Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Penel Podcast. I'm Paul Swinge. 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. For months, a lot of economists
Speaker 1: and traders have been saying, it's just manufacturing. It is
Speaker 1: a specific sector that is suffering specific pain. Today we
Speaker 1: get data showing that a U S services gauge dropped
Speaker 1: to a three year low. A gauge of employment in
Speaker 1: the U S services sector fell into contraction for the
Speaker 1: first time since two thousand ten. This is beyond manufacturing.
Speaker 1: Joining us here, Lena Shilietieva in our senior US economist
Speaker 1: for Bloomberg Economics, Joining us in our Bloomberg Interactive Broker Studios.
Speaker 1: How concerned should we be so? Uh? Today's numbers a
Speaker 1: clear sign that worries you know that we saw in
Speaker 1: the manufacturing sector are spreading beyond into a broader economic activity. However,
Speaker 1: I would question against you know, saying, Okay, this is
Speaker 1: a recession signal, it's not. You know, the sector is
Speaker 1: still expanding, expanding although slower pace. You know. I think
Speaker 1: this kind of number is comparable to what happened back
Speaker 1: into thousands sixteen. Remember when we had China devaluation and
Speaker 1: a market route on the back of it, and that
Speaker 1: affected business sentiment to quite a significant degree. But we
Speaker 1: were not talking about recession. So we're not talking about
Speaker 1: the recession now. We think the probability still remains relatively low. Elena,
Speaker 1: when we saw the manufacturing side of the economy turned
Speaker 1: negative and actually into contraction, I think a lot of
Speaker 1: people felt like it was primarily driven by uncertainties associated
Speaker 1: with the trade tensions. Is that you think that's also
Speaker 1: impacting the service society economy as well? Uh? Sure, So
Speaker 1: if you read some comments, you know, not only look
Speaker 1: at the numbers, but if you read the comments in
Speaker 1: the actual ism report, Uh, there's a lot of discussion
Speaker 1: all across the manufacturing and non manufacturing industries about how
Speaker 1: tariffs are impacting the businesses. So, but what I found
Speaker 1: very interesting in today's report actually is that, uh, some
Speaker 1: some people are talking about how they are substituting how
Speaker 1: they are working to substitute some imports from China with
Speaker 1: UH imports from other countries. So I think eventually this
Speaker 1: will work and we will be just okay. But right
Speaker 1: now is just creating a lot of uncertainty. So how
Speaker 1: much of a concern just sort of raise ahead of
Speaker 1: tomorrow's jobs number. I think it's a significant indicator, you know,
Speaker 1: along with other labor market indicators. I think it's telling
Speaker 1: us we will see another relatively weak number, but again
Speaker 1: not something that will be able to push the unemployment
Speaker 1: rate higher. In fact, we expect the unemployment rate to
Speaker 1: go down by attempts to three point six percent, so
Speaker 1: a one thirty five thousand number that we are forecasting
Speaker 1: would be just enough to do that. So, given that
Speaker 1: we are starting to see a little bit of weakness
Speaker 1: creep into the consumer of the services side um and
Speaker 1: will certainly wait for the jobs data tomorrow, how do
Speaker 1: you think that the FED will react for the remainder
Speaker 1: of this year? Interesting you mentioned that because we already
Speaker 1: heard today after the week, same number, and you know
Speaker 1: other indicators. We heard from UH Charlie Evans overnight he
Speaker 1: was speaking in Madrid and he actually said that he's
Speaker 1: still not convinced they need to act at the October meeting.
Speaker 1: He thinks that fundamentals remain solid, but I think if
Speaker 1: we continue to get weak data like we did today,
Speaker 1: especially the unemployment Rade report, this will push the fits
Speaker 1: And at the end of the months, let's say there
Speaker 1: are some optimists out there saying, let's buy this deep.
Speaker 1: We think that the market is going to turn around
Speaker 1: and that either the feder will come in with stimulus
Speaker 1: or we'll see strength from somewhere else where in the economy.
Speaker 1: Could we see strength, well, you know it's it's the consumer.
