Speaker 1: Who you put your trust in matters. Investors have put
Speaker 1: their trust and independent registered investment advisors to the two
Speaker 1: and four trillion dollars Why Learn more at find your
Speaker 1: Independent Advisor dot com. Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast.
Speaker 1: I'm Tom Keene with David Gura. Daily we bring you
Speaker 1: insight from the best in economics, finance, investment, and international relations.
Speaker 1: Find Bloomberg Surveillance on iTunes, SoundCloud, Bloomberg dot com, and
Speaker 1: of course on the Bloomberg. Joining us now is Peter Hooper.
Speaker 1: He's the chief economist at which Man Morty. Peter, I
Speaker 1: won't ask you the question should he stay or should
Speaker 1: he go? But to maybe we can talk about the
Speaker 1: ramifications of this decision, the Governor Carney's waging right now.
Speaker 1: What are there? Well, this is a this is certainly
Speaker 1: a difficult critical time for the UK economy. UH were
Speaker 1: as as breakfit unfolds learning how this is going to
Speaker 1: affect the economy there and and more globally, um the
Speaker 1: the economy right now facing the effects of substantial weakening
Speaker 1: of sterling. UH inflation expectations up sharply at a time
Speaker 1: when growth has not yet picked up a pace so
Speaker 1: difficult decisions, difficult decisions ahead. I think this is an
Speaker 1: uncertainty about Mr Carney's future that needs to be resolved
Speaker 1: this week, and global investors are hoping that he stays on.
Speaker 1: He's he's a known commodity and someone who is generally trusted,
Speaker 1: but obviously personal reasons of his own for wanting to
Speaker 1: go on. I would look through the politics here. Some
Speaker 1: new statistics at this morning from the Euro Area about
Speaker 1: growth in in the wake of the Brexit vone gross
Speaker 1: domestic product for his point three percent in the three
Speaker 1: months to September, inflation rate picking up to point five
Speaker 1: percent in October, both of those things in line with
Speaker 1: with expectations here. What do they tell you about the
Speaker 1: health of the the euro economy here after that referendum vone, Well,
Speaker 1: the the the economy is h so far, not taking
Speaker 1: any kind of a significant hit. We weren't expecting a
Speaker 1: major negative for the euro economy, but more in an
Speaker 1: issue for the UK um UH at this point, it's
Speaker 1: how how does the how do the negotiations move going forward?
Speaker 1: The UK obviously more sensitive to this than the Euro Area.
Speaker 1: ECPs goal here are right close to just below two percent.
Speaker 1: That with the likelihood we get to that anytime soon.
Speaker 1: We're a ways off. Uh. And our expectation is ECB
Speaker 1: is going to expand its QUI at the December meeting. Um.
Speaker 1: But certainly globally things beginning to move in a direction
Speaker 1: that that that could be helpful. I mean, you're you're
Speaker 1: seeing inflation slowly pick up in the US. News out
Speaker 1: of China has been Uh. Inflation is that admit more
Speaker 1: of the watchword these days, um so um labor markets.
Speaker 1: Labor markets are tightening. Uh. And it's going to be
Speaker 1: a slow process. But I'm gonna take a while, Peter,
Speaker 1: let's do let's do a granular thing. We have two
Speaker 1: point nine percent and we're assuming it's inventories and exports.
Speaker 1: Helped me here with if I want to delete inventories
Speaker 1: from my analysis of g d P, translate that jargon
Speaker 1: forest okay. Uh. The inventory sales ratio has been has
Speaker 1: been relatively high. Uh. It plunged. Inventory investment plunged in
Speaker 1: the second quarter, a big negative on growth. Third quarter
Speaker 1: looks like it's subtracted something on the order of a
Speaker 1: half percentage point from from GDP growth going I mean,
Speaker 1: added something like half a percent as inventory investment went
Speaker 1: from a substantial negative to a moderate plus. Uh. That
Speaker 1: is you know what it does going forward, is it
Speaker 1: takes a little bit out of the fourth quarter we've
Speaker 1: we've we were expecting to see more correction in inventories
Speaker 1: UM over the near tournaments. Our Deutsche Bank view, UM,
Speaker 1: we we now expect to see inventories subtract a few
Speaker 1: tents in Q four UM. So it was a moderate
Speaker 1: plus to us, a little bit of surprise, but more
Speaker 1: in line with consensus expectations. UM. We still have some
Speaker 1: correction to go going forward. Does it get you to
Speaker 1: a sustained better g d P or as you told
Speaker 1: us an hour ago, that it gets you to sub
Speaker 1: two GDP. You can't have both. Okay, you have two
Speaker 1: point nine Half of that was exports and inventories. Uh.
Speaker 1: The underlying feeling growth trend is something in the one
Speaker 1: and a half to two percent range. That's uh what
Speaker 1: we're consumer and business investment. Consumer just over two. Business
Speaker 1: investment has been very week has been a modest negative.
Speaker 1: That's where we need to really pick up going forward.
Speaker 1: But let me say that even if we're at just
Speaker 1: one and a half percent GDP growth, that's enough to
Speaker 1: give us ongoing improvement in the US labor market. Because
Speaker 1: productivity output per hour has not grown over the last
Speaker 1: five years. For overall GDP, labor productivity pretty flat. So
Speaker 1: one and a half percent GDP growth means one and
Speaker 1: a half percent labor demand growth, which gives you pretty
Speaker 1: good growth in in employment. Uh. That's a tightening labor market. Um.
Speaker 1: Problem here productivity is growing that slowly. Uh. Not just
Speaker 1: it means very slow potential growth. It means uh lag
Speaker 1: lagging improvement in the US underd of living. Uh. And
Speaker 1: it means pressure on unit labor cards. Yeah. And David,
Speaker 1: not that I want editor lies here, but it touches
Speaker 1: a little bit on Mr Trump's comments in different debates
Speaker 1: on a quote unquote one percent economy and not particularly
Speaker 1: one point zero percent. But Dr Hooper's view is Trumpian
Speaker 1: in the GDP sense. Squinting a correct word, I think
Speaker 1: it is my sudden Matt Winkler's piece this work. We
Speaker 1: can ask him about, yes, whether or not that's vaded
Speaker 1: to the dictionary. Uh. Squinting through that headline number. Peter
Speaker 1: looking looking at household spending, looking at the state of
Speaker 1: the consumer, How does he or she look in light
Speaker 1: of that two point nine percent figure, I think overall
Speaker 1: consumer is doing okay, alright, household balance sheets of recovered
Speaker 1: uh average households net worth income ratio back to previous
Speaker 1: near previous highs, labor market doing well, hiring going okay,
Speaker 1: and wage inflation beginning to rise. You you had a
Speaker 1: four percent increase nominal income, uh two a little of
Speaker 1: two percent real income. Uh. That's enough to sport a
Speaker 1: you know, a moderate growth in consumer spending going forward,
Speaker 1: and that's that's more than two thirds of the economy,
Speaker 1: so that that's what's giving you this uh, this underlying
Speaker 1: growth and domestic demand somewhere in the at least one
Speaker 1: and a half two percent range in the face of
Speaker 1: some drag on the part of business spending. As I mentioned,
Speaker 1: we get personal income and personal spending figures this morning.
