Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg PENL podcast. I'm Paul swing you
Speaker 1: along with my co host Lisa Brahma Waits. Each day
Speaker 1: we bring you the most noteworthy and useful interviews for
Speaker 1: you and your money. Whether at the grocery store or
Speaker 1: the trading floor. Find a Bloomberg Penl podcast on Apple
Speaker 1: podcast or wherever you listen to podcasts, as well as
Speaker 1: at Bloomberg dot com. We want to stick with we
Speaker 1: work withdrawing its initial public offering perspectives. After a tumultuous month,
Speaker 1: we are seeing some movement in the bonds going lower
Speaker 1: now at their lowest levels. Wow, at eight seven cents
Speaker 1: uh and a quarter uh per on the dollar. And this,
Speaker 1: you know, comes at a time when borrowing casts are
Speaker 1: supposedly lower. Not for we work joining us nationally, boss
Speaker 1: who covers all things up finance for us here at Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: I'm wondering this doesn't come as a surprise. No, no,
Speaker 1: I mean this is this is something that's been known exactly,
Speaker 1: so it's not a shocker, right. I mean that they
Speaker 1: were going to delay their I p O. The question
Speaker 1: that's looming over everyone's minds two things is when will
Speaker 1: this happen, Will it ever happen? And how are they
Speaker 1: going to raise money without a happening? So what is
Speaker 1: the thinking here? Because I know that they had a
Speaker 1: big debt financing that was gonna was contingent upon them
Speaker 1: going public, that obviously is not going to happen. And
Speaker 1: is Leasa's point out earlier they are going to need
Speaker 1: cash in the relative near term? Is there a plan
Speaker 1: out there for this company? So right now they're in
Speaker 1: talks for multiple things potentially happening here. H soft Bank
Speaker 1: may make another equity injection, but with the ft actually
Speaker 1: reporting that it could be more than a billion dollars,
Speaker 1: I mean that that is huge. Remember, the interesting thing
Speaker 1: about soft Bank making another injection is we're waiting right
Speaker 1: now on whether soft Bank is going to write down
Speaker 1: the stake of their we Work investment. And soft Bank
Speaker 1: is already bleeding right now from a lot of different
Speaker 1: investments that are that are troubled right now. Just to
Speaker 1: put this in a perspective, when Jefferies took a write
Speaker 1: down on their we Work stake of less than one percent,
Speaker 1: it was over a hundred million dollars. And so the
Speaker 1: we Work right down with the stake of almost maybe
Speaker 1: a little more. When you count how much they have
Speaker 1: in UM convertible shares, it could be very significant. So
Speaker 1: how are they going to make another equity injection when
Speaker 1: they're already writing down their existing stake? Could be really
Speaker 1: interesting tension. Another interesting tension is what's going on in
Speaker 1: the C suite at JP Morgan, which I believe was
Speaker 1: going to be the lead banker on the I p OH.
Speaker 1: How big of a liability is this for them? So
Speaker 1: think about how many aspects they have connections to we work, right,
Speaker 1: they have the it's it's something like a margin loan.
Speaker 1: So Adam Newman took out a loan based on his
Speaker 1: his stock hundreds of millions of dollars led by JP Morgan.
