controls ballistic missiles that we were on,
Speaker 1: is developing the nuclear program and has presence all over
Speaker 1: the world. So it's much bigger than Al Qaina ever was.
Speaker 1: The IRG SEE finally finally was declared a terrorist organization,
Speaker 1: which it is UH, and now the consequences to their
Speaker 1: businesses are coming. The chickens are coming home to roost. Aria.
Speaker 1: Let me let Aria, let me just break in here,
Speaker 1: because all of what let's let's just put all of
Speaker 1: what you said just aside for just just a second.
Speaker 1: And if you can just focus on the idea that
Speaker 1: Iran is the second largest exporter of oil from OPEC,
Speaker 1: it's the world's fourth largest oil producer. What are the
Speaker 1: goals that you believe can be exchanged. I don't mean
Speaker 1: in terms of passing legislation in the United States or
Speaker 1: getting European allies to agree with the Trump administration's uh
Speaker 1: yet to be revealed strategy, but what goals can be
Speaker 1: achieved in dealing with what you describe as a hostile
Speaker 1: or confrontational force that just happens to have ten percent
Speaker 1: of the world's proven oil reserves and of its gas.
Speaker 1: Uh you're putting your finger on a very important uh
Speaker 1: here economic if you want issue, and that is a
Speaker 1: competition between Saudi Arabia and Iran for the regional dominance
Speaker 1: of the Middle East. The Saudis as soon as Irainians
Speaker 1: a Shia, we can and we should work with the
Speaker 1: Saudias um to keep the oil pricess down. But the
Speaker 1: Saudis the suffering, and the Saudis and the Russians they're
Speaker 1: talking about cutting production. If production is cut, oil prices
Speaker 1: are going up, and our shell producers are going to
Speaker 1: step in. UH so the oil prices. Uh if we
Speaker 1: are looking at the you know, fifty five sixty uh marks,
Speaker 1: they may go up and that will benefit Iran. So
Speaker 1: what can we do? We can, and we should talk
Speaker 1: to main consumers to prefer oil from the United States
Speaker 1: and from our allies, from Canada, from Saudi not from Iran,
Speaker 1: and keep Iranian oil off the markets and try to
Speaker 1: decrease their revenues. All right, We're gonna leave it there,
Speaker 1: but I want to thank you very much for joining
Speaker 1: us and giving us your thoughts. Ariel Cohen as a
Speaker 1: Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council and director of the
Speaker 1: Center for Energy, Natural Resources, and Geopolitics at the I A. G. S. Well,
Speaker 1: where were you on October nine, eighty seven? Well, some
Speaker 1: people may not have been born by seven, so they're
Speaker 1: in lies the quandary when it comes time to at
Speaker 1: least remember Black Monday in seven. So here to help
Speaker 1: us do so is Matt Mayleie. He is managing director
Speaker 1: and equity strategist at Miller tay Back. He is on
Speaker 1: site at the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center of course, Boston,
Speaker 1: home to Bloomberg one oh six one Boston, Newbray Fort
Speaker 1: and Metro and the South Shore. Matt Malee, did you
Speaker 1: know that in nineteen eighties seven, the federal the interest rate,
Speaker 1: the prevailing interest rate was like eight and three quarters
Speaker 1: of a percent, and a gallon of gasoline was eighty
Speaker 1: nine cents eighty nine cents, heavin forbid, and then the
Speaker 1: the rates were ever that high. I mean's I'm on
Speaker 1: enough to remember them when they were in the team. Indeed, indeed,
Speaker 1: thank you. Don't don't encourage me, um, when you were
Speaker 1: driving your Ford Escort down to uh, you know, the
Speaker 1: Solomon Brothers trading room. Tell us a little bit about
Speaker 1: what it was like that day and and what are
Speaker 1: some of the things that you were put together to
Speaker 1: explain what happened on October the nineteenth seven. Well, it
Speaker 1: was kind of a perfect storm. And we had, you know,