Speaker 1: We've been talking about it for quite some time, right,
Speaker 1: So that doesn't this directly feed into consumer spending? And
Speaker 1: it isn't consumer spending essentially a lagging indicator, and employment
Speaker 1: kind of procedes that it depends on how much wages grow, okay,
Speaker 1: and how much will consumers feel optimistic about the outlook
Speaker 1: and will they spend it. So we are heading into
Speaker 1: a holiday season pretty soon, so we'll see how that
Speaker 1: plays out. So that, like early indicators are saying that
Speaker 1: the holiday season will be a good one. So, Lena,
Speaker 1: are you guys at Bloomberg Economics in the camp that UM,
Speaker 1: there could be a recession in or maybe just more
Speaker 1: like the new normal, which might be one and a
Speaker 1: half to two growth, and that might be kind of
Speaker 1: what we have. So we don't see a recession within
Speaker 1: the next twelve months. We think the probability is relatively low.
Speaker 1: We just published some research. Actually our recession indicator is
Speaker 1: that for the next twelve months, and we think that
Speaker 1: we will see a significant slow down in the second
Speaker 1: half of the year uh to something like one percent
Speaker 1: on average from two point six percent in the first
Speaker 1: half of the year. But that by no means means
Speaker 1: recession is coming. I'm just trying to understand going forward.
Speaker 1: It seems like the market is saying the federal reserve
Speaker 1: or cut rates it will be insufficient to fuel economic
Speaker 1: growth real quick. That accurate, I think it is. I
Speaker 1: think you know, the market is thinking the FIT might
Speaker 1: not have enough ammunition to act. They will obviously do
Speaker 1: what they can, but this might require some sort of
Speaker 1: a fiscal stimulus. The chances I don't know. I cannot
Speaker 1: talk about the chances of that, but it seems like
Speaker 1: that's what we need UM at this point. Elena Chila Tieva,
Speaker 1: thank you so much. Senior US economists for Bloomberg Economics,
Speaker 1: joining us here on our Bloomberg Interactor broker studio. George Young,
Speaker 1: partner and portfolio manager at Villary Funds, joins us to
Speaker 1: talk about volatility and trading in this market. Villary Funds
Speaker 1: they are based in the great City of New Orleans,
Speaker 1: but George joins us here live in our Bloomberg Interact
Speaker 1: their broker studio. So, George, I was just talking about,
Speaker 1: you know, these past couple of days, this week has
Speaker 1: just been you know, a sell off on some weekending
Speaker 1: economic news. How are you guys viewing the market right here. Well,
Speaker 1: we're long term investors and I think that's import and
Speaker 1: for people to keep in mind because this is not
Speaker 1: a short term event. It's not like going to the
Speaker 1: casino where you need to cash out at the end
Speaker 1: of the day. So if you can put on some
Speaker 1: blinders and look out into the future again, I'd like
Speaker 1: to think that our investors are investing for retirement, for
Speaker 1: specific goals, whether it's education for the kids, whatever it
Speaker 1: may be. Uh, you need to look at the fact
Speaker 1: that the economy is basically healthy. Yeah, there's some ripples
Speaker 1: out there worried about the manufacturing index, But I think
Speaker 1: that is a short term indicator. Uh, when I say
Speaker 1: the economy is healthy, We've got good g d P numbers,
Speaker 1: we've got low unemployment, we've got not overly strong valuations
Speaker 1: in the stock market. So it's still attracted from a
Speaker 1: pe base, especially in the light of the fact that
Speaker 1: you've got one point six percent yields on the ten
Speaker 1: year treasury. Got to keep all that in mind. So
Speaker 1: this is something people say, we're long term investors, buy
Speaker 1: and hold. The U S. Economy isn't going to collapse entirely.
Speaker 1: It's a good time to just stay invested and stay
Speaker 1: the course. What happened. And if someone is sixty four
Speaker 1: years old, they're going to retire in the next three years,
Speaker 1: and they want to know where should they be hiding
Speaker 1: right now? You know, should they basically shift away from
Speaker 1: all their stocks and just go to cash because there
Speaker 1: is sort of an imminent crash being signaled by weakening
Speaker 1: services and on the heels of manufacturing and then talk
Speaker 1: of trade wars and forget about it. Well, I'll give
Speaker 1: you two answers on that one. If you're sixty four
Speaker 1: years old, that means that you're retiring possibly, but that
Speaker 1: doesn't mean you're going to die tomorrow. So you've got
Speaker 1: to think that you've got another twenty years to live.
