WEBVTT - Surveillance: Equality in Hollywood With Giese 0:00:00.080 --> 0:00:12.639 Yeah, Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast and I'm term 0:00:12.720 --> 0:00:15.680 Keene jay Leye. We bring you insight from the best 0:00:15.800 --> 0:00:21.240 in economics, finance, investment, and international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance 0:00:21.280 --> 0:00:25.720 on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, Bloomberg dot Com, and of course, 0:00:26.040 --> 0:00:35.280 on the Bloomberg. One of our top stories, the president's 0:00:35.360 --> 0:00:38.320 latest FED nominee, Stephen Moore, continues to call for a 0:00:38.440 --> 0:00:41.480 central bank to reverse course. According to The New York Times, 0:00:41.600 --> 0:00:44.240 Mr Moore defended his view that they Fed was wrong 0:00:44.320 --> 0:00:47.240 to raise interest rates in September and December. He said 0:00:47.240 --> 0:00:50.520 the FED should immediately reverse course and cut rates by 0:00:50.640 --> 0:00:54.120 half a percentage point. To discuss on the phone. Joining 0:00:54.160 --> 0:00:57.960 us now, Allen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's chief US economist, what 0:00:58.000 --> 0:01:00.240 do you make of that, Allen, the latest call from 0:01:00.240 --> 0:01:04.920 the least FED nominee. Well, I think it echoes sentiment. Um. 0:01:04.959 --> 0:01:07.360 You know, almost widely held across the street that that 0:01:07.480 --> 0:01:10.800 I don't know about September as well, but that the 0:01:10.800 --> 0:01:15.840 FED might not have needed to hike uh in December uh. 0:01:15.880 --> 0:01:19.080 And so I don't think it's unusual to you add 0:01:19.120 --> 0:01:21.640 his voice to those saying that the FED may have 0:01:21.680 --> 0:01:24.759 made a mistake. But expecting the FED to just take 0:01:24.800 --> 0:01:27.280 a look back where they're sitting right now and say 0:01:27.920 --> 0:01:30.640 we went fifty basis too far, let's cut. You know, 0:01:30.760 --> 0:01:34.120 that's really um it is suggests that there's an exact 0:01:34.160 --> 0:01:36.720 science to this. The FED feels pretty comfortable that we're 0:01:36.760 --> 0:01:39.400 somewhere right around neutral. I don't think you'd find anyone 0:01:39.400 --> 0:01:41.840 on the FED that agrees with with Stephen Moore's view 0:01:41.880 --> 0:01:45.200 that they should cut right now without a catalyst. Uh, 0:01:45.319 --> 0:01:48.720 by fifty basis points, what's your base elent for the 0:01:48.800 --> 0:01:51.440 year for the Federal Reserve as it goes on, So 0:01:51.480 --> 0:01:53.360 we don't count them out for the year. I mean 0:01:53.480 --> 0:01:55.680 one thing that so we do have them hiking at 0:01:55.680 --> 0:01:57.360 the tail end of the year in December, so on 0:01:57.480 --> 0:02:00.200 hold for almost the entire year. One thing that I 0:02:00.240 --> 0:02:04.400 was really perplexed about in this latest FED meeting is 0:02:04.440 --> 0:02:07.680 that they're there. I've never seen such a convoluted mess 0:02:07.720 --> 0:02:10.880 in in a summary of economic projections table. I mean, 0:02:10.919 --> 0:02:14.399 you've got a FED that's extraordinarily patient, that has now 0:02:14.600 --> 0:02:17.680 provided so much easing and financial conditions by moving to 0:02:17.720 --> 0:02:20.880 the sidelines and communicating it's stopping the runoff of its 0:02:20.960 --> 0:02:25.080 balance sheet that essentially we've we've done a rate cut. 0:02:25.680 --> 0:02:29.519 If you put financial conditions easing into FED funds equivalent, 0:02:29.880 --> 0:02:33.360 it's worth a rate cut. And for that, their summary 0:02:33.360 --> 0:02:37.760 of economic projections showed that growth continues to deteriorate over 0:02:37.800 --> 0:02:40.480 the next couple of years. Where is the benefit to 0:02:40.560 --> 0:02:43.800 this patient policy. It should be showing up by lifting 0:02:43.800 --> 0:02:47.079 their forecasts, not depressing their forecast now that they've moved 0:02:47.080 --> 0:02:48.880 to the side. I think it ignores the fact that 0:02:48.919 --> 0:02:53.040 they've provided a powerful amount of of easing, which should 0:02:53.040 --> 0:02:56.760 help the economic backdrop. Ellen, good morning, wonderful to speaking 0:02:58.040 --> 0:03:02.440 this morning. Uh I look Ellen, it within the Stephen 0:03:02.440 --> 0:03:05.919 Moore th Kneeler went Tankerossly piece in the New York Times. 0:03:06.000 --> 0:03:09.000 Mr Moore's and there's been ever changing theories for more, 0:03:09.040 --> 0:03:12.440 but he's basically going back to early Marxism, which is 0:03:12.480 --> 0:03:17.560 to found some form of financial system or monetary policy 0:03:18.080 --> 0:03:22.000 off commodity pricing, which I find, you know, my my 0:03:22.120 --> 0:03:25.960 quick take on it is almost early Marxist. Is there 0:03:26.000 --> 0:03:32.239 any modern history of using commodity prices to judge what 0:03:32.320 --> 0:03:36.440 we do with our economy and jobs and inflation? No, 0:03:36.640 --> 0:03:39.280 I just think that it's it's been well proven for 0:03:39.360 --> 0:03:43.840 many decades now that uh, that's too volatile of a measure. 0:03:43.920 --> 0:03:46.200 I mean, if your you know, the your job as 0:03:46.240 --> 0:03:50.000 a central banker is to keep the economy on steady keel. Uh, 0:03:50.080 --> 0:03:54.400 low volatility helps the expansion last for longer. I mean 0:03:54.440 --> 0:03:57.920 tying something to commodity prices. We've learned what's the wrong 0:03:57.960 --> 0:04:00.840 way to go quite some time ago. Um, And so 0:04:00.920 --> 0:04:04.280 it's quite an antiquated, antiquated view at point. And he's 0:04:04.280 --> 0:04:07.720 certainly an outlier. Well, but it's a nostalgia that President 0:04:07.720 --> 0:04:11.440 Trump seems extremely comfortable with to get back to something 0:04:11.440 --> 0:04:15.040 that's not only pre nine twelve but borders on you know, 0:04:15.080 --> 0:04:17.480 I don't even want to give it, you know, folks, 0:04:17.520 --> 0:04:20.240 not to turn this into an academic lecture, but it's 0:04:20.320 --> 0:04:24.040 pre leon valrus of general equilibrium theory. It's like back 0:04:24.080 --> 0:04:28.320 to Thomas Soul's take on the early classicist economists. Is 0:04:28.360 --> 0:04:32.039 that what the president and what Stephen Moore want, you know, 0:04:32.160 --> 0:04:35.480 I don't really know. I mean, I don't know why 0:04:35.520 --> 0:04:38.880 they would propose these policies and lessons because they're comfortable 0:04:38.920 --> 0:04:43.400 with a mercantilistic thought, pre Valessian right, right, But Also, 0:04:43.760 --> 0:04:46.160 you know, you're you're being advised by people that are 0:04:46.160 --> 0:04:48.880 probably old enough to have practiced economics at that time. 0:04:49.520 --> 0:04:53.120 I think I think that that's where some of these 0:04:53.120 --> 0:04:56.680 antiquated views come. Ellen, you gotta see it. I wish 0:04:56.680 --> 0:04:59.880 you were here and are wonderful interactive broker studios. John 0:05:00.000 --> 0:05:03.080 Pharaohs shaking his head, going what are they talking about? 