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, market pros, and Bloomberg experts,
Speaker 1: along with essential market moving news. Find the Bloomberg Markets
Speaker 1: Podcast on Apple podcast or wherever you listen to podcasts,
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com. Well. A huge number of
Speaker 1: investigations are underway inside federal agencies and private sector companies
Speaker 1: trying to determine the extent of the cyber attack and
Speaker 1: massive cyber attack. Of course, Russian hackers are suspected. Let's
Speaker 1: bring in somebody who may be able to tell us
Speaker 1: a little bit more. At least we'll be able to
Speaker 1: tell us what the process is right now for going
Speaker 1: about trying to solve this problem. Jack Divine is former
Speaker 1: chief of c i A Worldwide Operations and its founding
Speaker 1: partner and president of the ark And Group, which is
Speaker 1: a risk consultancy and an intelligence firm. Jack, have you
Speaker 1: ever seen anything of this scope and scale? Um? No,
Speaker 1: I think this is really a critical uh point in
Speaker 1: the cyber war that's taking place. It should be a
Speaker 1: real wake up call. The dimension, the aggressiveness the the
Speaker 1: collecting intelligence around the world is a common, common event,
Speaker 1: but the magnitude of going into our health units and
Speaker 1: into every aspect of of our defense system is really
Speaker 1: over over the top, an extremely aggressive thing. There's one
Speaker 1: other point I'd make. I think we're only looking at
Speaker 1: the tip of the iceberg here, Jack, give us a
Speaker 1: sense of kind of how this has progressed, this being
Speaker 1: kind of Russian state sponsored hacking of US government operations.
Speaker 1: Give us just maybe the history of this and and
Speaker 1: where are we right now in that compendium. We talked
Speaker 1: Paul on the show before about the fact that you know,
Speaker 1: there has been a continuous um continuous intelligence activities by
Speaker 1: the Russians over the last twenty five years. When the
Speaker 1: wall fell down, there was a temper every break, but
Speaker 1: there has been an aggressive operational activity. Was particularly brought
Speaker 1: the light in which we could touch on. So the
Speaker 1: Russians are still using the Cold War strategy of trying
Speaker 1: to keep the United States off balance and the collect
Speaker 1: information inside of our our system. The difference today as
Speaker 1: exemplified by they are so aggressive that they are now
Speaker 1: going beyond the collection to putting themselves in the position
Speaker 1: where they can act on it. And that is something
Speaker 1: that I think people have missed this point, not only
Speaker 1: during the election and shrugged at the fact that they
Speaker 1: were a collection, but they used it. And I'm afraid
Speaker 1: here what we're looking at through these trap doors that
Speaker 1: we are now only getting a handle on partially there
Speaker 1: will be in a position to actually make things happen
Speaker 1: beyond collecting bringing down our utility system, our communication system.
Speaker 1: And I believe they're much more deeply embedded in our
Speaker 1: defense contracting world than it's even represented by this most
Speaker 1: recent attack. You made a chilling comment a moment ago
Speaker 1: saying we're only looking at the tip of the iceberg.
Speaker 1: But before we get to that, I want to ask
Speaker 1: you what exactly are they planning on doing If they're
Speaker 1: you know, standing around in all of our systems in
Speaker 1: the Defense Department and you know, all of the agencies
Speaker 1: and in private companies, what are they waiting for? Well,
Speaker 1: I think not to go to television shows and drama
Speaker 1: and so on. But you know, they have sleepers, and
Speaker 1: they build, and we build as well, capabilities to be
Speaker 1: used in a crisis. So when you use it as
Speaker 1: part of a weapon, it's like having your nuclear weapons
Speaker 1: are all sitting there, And the question is when you
Speaker 1: use them. You use them when there's a conference, Asian
Speaker 1: or you want to exercise, um, exercise capabilities. They used
Speaker 1: it in the election. That was the That's where there
Speaker 1: was such a break in the rules that I operated
Speaker 1: and we had an understanding we weren't going to score
Speaker 1: around in each other's internal systems, and they did. That
Speaker 1: was the and I think we just didn't spend enough
Speaker 1: time analyzing that. So today they're in our systems. And
Speaker 1: when I say the defense contracting or when you look
Speaker 1: at the way they approached it, it's just classic. I
Speaker 1: mean they go through an outside contractor they get into
Speaker 1: the software system which then allows them windows in the
Speaker 1: other other other areas. So um, you know, that's to
Speaker 1: my way of thinking, that's that's actually so their preposition.
