Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Markets Podcast. I'm Paul Sweeney, along
Speaker 1: with my co host of Bonnie Quinn. Every business day
Speaker 1: we bring you interviews from CEOs, A, market pros and
Speaker 1: Bloomberg experts, along with essential market moving news. Kind of
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Markets Podcast on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen
Speaker 1: to podcasts, and on Bloomberg dot com. Well, it is
Speaker 1: time to have a look at precious metals, and by
Speaker 1: that we're not really talking bitcoin all. Little bitcoin itself
Speaker 1: is getting more precious by the day. Let's bring in
Speaker 1: Everett Moment precious metal specialists with Gainesville Coins. Let's begin, though,
Speaker 1: with a traditional special metal, and that would be gold. Everett,
Speaker 1: we saw it rise plenty, even though you know it
Speaker 1: wasn't quite obvious what it was rising on. What are
Speaker 1: the risks out there that people are are using golds
Speaker 1: to hedge for. Well, thanks for having me on UM.
Speaker 1: As we've seen, volatility has been essential part of the
Speaker 1: gold trade. Recently, I think the return of risk on
Speaker 1: sentiment has robbed gold of some of its appeal, and
Speaker 1: in the short run we should expect UM some more
Speaker 1: volatility with in or trading volumes. This week with the
Speaker 1: Thanksgiving holiday. But once the dust settles on the vaccine
Speaker 1: news and this protracted election transition, I believe that the
Speaker 1: attention of the gold market will return back to the fundamentals,
Speaker 1: and that mainly means the FED, UM and other central banks.
Speaker 1: In fact, we've seen that the ECB has come out
Speaker 1: and reiterated its commitment to supporting markets. UM. Beijing just
Speaker 1: recently sold his first negative yielding bonds, and this is
Speaker 1: about the most doublish that the FED Federal Reserve has
Speaker 1: been in a generation. All of that leads me to
Speaker 1: believe that currencies are going to take a hit going forward. UM.
Speaker 1: It seems like a pretty reasonable expectation that the dollar
Speaker 1: will slump a bit heading into next year and beyond,
Speaker 1: and that's rather positive for commodities as a whole. Another
Speaker 1: development that we all know has been a rather strange
Speaker 1: year for markets, there's no denying that, and one aspect
Speaker 1: of that is that the gold market has really shrugged
Speaker 1: off any sasonality. UM, any of the normal seasonal flows.
Speaker 1: I've really been ignored UM. And as I said, I
Speaker 1: think as the news calms down a bit in the
Speaker 1: coming weeks, that we will actually see seasonality reassert itself.
Speaker 1: So that means the traditional wedding season in India and
Speaker 1: the fact that in a few weeks we have the
Speaker 1: Chinese lunar New Year coming up. All of that signals
Speaker 1: that we're going to see a resurgence in physical demand
Speaker 1: for gold coming from the East. So it's interesting. Uh Ever,
Speaker 1: just looking at gold here, spot called up about year today,
Speaker 1: but it feels kind of range bound here. You know,
Speaker 1: we is there a call here where gold gets to
Speaker 1: back up to two thousand dollars announced? Absolutely, I think
Speaker 1: that it's the gold bowls will have to be patient
Speaker 1: for that. Um. There is a lot of noise and
Speaker 1: a lot of stuff obviously going on over these next
Speaker 1: few weeks. But um, you know, when you look at
Speaker 1: some of the sales numbers from like the United States Mint,
Speaker 1: there are prong one million hounces of total gold sales
Speaker 1: for the calendar year. That's already about five times higher
Speaker 1: than we saw for all of two thousand nineteen. So
Speaker 1: from a cyclical perspective, I believe we're in the early
Speaker 1: innings of another bull market for commodities generally. And uh,
Speaker 1: if gold, you know, has maybe lost some of its
Speaker 1: safe Hagan appeal, I would point to its role as
Speaker 1: a bet against the dollar, or really a hedge against
Speaker 1: that potential paradigm shift in the dollars status. We've seen
Speaker 1: this continued trend where economic power and trade supremacy is
Speaker 1: tilting more towards China in the East than it really
Speaker 1: ever has. And what you find is that in that
Speaker 1: region of the world, those countries are rather united in
Speaker 1: finding a more neutral reserve asset as a central part
Speaker 1: of monetary policy. That could be really anything other than
Speaker 1: the hegemonic US dollar, but in this case it's typically gold,
Speaker 1: and that does have profound implications for the next twenty
Speaker 1: to five years of economic history. The last time we
Speaker 1: saw a meaningful realignment of what you might call global
Speaker 1: dollar policy was more than thirty five years ago with
Speaker 1: the Planet Accord, and I'm not alone in thinking that
Speaker 1: some similar adjustment of that arrangement, or a reset, if
Speaker 1: you will, is going to be necessary in the coming decades.