0:05:03.560 --> 0:05:06.760 Magnan decide? John just wrote a beautiful book, My Book 0:05:06.760 --> 0:05:11.440 of the Summer two years ago, on the difficulties that 0:05:11.640 --> 0:05:17.760 modern economists like Zentner have on equilibrium of finding very well, 0:05:17.800 --> 0:05:20.159 I just didn't realize what's stop speaking Greek six minutes 0:05:20.160 --> 0:05:22.760 into the shot. No, we were, but but but Ellen, 0:05:22.880 --> 0:05:25.600 this is critical and that we have a president comfortable 0:05:26.240 --> 0:05:32.400 with the neo or pseudo mercantilism that's pre the modern age, 0:05:32.520 --> 0:05:37.039 right right, But you know, in terms of the FED policy, lucky, luckily, 0:05:37.160 --> 0:05:40.360 they don't share that same sentiment. And you know, let's 0:05:40.480 --> 0:05:43.080 let's I don't believe the odds are very high that 0:05:43.120 --> 0:05:45.800 you confirmed Stephen Moore to the board. But let's say 0:05:45.800 --> 0:05:48.760 he is confirmed to the board. Well, you could try to, 0:05:49.480 --> 0:05:51.560 you know, put lipstick on a pig, so to speak, 0:05:51.600 --> 0:05:54.480 and say, well, look, he's going to be another UM 0:05:54.560 --> 0:05:58.679 source of diversity. Diversity of views is important UM, and 0:05:58.920 --> 0:06:01.039 he can drive in a of his own to try 0:06:01.080 --> 0:06:05.840 to talk through these UH measures and changes at the head. 0:06:05.880 --> 0:06:09.080 And certainly jare Pal has shown that he is completely 0:06:09.160 --> 0:06:13.440 open to discussing everything about how they implement monetary policy 0:06:13.560 --> 0:06:15.680 and so leave it open for debate. But it's not 0:06:15.760 --> 0:06:18.200 something that they're all going to come to consensus on. 0:06:18.680 --> 0:06:21.120 And I don't I believe that the people have also 0:06:21.240 --> 0:06:24.800 taken this too far to assume that because Stephen Moore 0:06:24.880 --> 0:06:27.200 has said the FED should cut by fifty basis points 0:06:27.200 --> 0:06:30.800 that if he gets onto the board UH, that he 0:06:30.839 --> 0:06:34.280 would that they would immediately cut rates. Cutting rates is 0:06:34.320 --> 0:06:36.839 not out of the realm of possibility. When you're at neutrals, 0:06:37.240 --> 0:06:39.280 there should be an equal probability your next move is 0:06:39.320 --> 0:06:41.600 up or down. But it won't be because Steven Moore 0:06:41.960 --> 0:06:43.840 joined the board and said we should cut. It will 0:06:43.880 --> 0:06:47.279 be because economic conditions warrant it. And next next I 0:06:47.279 --> 0:06:49.440 think it's next week, we have book John Stewart Mill 0:06:49.520 --> 0:06:51.719 will join us on the cornal. Is that right, Yes, 0:06:51.839 --> 0:06:56.800 it's that right. We're gonna go way back. Thank you, 0:06:57.360 --> 0:07:00.240 Chief US economist Homma meant to come back from that. 0:07:00.320 --> 0:07:02.960 I'm trying not to insert my opinion of this, but 0:07:03.000 --> 0:07:06.560 I think we're talking early Marxist. Is that you trying, 0:07:07.000 --> 0:07:13.080 I'm trying. No one to Ellen's point, Stephen Moore may 0:07:13.160 --> 0:07:15.600 or may not not get nominated to the Fed. If 0:07:15.640 --> 0:07:17.440 he gets nominated the Fed, he's going to have a 0:07:17.560 --> 0:07:19.560 very difficult time getting the rest of the committee to 0:07:19.600 --> 0:07:22.080 come round to his view. Yeah. I think we understand that, 0:07:22.200 --> 0:07:25.000 at least the way he explains his ultimate objective. I 0:07:25.000 --> 0:07:27.000 actually think the committee may well come round to the 0:07:27.040 --> 0:07:29.440 idea that they might need to cut rates pretty quickly. 