Speaker 1: And if that's going to happen on a statistical basis,
Speaker 1: you've got to buy stocks one point six percent and
Speaker 1: a government bond is not going to cut it. So
Speaker 1: you really need to be prepared to invest for a
Speaker 1: longer term. And that's not going to be fun. But again,
Speaker 1: it's very easy to look backwards and see what the
Speaker 1: cell signals were. Again, if you look back at the
Speaker 1: fourth quarter of last year, a lot of people are remembering, oh,
Speaker 1: fourth quarter last year, that was a problem. We're entering
Speaker 1: the fourth quarter or now October, i'm told is a
Speaker 1: bad month. All those things are true, And I have
Speaker 1: no aversion to a sixty four year old having a
Speaker 1: certain amount in cash or certain amount in bonds. But
Speaker 1: I think they've still got to have a preponderance in
Speaker 1: stocks because that's what's going to keep them for the
Speaker 1: long term. I'd say a different answer if you were
Speaker 1: talking about an eighty year old. Life expectancy isn't as long.
Speaker 1: Different needs, different reaction to volatility. Uh. And there's one
Speaker 1: of our old aphorism. Uh, no safe haven for capital
Speaker 1: or capitalists. So you've got to be a little cautious.
Speaker 1: But again, you you enter the stock market assuming there's
Speaker 1: gonna be a certain amount of risk, and you have
Speaker 1: to be willing to take that. So here we are, George,
Speaker 1: ten plus years into this economic cycle. We have signs of,
Speaker 1: you know, a weakening economy, still growing in the US,
Speaker 1: but but weakening. What are the sectors that you think
Speaker 1: that you're recommending to your clients that they pay attention to. Well,
Speaker 1: I think you've got good opportunities in technology. And again
Speaker 1: technology dominates the S and P five. But one common
Speaker 1: characteristic technologies whatever software, for instance, that you buy, you
Speaker 1: as a user, tend to re up that same software,
Speaker 1: and so they've got very visible cash flow streams. The
Speaker 1: other thing that's attractive as most technology companies have very
Speaker 1: little debt, and that's obvious the way that you get
Speaker 1: in trouble nowadays if you have too much debt, and
Speaker 1: as we all know with a lot of corporations, any
Speaker 1: debt that is on a company's books can be refinanced
Speaker 1: at these historically low rates. So I think technology is
Speaker 1: a good area to look at. I want to go
Speaker 1: back to the sort of age issues I'm having. My head,
Speaker 1: of course went on succeed four. I'm not going to
Speaker 1: say it. I'm wondering, do you think then that, for
Speaker 1: no reason, should people change their allocations? In other words,
Speaker 1: let's just say, I mean, should they reduce their allocations
Speaker 1: to equities in a situation where they're needing to preserve
Speaker 1: cash and focus on the income level, or should they
Speaker 1: look to stocks as the new income providers. I think
Speaker 1: that people need to understan and the total return concept,
Speaker 1: and I think most people do that. As you shift,
Speaker 1: and let's say we're talking about i RA, so for
Speaker 1: the argument's sake, you don't have to worry about taxes.
Speaker 1: You can make that shift, and you should as you
Speaker 1: move from let's say the sixty four year old to
Speaker 1: the eighty year old. The other thing to keep in
Speaker 1: mind is that if you do make an abrupt decision
Speaker 1: to liquidate your portfolio and go fifty into cash, what's
Speaker 1: going to be the sign that's going to tell you, Okay,
Speaker 1: now it's quote safe to get back in. It does
Speaker 1: not ring a bell. You never know when that's going
Speaker 1: to happen. So I think it's much better to adopt
Speaker 1: a constant um uh investment policy statement for yourself. Endowment
Speaker 1: funds mutual funds have an investment policy statement and they
Speaker 1: adhere to those with good reason. So if you think
Speaker 1: back about the fourth quarter of last year, think back
Speaker 1: to the first quarter of two thousand nine, when the
Speaker 1: market was hitting loads, it's good that you would have
Speaker 1: stuck to your investment policy statement to maintain the proper
Speaker 1: asset allocation. Well, certainly people who stuck to their allocations
Speaker 1: today in equities are actually going to be pleasantly surprised
Speaker 1: because what looked like it was going to be a
Speaker 1: very down day has turned surprisingly positive with the nastac
Speaker 1: opp nearly six tenths of a percent. George Young, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for being with us. George Young, portfolio
Speaker 1: manager of the Villary Balanced Fund, which trades under the
Speaker 1: ticker v I l l X, joining us now. We
Speaker 1: are so happy to have Damien Sassaur Fixing come Strategistic
Speaker 1: focused on the emerging markets for Bloomberg Intelligence and UH.