Speaker 1: Those trap doors were not meant for a one time collection,
Speaker 1: and that's been said by many many commentators on this.
Speaker 1: This was for persistent collection and for use in the
Speaker 1: time of crisis. Check. What should the US response be? Now?
Speaker 1: This is this is one of the trickiest questions I
Speaker 1: think of all that you know, the new administration has
Speaker 1: to deal with it. Um. I think there's been as
Speaker 1: I said, an awareness of this threat, but not the
Speaker 1: full dimensions of it, and there needs to be a
Speaker 1: strategy and an organizational effort to build to build a capability.
Speaker 1: We need to plus up and make additional expenditures and
Speaker 1: looking at the Russian threat, the Chinese threat, we need
Speaker 1: to give it the right priority and UH and develop
Speaker 1: the capabilities. Having said that, it's like the mutual destruction
Speaker 1: It's like the nucletor UH armament race. Eventually we could
Speaker 1: destroy each other and we sat down and started disarmament
Speaker 1: and basically not proliferation efforts. This is even more difficult
Speaker 1: because of the case of the missiles you could see it.
Speaker 1: We need to have new ground rule. New ground knows
Speaker 1: we can start threatening each other and responding and that
Speaker 1: becomes a really dangerou this world. That becomes the Cold
Speaker 1: War two UH area. We need. There needs to be
Speaker 1: a break in this and so far the Russians have
Speaker 1: not seen that. They've seen no indication that they're willing
Speaker 1: to sit down. But there needs to be a This
Speaker 1: is a subterranneal weapon system, so you need a subterraneal
Speaker 1: agreement that there was no one's going to be able
Speaker 1: to get out there and talk about what are the
Speaker 1: parameters of cyber warfare among among ourselves, But there should
Speaker 1: be a diplomatic and intelligence effort to open a dialogue
Speaker 1: about what where are the rules? What are the rules
Speaker 1: of the game. We did have them during the Cold War,
Speaker 1: and we're we don't have them, and we're looking at
Speaker 1: the same type of dynamic that we had with the
Speaker 1: juncular weapons. Other than cyber is not connectic, it's not
Speaker 1: going to not directly going to kill people. But we
Speaker 1: need a new we need a new approach, and we
Speaker 1: need to put this right at the top of our agenda.
Speaker 1: You mentioned that this is only the tip of the iceberg.