0:07:29.880 --> 0:07:32.320 The market's coming round to that idea, Tom. The bond 0:07:32.400 --> 0:07:35.240 market has had a massive move over the last couple 0:07:35.280 --> 0:07:37.200 of weeks, and it's stunning to see the front end 0:07:37.240 --> 0:07:40.160 of the yield curve and yields grind lower once again 0:07:40.200 --> 0:07:55.480 today just Wednesday. Wednesday's always a critical day for Johann Ferroll. 0:07:55.560 --> 0:07:58.040 Is the real yield Where John is to decide, of 0:07:58.120 --> 0:08:00.920 the hours of planning that have on the early week, 0:08:00.960 --> 0:08:03.800 do they stay with it or does he blow up 0:08:03.840 --> 0:08:05.600 the show? And John Tucker and I can see in 0:08:05.640 --> 0:08:10.760 the Bloomberg Interactive Broker's studios. The tension here on the 0:08:11.400 --> 0:08:13.480 blowing up the show and it's like the gey Go 0:08:13.640 --> 0:08:21.240 commercial when you know the whole Wednesday thing, hump day, easy, easy, Okay. 0:08:21.280 --> 0:08:23.280 There's so much to talk about, but we brought in 0:08:23.320 --> 0:08:26.880 a guest who can help you drive for your decision making, 0:08:27.240 --> 0:08:30.960 some structuring. Sometimes sometimes she graces us with her pressures 0:08:31.080 --> 0:08:33.680 on Real Yo two and often on Bloomberg Surveillance pre 0:08:33.760 --> 0:08:36.959 a miserat TV Security's head of global race strategy. Good 0:08:36.960 --> 0:08:40.240 morning to your Prayer. Looking at your latest comments, the 0:08:40.320 --> 0:08:45.599 rates market is too pessimistic. Thank you, thank you, thank you, 0:08:45.960 --> 0:08:50.079 which which show really in shure. I mean, I think 0:08:50.120 --> 0:08:52.520 we need more people who do talk about fixed incomes. 0:08:52.559 --> 0:08:55.960 I'm glad you do that. Thanks Prayer. I appreciate that. 0:08:56.120 --> 0:08:58.520 Good continue that. I'm going to continue. I just wanted 0:08:58.520 --> 0:09:00.640 to look at your face for a little bit. The 0:09:00.720 --> 0:09:04.320 rights market is too pessimistic about the outlook. That's your tape. 0:09:04.320 --> 0:09:08.240 Prier Y. You know we're pricing in now more than 0:09:08.360 --> 0:09:11.600 one uh TWI base points ease this year, so we're 0:09:11.640 --> 0:09:15.360 pricing in a little over thirty based points of cuts. Um. 0:09:15.400 --> 0:09:18.400 I think you know the FED was extremely do wished 0:09:18.559 --> 0:09:21.280 last week. I actually think that's changing the narrative a 0:09:21.360 --> 0:09:25.079 little bit. Here we're going away from We're moving away 0:09:25.120 --> 0:09:29.720 from the market pricing in this you know, dovish Fed goldilocks, Uh, 0:09:29.720 --> 0:09:32.680 you know carry trades equity should do well. So now 0:09:32.679 --> 0:09:34.240 I think the fair is What does the FED know 0:09:34.480 --> 0:09:37.880 that we don't know is the cycle? Has the cycle ended? 