Speaker 1: Based upon the current macro trends that we're seeing, it's
Speaker 1: a fairly reasonable assumption that whatever that realignment looks like
Speaker 1: with respect to the dollar um it's likely to be
Speaker 1: rather positive for gold. So to answer your question, you know,
Speaker 1: gold really is uh, behaving as a hedge against any
Speaker 1: sort of currency weakness, the dollar included. So who are
Speaker 1: these days considers bitcoin a Persson metal. Well, as you
Speaker 1: said at the top, it's it's getting more precious by
Speaker 1: the day, isn't it. Um. It's not entirely surprising to
Speaker 1: me to see bitpoint bitcoin getting a lot more attention
Speaker 1: and a lot more hype now for many of the
Speaker 1: same reasons I just described with gold. Um. There is
Speaker 1: sort of a generational or cyclical shift going on in
Speaker 1: monetary policy, and bitcoin offers some alternative to the standard
Speaker 1: dollar as a global reserve currency. Now, I don't mean
Speaker 1: to suggest that it will popp all the dollar uh
Speaker 1: in the next few months here, or even maybe in
Speaker 1: the next two or three years, but it really does
Speaker 1: deserve the attention it's getting because we're in uncharted territory
Speaker 1: as far as central bank policy goes. So I think
Speaker 1: bitcoin will continue to get attention, it will continue to
Speaker 1: absorb some of these alternate dollar or alternate currency bets
Speaker 1: that investors are making. Hey, every thirty seconds here spots silver.
Speaker 1: I see is up thirty two year to date. That
Speaker 1: kind of gets lost in some of the discussions here
Speaker 1: what's the call on silver here? Right? Silver has maintained
Speaker 1: some positive momentum. Um. It benefits from the fact that
Speaker 1: it is partly an industrial metal. So as we've seen
Speaker 1: with copper rallying, uh, silver has held up a little
Speaker 1: bit better than gold. The main thing I'm launching with
Speaker 1: silver has been some instability in Latin America. UM. I
Speaker 1: think Peru is on its third president in the Spain
Speaker 1: of about a week. UM. So many of the major
Speaker 1: silver producing countries in Latin America seeing some political instabilities
Speaker 1: from unrest that could affect the silver supply and drive
Speaker 1: prices higher going forward. Ever, thank you so much for
Speaker 1: joining us. We always appreciate chatting with you, getting your
Speaker 1: thoughts on all things on the precious metal side of
Speaker 1: the business. Everett Millman, precious Metal Specialists for Gainesville Coins,
Speaker 1: based in Gainesville, Florida. Well, it is time to bring
Speaker 1: in bankers the world. Bill rose to talk to us
Speaker 1: a little bit about what exactly is happening virtually this year,
Speaker 1: and given that we're just off the G twenty, we're
Speaker 1: better at to start than at the G twenty. Bill,
Speaker 1: what were the conversations that sort of struck you that
Speaker 1: we're taking place at the G twenty this year of
Speaker 1: all years. Well versall, Ronnie, it's very good to be
Speaker 1: with you and Paul again. This meeting was unusual in
Speaker 1: the sense that um it was the first one chaired
Speaker 1: by an hour member of the of the Group of twenty.