Speaker 1: Give us some idea of where you think this goals. Well,
Speaker 1: I think what's missing here is these are a lot
Speaker 1: of the systems. You see the sophistication, you see the approach,
Speaker 1: but what you don't see is how deep into our
Speaker 1: most sensitive secrets are they. And you don't really see
Speaker 1: a lot in this one about what are our defense
Speaker 1: systems that have been compromised. Nobody wants to talk about that,
Speaker 1: but I can assure you that the same techniques that
Speaker 1: are used here against the Energy and Commerce and Treasury
Speaker 1: and so I've been used for years. This is why
Speaker 1: when they talk about March, we're missing the point. This
Speaker 1: particular attack is a March attack. But I tried to
Speaker 1: issue since since cyber became an operational backage, you know,
Speaker 1: the turn of this decade. You know, there has been
Speaker 1: a unceasing effort. That's my point. This battle with Russia
Speaker 1: and what has shown up here, it's a texture of
Speaker 1: the relationship that someone was thinking that Russia it's not
Speaker 1: in an adversarial mode. This really should be a wake
Speaker 1: up call because they have been doing this for the
Speaker 1: past years. Yeah, so I think we need to sharpen
Speaker 1: our attention. Hey, Jack, we're gonna have to leave it there,
Speaker 1: just out of time. Jack Divine, founding partner of the
Speaker 1: ark And Group, also author of a new book entitled
Speaker 1: Spymaster's Prison. Well, the scientists have done their job delivering
Speaker 1: that one, but two and likely at least three in
Speaker 1: the near term possible vaccines for the marketplace. Now it's
Speaker 1: up to the supply chain to get those vaccines out
Speaker 1: to consumers. UH to get a sense of kind of
Speaker 1: where we are in that process and how this whole
Speaker 1: process may play out. We welcome Craig Garthwaite, director of
Speaker 1: the Program on Healthcare and a professor in Hospital and
Speaker 1: Health Services at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern
Speaker 1: University based in Evanston, Illinois. Craig, thanks so much for
Speaker 1: joining us here. You know, so again, the way I
Speaker 1: like to frame is, the scientists have just done a
Speaker 1: fabulous job of coming up with multiple vaccines and record time.
Speaker 1: Now the question is how do we get them distributed
Speaker 1: efficiently and timely to the marketplace. What are your thoughts
Speaker 1: as to how the US is doing on this front. Yeah,
Speaker 1: thank thanks for having me. I would expand a bit
Speaker 1: on not just it's not just distribution, it's also manufacturing.
Speaker 1: Unlike sort of a treatment for when people get sick.
Speaker 1: We have to vaccinate everyone in the United States. So
Speaker 1: we're looking at needing, you know, three hundred million people
Speaker 1: to get vaccinated. And if it's a two shot process
Speaker 1: like the Fiser and the Madurna vaccines that we have
Speaker 1: approved now for emergency use, right, that's six hundred million
Speaker 1: doses that we're going to need. Um And I think
Speaker 1: the US is, you know, initially doing well. What I
Speaker 1: mean by that is that we we placed orders to
Speaker 1: get up a lot of vaccine for our healthcare workers
Speaker 1: in December and early JUNI worry, and we're doing a
Speaker 1: good job rolling those out. My real con learned is
Speaker 1: that we seem to be are unwilling to really spend
Speaker 1: what's necessary to make sure that in the second and
Speaker 1: third quarter of one that we're getting all of the
Speaker 1: vaccine supplies that we need. And what I mean by
Speaker 1: that is we should be over investing here. We should buy,
Speaker 1: if we can, enough of the Moderna vaccine and enough
Speaker 1: of the Fiser vaccine so that either one of those
Speaker 1: will be able to treat as many Americans as possible,
Speaker 1: because you know, the supply chain could break down, there
Speaker 1: could be a manufacturing problem, uh, there could be any
Speaker 1: number of things that happened with one of the two manufacturers.
Speaker 1: And so this is this is when it's time for
Speaker 1: sort of a belt and suspenders approached to this. Is
Speaker 1: there any indication, Dr Garthwaite that we're not doing that
Speaker 1: or that there there would be the ability to do
Speaker 1: that and somebody decided not to UH for the Fiser vaccine,
Speaker 1: it appears that Fiser had asked us to exercise an
Speaker 1: option that we have in our initial contract to buy
Speaker 1: more vaccine, and for reasons that have yet to be
Speaker 1: explained by the administration, we we have not done that.