Speaker 1: What are you looking for there? I think my expectation
Speaker 1: is we're going to be somewhere in the four percent
Speaker 1: range nominal. Yeah, but this is important because you get
Speaker 1: spending an income. I get it, and then you take
Speaker 1: it down and you guys calculate. Did the government calculate
Speaker 1: or do you back out what the personal savings rate is?
Speaker 1: They give it to us, they give it you. It's
Speaker 1: all part of it. You don't have to like do incense,
Speaker 1: you know, do a Harry Potter hell of kind of thing.
Speaker 1: And the saving saving rate has gone from low of
Speaker 1: three to five six. Okay, but but Peter, this is
Speaker 1: really important here. The paradox of savings, the paradox is
Speaker 1: upon us with with this great distortion of the fixed
Speaker 1: income market, isn't it. Well? We we've saying, we've been
Speaker 1: saying that the baby boom generation has not been saving
Speaker 1: enough for retirement. Savings has picked up, but it picked
Speaker 1: up primarily because of all the uncertainty around the Great
Speaker 1: Financial Crisis. People. People were shocked by the by the
Speaker 1: drop in home prices, people were shocked by the huge
Speaker 1: drop in in asset values. Uh. All this uncertainty says
Speaker 1: we need to save more. Of course, that is that
Speaker 1: is one of the drags on consumer spending. More you say,
Speaker 1: the less you spend. Uh, that was a drag. That
Speaker 1: was a drag coming out of the out of the
Speaker 1: out of the recession. Uh. Saving has been wiggling around,
Speaker 1: but it's been a little more stable. I would say,
Speaker 1: what are you doing us for Halloween? What am I
Speaker 1: worry for Halloween? Are you going this? John Maynard? Keys
Speaker 1: those jewel man, I've got a mask on the front,
Speaker 1: a mask on the back. On the front, I'm going
Speaker 1: as Irving Fisher and my mask in the back is
Speaker 1: the vice chairman, Stanley Fisher. So I'm going as Fisher
Speaker 1: Fisher for Hello. We think anybody will get it on
Speaker 1: the upper east side? What do you think, David? Come
Speaker 1: on if they get it in Brooklyn? Right? Yeah, you're
Speaker 1: going as a kil farmer, right of course, of course
Speaker 1: I'll have my my backpack laden with I'm afraid to
Speaker 1: ask what the girl offspring? How you're going to embarrass them?
Speaker 1: Halloween be safe today. Let's let's I just want to
Speaker 1: rip up the script on Job's Day. This job's day
Speaker 1: is a big deal. December's job days a bigger deal,
Speaker 1: right absolutely? I mean this, This Job's Day is not
Speaker 1: going to affect what the Fed? Uh, what what the
Speaker 1: Fed's up to? It will raise raise the issue of
Speaker 1: December if if there's an unusually weak number um and
Speaker 1: followed up by another one h uh in early December.
Speaker 1: But at this point that you know, it's uh. I
Speaker 1: think we're looking for something in the range on payrolls.
Speaker 1: We're looking for maybe a little bit further updrift and
Speaker 1: average early earnings and this is right on track for
Speaker 1: for FED moving ahead. David Girl, December two, December two ish. Yes,
Speaker 1: we've got an ECB meeting on the heels of down
Speaker 1: of the eighth I believe. But yep, Peter, in a
Speaker 1: recent note, you said here we see a good chance
Speaker 1: of substantial further step down in the unemployment rate. What
Speaker 1: what leads you to think that could be the case. Well,
Speaker 1: the unemployee rate has leveled off over the last year
Speaker 1: because labor force participation has picked up pretty significantly. Uh.
Speaker 1: The there's a secular downtrend and labor force participation because
Speaker 1: of demographics, largely the retirement of the Baby Boom generation
Speaker 1: taking about a quarter percentage point per year, and that
Speaker 1: adds has a substantial impact on on the unemployer right
Speaker 1: if it if it backs up, and it has, it's
Speaker 1: enough to level of things out. Uh. If if it
Speaker 1: resumes its downtrend, um the unemploint rate with with something
Speaker 1: anything in the neighborhood of one fifty on payrolls, unemployment
Speaker 1: rate is going to fall somewhere between three quarters of
Speaker 1: a percentage point and one percent over the next year.
Speaker 1: That's how powerful that downtrend is. UM. So we think
Speaker 1: that the labor force particiation participation rate picked up over
Speaker 1: the last year, not so much because a lot of
Speaker 1: people are coming back in, but because the rate of
Speaker 1: people who are unemployed long term unemployed actually leaving the
Speaker 1: labor force has dropped off. UH. That says that sometime
Speaker 1: in the next six months you could see a resumption
Speaker 1: move toward a bit of a downtrend and labor force participation.
Speaker 1: That says that unemployment UM begins to trend down. Word again,
Speaker 1: you and your colleagues did a masterful job. You're going
Speaker 1: through what was discussed at the Boston FEDS Economic Conference
Speaker 1: on Octilly the fourteenth, that, of course we're fed share
Speaker 1: Yellen suggested it might be wise to or there might
Speaker 1: be a rationale for running the economy in a more
Speaker 1: high pressure state. To what degree you think that's going
Speaker 1: to be discussed tomorrow and Wednesday around that giant conference
Speaker 1: table in the Equals Building in Washington, And and do
Speaker 1: you think there's much agreement there among policy makers that
Speaker 1: it's something that they you know, that they could be
Speaker 1: heading towards Um, you know, I think when when Jane
Speaker 1: Yellen raised the Center speech, she was sort of asking
Speaker 1: the question, and her speech was more to raise issues
Speaker 1: that warrant further research by macroeconomists in the years to come. Um,
Speaker 1: I'm not expecting a theme to the central theme of
Speaker 1: the discussion be it's time to run the economy at
Speaker 1: a hotter level. Uh, in a serious way until until
Speaker 1: you know, next year. If indeed the unemployed rate stage
Speaker 1: starts declining significantly, this becomes an issue for FED discussion.