Speaker 1: Saudi Arabian reod obviously was done virtually and the whole
Speaker 1: idea he was to concentrate on on COVID uh pandemic
Speaker 1: UH and the fallout on the world economy, because the
Speaker 1: first one of these was held by George Bush Jr.
Speaker 1: At the time of the the Great economic Recession to
Speaker 1: try and see what the economic response could be. So
Speaker 1: what was covered here was basically, UH, the economy UH.
Speaker 1: They got into climate change UH. And obviously what could
Speaker 1: be done about speeding of vaccines and making sure they
Speaker 1: were equally distributed around the world. UH, And the whole
Speaker 1: question of world trade given how the economy of the
Speaker 1: world is going. But there were no Pacific new UH,
Speaker 1: let's say initiatives put forward here. Bill, what's the role
Speaker 1: of China in kind of the global discussion these days
Speaker 1: as relates to the G twenty and other forms. I
Speaker 1: am very important question, Paul, because the only economy UH
Speaker 1: member in the sense of membership in the Group of
Speaker 1: twenty who has an economy that's going to grow as China.
Speaker 1: All of the others, including the United States and Europe,
Speaker 1: will be a negative GDP for this year and China
Speaker 1: will show a growth rate of two and as the
Speaker 1: world's second largest economy and the only G twenty country
Speaker 1: that's growing um UH. It is very very important and
Speaker 1: what they do there is very very important. And one
Speaker 1: of the issues is that China is not a member
Speaker 1: of the Paris Club where you restructure official debt um.
Speaker 1: They would only agree to be an observer UH there.
Speaker 1: And there's a lot of questions about the transparency of
Speaker 1: their loans to the emerging markets which have been so
Speaker 1: hard hit by covid UH. The estimate of the Keel
Speaker 1: Institute is UH China has something over five hundred billion
Speaker 1: five hundred thirty billion aboutstanding loans the places like Africa,
Speaker 1: Southeast Asia, parts of Latin America, and they haven't been
Speaker 1: willing to enter the longer term discussions on debt relief.
Speaker 1: They did go along with the debt relief program of
Speaker 1: the that was put forward at the annual meetings the
Speaker 1: I m F World Bank, which were extended for six
Speaker 1: more months after the original year, but people like David
Speaker 1: Malpas and uh the I m F. David Malpas being
Speaker 1: the head of the World Bank, wanted to extend it
Speaker 1: for a full year. So China is doing less than
Speaker 1: in order to be doing to help these emerging economies
Speaker 1: really get back to normalization here by not willing to
Speaker 1: come forward on disclosure as they should as the other
Speaker 1: countries do, and be willing to restructure over longer periods
Speaker 1: of time that that that they've given out in the
Speaker 1: One Belt, One Road. So that's all very well and good,
Speaker 1: but there's a lot of uncertainty out there right now,
Speaker 1: and you know, can trying to afford to be so
Speaker 1: generous at a time when trade is of the air
Speaker 1: trade of the United States, trade with Europe, trade with Britain, um.
Speaker 1: You know, it's it's not quite clear that China's through
Speaker 1: the woods either. Yes, regarding COVID, well, they have controlled
Speaker 1: it because obviously the system of China is basically a dictatorship,
Speaker 1: and so they've been able to control the outbreak since
Speaker 1: the original one in Wuhan at the end of last year.
Speaker 1: The beginning of this year, and so their economy has
Speaker 1: been able to come back much quicker and stronger than
Speaker 1: any of the other economies. UH. The estimate of the
Speaker 1: I m F is that this year as a whole,
Speaker 1: two thousand twenty, the world economy is going to actually
Speaker 1: be a negative territory four point four percent, which didn't
Speaker 1: even happen at the worst moment of the Great Recession.