Speaker 1: Um from the reporting in the news and conversations of
Speaker 1: how people involved, it seems like Fiser asked to do that,
Speaker 1: to do that several times, we did not, and so
Speaker 1: instead Fiser then gave the option to the European governments
Speaker 1: that also had a similar options, who might have moved
Speaker 1: ahead of us in line. And I just can't understand
Speaker 1: any reason why we would not be trying to exercise
Speaker 1: every option we can to get access to as much
Speaker 1: vaccine as we can as fast as possible. There's given
Speaker 1: the amount of economic and sort of public health destruction
Speaker 1: that the pandemic is causing, there's just no rationale, particularly
Speaker 1: at the prices that are being talked about, why we
Speaker 1: wouldn't be trying to buy literally every dose we can
Speaker 1: get our hands on, because the worst cases will over
Speaker 1: buy and then we can give it to other countries
Speaker 1: when we don't need it. So, Craig, you say we
Speaker 1: we should buy, I'm not sure who we is? Is
Speaker 1: it the federal government we've because we really haven't had
Speaker 1: a federal government presence during this whole endemic. To begin with,
Speaker 1: it's really been left up to UH states, who is
Speaker 1: the we that goes out and you know, acquires the
Speaker 1: stock of vaccines, so that we is the federal government
Speaker 1: in this case. And this I agree with you that
Speaker 1: overall the federal government has really fallen down on the
Speaker 1: job yet, except when it comes to the focus on
Speaker 1: developing vaccines, where there has been there's been a lot
Speaker 1: of funding given. So the Maderna vaccine was was funded
Speaker 1: entirely by the US government. Feiser did not accept money
Speaker 1: for research and development, but did accept what we referred
Speaker 1: to as an advanced market commitment. And all that means
Speaker 1: is that we agree that if your vaccine works, if
Speaker 1: you get to prove, we're going to buy it, guarantee
Speaker 1: we will buy it. And we said we would buy
Speaker 1: a hundred million doses with an option for five million more.
Speaker 1: And that's what that's what we didn't exercise. But this
Speaker 1: is all being organized by the federal government. So if
Speaker 1: you were designing how to go about this, because certainly
Speaker 1: that the PPE rollout and that's a light chain never worked,
Speaker 1: still isn't working, apparently, how would you design this? I mean,
Speaker 1: I think think you run into some difficulties when it
Speaker 1: comes to the vaccine. That the public health authorities in
Speaker 1: every state have a lot of power as how things
Speaker 1: get distributed, and so the state of the government is
Speaker 1: really working with the state government. I don't think to
Speaker 1: date what we're seeing though, is a problem on the
Speaker 1: distribution of the vaccine to the states. But I think
Speaker 1: you know, we're we're getting it the people, We're getting
Speaker 1: it out relatively quickly. What we really need to be
Speaker 1: focusing on is making sure that we have the commitment
Speaker 1: from the manufacturers that we get the vaccine as fast
Speaker 1: as possible, and that that's it gets into what we
Speaker 1: sometimes referred to as vaccine nationalism, where you know, this
Speaker 1: is a global problem. I understand, but the federal government
Speaker 1: is supposed to be looking out for the United States
Speaker 1: citizens first. That's what we elected with them to do.
Speaker 1: Um And once we get the vaccine sort of pandemic
Speaker 1: under control here, then we can think a bit more
Speaker 1: magnantiously about the rest of the world. Alright, So, professor,
Speaker 1: if I'm a viser or Moderna or you know, Astrosencare
Speaker 1: Johnson and Johnson, if the US government comes knocking on
Speaker 1: my door and says I want everything yet, got I mean,
Speaker 1: how do I say? No? Yeah, I mean they do
Speaker 1: have contractual obligations, right, they did sign things with the
Speaker 1: European Union. But I'm very sympathetic in your position. No. Um,