Speaker 1: JP Morgan also is responsible for the mortgages for Adam
Speaker 1: Newman's own homes. They also have exposure to a lot
Speaker 1: of the buildings that we work as exposed to and
Speaker 1: so they have some and that's on top of helping
Speaker 1: lead this loan as well as the I p O
Speaker 1: that's not happening. So those are fees you're not going
Speaker 1: to see for J P. Morgan in their upcoming earnings
Speaker 1: report because the I p O obviously never happened. But
Speaker 1: then you also have to wonder how these other moving
Speaker 1: parts affects JP Morgan. Their own investors are also invested
Speaker 1: in early we Work stock. Some of those investors have
Speaker 1: told me that they're not thrilled with the right ups
Speaker 1: and the right downs that maybe UM embedded in JP
Speaker 1: Morgan funds that have we Work shares in them. So
Speaker 1: brought it out from JP Morgan and we work here.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's been a lot of big disappointing deals
Speaker 1: here in twenty nine Uber Lift and just on and
Speaker 1: on the list goes. And this was supposed to be
Speaker 1: the year when the bankers got fat and happy and
Speaker 1: I PO investors got fat and happy. It hasn't worked
Speaker 1: out that way. Has there been any meaningful pushback on
Speaker 1: the bankers and saying, you guys just haven't done a
Speaker 1: very good job this year. Totally, so get this. Tomorrow
Speaker 1: is the day in Silicon Valley that all the big
Speaker 1: venture capitalists will be meeting, and the bankers are not
Speaker 1: invited because they are looking to change the I p
Speaker 1: O model as we know it. They don't like the
Speaker 1: initial pop that got in an I p O and
Speaker 1: they certainly don't like the first day fall you get
Speaker 1: lately with Smile Direct, Club and and Peloton were two
Speaker 1: of the very rare companies to fall on their first
Speaker 1: day of trading that are that big and raise how
Speaker 1: much money? How much is the banker's fault? How much
Speaker 1: is the venture capitalists fault for valuing these companies as
Speaker 1: highly as they have? Well, if you talk to the
Speaker 1: ventral capitalists, what they're gonna do is they're going to
Speaker 1: deflect the responsibility not just away from the venture capitalists,
Speaker 1: but over to soft Bank, which has been really inflating
Speaker 1: some of these um silicon value valuations. And you know,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of people that say a lot of
Speaker 1: these new big fundraisers we're seeing is in response to
Speaker 1: soft Bank really changing the dynamics of the market. Least
Speaker 1: you've covered this a lot too, But the bankers are
Speaker 1: not without blame here for certain. The next big one
Speaker 1: that I think we were waiting on was Airbnb. What's
Speaker 1: the status of that TBD? The thing that's nice. The
Speaker 1: thing that's nice about airbnb is that it does turn
Speaker 1: a profit. It is kind of a darling and you
Speaker 1: no matter you can think about it, when the I
Speaker 1: P O market's bad, it's not that it closes up completely.
Speaker 1: People still want listings and so they're going to look
Speaker 1: for the best possible ones. And so I think Airbnb
Speaker 1: still dangles a little bit of hope in front of
Speaker 1: investors and in front of UM, in front of in
Speaker 1: front of banks as well. Shinali Bassett, thank you so
Speaker 1: much for joining a Shonali's investment banking reporting for Bloomberg News.
Speaker 1: Journey us here on our Bloomberg Interactive Broker studio, bringing
Speaker 1: us up to date on that news that we work
Speaker 1: UH plans to withdraw its I p O perspectives as expected,
Speaker 1: but still a shocking formative for a company that just
Speaker 1: a couple of weeks ago I was looking to raise,
Speaker 1: you know, a huge amount on a very high valuation.
Speaker 1: A lot of questions now Number one, where will we
Speaker 1: work raise money? Number two? What does this to to
Speaker 1: investment bankers? And a sort of tom was a year
Speaker 1: generally for I p O s sale was was was
Speaker 1: putting out there? And number three for soft bank at
Speaker 1: what point do they just say forget it, We're gonna
Speaker 1: let you fail. Exactly right time to check in with
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Opinion. We're joined by opinion columnists Brian Cheppetta. Brian
Speaker 1: is a debt markets calumnist. He joins us here in
Speaker 1: our Bloomberg Interactive Broker Studio. So, Brian, I know you're
Speaker 1: out with a column and you're basically saying it could
Speaker 1: be a shaky time for the bond market, but investment
Speaker 1: grade issues are just flooding the market here. So what's
Speaker 1: going on in your side of the credit markets? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I thought it was really fascinating to see that a
Speaker 1: D seven investment grade bond deals cluded the market as
Speaker 1: of the end of last week, which is a record high. UH.
Speaker 1: No month has ever seen so many investment grade companies
Speaker 1: come and borrow, And it's just it's really surprising because
Speaker 1: you saw all this different, tumultuous activity in various corners
Speaker 1: of the markets. But it was steady as she goes.