Speaker 1: So that gives you a picture of the effect of
Speaker 1: COVID has had on on the world economy. And David
Speaker 1: Malpas estimates at the head of the World Bank that
Speaker 1: during the course of this year will have seen a
Speaker 1: hundred million people pass into extreme prop poverty from the
Speaker 1: effects of the corovid UH COVID virus. So, Bill, what
Speaker 1: do you think a Biden administration means for UH the
Speaker 1: US in terms of its global role? Here you came
Speaker 1: from a time when, you know, the post UH you know,
Speaker 1: World War two, Cold War era, where the US really
Speaker 1: lead an international community. Do you think we can get
Speaker 1: back to that? Do you think that's what President like
Speaker 1: Biden wants. I think that's definitely wants to do. He
Speaker 1: already said that he will rejoin the Paris Agreement on
Speaker 1: Climate change we're the only major country that hasn't signed
Speaker 1: off on it. We did originally under Obama and then
Speaker 1: it was withdrawn by Trump. Also, I think he will
Speaker 1: try and arrange to get our problems settled with the
Speaker 1: World Trade Organization, which is very, very important because we've
Speaker 1: been fighting there. So I think in general you will
Speaker 1: see a much more consideratory attitude visa VI. I think
Speaker 1: our allies in the in the sense of trying to
Speaker 1: be more of a positive element in some of these
Speaker 1: discussions that are being held and trying to extract us
Speaker 1: from this terrible pandemic and it's terrible impact on the
Speaker 1: world economy. Bill, Where would you be looking right now
Speaker 1: for an example of a healthy economy. Well, I I
Speaker 1: already mentioned that the economy that's going to grow the
Speaker 1: only one in the G twenties China. But I mean
Speaker 1: you wouldn't call it a healthy economy either. Well, it's
Speaker 1: healthy in the sense of UH having growth, and of
Speaker 1: course the consumer hasn't come back as they're looking for,
Speaker 1: but their exports have started to trend up, and so
Speaker 1: when you look around, they're about the only example, particularly
Speaker 1: of large countries that you can point out to. And
Speaker 1: next year is going to be a difficult year also
Speaker 1: because so much will depend on the vaccine being made
Speaker 1: available on large quantities around the world. Old also, hopefully
Speaker 1: there'll be some progress on a treatment right Mark is
Speaker 1: working on something supposedly similar to uh to Tama flu
Speaker 1: for the flu. But we're we've still got a long
Speaker 1: ways to go here. Hey, Bill, thanks so much for
Speaker 1: joining us. As always, we always appreciate your perspective. Bill Rhodes,
Speaker 1: President and CEO of William R. Rhodes Global Advisors, also
Speaker 1: a former chairman at City Bank. That was Rude Dauber,
Speaker 1: Executive vice president and president of Biopharma suitables business unit
Speaker 1: at Astra Zeneca speaking with Guy Johnson and Alex Steele
Speaker 1: about their vaccine Vanni. It's it's the third major vaccine
Speaker 1: to come to the market, lower efficacy rates, but still
Speaker 1: um a promising drug at this point, right exactly. So
Speaker 1: an early analysis showing the vaccine stopped an average of
Speaker 1: seventy participants from falling ill. That rose to one of
Speaker 1: two regiments. So I think it would be good if
Speaker 1: you get some analysis from someone he knows a lot
Speaker 1: about these things well, and we can do that with
Speaker 1: our good friend Sam Fazzelli. He's a senior pharmaceutical analysts
Speaker 1: for Bloomberg Intelligence. His day job is also the head
Speaker 1: of the research business for Bloomberg Intelligence all across Europe. Sam,
Speaker 1: you know, we this is the third major company to
Speaker 1: bring UM a vaccine to market. Give us your thoughts
Speaker 1: on this astro Zeneca Oxford vaccine yep, Guy high poem Bonny.