Speaker 1: we've been debating why the United States pays high drug
Speaker 1: prices and higher drug prices and the rest of the
Speaker 1: world for over decades now. Um, I would hope that
Speaker 1: one thing we've gotten for being such good customers now
Speaker 1: and I promise to be good customers in the future,
Speaker 1: is a little bit of preference when it comes to
Speaker 1: getting access to things like the vaccine. UM. And so
Speaker 1: I do think that the door is not shut, probably
Speaker 1: on those visor doses. I think there's more negotiation that
Speaker 1: will happen. And I really just want to implore policymakers
Speaker 1: to not be pennywise poundful. Is here right that you
Speaker 1: pay extra for the vaccine. I don't care pay sixty
Speaker 1: dollars a dose, given what it can do for the
Speaker 1: economy for of a country. Thinking about we're passing a
Speaker 1: nearly one trillion dollar stimulus again to try and keep
Speaker 1: the economy limping along. Right, if we just get all
Speaker 1: of the vaccine we need, we don't have to worry
Speaker 1: about today. Most we can get people back to work,
Speaker 1: we can open back up businesses, and so they're really
Speaker 1: at the prices we're talking about, it is almost impossible
Speaker 1: to overpay for the vaccine. And we should make that
Speaker 1: clear to manufacturers that our checkbook is open if you
Speaker 1: will give us the supplies. How do you price this
Speaker 1: if you're a fiser or a cover or or or
Speaker 1: a Maderna or somebody with a vaccine that's maybe a
Speaker 1: little less desirable. So so for the fiser over there,
Speaker 1: they've actually I think shown remarkable restraint in terms of
Speaker 1: the amount of value of their vaccine capture or creates
Speaker 1: that they're trying to capture with their price. So we're
Speaker 1: looking at about four dollars for the two dose vaccine
Speaker 1: for fiser um and that's, you know, given what that
Speaker 1: vaccine is doing for someone that that's a pretty low
Speaker 1: price and well below a lot of you know, food
Speaker 1: vaccines and other things that people take that off far
Speaker 1: less efficacious um. And so I do think that they're
Speaker 1: going to earn a lot of money, Let's be clear, right,
Speaker 1: because forty times a billion doses is you know a
Speaker 1: lot that that that no one's gonna be upset about that,
Speaker 1: but I don't think that the pharmaceutical companies are trying
Speaker 1: to take too much value. Yeah, it really is a
Speaker 1: phenomenal thing to watch playoffs from a safe distance. Of course,
Speaker 1: our thanks to you, Professor Craig garth Waite. He's director
Speaker 1: of the Program and Healthcare at Northwestern University's Kellogg School
Speaker 1: of Management. It is time for Bloomberg Opinion were joined
Speaker 1: this morning by Bloomberg Opinion columns Brian Schapatta. He covers
Speaker 1: all things on the fixed income site and fascinating column
Speaker 1: out Brian has uh Jamie Diamond gets his thirty billion
Speaker 1: dollar buy back wish. Brian, thanks so much for joining
Speaker 1: us here. Boy, Jamie Diamond wasted no time in announcing
Speaker 1: this significant buyback program. Give us the background of what's
Speaker 1: happening here with the big banks. Yeah, it was pretty incredible.
Speaker 1: Just ten minutes after the Federal Reserve released its second
Speaker 1: round of bank stress tests, they decided to do another
Speaker 1: round because of the coronavirus pandemic and obviously it's impact
Speaker 1: wouldn't be clear for many months to come. So the
Speaker 1: Fed released its stress tests and basically said all the
Speaker 1: banks passed with flying colors UM, which was which was
Speaker 1: a clear bill of health, and as a result, they
Speaker 1: sort of loosened the restrictions on whether banks could buy
Speaker 1: back stock. And so within ten minutes of that announcement,
Speaker 1: Jamie Diamond and and uh JP Morgan came out late
Speaker 1: Friday after markets closed and said we're starting a thirty
Speaker 1: billion dollars buyback program. Overall, eleven billion dollars among the
Speaker 1: sixth largest US banks uh could potentially be bought back UM.