Speaker 1: I guess uh for corporate And even though they're down
Speaker 1: a little bit this month, first monthly loss this year
Speaker 1: because of yields rising, UH, still out performing treasuries and
Speaker 1: still up year data, pretty strong, pretty strong year. So
Speaker 1: this is this is such a fascinating area because there
Speaker 1: seems to be a flood of cash coming from overseas
Speaker 1: into the US investment grade bond market trying to get
Speaker 1: some yield. Uh, since there is still some yield in
Speaker 1: the United States. That said, Morgan Stanley crunched the data
Speaker 1: and found that liabilities that the event of debt versus
Speaker 1: income have reached their highest level in the investment grade
Speaker 1: corporate sector since two thousand and nine. And they were
Speaker 1: talking about how forty of all investment grade issuers now
Speaker 1: have debt levels more equivalent to junk ratings, even though
Speaker 1: they are still rated with the with the top tiers
Speaker 1: of credit grades. Should people be concerned? Well, I guess
Speaker 1: when I see that all the pushback, I always have
Speaker 1: the thing I always want to see, and maybe maybe
Speaker 1: there is some data out on that is sort of Okay,
Speaker 1: the debt levels are high, but what are the borrowing costs?
Speaker 1: Because yes, it's the highest since two thousand nine, But
Speaker 1: you have to sort of look at where yield levels
Speaker 1: are now relative to where they were ten years ago.
Speaker 1: Because you can borrow, you can refinance, and yes you
Speaker 1: have higher debt, but it's it's cheaper to borrow, So
Speaker 1: I mean sort of the question is the corporate structure,
Speaker 1: I mean, is it is it economically more feasible and
Speaker 1: and better to to actually have have some debt if
Speaker 1: you can borrow it. I'll push back on that. I
Speaker 1: think that you know you're right that it net interest
Speaker 1: costs are coming down, right just simply math, because rates
Speaker 1: are lower and there is so much money and interest
Speaker 1: coming into this market. That's said. The reason why leverage
Speaker 1: picked up to such degree, according to this Morgan Stanley
Speaker 1: analysis was twofold. It was because the borrowing more and
Speaker 1: the revenues are coming down. Right there. The extra debt
Speaker 1: that they are borrowing is not helping them boost their profits.
Speaker 1: And so at what point is debt for debt's sake
Speaker 1: really going to potentially crimp companies as we head into
Speaker 1: potentially another downturn. Yeah, I mean I think that's a
Speaker 1: fair I mean, I think everything that we sort of
Speaker 1: know about this cycle and what companies have been doing
Speaker 1: effectively taking on more debt, doing more share buy backs
Speaker 1: to boost their equity price, I mean, all those things
Speaker 1: are not what you would ideally like to see. But
Speaker 1: I guess the question going forward that people have to
Speaker 1: think about is what else do you do in an
Speaker 1: economy that's growing but not growing that fast? I mean,
Speaker 1: it seems like all of these executives sort of have
Speaker 1: come to the decision that this is the way that
Speaker 1: we go. We we take out debt to maybe finance
Speaker 1: murders and acquisitions, or even just to buy back our shares.
Speaker 1: So what are we seeing in terms of credit quality
Speaker 1: out there? Are we seeing any signs of a deterioration
Speaker 1: in credit quality? Well, I think that the high yield
Speaker 1: market is where you're starting to see a lot of
Speaker 1: investor pushback and some deals had to be show l
Speaker 1: that aren't getting done. I mean there have been downgrades, um.
Speaker 1: I think that Tupperware was the one that was mentioned
Speaker 1: in the Bloomberg News story today being cut to junk UM.
Speaker 1: But overall, UH, downgrades are happening, but not quite at
Speaker 1: the clip. I think that people were really worried about.
Speaker 1: The question will be obviously if for some reason the
Speaker 1: economy gets worse, we head into even even more slow down.
Speaker 1: If that will change, UH, you want to shift gears
Speaker 1: a little bit to the repo market. Since we are
Speaker 1: reaching quarter end and this has been the time that
Speaker 1: people really were worried about, we are seeing overnight repo
Speaker 1: costs go up. How big of a concern is that.
Speaker 1: I think a lot of people are sort of thinking that, Okay,
Speaker 1: the repo market is a problem area and the FED
Speaker 1: doesn't have a quick fix. They're in there doing their
Speaker 1: temporary repo operations for now, and it'll be generally okay,
Speaker 1: we'll muddle through now. But I think everyone's really focused
Speaker 1: on what will the FED come out with UH in
Speaker 1: there are after there are October meeting. What sort of
Speaker 1: permanent solution is there? Are we going back to buying
Speaker 1: more treasuries uh in an attempt to sort of flood
Speaker 1: the system with more reserves, or will they have some
Speaker 1: standing repo facility, But it sounds like they're not as
Speaker 1: close to that as people might expect, So it sounds
Speaker 1: like they might go back to sort of organic growth
Speaker 1: of the balance sheet. Brian Chabot, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for being with us. Thank you. Brian Chabot is a
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Opinion columnist, joining us here in our Bloomberg Gotter
Speaker 1: Active Broker Studios. You can read all of his columns
Speaker 1: at O, P, I N GO, on the Bloomberg Terminal
Speaker 1: or Bloomberg dot com Slash Opinion. His columns are great,
Speaker 1: so are those of his colleague and you can catch
Speaker 1: them all there. Let's shift gears to what's been going
Speaker 1: on in Washington, D see some of the political turmoil
Speaker 1: with respect to the impeachment probe and the hearings last week.