Speaker 1: So you know, I've listened to what what Rod just said,
Speaker 1: just said, so you know, and I do think that
Speaker 1: it's very harsh to call us seven you precent effective
Speaker 1: vaccine useless because it's it's not true UM even at
Speaker 1: that level if that turned out to be the level
Speaker 1: of efficacy, and we don't know, they don't know. That
Speaker 1: division between the kind of doses is a little bit
Speaker 1: um kind of academic at the minute, until we know
Speaker 1: the background to it and that that's sufficient to help
Speaker 1: many many countries with a vaccine that is easy to
Speaker 1: ship and cost very little relatively speaking. So it is
Speaker 1: it is a useful vaccine to have. It's just not
Speaker 1: it didn't show the same sort of efficacy which were
Speaker 1: worried about relative to UM that our fighter and BioNTech
Speaker 1: and MODERNA. So just to finish that line. The question
Speaker 1: now is does this mean that the vaccine's durability is
Speaker 1: also lower. That's something we have to wait and find out,
Speaker 1: right and we don't really know about the durability of
Speaker 1: any of the vaccines right now. Some explain to us, though,
Speaker 1: what exactly all of these numbers means. So the vaccine
Speaker 1: stopped an average of participants falling ill, which rose to
Speaker 1: for one of two regiments. So if he used half
Speaker 1: of those followed by a full one, that gave you
Speaker 1: a nine chance. But then later on we learned that
Speaker 1: the two full doses showed an efficacy of sixty What
Speaker 1: does all this mean that it depends on how you
Speaker 1: receive the dosage, or it could us be um just
Speaker 1: random numbers. The reality is that when you look at
Speaker 1: the other group that had the ninety percent efficacy, it's
Speaker 1: that the sort of numbers only if you remember with
Speaker 1: Finds Interim at thirty two cases and all that we
Speaker 1: were very worried about getting a forced read, and here
Speaker 1: we're at that sort of number in that group of people.
Speaker 1: We just need the company to do more analysis to
Speaker 1: give us more data. Why they chose to put this
Speaker 1: out today rather than I think he said that in
Speaker 1: a few days time they'll have more detail. Why didn't
Speaker 1: they just wait until inn It's just a little bit
Speaker 1: beyond me, So Sam, it seems to me and I
Speaker 1: guess this is not surprising. But it's competitive here between
Speaker 1: these companies too. It seems like they're all trying to
Speaker 1: one up each other and maybe talking up their particular
Speaker 1: vaccine at the expense of others. So at the end
Speaker 1: of the day, I guess what I'm learning is every
Speaker 1: Monday morning, it seems it's not merger Monday, it's vaccine
Speaker 1: in Monday, and those companies are really trying to I guess,
Speaker 1: best position themselves. So this still is a commercial. It's
Speaker 1: a business, isn't it it is. That's a good one, Paul.
Speaker 1: I just hope it's not next Monday, because I'm hoping
Speaker 1: to take a half the day off. The issue is,
Speaker 1: funnily enough, for after it's the least important of all
Speaker 1: they're not. They're selling this at cost. Fither I get BioNTech,
Speaker 1: I get Moderna I get, but they're selling this at cost.