Speaker 1: I want to look first at Argentina because it's hundred
Speaker 1: year bonds that were sold just a couple of years ago,
Speaker 1: trading at forty three cents in the dollar trading a
Speaker 1: par not so long ago. What is the implication here, Well,
Speaker 1: I think you want to talk about Argentina, because I
Speaker 1: just returned from Buenos Ayres last week, So let's talk
Speaker 1: about Argentina. Argentina, and I've met with quite a bunch
Speaker 1: of people on the ground, and it's certainly a deflating
Speaker 1: a sentiment down there. But three hundred fifty billion dollars
Speaker 1: of debt outstanding, of which two hundred sixty billion dollars
Speaker 1: is in hard currency, so they will have to undergo
Speaker 1: a major restructuring. I mean, this isn't just gonna be
Speaker 1: a reprofiling maturities such as they've led us to believe.
Speaker 1: This is gonna be led by the I m F, which,
Speaker 1: by the way, forty four billion dollars of that hard
Speaker 1: currency debt is owed to the I m F. And
Speaker 1: so there's gonna be a lot of interplay there. I mean,
Speaker 1: certainly with the Guard moving to the e c B
Speaker 1: and now Krystalina Georgieva ascending to the head of the
Speaker 1: I m F. You know, she's a Bulgarian economist. The
Speaker 1: Bulgaria was bailed out by the I m F BA.
Speaker 1: But really, you have to look back to to know
Speaker 1: why Argentina is in the current situation. It's in Lisa
Speaker 1: and the fact remains, you know, they've got a lot
Speaker 1: of debt outstanding. They need short term relief. It's going
Speaker 1: to be led by the I M F and how
Speaker 1: RGIVA and UM whoever is in office after the elections
Speaker 1: on the seven is. You know, however they play and
Speaker 1: however those negotiations go. We can only hope from the
Speaker 1: back of an external U. S Dollar creditor that they
Speaker 1: go smoothly and then they go quite frankly, quite quickly,
Speaker 1: because in addition to you know, the bonds that are outstanding,
Speaker 1: there's also CDs twenty a billion notional of CDs outstanding,
Speaker 1: of which five billion is net not gross notional outstanding.
Speaker 1: So someone's gonna have to eat that loss if indeed
Speaker 1: money changes his hands and there's a CDs trigger which
Speaker 1: is hit. So you know, there's a lot to look at.
Speaker 1: I mean, certainly, I mean, but you know, just looking
Speaker 1: back at what's in the best interest of Argentina. You know,
Speaker 1: if before my trip down there last week, I would
Speaker 1: have said, you know, most people would have thought that
Speaker 1: you know, a Fernandez Kirshner government would have been deemed
Speaker 1: um bad for the market. I don't think you can
Speaker 1: make that claim anymore. I mean, certainly some of the
Speaker 1: capital controls, and not all capital controls are bad, but
Speaker 1: the Macaree administration, some of the capital controls they just
Speaker 1: put into place. I mean basically what they did was
Speaker 1: they they they basically um wouldn't let local paceol denominated
Speaker 1: money market funds which are holding the salaries for local
Speaker 1: workers basically pay back that money. So you know, I
Speaker 1: mean corporates, local corporates who are using money markets to
Speaker 1: stash their cash couldn't access it to pay salaries last
Speaker 1: month because of a lot of these capital controls. So
Speaker 1: I mean McCree is not well loved locally on the ground,
Speaker 1: and certainly that was probably a very hasty and cumbersome
Speaker 1: move in my opinion. So what's what would be a
Speaker 1: quick resolution here? What kind of timing are we looking for?
Speaker 1: I mean, most I am a you know kind of
Speaker 1: negotiations probably take about six months, um. So anything before
Speaker 1: that would be very very quick, because this is a
Speaker 1: very very complicated restructuring that needs to take place. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, Paul, I mean we have marketable and non
Speaker 1: marketable debt. We have hard currency and local currency that
Speaker 1: we have different creditors. We have pars, we have discoes,
Speaker 1: we have bonars, we have leleaks. I mean, we have
Speaker 1: so many different structures that form that debt stack that
Speaker 1: to kind of go through it all and kind of
Speaker 1: i mean different covenants, different um um, it's just so
Speaker 1: much stuff that you need to go through. But the
Speaker 1: good thing is you do have collective action clauses and
Speaker 1: most of the foreign law debt, so they should be
Speaker 1: able to kind of push things forward a little bit
Speaker 1: more quickly than we've seen in the past. Just in
Speaker 1: a minute, I'm wondering how representative is Argentina of other
Speaker 1: potential potholes in emerging markets. Well, Argentina is very unique.