0:09:37.920 --> 0:09:40.360 Are we heading into a recession? I think over the 0:09:40.440 --> 0:09:43.080 last week, if you look at price action and fixed income, 0:09:43.120 --> 0:09:46.160 I would even look at drisk assets, and it doesn't 0:09:46.160 --> 0:09:48.600 look like goldilocks is getting priced in again. I think 0:09:48.600 --> 0:09:51.280 now we're talking about you know, it is a recession 0:09:51.280 --> 0:09:53.760 around the corner, and I think the market the reason 0:09:53.800 --> 0:09:56.040 I think the market is still too pessimistic is you 0:09:56.120 --> 0:09:58.199 look at the fundamentals of you as growth. Now we 0:09:58.240 --> 0:10:00.000 do have a lot of payroll later we're gonna get 0:10:00.040 --> 0:10:02.920 the first look at March data in the next couple 0:10:02.920 --> 0:10:05.360 of weeks. I don't think we're falling off a cliff here, 0:10:05.400 --> 0:10:08.359 and so to price and eases, I think the threshold 0:10:08.400 --> 0:10:11.360 is high. Growth needs to be closer to zero. We're 0:10:11.400 --> 0:10:15.320 forecasting above two percent GDP for this year, slower than 0:10:15.400 --> 0:10:17.520 last year, but you know, I think there's a stock 0:10:17.600 --> 0:10:20.600 of recession and eases. I think it's the market reading 0:10:20.679 --> 0:10:23.800 from the devilsh fed. I just don't think we've had 0:10:23.880 --> 0:10:27.280 data that suggests that the US is slowing that materially. Prayer. 0:10:27.320 --> 0:10:30.080 There are so many conflicting signals in the global bond 0:10:30.080 --> 0:10:32.840 market right now, and I'm struggling to understand whether this 0:10:32.960 --> 0:10:36.319 is just a massive monster reach for yield or whether 0:10:36.360 --> 0:10:39.160 it is a market that shifted aggressively towards risk aversion. 0:10:39.200 --> 0:10:41.280 Because if you look at what's handing the credit market, 0:10:41.679 --> 0:10:46.080 with spread still tight and with treasuries rallying, buns rallying, 0:10:46.160 --> 0:10:49.160 but bond markets outside of core government bond markets doing 0:10:49.200 --> 0:10:51.839 pretty terrifically as well, kind of makes me think that 0:10:51.880 --> 0:10:54.160 this is just a global reach for yield at the 0:10:54.200 --> 0:10:56.160 same time as the rates market is pricing in a 0:10:56.280 --> 0:10:59.400 rate cut um. It's difficult to reconcile some of these 0:10:59.400 --> 0:11:03.360 things Prayer right now. I think you raise a good point. 0:11:03.360 --> 0:11:05.800 I think the rates market has made that leap now 0:11:06.440 --> 0:11:09.400 from just to reach field, and I do think that 0:11:09.480 --> 0:11:11.160 was part of the move. I think we've had a 0:11:11.160 --> 0:11:14.440 lot of convexity hedging flows. But again, the you know, 0:11:14.480 --> 0:11:17.800 to your point, pricing in eases is not really an 0:11:17.800 --> 0:11:20.560 extension of the cycle. So I would think that the 0:11:20.679 --> 0:11:23.600 risk asset complexes is only now starting to price in 0:11:23.640 --> 0:11:26.560 that if we are heading into recession extremely most low 0:11:26.640 --> 0:11:31.880 in credit. Let's unpack the jargon convexity hedging. What is 0:11:31.920 --> 0:11:37.319 that fair point? It is? You know this technical term 0:11:37.360 --> 0:11:39.960 that we use in the bond market. So essentially, if 0:11:40.040 --> 0:11:43.600 you are a mortgage investor and you hold a bunch 0:11:43.640 --> 0:11:46.480 of mortgages, interest rates when they fall too much, your 0:11:46.480 --> 0:11:49.040 mortgage duration shortens. Now, if you want to keep a 0:11:49.080 --> 0:11:51.920 certain a certain duration of your portfolio, you have to 0:11:51.960 --> 0:11:54.280 go and buy treasuries. And I think that has been 0:11:54.559 --> 0:11:57.120 a part of the move. Okay, last, so we've had 0:11:57.120 --> 0:11:59.920 to move, and we've had some of these pro dynamic, 0:12:00.000 --> 0:12:04.440 excellent pro choices which are priced up yield lower. But 0:12:04.600 --> 0:12:08.200 are you suggesting that than the bigger picture clicks in 0:12:08.800 --> 0:12:13.840 and we have even more price up and yield lower. Right, 0:12:13.880 --> 0:12:16.480 So I think convexity typically does not trigger a move. 0:12:16.559 --> 0:12:18.760 So the move was triggered I would say by the 0:12:18.800 --> 0:12:22.040 Dovish Fed, this wish fed, and the sphere of a recession. 0:12:22.040 --> 0:12:25.200 I think that took creates two below their lows for 0:12:25.240 --> 0:12:28.319 the year. Then that brings in convexity. The convexity so 0:12:28.440 --> 0:12:30.600 I would say, it's it's a technical flow, it's it's 0:12:30.679 --> 0:12:33.079 reach yield. In a short period of time, people hedge. 0:12:33.400 --> 0:12:35.520 Then it goes back to fundamentals. I we have a 0:12:35.559 --> 0:12:38.400 lot of feed speak. I don't hear any of them 0:12:38.440 --> 0:12:40.800 saying that they're about to ease. So I think fundamentals 0:12:40.800 --> 0:12:44.640 will ultimately matter once we get this convexity flow behind us. 0:12:44.679 --> 0:12:46.800 So I would say there's two basic phases here, tom. 0:12:46.840 --> 0:12:49.000 So we've had the first phase, which essentially as a 0:12:49.040 --> 0:12:52.000 monster reach for yield. Treasury yields got lower, Bundy yields 0:12:52.040 --> 0:12:54.560 got lower, credit spreads tighten up, even the likes of 0:12:54.640 --> 0:12:57.880 BTPs rally Italian bond yields come in as well. And 0:12:57.880 --> 0:12:59.880 then we face the prospect of the market looking at 0:12:59.880 --> 0:13:02.400 the likelihood of a right cut. And this is where 0:13:02.440 --> 0:13:05.319 two things become very hard to reconcile. If you believe 0:13:05.320 --> 0:13:07.320 a rate cut is around the corner, that is not 0:13:07.360 --> 0:13:11.760 an environment where the risk assets perform well. You can't 0:13:11.800 --> 0:13:14.200 have an environment where the FED needs to cut where 0:13:14.200 --> 0:13:16.839 also simultaneously the credit spreads are going to be tied. 0:13:17.000 --> 0:13:18.920 So you need to reconcile those two things. Which one 0:13:18.960 --> 0:13:21.720 breaks so you go into phase two. Phase two essentially, 0:13:21.760 --> 0:13:24.520 as credit spread starts are wide and or you start 0:13:24.559 --> 0:13:26.440 to price out the right cut one or the other, 0:13:26.559 --> 0:13:29.320 something has to give. The question is which, which one 0:13:29.320 --> 0:13:32.240 do you think gives. I'm more in the camp that 0:13:32.720 --> 0:13:36.079 interest rates have become a little bit you know, do pessimistic. 0:13:36.160 --> 0:13:38.120 So I think if if the data suggests that actually 0:13:38.120 --> 0:13:39.959 the economy is growing at you know, one in three 0:13:40.000 --> 0:13:42.880 quarters two, it takes all the reason for the FED 0:13:43.000 --> 0:13:45.520 to hike, but it also does not provide a reason 0:13:45.559 --> 0:13:47.959 for the FED to ease. So I do think the 0:13:48.000 --> 0:13:50.640 interest rates have some room to rise. Now if the 0:13:50.760 --> 0:13:53.800 data all falls apart, then you know, I would agree. 0:13:54.000 --> 0:13:55.880 I think then the rate market may be pricing this 0:13:56.000 --> 0:13:59.319 in fine, but then risk as look a lot more vulnerable. 