Speaker 1: So what is the point of this if we is
Speaker 1: there some kind of political pressure on them? Because the
Speaker 1: UK and Europe are very dependent on this vaccine and
Speaker 1: they don't have enough doses of the fires of BioNTech
Speaker 1: and modern A vaccine contract for next year. The US
Speaker 1: is different. The US has enough of those two vaccines
Speaker 1: to cover all its population. So now here we are
Speaker 1: perhaps they're being pushed to to come up with a
Speaker 1: positive answer too, because we need our people to feel
Speaker 1: good as they go to Christmas. That kind of thing. Well,
Speaker 1: there's not can be app at refrigerator temperatures, which is
Speaker 1: great news. But also Astra expects to have more than
Speaker 1: three hundred million dollars ready to ship globally by the
Speaker 1: end of the first quarter of next year, with about
Speaker 1: one two hundred million dollars being produced monthly. How does
Speaker 1: that compare with what can be produced by the other
Speaker 1: vaccine companies. Yeah, so I think finds that I've talked
Speaker 1: about one point um one point three billion dosars next year,
Speaker 1: or just over a billion dozars next year. Moderna are
Speaker 1: not far off into the into the high hundreds of millions. Frankly,
Speaker 1: we were all we know, we we were not have
Speaker 1: enough vaccine doses next year to inarculate everybody around the
Speaker 1: world unless every vaccine worked. So it may end up
Speaker 1: being that you just take your astra vaccine because you
Speaker 1: pay me a little for it. You get your population
Speaker 1: as much as you can vaccinated, assuming they come through
Speaker 1: the door knowing that the vaccine is potentially less effective
Speaker 1: than some other vaccine at some point in the future,
Speaker 1: and then go back to them as Okay, now we're
Speaker 1: going to give you the next one to give you
Speaker 1: a real hardcore boost. But that needs to be studied. So, Sam,
Speaker 1: I think you know, at the beginning of this, when
Speaker 1: we started speaking to you and the other folks in
Speaker 1: the business, we were told to expect, Hey, if you
Speaker 1: get efficacy efficacy rates of sixty, that's a really good number.
Speaker 1: And then we got you know, those two Fightser and
Speaker 1: the the other one Mode Owner with did we just
Speaker 1: get spoiled? There? Is this still a good number? It's
Speaker 1: exactly the phrase I used in something else I'm writing
Speaker 1: for spoiled. We are we were spoiled. We would nobody
Speaker 1: expected those, which is why we got the jubilation that
Speaker 1: we did. But the fact is that they're there, and
Speaker 1: we've kind of got a corroboration from two independent companies
Speaker 1: using a similar technology that gives you that number. So
Speaker 1: you can get that for this virus. The point is
Speaker 1: Aster didn't manage it so far. We just have to
Speaker 1: get more detailed. I'm not ready to completely be them
Speaker 1: up for certainly they didn't deserve to be up for
Speaker 1: severy percent. That's a pretty good achievement. As it is.
Speaker 1: In the world of vaccines you mentioned, you know, taking
Speaker 1: one and then taking another and seeing how that would work.
Speaker 1: What happens when someone gets two different kinds of vaccines
Speaker 1: for something. Is it automatically true that they will be
Speaker 1: more vaccinated? Um? Not necessarily, and you do have to
Speaker 1: study it. So for instance, there are two shingles vaccines
Speaker 1: out there, one that Merk Pharmaceuticals had for years excuse me,
Speaker 1: and then TLAX of Smith client comes with a much
Speaker 1: more effective one later. Currently you're advised to wait five
Speaker 1: years once you've had one the mark one, before you
Speaker 1: take the glacks of one. But until somebody doesn't study
Speaker 1: and say, actually, look you're fine, or we're doing it
Speaker 1: giving you a booster, you can't really be sure. So
Speaker 1: you have to you have to take that with a
Speaker 1: pinch of salt. Same give us the the economics with
Speaker 1: these vaccines here you mentioned astra is going to do it,
Speaker 1: I guess roughly at cost. They're not looking to make
Speaker 1: a profit. How does how are those decisions made? Is
Speaker 1: it a political thing, a regulatory thing? Is it just
Speaker 1: a business decision? No? No, no. After I've never had
Speaker 1: a vaccine's business, and they went into this, could I
Speaker 1: say for the for the love of humanity and the
Speaker 1: fact that I think we all need to get our
Speaker 1: businesses back on track and get the world back to normal. Um.