Speaker 1: I mean this has been going on for years. I
Speaker 1: mean they've defaulted twice in the last twenty years already.
Speaker 1: I mean again, a lot of us started with with
Speaker 1: with in ninety nine when Russia defaulted on its debt
Speaker 1: and basically that pushed a great recession into Latin America.
Speaker 1: If you look at OTWO, Brazil emerged from that, and
Speaker 1: there was a similar politician that was actually um running
Speaker 1: under a very kind of populous platform in Braziliano two
Speaker 1: and that was Lula and so Lula, which was the
Speaker 1: market thought he would be very market unfriendly going into office,
Speaker 1: actually wound up being very friendly in terms of the market.
Speaker 1: And actually, you know, the economy, look at where it
Speaker 1: is now relative to our to where it once was. Um,
Speaker 1: you can only hope that Alberta Fernandez might kind of
Speaker 1: fit into that category. I mean, the verdict is still
Speaker 1: out because he's not saying anything until he's elected, and
Speaker 1: we don't know what it was cabinet is going to
Speaker 1: be comprised of. But I think that's gonna be really
Speaker 1: key after the election. Who does he pick to be
Speaker 1: in his cabinet? From an economics perspective, that is the
Speaker 1: most important thing that we're looking at right now. Paul,
Speaker 1: all right, well, have you back on to give us
Speaker 1: some colors. This plays out big, big numbers for Argentina.
Speaker 1: Hopefully sooner ra the later they get a resolution there.
Speaker 1: Damien sass Our, chief Emerging markets credit strategist, joining us
Speaker 1: in a Bloomberg Interactive broker's studio. People don't want to
Speaker 1: pay to trade stocks. That has been the resounding message
Speaker 1: behind the success of apps like robin Hood, which allows
Speaker 1: people to do just that. Joining us down to talk
Speaker 1: about the shift to no fee trading is Bill Capuzzi.
Speaker 1: He's chief executive officer of APEX Clearing, joining us on
Speaker 1: the phone from Chicago. Bill, I want to talk a
Speaker 1: little bit about Charles Schwab's decision announcement earlier this week
Speaker 1: to abandon commissions for their brokers and move into a
Speaker 1: model that more closely resembles robin Hood. What was your reaction. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm not surprised. I'm not surprised at all that that happen,
Speaker 1: and it's just a matter of time. Uh. You know,
Speaker 1: as you mentioned robin Hood, which we helped as a
Speaker 1: custodial uh partner to robin Hood back when we helped
Speaker 1: them launch of the free app. We also helped since
Speaker 1: then a couple of dozen others offer free trading solutions,
Speaker 1: and uh, there's there's demand right look at robin and
Speaker 1: they have, you know, close to seven million users today
Speaker 1: and and the reason for it is people are looking
Speaker 1: for yield, looking for opportunities and lowering barriers to investing.
Speaker 1: So I'm not surprised at all, and I'm certainly not
Speaker 1: surprised that TV and the trade followed suit. And my
Speaker 1: expectation is somewhere in the next twenty four hours we'll
Speaker 1: hear from from Fidelity as well. So, Bill, we've seen
Speaker 1: in the asset management business, uh, you know, rates UM
Speaker 1: fees continuing to go lower. Where does just give us
Speaker 1: a sense of like the economic model for like a
Speaker 1: robin head for robin hood, for example, how did they
Speaker 1: make money? Yeah, that's a great question. You know, there's
Speaker 1: there's lots of pressed out over the last twenty four
Speaker 1: hours around this and and the reality is there's there's
Speaker 1: a few different levers I'll say that are that are
Speaker 1: pulled in terms of how to monetize you know, a
Speaker 1: free uh you know from an explicit the perspective of
Speaker 1: free solution UM one is payment for order flow, right,
Speaker 1: so to they send people are trading actively in stocks
Speaker 1: those orders. Retailers are routed to market makers UM, and
Speaker 1: there's spread in the name UM and there's an opportunity
Speaker 1: to make make money off of the trading UM. And
Speaker 1: what I would say is, uh, you know, for retail investor,
Speaker 1: the friction lists way of trading today, it's probably never
Speaker 1: been better as a matter of fact, I want to say,
Speaker 1: probably it's never been better than this today, and the
Speaker 1: spreads are so tight. Uh you know, there's some opportunity there,
Speaker 1: but I think you know, in terms of the win
Speaker 1: win for an end investor, it's a it's a tremendous
Speaker 1: time in just in terms of trading friction. The second
Speaker 1: is interest, right, So you know, if you look at
Speaker 1: schwabing what they came out with, they said, hey, look,
Speaker 1: three to four percent of our top line revenue came
Speaker 1: from commissions. The vast majority of their uh you know
Speaker 1: there revenue today is either interest income or fee based revenue.