Speaker 1: So far, however, we're not there. Dr Banky Dean Mackie
Speaker 1: Barklay is now at point seven two with Steve Cohen
Speaker 1: has said for quarters the migration here is to four
Speaker 1: point zero percent unemployment. Can I make some news this morning?
Speaker 1: Is a major house like Peter Hooper, agree with Dr Mackie. Okay,
Speaker 1: our house call is for unemployment getting down into the
Speaker 1: mid fours over the next year. But okay, alright, okay,
Speaker 1: it's Halloween. You want to risk Uh, they're not my
Speaker 1: fishure fisher there. Certainly I will tell you it's pure
Speaker 1: arithmetic that if okay, if pure arithmetic that if a
Speaker 1: labor force participation rate resumes its downtrend, secular downtrend. Okay,
Speaker 1: if the economy continues to grow two percent and productivity
Speaker 1: hasn't picked up, will be below four percent by the
Speaker 1: end of next year. Let's leave it there, Peter, Thank
Speaker 1: you news. This one that's shocking, folks, you heard it.
Speaker 1: I believe folks that David Gurry. I think that's the
Speaker 1: first I would suggest, yes for what we've heard. I
Speaker 1: want to I wanna. I want to suggest that DARTR.
Speaker 1: Hooper did not make a point forecast there or estimate
Speaker 1: he are or both. He suggested those would be the
Speaker 1: trends given this, that and the other thing. That's not
Speaker 1: the same because an official, Mr Cry, And don't let's
Speaker 1: be sure is badge still works? Mr Cry. That's all
Speaker 1: we ask Peter Hooper, thank you so much. I want
Speaker 1: to bring in Steve Whiting now. He is the chief
Speaker 1: global strategist at City Private Bank. A real pleasure to
Speaker 1: have him here. And I want to start with with
Speaker 1: the bond market. Steve. I look at the FED minutes,
Speaker 1: I look at the Fed statements. I listened to Mario
Speaker 1: Draggy a week and a half ago, and I wonder
Speaker 1: hear how much uncertainty remains when it comes to to
Speaker 1: monta terry policy in light of what we have looking
Speaker 1: at w I R P here, the probability of a
Speaker 1: hike at you know, the heels of this FED meeting seventeen,
Speaker 1: how much uncertainty remains when it comes to central banks. Well,
Speaker 1: I think they're coming into a path that sort of
Speaker 1: makes sense now for two thousand and seventeen. When you
Speaker 1: think about the period when interest rate hikes really became
Speaker 1: credible in two thousand and fourteen, the markets and the
Speaker 1: said were very far apart the idea that they'll do
Speaker 1: one step now before the end of the year and
Speaker 1: two quarter point tightenings next year. And as Janet Yellen
Speaker 1: said at Jackson Hole, that was the course if there
Speaker 1: is a shop free outlook, Um, that is now sort
Speaker 1: of a reasonable course that we could be on, particularly
Speaker 1: with that qualification that, um, if there are no outside shocks,
Speaker 1: you know, history is stilled with them, and there have
Speaker 1: been FED tightenings through those periods and they couldn't control everything.
Speaker 1: But now I think that this is a path that
Speaker 1: we're sort of the hawks and the doves can both
Speaker 1: take that road together and see if you're not you're
Speaker 1: not writing off November rate rise completely, are you you know,
Speaker 1: in my gut, I just can't completely do that. Um.
Speaker 1: The fact that they didn't even mention the weakness in
Speaker 1: the pervasive weakness and economic data in the month of August,
Speaker 1: when you know they followed up in September with a
Speaker 1: pause in three decents. You know first said that is
Speaker 1: not political, just the absence of mentioning any of the
Speaker 1: weak economic news, perhaps so that it doesn't fall into
Speaker 1: a political context. It just strikes me that with um
Speaker 1: so much information arguing for a tightening, that just deciding
Speaker 1: to wait to December, it's just hard to say that
Speaker 1: that it's entirely off the table. December obviously seems more likely,
Speaker 1: and the historical proclivity is to the said not the
Speaker 1: tighten right ahead of political events. But um, I just
Speaker 1: note that one play this play is after me a
Speaker 1: little bit here, because we've heard time and time again
Speaker 1: they won't raise rates because of the election. How could
Speaker 1: you see those two events interacting with with one another.
Speaker 1: In other words, if they were to raise it's in November,
Speaker 1: what what measurable effect would that have on the campaign?
Speaker 1: On the election? As you see in Well the Strongest
Speaker 1: argument is maybe not political, it's the sac The Federal
Speaker 1: Reserve is not, you know, trying to impose a harsh tightening,
Speaker 1: and markets are unprepared, have not priced in this event,
Speaker 1: so they politely uh in. They would likely desire not
Speaker 1: to have that outcome in the market, whereas in December,
Speaker 1: where's entirely priced in, they're going to have less impact
Speaker 1: in many ways that it has tried to tighten without
Speaker 1: impact over you know, the last two years and said
Speaker 1: only one chance and then take a look at what
Speaker 1: happened in last December. In fact, historically the Federal Reserve
Speaker 1: has tried to avoid. December is the period of liquidity
Speaker 1: year and uncertainty. So they're just a little bit they
Speaker 1: can't win situation here, but they have managed, you know,
Speaker 1: to take down expectations so much for the course of
Speaker 1: future tightening that they're they're okay here one way or
Speaker 1: the other. Does inflation say next year, Steve writing, I
Speaker 1: think inflation comes back just simply on the oil price rise.
Speaker 1: And you know, the depending on how the American economy
Speaker 1: forms and how willing the fit of Reserve is to
Speaker 1: go in a different direction from other central banks and
Speaker 1: will dictate the path of the exchange rate and you know,
Speaker 1: a meaningful dampening effect from goods prices. You know we
Speaker 1: were on earlier. I don't think that you're going to
Speaker 1: see the kind of inflation with a life of its
Speaker 1: own where demands that year after year year it's going
Speaker 1: to be a bounce. Yeah, And I like that framework.