Speaker 1: the stock market have been going up for a long time,
Speaker 1: and uh and and remember the investors and managers alike
Speaker 1: had all remembered the back of the end, had remember
Speaker 1: the horrible bear market of the nineteen seventies. And then
Speaker 1: of course they at all at least had some sort
Speaker 1: of a memory or very much from their parents of
Speaker 1: the Great Depression. So jeez, they're starting to get nervous
Speaker 1: about this uh uh, this this market having a big run,
Speaker 1: and people in the institutional side we're buying portfolio insurance
Speaker 1: that we've all heard about. But individual investors again, they
Speaker 1: also were worried because they had a lot of money
Speaker 1: and mutual funds. Then there was a third like that
Speaker 1: a lot of people don't talk about, and that was
Speaker 1: in the takeover areas. I mean, I even boasting these
Speaker 1: guys with the big stars back down on Wall Street,
Speaker 1: and the takeover stocks were highly, highly leveraged. And what happened,
Speaker 1: and a lot of people don't know is that the
Speaker 1: real catalyst really came out of Washington, d C. When
Speaker 1: the Ways and Means Committee came out and decided they well,
Speaker 1: at least they floated a trial balloon about changing the
Speaker 1: tax the way these takeovers or the debt on these
Speaker 1: takesovers would be taxed. And these leveraged risk arbitrage guys
Speaker 1: all started getting some margin calls, started selling an aggressive way,
Speaker 1: and that kind of started the the the whole thing rolling.
Speaker 1: When you know, the dominoes started falling after that, Matt,
Speaker 1: your note is really tremendous. You also talk about that
Speaker 1: people were worried about longer term interest rates rising, and
Speaker 1: they weren't as worried about the effect of rising yields
Speaker 1: and lower prices in their bond portfolios as much as
Speaker 1: they were about potential takeover deals that would collapse due
Speaker 1: to tighter credit conditions. So, really putting things into perspective
Speaker 1: before we delve too far into history, Lane, can you
Speaker 1: draw any parallels from that period to today? Are we
Speaker 1: sort of setting ourselves up for a similar type of
Speaker 1: crash or do you think that that was really a
Speaker 1: confluence of idiosyncratic events that will not be repeated today. Well,
Speaker 1: I yes and no or both, like is the way
Speaker 1: to put it? I guess on the one yes, I
Speaker 1: do not think that we could have a one day
Speaker 1: disaster like that. We have all the circuit breakers and
Speaker 1: and the FED is uh. I think all central banks
Speaker 1: are We're ready and willing to provide liquidity when when
Speaker 1: it is needed. Uh So, I think I'm very, very,
Speaker 1: very surprising we have to be some sort of uh
Speaker 1: huge black swan uh to cause a twenty percent or
Speaker 1: thirty percent move in, you know, just in a day
Speaker 1: or two, because a lot of people forget that it
Speaker 1: was actually about a thirty five percent drop over several
Speaker 1: days if you all in. But but at the same time,
Speaker 1: we have a lot of you know, whether it be
Speaker 1: you know, we heard a lot about these algos and
Speaker 1: these high frequency tradeers and of course UH in the
Speaker 1: e t F. These are all rules based UH investors
Speaker 1: and when the market goes to a certain things, they're
Speaker 1: going to automatically buy. Well, that's we've we've seen that
Speaker 1: in a nice way in the last couple of years.
Speaker 1: But the flips that can happen as well, So at
Speaker 1: some point we're gonna have another bearer market. Of bearer
Speaker 1: markets have not been outlawed, I'm do afraid. I am
Speaker 1: afraid that it could be again, not a crash over
Speaker 1: a couple of periods, a couple of days, but we
Speaker 1: could see a twenty orcent move over just a few weeks,
Speaker 1: which is not something that people will like very much.
Speaker 1: That there are not circuit breakers in certain bond markets.