Speaker 1: And then the last thing that's not talked about a
Speaker 1: lot is just traditional brokerage is um stock loan al Right,
Speaker 1: So every anytime someone is buying a stock, there's an
Speaker 1: opportunity on the street where someone wants to short the
Speaker 1: stock and is looking for the ability to loan the
Speaker 1: stock and has money made in terms of stock loan.
Speaker 1: So despite all of those areas to possibly make money,
Speaker 1: we are looking at charl Schwab shares down an additional
Speaker 1: three point two today following a three three point three
Speaker 1: percent loss yesterday and a nine point seven percent loss
Speaker 1: the day that they made this announcement, So it does
Speaker 1: seem like people will view this in a negative light
Speaker 1: in terms of earning his profitability. There is a saying
Speaker 1: there's no such thing as free lunch. For individual investors
Speaker 1: who are looking at potential brokers, what should they be
Speaker 1: looking for for truly a good deal and not perhaps
Speaker 1: some fees that are gonna be baked in on the
Speaker 1: back end. Yeah, that's a that's a great question. And
Speaker 1: I think that there are some things right. So, uh,
Speaker 1: you know the fine print you talked about the free launch, right,
Speaker 1: make the analogy to you know, the ads for Verizon
Speaker 1: where it's a free you get a free iPhone? Right,
Speaker 1: it's not free, it's baked into a longer term contract,
Speaker 1: and the same those for brokerage. Like people made to
Speaker 1: look at things like is there a minimum balance that's
Speaker 1: required in the account? Is there a certain trade size
Speaker 1: that I have to do in order to to to
Speaker 1: get that quote unquote free? Um, what's the interest that
Speaker 1: I'm going to receive on the cash that's that's that's
Speaker 1: in these accounts? Um? What what my pain for options? Right?
Speaker 1: If I'm going to trade an option, what's the cost
Speaker 1: of an option? And then the last one and kind
Speaker 1: of the last fontira is mutual funds. Um. You know,
Speaker 1: are are the fees for mutual funds free or is
Speaker 1: it close to free? Um um? I do think sort of.
Speaker 1: The one of the consequences of of this is that
Speaker 1: there's they're going to be further pressure on the mutual
Speaker 1: fund industry, right because ets look at Schwab's announcement, equities
Speaker 1: and e t s are free. Well, mutual funds aren't, uh,
Speaker 1: And it's just gonna put more and more pressure on
Speaker 1: the mutual fund industry and you know, drive more into
Speaker 1: the etf world. Bill Capozzi, thanks so much for joining us.
Speaker 1: Really really appreciate your thoughts on this move. We're seeing
Speaker 1: an asset management business towards zero fees. Chief executive officer
Speaker 1: of APEX Clearing Bill joined us on the phone from Chicago. Again.
Speaker 1: Just really amazing using change to the asset management business. UH.
Speaker 1: With Charles Schwab announcing going to zero costs for many
Speaker 1: of their equity trades, just a real change in the industry.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg P and L podcast.
Speaker 1: You can subscribe and listen to interviews at Apple Podcasts
Speaker 1: or whatever. Podcast platform you prefer Paul Sweeney, I'm on
Speaker 1: Twitter at pt Sweeney. I'm Lisa Abram Woyd's I'm on
Speaker 1: Twitter at Lisa Abram Woyds One. Before the podcast, you
Speaker 1: can always catch us worldwide on Bloomberg Radio