Speaker 1: Stephen Winding with his folks, and Stephen Winding is an
Speaker 1: economist and a strategist, links in earnings, revenues and the
Speaker 1: dynamics of profitability of corporations into our greatest greater economy, Stephen,
Speaker 1: and it will be a changed world if we get
Speaker 1: a villain bowder economy and others that have frankly been
Speaker 1: more optimistic than city group migrating towards the city group
Speaker 1: level of g d P somewhere in the vicinity of
Speaker 1: two point zero percent some south, some north. Isn't that
Speaker 1: unex acceptable to the animal spirit of the country. Isn't
Speaker 1: that unacceptable to develop corporate confidence? Look, I think one
Speaker 1: of the hard questions has to be when we have
Speaker 1: nearly two hundred thousand jobs created on average per month
Speaker 1: for seven years, you know what in terms of headcount
Speaker 1: looks like a you know, very significant tightening of labor markets.
Speaker 1: But output growth is slow and so much is out
Speaker 1: of control of policy makers. You know, we can do
Speaker 1: things ideally to incentivize labor force participation, to get people
Speaker 1: looking at the incentives to work and go back, um
Speaker 1: when it comes to productivity growth. You know the technology
Speaker 1: surprises uh that we have seen, you know, for one,
Speaker 1: in the facting sector in oil where we had a
Speaker 1: couple of years back a dramatic windfall and output uh,
Speaker 1: you know, a decade earlier in I T You know,
Speaker 1: these sorts of technology surprises are not something that I
Speaker 1: think policymakers can plan for. But wheak you think about this,
Speaker 1: and I think it's actually a really good argument in
Speaker 1: favor of potential optimism. Is that when you're down, you know,
Speaker 1: near early nineteen eighties lows on this, and you see
Speaker 1: enough things going around in the technology front, we might
Speaker 1: actually one of these days we're not going to get
Speaker 1: just downside surprises and growths. To cut to the chase
Speaker 1: and what's what's interesting to me and help me here,
Speaker 1: Stephen Whiting and David Gura jump in here as someone
Speaker 1: of wisdom as well. I saw an Apple commercial this
Speaker 1: weekend which is a bunch of you know, millennials. You
Speaker 1: want to punch there, you know the whole Apple techie
Speaker 1: gorgeous thing. You want to punch all of them. But
Speaker 1: the basic idea is that technology of Apple using your
Speaker 1: iPhone to do qt C pie selfies. That's productivity, robotics,
Speaker 1: e commerce. Um. You know the fact that the e
Speaker 1: commerce sector is sort of displacing you know, standard commerce
Speaker 1: with a lot less labor input, and people are a
Speaker 1: little bit happy not having you know, massive amounts of
Speaker 1: speculum at inventory across you know, millions of square miles
Speaker 1: across the United States. You know where somebody might just
Speaker 1: walk in and happen to buy it. There is a
Speaker 1: technology like that which is in fact disruptive. Uh. You
Speaker 1: know these sorts of things where you have some resources
Speaker 1: again on the sidelines that you can redeploy. That's how
Speaker 1: you know, real income rogers per person. That reminded me
Speaker 1: of a very vivid moment from stand fisher speech at
Speaker 1: the Economic Club of New York in which he's urged
Speaker 1: by a colleague to take a subway ride to see
Speaker 1: everybody using you sing there iPods. I thought that was
Speaker 1: I thought that was just great. We were talking with
Speaker 1: Peter Peter a few moments ago about his take on
Speaker 1: Janet Yellen speech at the FED conference in Boston a
Speaker 1: little while back, and so much of that conference had
Speaker 1: to do with productivity. Alan Krueger spoke there as well.
Speaker 1: When you look at demographics, how much do you just
Speaker 1: raise up your hands in defeat here? How much can
Speaker 1: the FED do? How much can anyone do about the
Speaker 1: demographic picture we're seeing in this country right now? Well, um,
Speaker 1: aging is not something we're going to do anything about.
Speaker 1: It's it's the course of history and where it will go.
Speaker 1: I think raising labor force participation for older workers is ideal. Um.
Speaker 1: What striking is in the list seven years, with the
Speaker 1: exception the last twelve months. Um, you know, we were
Speaker 1: seeing labor force participation undershoot anything that demographics could explain.
Speaker 1: People between five and fifty five were not in the
Speaker 1: labor force US as they were predicted to be. It's
Speaker 1: been remarkably weak on that front. And you know, for
Speaker 1: us to see in the last twelve months three million
Speaker 1: people come back and search for jobs is pretty striking.
Speaker 1: That's another big forecast miss. Both the short fall and
Speaker 1: now the improvement are other size that the forecasting is
Speaker 1: getting better that we've We've talked a ton on this
Speaker 1: program just about the deficits of of FED forecasting. Uh sure,
Speaker 1: the FED and others, but you know, how do we
Speaker 1: forecast better? Uh information, being able to take real time
Speaker 1: digital information on sales production in the economy, These sorts
Speaker 1: of things that we probably don't fund very well. Improving
Speaker 1: these sorts of things can help. Um. You know, if
Speaker 1: people are looking for the answers to like how to
Speaker 1: make you know financial markets les volatil, that's a different story.
Speaker 1: You know, we can people will always try harder to
Speaker 1: get uh some better forecast, and you know, it becomes
Speaker 1: a little bit like high frequency trade. Think it's a
Speaker 1: it's a race for speed, but it won't necessarily improve everything.
Speaker 1: That's an important point. What is your confidence in your
Speaker 1: guestiments of C plus I plus G plus n x,
Speaker 1: particularly after the first look we saw third quarter? Do
Speaker 1: you have a belief that you can gain the adjustments
Speaker 1: of third quarter or the reality of this fourth quarter
Speaker 1: across consumption, investment, government, and exports. I think we can
Speaker 1: interpret it reasonably well that the first cance of the
Speaker 1: year had some shortfalls. We didn't believe growth would be
Speaker 1: just one, and so what's happened in the third quarter
Speaker 1: is a bit of a correction for that. UM. Some
Speaker 1: of the contributions to growth are you know, not looking
Speaker 1: so great as of course in the third quarter. But
Speaker 1: you know, put that in the context of let's look
Speaker 1: back at the last couple of quarters, and it balances
Speaker 1: out roughly where we think we are, which is UM,
Speaker 1: certainly better than one, but probably not as good as
Speaker 1: do nine. I wanna ask you about energy. We see
Speaker 1: oil prices here hovering below fifty dollars a barrel. We
Speaker 1: had another OPEC meeting this weekend that came to no
Speaker 1: result other than them just accurring they're going to continue
Speaker 1: talking about production cuts for production freeze. How much is
Speaker 1: oil weighing on the markets right now? UM, only a
Speaker 1: little because sort of the absolute level of distress that
Speaker 1: we were in around the beginning of the year, whereas
Speaker 1: a variety of things, petro dollar portfolio holders in a
Speaker 1: state of distress, selling assets outside of petroleum. UM solvency
Speaker 1: becoming more of a broad question beyond ty of the
Speaker 1: oil price itself being so high, they were contracts to
Speaker 1: sell oil UH and fifteen dollars that were sold in January,
Speaker 1: and so I think we can look at the last
Speaker 1: you know two years were investment spending to seek out
Speaker 1: new oil, to maintain the capital stock and oil that
Speaker 1: you know, this is the path forward for oil. It's
Speaker 1: not going to be a better agreements between different actors,
Speaker 1: you know, gentlemen's agreements to do this through that. It's
Speaker 1: really going to be about high cost producers simply not
Speaker 1: being there in the future. Thank you so much, Stephen,
Speaker 1: Winning City Private Bank as well. Who you put your
Speaker 1: trust in matters. Investors have put their trust in independent
Speaker 1: registered investment advisors to the tune of four trillion dollars.