Speaker 1: They did, they they you know, they went out right
Speaker 1: at the beginning, just like Johnson and Johnson did. And
Speaker 1: Johnson and Johnson does have a vaccine's business, not necessarily
Speaker 1: the biggest in the world, but it does have researching
Speaker 1: vaccine at least. Um. So you know, they both said
Speaker 1: the same thing. We're not going to make money on
Speaker 1: the pandemic during the pandemic. So if there's a use
Speaker 1: potential for the vaccine after the pandemic, like an annual
Speaker 1: boost their requirement, then we reserve the right. So that's
Speaker 1: not their phrases I'm paraphrasing, we reserve the right to
Speaker 1: make a profit. Fitherer and Mother never did that. They
Speaker 1: just went out and said, Okay, we're going to make
Speaker 1: the money out of this, so and ASTRA did take
Speaker 1: money from the government's various governments, quite a bit of money. Actually,
Speaker 1: where will these companies compete internationally? So will some of
Speaker 1: them be more likely to distribute to you underdeveloped countries
Speaker 1: and poorer countries and some less? So, you know, I
Speaker 1: I'd really hesitate to say to answer that question, because
Speaker 1: if you assume at the end of the day that
Speaker 1: the astro vaccine is not asificate effective as the others,
Speaker 1: and you say, okay, well let's have that in the
Speaker 1: developing world, that really is not a message that I
Speaker 1: would like to be talking to anybody about at the
Speaker 1: end of the day. But perhaps to say, here is
Speaker 1: the vaccine that I can get to you easily, to
Speaker 1: every corner of your country with just the fridge or refrigerator. Sorry, um,
Speaker 1: then that's a different message. So we just have to
Speaker 1: be very careful with the messaging here. I think, unfortunately
Speaker 1: it's going to be a lot of people are going
Speaker 1: to think twice about going to get the astro vaccine,
Speaker 1: and I don't know what this will do to their
Speaker 1: recruitment in their in their US trial. Yeah, so Sam,
Speaker 1: the scientists, um, you know, really are coming through with
Speaker 1: some some great science here coming up with the vaccines.
Speaker 1: What are the companies that we should be looking at
Speaker 1: or thinking about um in terms of producing and distributing
Speaker 1: and you know, storing these things. Are there some companies
Speaker 1: that do this or do the astros Nachas of the
Speaker 1: world in the in the fists of the world do
Speaker 1: that themselves. Yeah, well, so you know, Paul that that's
Speaker 1: not really my area in terms of but we know
Speaker 1: that Corning is making a very special glass that's required
Speaker 1: for these glass files and they would need billions of them, right.
Speaker 1: We know that Catalan and Emergent bios Solutions and lawns
Speaker 1: are are are manufacturing partners for many of these companies.
Speaker 1: So they are all and I think if you look
Speaker 1: at those share price charts you'll see a similar response
Speaker 1: early on when these vaccines started working out. So there
Speaker 1: will be the partners that will be helping manufacture. In
Speaker 1: term the distribution it needs to be, it's going to
Speaker 1: be government work. And you know, you've heard about the
Speaker 1: military getting involved in the US. You've heard about Walgreens
Speaker 1: and pharmacists getting involved in the US. So it's it's
Speaker 1: a pretty broad group of companies and organizations that need
Speaker 1: to get involved. Some the researchers that have been working
Speaker 1: on these vaccines, do you know, and not suggesting that
Speaker 1: you you would, but just on the off off chance
Speaker 1: that you do know what they had been working on
Speaker 1: before and what we might now have to wait a
Speaker 1: longer time for because resources were switched to vaccine, you know,
Speaker 1: covid vaccine production. That's a very good question. I think
Speaker 1: the researchers that many of the people who started working
Speaker 1: on this are folks who are in the immunology of
Speaker 1: microbiology virology background, and I think this is what they do.
Speaker 1: We do have a virus that's running a mark in
Speaker 1: the world, and basically that's their bread and butter. They
Speaker 1: try and understand and solve those things. In terms of research.