Speaker 1: So it's a it's a big win for the banks,
Speaker 1: a pretty decent win for the bank shareholders, and for
Speaker 1: Jamie Diamond, who has been counting the table wanting to
Speaker 1: buy back his stock when it's been so low over
Speaker 1: the past year. It's a big win as well. What
Speaker 1: were the assumptions made presume They were pretty harsh to
Speaker 1: allow for the pandemic, But were they harsh enough? By yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean one of the things that I looked at
Speaker 1: most closely was the unemployment rate that was assumed. And
Speaker 1: so there were a couple of assumptions with the unemployment
Speaker 1: rate would spike to twelve percent and either come back
Speaker 1: pretty quickly, or with spike into the double digits and
Speaker 1: recover more slowly, and in both of those scenarios, UM
Speaker 1: the banks did find. It was always going to be
Speaker 1: a question of whether UM the sides looking at slightly
Speaker 1: the right metrics, whether uh it's it was harsh enough.
Speaker 1: But I think what we learned over the course of
Speaker 1: this year especially is the SET itself can step in
Speaker 1: and and do a lot to uh stymy any um,
Speaker 1: any major crisis. UM. I won't expected that it could
Speaker 1: be a potentially for a long recession when we were
Speaker 1: staring at the worst of it in March and April,
Speaker 1: and it turned out to be to be pretty short lived. UM.
Speaker 1: Congress came through with obviously with a fiscal package on
Speaker 1: the SET as well on the market side. So, Brian,
Speaker 1: how do how do we characterize the I guess the
Speaker 1: financial health of some of these big banks here as
Speaker 1: they think about you know, buy backs and and things
Speaker 1: like that. Are they in I guess the FED feels
Speaker 1: pretty comfortable at this stage. Yeah, only little BRAINERD potential
Speaker 1: candidates to be the next SET chair actually just sensed
Speaker 1: and said that she would prefer that they don't do
Speaker 1: that and and hold on to more of their cash
Speaker 1: and their capital. UM. But I mean I think the
Speaker 1: moral of the story is that it was such a
Speaker 1: sharp snapback that even though you saw these massive loan
Speaker 1: lost provisions from the banks earlier this year, UM, a
Speaker 1: lot of those loans are performing now and it's not
Speaker 1: necessarily going to be as bad as initially feared, in
Speaker 1: part because there was a tremendous fiscal stimulus package. I mean,
Speaker 1: make no mistake, there's still a lot of pain out there,
Speaker 1: but it's not quite as widespread and potentially systemic as
Speaker 1: I think a lot of people feared. There are pockets
Speaker 1: and weakness as opposed to put all over the board.
Speaker 1: On the face of it, I can understand how the
Speaker 1: FED would give the go ahead. Right we're hearing a
Speaker 1: lot about how markets are at all time highs. The
Speaker 1: Khad recovery means that affluent people are not really experiencing
Speaker 1: a recession, and of course it's affluent people that are
Speaker 1: invested in the stock market and in banks. At the
Speaker 1: same time, the FED itself has suggested that it doesn't
Speaker 1: know what's going to happen next year. We don't know
Speaker 1: how much of this unemployment is going to be structural unemployment,
Speaker 1: and we don't know if there's going to be more
Speaker 1: pain when we expect demand to return, Will that demand
Speaker 1: return or will have habits have changed forever? Is that
Speaker 1: taken into account at old Bryan, Yeah, I think that
Speaker 1: the real thing that's going to be an issue for
Speaker 1: the FED going forward, all of your you know, like
Speaker 1: you said, they don't have a clear sense of what's
Speaker 1: going to happen with the economy. But even still, I
Speaker 1: think they have to be started starting to be looking
Speaker 1: at financial conditions today, notwithstanding um and just thinking, wow,
Speaker 1: the markets are wide open. People are people are happy,
Speaker 1: people are seeing their stock work ohios go up. Anybody
Speaker 1: who wants to borrow, whether it's a large corporation or
Speaker 1: a small municipality, is able to do so pretty easily
Speaker 1: at record low interest rates, And so I think they're
Speaker 1: trying to balance that that. There is still a lot
Speaker 1: of pain out there. The labor market is very uncertain,
Speaker 1: and inflation outlook looks better than it has been but
Speaker 1: still kind of dicey. On the other hand, financial markets,
Speaker 1: which they have a large hand in, are doing incredibly well,
Speaker 1: so that I think they're trying to balance both of those. Alright,
Speaker 1: we will see certainly the banks are performing just find
Speaker 1: day daping Morgan itself of three even as this market decreases.