Speaker 1: Why they see their roles to serve, not sell. That's
Speaker 1: why Charles Schwab is committed to the success over seven
Speaker 1: thousand independent financial advisors who passionately dedicate themselves to helping
Speaker 1: people achieve their financial goals. Learn more at find your
Speaker 1: Independent Advisor dot com. It is a perfect time to
Speaker 1: speak with Stephen Lawrence Ratner. I urge you to peruce
Speaker 1: his Wikipedia over a most collected career with will of
Speaker 1: advisors full disclosure. Managing much of the assets of the
Speaker 1: former mayor of New York. Michael Bloomberg, of course a
Speaker 1: majority owner of this UH station. Steve Rattner, I want
Speaker 1: to go back to original sin. You were the leader
Speaker 1: of the Presidential Task Force on the auto industry. You
Speaker 1: had laptops where you had to you know, you had
Speaker 1: sensitive stuff on it. How in God's name did this happen?
Speaker 1: How did six hundred and fifty jillion thousand emails were
Speaker 1: whatever we get getting on get on private computers. I
Speaker 1: don't get it off the clarity of a senior cabinet office. Well,
Speaker 1: first of all, the six emails were heavily Anthony we
Speaker 1: think assume are heavily Anthony Weens emails rather than he
Speaker 1: was right. But but look they were they they broke
Speaker 1: the rules. They were conducting State Department business on private computers.
Speaker 1: Whether it's Anthony and Donald Trump is not completely wrong.
Speaker 1: Potentially Anthony Weiner had access to State Department information, whether
Speaker 1: it was classified or not, that he should not have
Speaker 1: had access. In the crush, You're sitting on the tarmac
Speaker 1: at LaGuardia. You've got to get to Detroit to bail
Speaker 1: out the auto business. At times you must have done
Speaker 1: this original sin right, Well, let me say two things.
Speaker 1: First of all, we had we did have in my case,
Speaker 1: Treasury Department issued blackberries and so on, so there was
Speaker 1: a way to commune kate through the official system. That said,
Speaker 1: I think anyone who's worked in the government, particularly back
Speaker 1: then when the technology was not very robust, would tell
Speaker 1: you that a certain amount of government business does get
Speaker 1: done on personal devices. That is just the reality, as
Speaker 1: you say, of sitting on the tarmac at LaGuardia. But
Speaker 1: in this case, all government business was done off of
Speaker 1: the government server, and that's I think a different kettle
Speaker 1: of fish. In all fairness to everybody, what I wanna
Speaker 1: say next is by no means trying to excuse anything
Speaker 1: that happened here. But when I was reporting in Washington,
Speaker 1: it was not uncommon for me to talk to government
Speaker 1: officials who complained about the updated nous the quality of
Speaker 1: the technology they were using. Stepping aside from the politics
Speaker 1: of this whole matter, what does it say about our
Speaker 1: government's ability to control data, or to to have systems
Speaker 1: in place that works seamlessly so that we can transfer
Speaker 1: information where it's appropriate, from one person to the other.
Speaker 1: It says that our government, not totally surprisingly is behind
Speaker 1: the curve with respect to technology and implement at the
Speaker 1: systems at least we had back then, as you suggest,
Speaker 1: for operating within the total confines of the Treasury, in
Speaker 1: my case, were incredibly difficult and incredibly ornerary. But all
Speaker 1: that said, I would also say this is not in
Speaker 1: any way a reference to Mrs Clinton nor Whoma Aberdeen.
Speaker 1: There were some government officials that I'm aware of, who
Speaker 1: would conduct some government business on personal devices, particularly to
Speaker 1: keep it from being captured within the government email uh
Speaker 1: complex and therefore potentially subject to FOY or other disclosure.
Speaker 1: And so we can argue about that appropriate stuff that
Speaker 1: did go on. What's the legacy going to be here
Speaker 1: of the wiki leaks side of things? I think back
Speaker 1: to just last week, a new sleu of emails came
Speaker 1: out and Marie Slaughter Form believe the State Department's Policy
Speaker 1: Planning Office, you know, saying that she and others did
Speaker 1: this quite regularly. I can imagine this and still some
Speaker 1: fear and those who have worked in Washington, who work
Speaker 1: in Washington about what's going to happen with the emails
Speaker 1: that they've sent. Well, I think I think there's comfort
Speaker 1: and number verse and I think there's so many people
Speaker 1: who did take some liberties with the system, whether it
Speaker 1: was for convenience or privacy or whatever, that you're not
Speaker 1: going to go and prosecute five thousand former government officials.
Speaker 1: So I think I think they're pretty safe. I think
Speaker 1: that I assume that starting whenever you want to date
Speaker 1: it from when this began, was nobody anymore is now
Speaker 1: operating off of the government, you know, anyway deviating from
Speaker 1: the government rules, and so at least we know we've
Speaker 1: accomplished that out of all this, what's your sense of
Speaker 1: the politics here with you know, so a few days
Speaker 1: until the election, the timing of this, obviously, is it
Speaker 1: still being debated and learned about. Uh, does it smell
Speaker 1: of something to you? No? Even in terms of no, no, no,
Speaker 1: I okay. I I think that Comey is the FBI director.
Speaker 1: Comy is in a very tough place. I think in
Speaker 1: question his question, debate his decisions. But I think he's
Speaker 1: within the fairway in terms of having UH done the
Speaker 1: best he could under a very difficult set of sin
Speaker 1: That is a brilliant statement that the smartest thing I've
Speaker 1: heard on all this in the less seventy two hours.