Speaker 1: Do you think that they're more susceptible to a crash, Well,
Speaker 1: that that's certainly thing. I mean, it was only just
Speaker 1: a year ago or a year and a half ago,
Speaker 1: I should say. One of the things that you know,
Speaker 1: the real problem with with the decline in oil prices
Speaker 1: that took place in the latter half of two thousand
Speaker 1: fifteen and very early two thou sixteen was the almost
Speaker 1: crash in the high yield market. And like you said, no,
Speaker 1: no circuit breakers. Liquidity can be very small there. Uh
Speaker 1: So when you get that kind of uh, forced selling.
Speaker 1: I mean that's the whole thing, is that crashes only
Speaker 1: take place because of forced selling, not because of actual
Speaker 1: fundamental issues. And when you get highly leveraged uh sixth
Speaker 1: income markets and they start to you know, the bids disappear, Uh,
Speaker 1: it could have gone serious problem. There's no question, Matt.
Speaker 1: Is there something about Friday trading and Monday trading that
Speaker 1: you can draw from history? Well, the one thing is,
Speaker 1: I mean it's funny. It's it's it's said, you know,
Speaker 1: people on Friday's are worried about Jesus, I won't be
Speaker 1: able to get to my money or not get to
Speaker 1: my money, or get do a trade over, you know,
Speaker 1: for another couple of days. So sometimes they you know,
Speaker 1: they panic a little bit on Friday's And it's the
Speaker 1: same thing, uh on Mondays. Is because over the weekend
Speaker 1: they start talking to each other. I mean I literally,
Speaker 1: I mean that's kind of what happened. People started talking
Speaker 1: to each other and said, oh my gosh, the stock
Speaker 1: prank was down a hundred points. Back then, that was
Speaker 1: like unheard of. And people started panicking and they started
Speaker 1: calling one eight hundred mutual funds and redeeming their mutual funds.
Speaker 1: And so that's how the whole thing kind of started
Speaker 1: clicking in, and the thing is is today. I mean,
Speaker 1: there is a reason that the stock market is open
Speaker 1: the Friday after of of Thanksgiving because they don't want
Speaker 1: the market closed four days in a row because if
Speaker 1: that happens, if something big happens, panic, real panic could
Speaker 1: sit in over four days. That's really the reason why
Speaker 1: they don't close the day after Thanksgiving, no other reason. Matt, mainly,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining us. Truly a fascinating
Speaker 1: note and direct mand people read it. Matt Malie is
Speaker 1: a managing director and equity strategist at Miller TVAC and Company.
Speaker 1: The holy grail in the food industry to create something
Speaker 1: that tastes decadent but allows you to stay slim. Here
Speaker 1: to talk about one development in the sugar industry is
Speaker 1: Iran Banniel, Chief executive officer and president of do mat Talk,
Speaker 1: which is based in Potactica in Israel. Here is in
Speaker 1: our eleven three oh studios today and Iran. Your company
Speaker 1: makes a sugar product that basically just enhances how we
Speaker 1: taste sugar correct, rather and reducing the amount of sugar included,
Speaker 1: rather than having an artificial substitute. Correct, Can you tell
Speaker 1: us a little that absolutely correct? What we do is
Speaker 1: we load the sugar onto a carrier, a mineral very
Speaker 1: common in food. A tiny little bit of mineral is
Speaker 1: enough to carry a whole lot of sugar. And when
Speaker 1: those clusters of sweetness arrive at the receptors, they download
Speaker 1: the sugar at the receptors and cheating and if you
Speaker 1: wish the receptors to report something which is mild sweeter
Speaker 1: than the amount of sugar that you've put there. About reduction,
Speaker 1: I believe at least that is that for sugar consumption.
Speaker 1: If this were introduced, yes you have here. I brought
Speaker 1: you two examples. The jelly bellies are fifty sugar reduction
Speaker 1: and the chocolate is thirty just to show you, but
Speaker 1: we got complained that the chocolate was still too sweet
Speaker 1: a reduction, so we are continuing to reduce. You know,
Speaker 1: one big question about the science behind reducing sugar is
Speaker 1: that if your body is expecting and experiencing a certain sweetness,
Speaker 1: it prepares for the calories that accompany it. In other words,
Speaker 1: if people eat something that is calorie reduced, they may
Speaker 1: eat more after the words, to compensate for the lack
Speaker 1: of calories that they received for the amount of sugar.