Speaker 1: How much does that trickle into markets? Jeff Powell, managing
Speaker 1: partner at Polari's gray Stone Financial Group, joining us now
Speaker 1: by phone from San Francisco. Jeff, how much did you
Speaker 1: care and pay attention to the political tumult that we
Speaker 1: saw over the past week. Well, I mean, obviously we
Speaker 1: have to pay attention to headline news, and obviously something
Speaker 1: like an impeachment inquiry is a very serious thing. Um. Personally,
Speaker 1: I don't think that a impeachment walk her under the circumstances,
Speaker 1: but it certainly plays into sentiment of marketplace, and it's
Speaker 1: certainly complicates what's going on with our trade negotiations with China.
Speaker 1: So it's a very important thing for us to consider
Speaker 1: to track progress of what's going on there and also
Speaker 1: the impacts of it as in other areas of the marketplace. Yeah, Jeff,
Speaker 1: I've actually been I guess a little bit surprised at
Speaker 1: the market has kind of taken this news in stride um,
Speaker 1: and but I guess the question investors are just trying
Speaker 1: to get a sense of where could this really hit
Speaker 1: me in terms of the economy, And I guess you
Speaker 1: mentioned one area is trade and that's clearly been the
Speaker 1: big driver this market over the last year. So so
Speaker 1: give us your thoughts to kind of how do you
Speaker 1: think this may impact trade negotiations if at all? Well, yeah, absolutely,
Speaker 1: I mean if you think back to May when we
Speaker 1: heard Donald Trump tweet about how he was unhappy with
Speaker 1: the Fed and if the Fed had been more aggressive
Speaker 1: about cuts that we would have as strong in an
Speaker 1: economy as China had, And all of a sudden, we
Speaker 1: had China rethinking what was going on with our trade negotiations. So, uh, Premier,
Speaker 1: she obviously is a lifetime position for him. We obviously
Speaker 1: don't have lifetime positions for our leaders, and so when
Speaker 1: you look at it, I believe the Chinese kind of
Speaker 1: negotiate on kind of a different calendar than we do,
Speaker 1: so they may be in a situation where they tried
Speaker 1: to outweigh outweight President Trump under these circumstances, but it
Speaker 1: certainly weakens his position with trade negotiations with China. Do
Speaker 1: you trade on the headlines, No, we don't at all.
Speaker 1: I mean, but I mean obviously you know things, things spiral,
Speaker 1: and so uncertainty is a major factor. I mean, if
Speaker 1: you just look at what happened in the fourth quarter
Speaker 1: of last year, almost everything that was going on during
Speaker 1: fourth quarter was sentiment of and everybody was worried about
Speaker 1: the potential of a of having an economy that was
Speaker 1: weakening or even going into recession, when there was really
Speaker 1: no evidence of it. We had a strong economy, we
Speaker 1: had really strong earnings. You have the markets drop during
Speaker 1: that time period. So really we're looking at headlines and
Speaker 1: their impact. I mean, you can run into circumstances that
Speaker 1: become self fulfilling prophecies where you have people become more
Speaker 1: and more worried about what's going on economically as a
Speaker 1: result of headlines, which would be a driving factor for
Speaker 1: us to make a decision to get more defensive and portfolios. So, Jeff,
Speaker 1: we are, um, you know, at or near this the
Speaker 1: all time high for the smp fived. You talk a
Speaker 1: little bit about getting defensive. How are you thinking about
Speaker 1: your positioning right here, given where we are in the
Speaker 1: economic cycle, given where the FED is, are you taking
Speaker 1: on additional risk here? Are or are you getting more defensive?