Speaker 1: So we'll see how long that good feeling lasts. Daping
Speaker 1: Morgan itself with a thirty billion dollar buy back. Brian Chapatta,
Speaker 1: thank you very much. Brian is Bloomberg opinion columnist and
Speaker 1: has written a great column today on this stress test results,
Speaker 1: which children banks are weathering the pandemic and can actually
Speaker 1: give it's some dividend payments and also start buying back
Speaker 1: their own shares about six months earlier than people have
Speaker 1: been forecasting. So a little bit of a surprise after
Speaker 1: the close on Friday, very excited to talk to our
Speaker 1: next guest, who is the CEO of Wild Alaskan. It's
Speaker 1: exactly what it says on the tin, literally, Aaron Callenberg,
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for joining us on the seafood industry,
Speaker 1: on its supply chain and on business. You say, it's
Speaker 1: up four times from the start of explained to us
Speaker 1: how that manifested itself. Thanks for having me. Uh yeah,
Speaker 1: just a little bit of background. You know, Wild Alaskan
Speaker 1: Company is a monthly seafood membership service. We said, ship
Speaker 1: a curated box of wild Cot Sustainable seafood two members
Speaker 1: all across the country. And it's true, you know, UM,
Speaker 1: we have grown about four x this year over a
Speaker 1: hundred yeah, over a hundred and forty thousand members. UM.
Speaker 1: You know, obviously the pandemic has been a global tragedy,
Speaker 1: but Wild Alaskan is very grateful to be part of
Speaker 1: the solution of bringing sustainable seafood to members across the country.
Speaker 1: So Aaron, give us a sense of just kind of
Speaker 1: take us back to maybe pre pandemic kind of how
Speaker 1: your business was trending, and then you know how it's
Speaker 1: evolved over the last you know, nine to ten months. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, the business was doing quite well prior to
Speaker 1: the pandemic. UM. I would say that we are now
Speaker 1: in a position we had planned and projected to be
Speaker 1: three years from now. So really, you know, we've stayed
Speaker 1: the course. It's just been accelerated into a shorter amount
Speaker 1: of time. UM. And you know, nothing has really changed,
Speaker 1: you know in terms of our our targeting, you know,
Speaker 1: our ability to scale and accommodate UM. You know, the
Speaker 1: subscribers is really a tribute to uh, the Alaskan seafood industry, right. UM.
Speaker 1: This the fully domesticated product UM caught and processed in
Speaker 1: the United States, so we weren't dependent on any foreign
Speaker 1: supply chains for the seafood or for our packaging material,
Speaker 1: and so we didn't really have any supply disruptions. It
Speaker 1: was business as usual, just accelerated. So, Aaron, I'm curious,
Speaker 1: has Breggsit presented any opportunities for you or is that
Speaker 1: something you stay away from entirely? Is there is there
Speaker 1: a way for you guys to help out with the
Speaker 1: fisheries problem, let's say by providing your fish. We don't
Speaker 1: currently ship outside of the U s um It's something
Speaker 1: that's on our long term mid the long term, uh
Speaker 1: you know roadmap, you know, to part to start uh
Speaker 1: booting up for filming centers in other countries. But right now,
Speaker 1: you know, we're servicing the American domestic market. I will
Speaker 1: say that, you know, Alaska seafood in general is consumed
Speaker 1: primarily abroad. It's kind of ironic, you know, Americans don't
Speaker 1: actually eat their own seafood, the seafood from their own backyard.