Speaker 1: This is one sort of complaint with the artificial sweeteners.
Speaker 1: What have you found with respect to that. It's interesting
Speaker 1: that you say that it's a wonderful question, because what
Speaker 1: happens without sugar is that sweetness is a teeny bit belated,
Speaker 1: but then lingers on. So you did you really won't
Speaker 1: reach out for the next bite so fast because you
Speaker 1: really get a full sugary impression, taste, and satisfaction. So
Speaker 1: it's actually a way to reduce even further the temptation
Speaker 1: to take too much. So it's a lingering story too.
Speaker 1: Give us an update on how far along you are
Speaker 1: in the commercialization of this. I know you're raised what
Speaker 1: about eight a little bit more than eight million dollars
Speaker 1: recently you're announcing that where are you in the commercialization?
Speaker 1: And does this then go into the food service industry,
Speaker 1: perhaps in addition to just in a direct retail way.
Speaker 1: We were very fortunate. We did very little pr It
Speaker 1: was usually to say, hey, we got some money invested
Speaker 1: in us or something, and what followed was an avalanche
Speaker 1: of emails to the website, etcetera. The whole world is
Speaker 1: looking for a sugar reduction solution which tastes great, which
Speaker 1: doesn't have all those aftertastes, etcetera. So what happened is
Speaker 1: wherever we had early success, like with chocolate, without naming
Speaker 1: names because obviously I can't, but I wouldn't exaggerate. I
Speaker 1: think if I say, this startup from israelis talking to
Speaker 1: over sixt of the sugar of the chocolate industry in
Speaker 1: the world, and I'm meaning all the big You have
Speaker 1: a big you have an ex nest ly an espresso
Speaker 1: executive as part of your executive team. I believe that
Speaker 1: is true. So how much more expensive is it to
Speaker 1: produce these chemicals that have sugar on them, that are
Speaker 1: that are expressed as sweeter. I don't terribly go for
Speaker 1: the expression chemicals because it sounds like, oh, you know,
Speaker 1: we are using a mineral, and the mineral is the
Speaker 1: most common mineral on Earth. I love I love this.
Speaker 1: By the way, you know, everything that we have is chemicals, right,
Speaker 1: I mean their chemical coursing for our bodies. But it
Speaker 1: has taken on a sort of negative connotation. So we'll
Speaker 1: call it a mineral. Okay, So mineral with sweetener on it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And um, what happens is that we don't have one
Speaker 1: let's say, suck rose, the normal table sugar, not one.
Speaker 1: We've got three or three different models. They differ by
Speaker 1: the surface of the mineral that we use, and they
Speaker 1: are better each for certain categories of applications. So we've
Speaker 1: got our sugar which works marvelously in chocolate dry applications basically,
Speaker 1: and we have our sugar that works great in baked goods,
Speaker 1: and we talked to some of the giants there as well.
Speaker 1: We have more difficulties with so does obviously the sugar
Speaker 1: brakes the tongue. So does our water, and and we
Speaker 1: are less effective in solids. I want to thank you
Speaker 1: very much for coming in and enlightening us. Uh Eron
Speaker 1: ban Yell is the chief executive officer and the president
Speaker 1: of dou MAT Talk that is d O U x
Speaker 1: M A t okay Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: p m L podcast. You can subscribe and listen to
Speaker 1: interviews at Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whatever podcast platform you prefer.
Speaker 1: I'm pim Fox. I'm on Twitter at pim Fox. I'm
Speaker 1: on Twitter at Lisa Abramo wits one. Before the podcast,
Speaker 1: you can always catch us worldwide on Bloomberg Radio