Speaker 1: It's kind of funny you bring that up, but it's
Speaker 1: it's more of a neutral stance right now, more of
Speaker 1: a wait and see um. When we talk about economic cycles,
Speaker 1: I mean I have a very hard time really gauging that.
Speaker 1: I mean, we talked about how long the economy has
Speaker 1: been expanding, yet you've had government intervention going on until
Speaker 1: they'll end the part of two thousand fourteen, we dealt
Speaker 1: with three different quantitative easing time periods in which you
Speaker 1: had the government stepping in and really pressing yields down
Speaker 1: very low as a result of quantitative easing. How do
Speaker 1: you gauge true economic expansion when the government was being
Speaker 1: was involved basically for seven of the years of that expansion.
Speaker 1: So it's challenging. It's it's very challenging to sit there
Speaker 1: and and really step in hard with this. I think
Speaker 1: that we are going to see a a smattering of
Speaker 1: disappointments going into earning season, especially with what's going on
Speaker 1: with tariffs in the trade war that we have going on.
Speaker 1: I think it's hard to get really really aggressive with
Speaker 1: within the markets based upon that. So we're going in,
Speaker 1: we're being we're market weight with what we would typically
Speaker 1: be for a client and their risk levels and so on.
Speaker 1: That being said, we are lower beta stocks more so
Speaker 1: than we would be in a normal circumstance with the
Speaker 1: allocations that we're in. Are you boosting your allocation to
Speaker 1: cash we did about a month ago. We're holding tight
Speaker 1: with what we are now. We have our laundry list
Speaker 1: of names that we like, and we're looking or the
Speaker 1: right opportunity to step back into the market a little
Speaker 1: bit more heavily and get into an overweight position should
Speaker 1: the need arise. So, Jeff, one of the issues I've
Speaker 1: heard about getting a little bit more cautious is utilities reads.
Speaker 1: You know, consumer staples by historical standards, they're not cheap.
Speaker 1: You're absolutely correct, and so, I mean we are market
Speaker 1: weight and all three of those categories, but we are
Speaker 1: not overweighted into them. Uh So, it is something that
Speaker 1: is a little bit more challenging to sit there and
Speaker 1: and chase that kind of performance. I mean, if you
Speaker 1: look at what utilities have done in particular, I mean,
Speaker 1: they've had an amazing run, an amazing year for that
Speaker 1: particular category. But you're absolutely correct, it makes it very
Speaker 1: challenging to go into an area of the marketplace that
Speaker 1: is considered to be expensive even though it's considered to
Speaker 1: be defensive. Jeff pal thanks so much for joining us.
Speaker 1: Jeff's a managing partner for Polarist gray Stone Financial Group
Speaker 1: based in San Francisco. Jeff and just via phone from
Speaker 1: San Francisco giving us his thoughts on the market. A
Speaker 1: lot of workplaces talk about the difficulties of hiring qualified
Speaker 1: people are frankly hiring people in general. There is a
Speaker 1: question of what role artificial intelligence can play in that.
Speaker 1: Joining us now is A L. Graevsky. He's chief executive
Speaker 1: officer of Maya Systems, joining us from San Francisco. I
Speaker 1: can you just talk a little bit about what Maya
Speaker 1: Systems is. Yeah, So, Maya Systems is a recruitment automation
Speaker 1: platform using conversational AI. So we built this conversational AI
Speaker 1: assistant named Maya, who engages with candidates through natural language
Speaker 1: and helps guide them through the recruiting process, helps source
Speaker 1: passive leads for hiring teams, and manage many different phases
Speaker 1: of the process. So I'll just give us a sense
Speaker 1: of you know, what types of companies use your system. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so we work with some of the largest enterprises and
Speaker 1: staffing companies in the world, so six of the eight
Speaker 1: largest staffing businesses, as well as organizations like the Lloyd
Speaker 1: Laureal a b M BEV, very large enterprises like Singapore
Speaker 1: Airlines that leverage the technology to both manage their talent
Speaker 1: pools as well as automate and guide candidates through the
Speaker 1: recruiting process. What's the goal, I mean, why did you
Speaker 1: create this company? Yeah? So what I learned from the
Speaker 1: many years working as a recruiter is that the recruiting
Speaker 1: process is still wildly manual, and you see recruiters spent
Speaker 1: about seventy of their time on what we call repetitive tasks,
Speaker 1: which really slows them down. And later when I actually
Speaker 1: went out and started searching for jobs early in my career,
Speaker 1: I applied about forty jobs her back from two companies.