Speaker 1: Most Alaskan seafood is exported already. So Wild Alaskan Company
Speaker 1: is an attempt to get Americans to eat as beautiful,
Speaker 1: sustainable seafood that that by and large they're ignoring in
Speaker 1: favor of farm farm fish. You know, that's being imported now,
Speaker 1: so so so quite the opposite from our perspective. Alright,
Speaker 1: So Aaron, I'm I'm you know, what I know about
Speaker 1: Alaskan seafood and fishing is kind of when I watch
Speaker 1: on TV with the Wildest Catch or whatever it's called,
Speaker 1: these crazy people going out and is just incredible rough
Speaker 1: seas of the Alaskan waters. There. Talked just about sustainable
Speaker 1: fishing market or the sustainable fishing business in Alaska. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, Alaska is the seafood industry is really the
Speaker 1: global gold standard for sustainable management of seafood. Um. And
Speaker 1: you know, my family, you know, had a lot to
Speaker 1: do with that. Actually, my my grandfather was born in Manhattan,
Speaker 1: but he moved to rural Alaska. He began fishing in
Speaker 1: a wooden sailboat, and um, you know, he actually went
Speaker 1: back in nineteen fifty two to the East Coast and
Speaker 1: received a master's degree from Cornell University. He wrote his
Speaker 1: thesis a study of the Red Zamin of Bristol Bay,
Speaker 1: with particular reference to teaching its conservation. He eventually went
Speaker 1: on to serve to serve as the chairman of the
Speaker 1: Territory Border Fisheries. A lot of folks don't know, but
Speaker 1: Alaska actually incorporated as a state in large part to
Speaker 1: gain control of the fisheries over the federal government. And
Speaker 1: by doing that they put a mandate into the state
Speaker 1: constitution which mandates sustainable yield and that has over the
Speaker 1: years produced um the global gold standard for sustainable fisheries. Wow,
Speaker 1: that is really fascinating. There is a book in there,
Speaker 1: I think and Paul, deadliest catch is what you're thinking of. Yes,
Speaker 1: it's it really is. It can be a deadly profession. Aaron,
Speaker 1: what were the types of things that people ordered most
Speaker 1: this year? And I'm also desperate to know if you've
Speaker 1: been approached by people that are looking to take you
Speaker 1: public through his back. So, our most popular species is
Speaker 1: definitely the sack salmon. Um. There's five commercially harvested species
Speaker 1: in Alaska, soak salmon is the most popular. Most folks
Speaker 1: like to get some salmon in combination with whitefish, plibate cod,
Speaker 1: sable fish, rockfish, uh wild a last capolic, But the
Speaker 1: salmon is really that you know that the cornerstone of
Speaker 1: the Alaska sea food industry. In terms of going public,
Speaker 1: you know, we we look at you know, capitalizing the
Speaker 1: company UM in conjunction with our mission based approach to
Speaker 1: accelerate humanities transition to sustainable food systems. To that end,
Speaker 1: you know, we are a private company. UM, We're focused
Speaker 1: on stewardship. You know, I often say Wild Alaskan is
Speaker 1: a three generation overnight success. Obviously it takes capital to
Speaker 1: grow the company, but you know, I think down the road,
Speaker 1: the public markets would be a great place because a
Speaker 1: lot of the public is really ultimately aligned with our mission.
Speaker 1: You know, makes maybe more so than private private institutions.
Speaker 1: But right now, we're really just focused on stewarding that
Speaker 1: mission and uh right, you know, building the best business
Speaker 1: we can. That's really fascinating story. Aaron Collinberg, thank you
Speaker 1: so much for joining the CEO of the Wild Alaskan
Speaker 1: Company based in Get This Homer, Alaska in Brooklyn, New York.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the Boomberg Markets podcast. You can
Speaker 1: subscribe and listen to interviews at Apple Podcasts or whatever
Speaker 1: podcast platform you prefer. I'm Bonnie Quinn, I'm on Twitter
Speaker 1: at Bonnie Quinn, and I'm Paul Sweeney. I'm on Twitter
Speaker 1: at pt Sweeney Before the podcast, you can always catch
Speaker 1: us worldwide at Bloomberg Radio