Speaker 1: Within the fairway captures the squishiness. It makes foolish the
Speaker 1: certitude that we're hearing from both sides. Yeah, I think
Speaker 1: the certitude from both sides is not correct. I think
Speaker 1: that I I agreed with Comey's decision back in July
Speaker 1: to explain why he wasn't prosecuting Mrs Clinton because it
Speaker 1: was such a political situation. He then went and testified
Speaker 1: in front of Congress and promised them that if anything
Speaker 1: else came out, he would tell them. Then they learned
Speaker 1: about this uh Anthony Weener laptop, and then he says
Speaker 1: to himself, well do I tell people or do I wait?
Speaker 1: If he waits, and after the election, it turns out
Speaker 1: he knew eleven days before the election there were thousand
Speaker 1: other emails. He will get crucified by the Republicans. He
Speaker 1: brings it out. Now he's being crucified by the Democrats.
Speaker 1: So it is kind of it is a kind of
Speaker 1: equal opportunity, crucified crucifixion that's going on of him. And
Speaker 1: I think he kind of did what he had to
Speaker 1: do on of the circumstances he was faced with. Steve
Speaker 1: I tried to do a balanced approach. I had comments
Speaker 1: from Attorney General holder and from Attorney General Mcasey uh
Speaker 1: this morning. Mr mckasey representing public Service with George bush
Speaker 1: Um emphasize the need for grand juries. Does President Clinton
Speaker 1: move beyond the grand jury if she is president? Let
Speaker 1: me put it this way. I'm not I'm not an
Speaker 1: expert on grand juries, but let me put it this way.
Speaker 1: I think one thing that none of us should be
Speaker 1: happy about, regardless of our politics, is that if she
Speaker 1: is elected, and I think she still will be notwithstanding
Speaker 1: recent events, she is going to be faced with a
Speaker 1: continuing onslaught of investigation, some of them honorable in a
Speaker 1: sense of being by the FBI or whatever, some of
Speaker 1: them perhaps political from Republicans on Capitol Hill. And that
Speaker 1: is a very depressing thing to me as an American,
Speaker 1: that we're going to start a presidency with the president
Speaker 1: under investigation. Depressing. How difficult to make it to govern?
Speaker 1: There are many already so many hurdles to governing, and
Speaker 1: Washington with the kind of divisions we've seen here being
Speaker 1: under that suspicion investigation. Call it what you will, How
Speaker 1: hard will it make it for a President Clinton should
Speaker 1: she be elected to govern? It is one more? It
Speaker 1: is one more log on the fire in difficultness of governing.
Speaker 1: She's already going to be faced almost certainly with divided government.
Speaker 1: She's going to be faced with being elected with not
Speaker 1: the not a great approval rating from the country, and
Speaker 1: then you add this on top of it and an
Speaker 1: ongoing series of investigations, and as I said, as an American,
Speaker 1: you should be depressed. I've got to ask you the
Speaker 1: news question just to clearly or have you been asked
Speaker 1: to provide public service to a Clinton administration? No, and
Speaker 1: I wouldn't. I'm very happy managing all of Mayor Bloomberg's
Speaker 1: philanthropic assets. But I don't think they've asked. I don't
Speaker 1: think they've asked anybody at this point. Just trying to
Speaker 1: get it out there can get it out, so you
Speaker 1: can ask the question President vetted to be Secretary State.
Speaker 1: Is he the energy to be a Secretary of State?
Speaker 1: He would be a great secretary of State, but he
Speaker 1: said that he won't take the job. So I think
Speaker 1: that's now off the tip. That's where your name came up. Yes, exactly,
Speaker 1: are just like two pieces in a pod from our experience.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. Willing advisers with perspective and we're
Speaker 1: trying for us, We're killing ourselves trying to be balanced. Honest,
Speaker 1: what an uproar this weekend? I shout out again, Chuck Todd.
Speaker 1: I'm Bloomberg Radio Sunday afternoons with his wonderful Meet the
Speaker 1: Press David Gura, Meet the Press. Killed it yesterday at
Speaker 1: the opening yesterday, going back the secretary kissing your announcing
Speaker 1: the war was over forty two hours or whatever before
Speaker 1: the election, chucked out to Stephen, you want to come
Speaker 1: in and then and then the other example of George
Speaker 1: Bush and the d and the du I coming out
Speaker 1: four or five days before the election in two thousands
Speaker 1: and so we have been here before, and we will
Speaker 1: get through it. And well, I don't know, we got
Speaker 1: eight more chase to go. Who knows what could happen
Speaker 1: in eight days. Steve Redner, thank you so much. This
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg Surveillance on Bloomberg Radio. David Gurray here with
Speaker 1: Tom Keane on Halloween. Excuse me, I'm so rattled, like
Speaker 1: I forgot to hit the red button. The advance of J. K.
Speaker 1: Rowling was two thousand, five hundred pounds. I've got a
Speaker 1: working statistic of a Harry Potter thing of fifteen billion
Speaker 1: dollars is what it's worth. I just want you to
Speaker 1: know that for Halloween the Keen household spend about thirteen
Speaker 1: point three billion of the fifteen billion. Like, I don't
Speaker 1: get it. I mean, I I gotta get smarter on
Speaker 1: Harry Potter. It's completely overtaken. You've got your neo Fisherian
Speaker 1: devil faced masks. I am. I'm going as Irving Fisher
Speaker 1: and then on the backside and going as vice Chairman Fisher.
Speaker 1: It was a special custom, you know, like especially late
Speaker 1: tex late text thing. We a what are you doing? Well?
Speaker 1: So my daughter is going to go as a peacock.
Speaker 1: She's she's got enough that she's you know, there's no
Speaker 1: no Harry Potter yet on the language. But yeah, we'll
Speaker 1: be running around park Slope. But that the mayor, the
Speaker 1: current mayor of the city, a park Slope resident at
Speaker 1: least part time. He often leads the parade that we'll
Speaker 1: have down seventh, So keep an out. Doug Cass is
Speaker 1: going as earning Banks. Yeah, with Sea Breeze partners. Doug,
Speaker 1: I mean a little bit on baseball here. This is fun,
Speaker 1: isn't it. Well, we while we wait for that. I've
Speaker 1: got an email here from Doug. I opened it up.