Speaker 1: You know, it's less the effects are secondary effects are
Speaker 1: lower diagnoses of diseases because people have not been able
Speaker 1: to consider the doctors um and you know, with these
Speaker 1: antibodies and things that are coming through with the requirements
Speaker 1: for IVY infusions, you've got the issue with um uh
Speaker 1: you know I V centers. Infusion centers. Now that's where
Speaker 1: cancer patients go to get their uh their drugs. You
Speaker 1: don't really want COVID infected patients in there too, So
Speaker 1: those are the side effect are thinking. But from a
Speaker 1: research perspective, I don't think we're seeing anything diverted away
Speaker 1: from anything. Um, it's just it's just additional, Sam, do
Speaker 1: you think I mean, I know, when we again started
Speaker 1: talking to you about vaccines back in the day several
Speaker 1: months ago, you know, we're talking about four or five, six,
Speaker 1: seven years for a vaccine to kind of get through approval,
Speaker 1: and now we're looking at a much much more compressed
Speaker 1: time frame here for the COVID vaccines. Do you think
Speaker 1: this will have a permanent change to how vaccines do
Speaker 1: get approved in the future, showing that it can be
Speaker 1: done on a quicker time frame. Well, so, I think Paul,
Speaker 1: that we certainly are have learned that you don't have
Speaker 1: to have those massive time frames. Everything was done in series.
Speaker 1: It is possible to get things done in parallel, but
Speaker 1: that does have a cost because the FDA and the
Speaker 1: regulators will get involved. That's one of the things back
Speaker 1: to Vonnie's question. They only have so much resources. If
Speaker 1: they're going to have to be doubling up resources on
Speaker 1: speeding something up, that means they're taking it away from
Speaker 1: something else. So and I think with some of the
Speaker 1: companies have since that a little bit with the gost
Speaker 1: to FDA responses. So does this change? We certainly have
Speaker 1: learned that we can do things quicker, and I believe
Speaker 1: that that going forward that we would be learning to
Speaker 1: reduce the massive timelines, a lot of which is taken
Speaker 1: in regulatory there I say, bureaucracy. Um, so that we
Speaker 1: don't we don't spend so much time on just selling
Speaker 1: out paperwork. And that's obviously good for the companies and
Speaker 1: good for patients. Yeah, absolutely so. So some you know,
Speaker 1: the numbers are rising all over. Tell us about Europe.
Speaker 1: I mean, we pretty much know what's happening in the
Speaker 1: United States. How bad is it across the Europe? Where
Speaker 1: is it rising? Yes? So in Europe, I think the
Speaker 1: majority of countries have turned it around. France, where I live,
Speaker 1: has got below the twenty number. I mean you you
Speaker 1: get the odd days where you get a case count
Speaker 1: where somebody forgot to count something the day before, these
Speaker 1: kind of things. Um, but they have certainly turned the corner.
Speaker 1: The UK has has turned the corner or plateaued. Belgium
Speaker 1: has turned the corner. I think Spain is plateauing, so
Speaker 1: most of the countries the efforts have spent, which is
Speaker 1: not shocking because the virus that gets transmitted when you
Speaker 1: and I meet face to face, we've reduced that. Therefore,
Speaker 1: thank god, the number of cases are falling, so it's
Speaker 1: only in the right direction. So but I suspect that
Speaker 1: they will be very careful when it comes to the
Speaker 1: circles reopening. Hey, Sam, thanks so much for joining us.
Speaker 1: As always, we appreciate your expertise. Sam Fazelli, Senior Pharmaceutical
Speaker 1: analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence. He also manages the European research
Speaker 1: business for Bloomberg Intelligence. And Vonnieu. We really appreciate getting
Speaker 1: Sam's insights here. Thanks for listening to Bloomberg Markets podcast.
Speaker 1: You can subscribe and listen to interviews at Apple Podcasts
Speaker 1: or whatever podcast platform you prefer. I'm Bonnie Quinn. I'm
Speaker 1: on Twitter at Bonnie Quinn, and I'm Paul Sweeney. I'm
Speaker 1: on Twitter at pt Sweeney. Before the podcast, you can
Speaker 1: always catch us worldwide at Bloomberg Radio.