Speaker 1: It's incredibly frustrating of applications fall into the black hole.
Speaker 1: You have about a fifty seven to one chance of
Speaker 1: getting a job when you apply, so it's a very
Speaker 1: inefficient process. And what we saw was an opportunity to
Speaker 1: build a technology that can really engage and communicate with
Speaker 1: people at a large scale so that we can learn
Speaker 1: about those individuals and then in building that profile and
Speaker 1: understanding their interests, we can help guide them and convert
Speaker 1: them into their next job. So we really saw that
Speaker 1: unique opportunity to bridge the communications gap. It's interesting, you know,
Speaker 1: I think the LinkedIn is really emerged as a recruiting tool.
Speaker 1: Give us a sense of kind of how you either
Speaker 1: compete with or complementary to a LinkedIn type of service. Yea,
Speaker 1: So we we be viewed complementary and that LinkedIn is
Speaker 1: very much a marketplace, and of course they have a
Speaker 1: platform that organizations can um used to source and engage
Speaker 1: passive candidates and and so forth. What we are is
Speaker 1: really an enterprise staff business. We integrate into our clients
Speaker 1: systems and we support recruitment across many different sources. So
Speaker 1: LinkedIn might be one of the sources that are generating
Speaker 1: leads where Maya might engage that candidate and convert them
Speaker 1: through the funnel. Uh, and then of course Maya. The
Speaker 1: really interesting thing about what we're doing is we can
Speaker 1: use the technology to engage our customers database of candidates,
Speaker 1: people that they've engaged within the past. Many of our
Speaker 1: customers have millions of candidates that they've acquired over the
Speaker 1: years and maya can really engage, re engage and surface
Speaker 1: leads directly within your existing pool. So um, in that way,
Speaker 1: sometimes we use the reliance on external sources like LinkedIn.
Speaker 1: So given the fact that you you probably have conversations
Speaker 1: with a lot of different companies, they are trying to
Speaker 1: tailor this to their specific needs. Are you getting any
Speaker 1: sense that there is a shift in what employers are
Speaker 1: looking for in terms of the skills that will determine
Speaker 1: whether a candidate will be successful and will stick around
Speaker 1: versus not. Yeah, so, um, there's absolutely shifts in in
Speaker 1: perspective and how employers are making decisions on candidates and
Speaker 1: and that's probably gonna change on an employer to employer basis. Um.
Speaker 1: You know, really our goal as a as a product
Speaker 1: is is to really learn and understand the candidate and
Speaker 1: surface those insights that might be hidden not on the resume,
Speaker 1: not in the LinkedIn profile. You know, these are insights
Speaker 1: that typically our surfaced from like a phone screen, and
Speaker 1: we'll help build that profile that enriched profile and understanding
Speaker 1: of the candidate as it pertains to the job requirements. Um. Really,
Speaker 1: based on the criteria that the recruiter is looking for
Speaker 1: and then we'll let the recruiter make that educated decision.
Speaker 1: But yeah, companies are gonna very much differ and how
Speaker 1: they think about candidates. Another cool thing that we're doing
Speaker 1: is we're really understanding how candidates are engaging UM and
Speaker 1: how other candidates in the past that we've screened or
Speaker 1: that we've engaged with our performing, so we can help
Speaker 1: our customers make predictions that are really grounded in data
Speaker 1: and and and grounded in analytics over time. Hey, I'll
Speaker 1: ye have ski. Thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 1: Just fascinating discussion. Ails, the chief executive officer for Maya Systems,
Speaker 1: joining us on the phone from San Francisco, talking about
Speaker 1: the recruiting process, the hiring process, the retaining talent process,
Speaker 1: and how artificial intelligence and other technologies can help recruiters, companies,
Speaker 1: UH and candidates themselves find a better fit. Thanks for
Speaker 1: listening to the Bloomberg P and L podcast. You can
Speaker 1: subscribe and listen to interviews at Apple Podcasts or whatever
Speaker 1: podcast platform you prefer. Paul Sweeney, I'm on Twitter at
Speaker 1: pt Sweeney. I'm Lisa bram Woyds. I'm on Twitter at
Speaker 1: Lisa A. Bramwoit's one before the podcast. You can always
Speaker 1: catch us worldwide on Bloomberg Radio