Speaker 1: Here has an image attached as Doug wearing a Cubs
Speaker 1: baseball hat. Optimism continues here. Unshine fresh air, things behind us,
Speaker 1: Let's play too. I mean, what give us your takeaway
Speaker 1: of the excitement at Wrigley Field? I mean Bill Bill
Speaker 1: Bill uh uh Murray almost I love. I loved his
Speaker 1: rendition to pick me out to the ball games. One
Speaker 1: of my closest friends, George Siegel, is in Chicago and
Speaker 1: he went to the game. I almost went to Chicago
Speaker 1: yesterday and I was going to go to Sluggers. But
Speaker 1: but do you know how much the coverage charges? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm afraid to ask. Yeah, just to get that, don't
Speaker 1: Sluggers is is outside of Wrigley Field. It's a local bar.
Speaker 1: It's a well known hamburg a joint. You know that
Speaker 1: you're gonna at the dinner for fifteen dollars at Yeah.
Speaker 1: Doug explained to our global audience how Wrigley Field in
Speaker 1: the Chicago Cub's experience is different from Fenway Park, is
Speaker 1: different from Dallas. Cowboy football is different from Manchester United. Oh,
Speaker 1: it's so, it's so His historic with the ivy with
Speaker 1: the vines growing on the outfield. UM. I know every
Speaker 1: time I've gone to Wrigley Field. UM uh the uh
Speaker 1: of course I'll never by the way, just to digressive
Speaker 1: a second, I'll never forget. The best uh pitching duel
Speaker 1: in the history of baseballs, as you remember, was with
Speaker 1: my mys in Sandy and the Chicago Cubs when Sandy
Speaker 1: threw a pitch hitter a perfect game. Excuse me in
Speaker 1: September ninth. I think it was against Bob Henley, who
Speaker 1: was a journeyman. Um picture for the Cubs, who just
Speaker 1: came out of the minor leagues. But it's so beautiful.
Speaker 1: And every time I've gone to Wrigley Field, they played
Speaker 1: take me out to the ballgame before the first inning,
Speaker 1: and they have a parent with a child play catch
Speaker 1: and said to field, I mean, what is better than that?
Speaker 1: Doug Cass, you have written often about peak sports viewership
Speaker 1: and media companies. We have not yet had your comments
Speaker 1: on telephone in time Warner. I love what you say
Speaker 1: about everybody trying to copy the giant. Chris Berman over
Speaker 1: at ESPN or arguably helped invent the modern enthusiasm. Why
Speaker 1: are we at peak sports viewership? Yeah, I thought. I
Speaker 1: thought for some time. I've been writing on the on
Speaker 1: the Street dot com since June of two thousands fifteen,
Speaker 1: and one of my largest short positions, which is a
Speaker 1: secular short investment position, has been Disney. It's done well.
Speaker 1: It's gone from hundred and sixteen to about ninety four. UM.
Speaker 1: You know, if we go back to two thousand five,
Speaker 1: when I established this peak sports viewership thesis, the n
Speaker 1: c Double A semi final College Bowls series showed a
Speaker 1: thirty three percent decline in ratings. Viewership at the UH,
Speaker 1: I know you enjoyed. Hockey at the NHL's Winter Classic
Speaker 1: dropped by twenty in two thousand fifteen versus two thousand fourteen.
Speaker 1: Ratings for the college Football's National Championships subsequently declined by
Speaker 1: almost We have a number of factors, I think in
Speaker 1: terms of explaining this. Firstly, we have oversaturation of products. Secondly,
Speaker 1: we have what you just described as these sinine commentators
Speaker 1: who all want to be UM and mimic ESPNS. Chris
Speaker 1: Berman's only one, Chris Berman. Uh, it's gotten annoying. Thirdly,
Speaker 1: the quality of play UM has arguably eroded with parody UM. Fourthly,
Speaker 1: there's or refereeing and a lack of league discipline. You
Speaker 1: know a lot of especially in the NFL, where a
Speaker 1: number of players are socially off the off the reservation. UM,
Speaker 1: we have unsavory player behavior on and off the field
Speaker 1: in other words, UM. And there are numerous viewing alternatives,
Speaker 1: and at this market segmentation, we're in a social media
Speaker 1: driven world. There's so much time each day for sports TV.
Speaker 1: And I just noticed that Nielsen came out on Friday
Speaker 1: that ESPN lost six five thousand subscribers in the month
Speaker 1: of October, which is astonishing. David. I would suggest also
Speaker 1: that Doug doesn't mention as people are exhausted by ads.
Speaker 1: It's just there's a generational ship David jumping Yeah. PC here.
Speaker 1: I noticed in Business Week a few weeks back, looking
Speaker 1: at viewership of NFL primetime games dropping fourteen percent from
Speaker 1: a year earlier. You say it's a secular trend here,
Speaker 1: I know a lot of people have attributed just to
Speaker 1: the to the news cycle and to the election. You
Speaker 1: do think it's greater than that. It's much greater because
Speaker 1: it began in early well actually late thousand fourteen, and
Speaker 1: coincident with cord cutting among cable TV customers. UM. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think this is this is um David. This has
Speaker 1: been in place for nearly two years now, you know.
Speaker 1: I think it's it's a trend. You mentioned Disney, and
Speaker 1: I got to ask you about the complimentarity there with
Speaker 1: with Twitter. Is is Twitter something that you think Disney
Speaker 1: should be taking a look at. It's I don't think
Speaker 1: it's higher's um nature to buy buy a company like that,
Speaker 1: terribly diluted. Disney has its own problems right now, David. Um,
Speaker 1: It's earnings estimates are falling like a rock, and I
Speaker 1: don't think they'll even meet the downgraded expectations I noted
Speaker 1: here In your most recently you've talked about history and
Speaker 1: talked about the difficulties of looking back. Given the environment
Speaker 1: we're in right now with central banks and and and
Speaker 1: quant strategies and whatnot. That'll continue, that will persist. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I was talking this morning, UM on my blog about
Speaker 1: the unusual investing backdrop and that we have these these
Speaker 1: basically three influences, David. We have this this dirty water
Speaker 1: central banking liquidity and zero or negative interest rates. We
Speaker 1: have the dominance of quantz strategies like UM risk parity,
Speaker 1: and vola tending volatility trending strategies who are agnostic to
Speaker 1: private market value, income statements and balance sheets. And then
Speaker 1: we have this proliferation of passive investing through exchange trade
Speaker 1: of funds, and they've all up ended the benefits of
Speaker 1: those like myself and I think Tom who are inclined
Speaker 1: to look to the past for a picture of the future.
Speaker 1: Douglas cast with the sea breezes. Doug, you put out
Speaker 1: a note the other day which had in a lot
Speaker 1: of different companies, I think the great mysteries Amazon with
Speaker 1: with the effort in cloud. They've been on a trajectory.
Speaker 1: Then they get hit a little bit. Whether Douglas casts
Speaker 1: on Mr Bezos and Amazon. I took a basic what
Speaker 1: I described as a trading short rental in the stock
Speaker 1: the day before earnings were released, and I did so
Speaker 1: for two basic reasons. Number one, it appeared that just
Speaker 1: technically the stock was making a double top at eight fifty.
Speaker 1: So had I had a tight stop in my short
Speaker 1: position was meant to be a trade, not not the
Speaker 1: investment short the way Disney is. The second more important
Speaker 1: factor from a fundamental standpoint, Retail isn't disarray. I mean
Speaker 1: the retail stock index just makes new lows day after
Speaker 1: day after day, and I didn't believe that Amazon would
Speaker 1: be immune to the retail carnage. As we moved into
Speaker 1: the holiday season and improved that well, and the stock
Speaker 1: went down um from the top by seven or five points,
Speaker 1: at which time I covered the short and it was
Speaker 1: one of my better shorts of the year. What is
Speaker 1: your tone three or five years out? Is it like
Speaker 1: Dartman where that we're going from the lower left of
Speaker 1: the upper right, or could you be more nuance and
Speaker 1: the gentleman? You know? Um? Back in I'm a bit
Speaker 1: of a student of Warren Buffett, as you know. And
Speaker 1: back in his Chairman's letter to Berkshire shareholders, he was
Speaker 1: quoted as saying, to the extent, Charlie and I have
Speaker 1: been successful. It's because we concentrated on identifying one ft
Speaker 1: hurdles that we could step over, rather than because we
Speaker 1: acquired any ability to clear seven foot hurdles. And I
Speaker 1: think the market is now a seven ft hurdle. Um.
Speaker 1: The SMP five index is expensive. Are nearly all valuation metrics.
Speaker 1: I look at eight of them, Enterprise value to sales,
Speaker 1: enterprise value to IBADA, PD growth, which is the rate
Speaker 1: forward PE cash flow yields, cyclically adjusted PE price to
Speaker 1: book and free cash flow yields, and the aggregate index
Speaker 1: is at the eighty third percentile. However, Tom, if you
Speaker 1: look at the median stock it's at nine percentile. This
Speaker 1: to me is a seven ft hurdle and so I
Speaker 1: want to be risk averse in a period of gross uncertainty.
Speaker 1: You mentioned that uncertainty looking ahead here to the election
Speaker 1: just a week away. What do you think, what effect
Speaker 1: is that going to have in volatility to think and
Speaker 1: how are you covering yourself there? Well, my baseline expectation, Dave,
Speaker 1: is in looking at predict Wise and election odds dot
Speaker 1: com and the Lunding betting parlors um. My baseline expectation
Speaker 1: is that Clinton will win the White House, that the
Speaker 1: Democrats will regain the Senate, and the House will be
Speaker 1: maintained by the Republican Party. And my concern is that
Speaker 1: my concern actually is either a Trump or a Clinton
Speaker 1: victory will be market unfriendly. And the reason I say
Speaker 1: that is because it's very important that we have a
Speaker 1: successful policy. Baton pass from monetary policy which has introduced
Speaker 1: massive amount of liquidity and zero interest rates in this
Speaker 1: country to a thoughtful economically growth catalyzing physical policy. And
Speaker 1: I'm afraid that not only are the parties fractured between themselves,
Speaker 1: but within the parties they're fractured. What were the honest
Speaker 1: that you're playing here on on a big fiscal package,
Speaker 1: on on that fiscal policy that that you mentioned, And
Speaker 1: I wonder what the implications of visa the senses um
Speaker 1: you know, my basic expectation I look at my bad
Speaker 1: case on the market, is I see UH Treasury yield
Speaker 1: rise and the tenure rising to around two and a
Speaker 1: half percent next year, and that the yield gap narrows
Speaker 1: slightly to about four hundred basis points. That produces an
Speaker 1: earnings yield of six point five or a PE of
Speaker 1: about fifteen point five times. And you apply that pe
Speaker 1: multiple to my estimate of around a hundred twenty three
Speaker 1: dollars of S and P or and and I come
Speaker 1: out with an SMP at nine, which is in a
Speaker 1: roughly twelve percent below where it is today. A few
Speaker 1: minutes ago, I asked Steve Whiting the degree to which
Speaker 1: there's there's uncertainty surrounding what central banks are doing right now?
Speaker 1: For you for somebody who who looks at technicals, looks
Speaker 1: at history. When you look at at what the central
Speaker 1: banks are doing, how sure are you of of the
Speaker 1: path there on right now? Well, I think they're they're
Speaker 1: they're trapped. They're trapped um in in what is appearing
Speaker 1: to be a Larry Summers um secular stagnation scenario. And
Speaker 1: the problem I have is that the effectiveness David of
Speaker 1: monetary policy, both domestically and around the world, is losing
Speaker 1: its effectiveness. So we're we are really super reliant on
Speaker 1: on an effective um as I said, baton path to
Speaker 1: physical policy, and I don't see it happening in this country. Yes,
Speaker 1: listen one minute. How do we speed up baseball? I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, it's an important issue. How do we speak
Speaker 1: up the game of baseball? Are we nuts? Well, it's
Speaker 1: the question being asked in a number of sports. You know,
Speaker 1: I played two rounds of golf this weekend. It's the
Speaker 1: same problem with golf. Um Uh, it's a real problem.
Speaker 1: As I said in my in our discussion of sports
Speaker 1: viewers peaking sports viewership, people have just so much time
Speaker 1: in the day, and social media is taking a larger
Speaker 1: proportion of our time. And I don't think. I don't
Speaker 1: think the grand old game is going to be changed
Speaker 1: in our lifetime. Tom Okay, Doug Cast, thanks so much,
Speaker 1: brilliant inspired Doug that you're going as Dennis Gartman for Halloween.
Speaker 1: I think that's just absolutely well. We all wish he's
Speaker 1: on the course, like eighty hours a week here whatever
Speaker 1: and in the county around it. Doug Cast, thank you
Speaker 1: so much. With Cebris Partners. Thanks for listening to the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Surveying podcast. Subscribe and listen to interviews on iTunes, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: or whichever podcast platform you prefer. I'm out on Twitter
Speaker 1: at Tom Keene. David Gura is at David Gura. Before
Speaker 1: the podcast, you can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: Who you put your trust in? Matters? Investors have put
Speaker 1: their trust and independent registered investment advisors to the tune
Speaker 1: four trillion dollars. Why Learn more at find your Independent
Speaker 1: Advisor dot com