0:14:00.080 --> 0:14:05.400 On January of this year was a one two year yield. Roughly, 0:14:06.040 --> 0:14:07.760 you know, just a quick look at the chart. When 0:14:07.760 --> 0:14:11.080 we're getting back there rapidly, we're taking out some of 0:14:11.080 --> 0:14:14.440 the right hikes from the fat has been away from 0:14:14.480 --> 0:14:17.160 full faith in credit. How does the full faith in 0:14:17.240 --> 0:14:21.200 credit German tenure the US two year How does it 0:14:21.280 --> 0:14:27.080 readound over the corporate bond space. I think you know, 0:14:27.200 --> 0:14:30.440 particularly when you look at US front end yiels, they're 0:14:30.440 --> 0:14:33.760 actually pretty attractive on a real rate basis in terms 0:14:33.760 --> 0:14:37.160 of how much return you get for the riscue taking. 0:14:37.520 --> 0:14:40.600 So I actually think when full faith and credit risk 0:14:40.720 --> 0:14:43.480 free rates rise, and they have in the US and 0:14:43.520 --> 0:14:46.720 the front end, that actually provides a pretty viable hiding 0:14:46.760 --> 0:14:49.640 place for credit investors. So if I'm a credit investent, 0:14:49.720 --> 0:14:52.480 I'm worried about a recession, maybe I should not be 0:14:52.520 --> 0:14:54.960 in a five year credit piece of paper. I should 0:14:54.960 --> 0:14:57.120 be in three month treasury bills, which is actually giving 0:14:57.160 --> 0:14:59.720 me higher yield than the tenure treasury. So I think 0:14:59.720 --> 0:15:03.440 you do you see these interesting fund flows um fiction 0:15:03.440 --> 0:15:05.760 come investors when they start looking at risk reward doesn't 0:15:05.800 --> 0:15:07.960 look that attractive to take that much risk. So what 0:15:08.040 --> 0:15:12.120 economic data changes that difference in yield the curve of 0:15:12.200 --> 0:15:16.560 the treasury bill to the treasury no three months of 0:15:16.560 --> 0:15:22.280 the tenure. What kind of economic data changes your world? Right? 0:15:22.360 --> 0:15:25.240 I think it's forward looking indicators of of you as growth, 0:15:25.440 --> 0:15:29.920 So I non manufacturing, I think that will matter if 0:15:29.920 --> 0:15:32.160 it's if you're not heading into a recession, I sm 0:15:32.240 --> 0:15:36.320 is still at let's say, then you know you should 0:15:36.320 --> 0:15:39.000 start pricing out some of these cuts and so the 0:15:39.040 --> 0:15:41.320 front and can still stay very anchored, but the long 0:15:41.400 --> 0:15:43.320 instart selling off, so you get a little bit of 0:15:43.320 --> 0:15:46.960 curve steepening. Priam, thank you so much, TV Securities greatly, 0:15:47.080 --> 0:15:49.520 thanks to I understood about it. Thank you for the 0:15:49.560 --> 0:15:56.400 support primus. You know you want to bring into our 0:15:56.520 --> 0:16:00.280 esteem guests absolutely, um, you know, obviously we are are 0:16:00.320 --> 0:16:03.560 here at the Bloomberg Equality Summer Broadcasting Life from the 0:16:03.720 --> 0:16:07.120 link at our world headquarters here in Lectionton Avenue, fifty 0:16:07.200 --> 0:16:10.080 ninth Street, and we think about Hollywood. It's been said 0:16:10.120 --> 0:16:13.520 that Hollywood is one of the least welcoming industries for women. 0:16:13.800 --> 0:16:16.080 And I love this point that I think our guests made. 0:16:16.320 --> 0:16:20.120 Even the coal industry does a better job deally being 0:16:20.160 --> 0:16:22.640 accepting in supportive of women than this Hollywood. So it 0:16:22.720 --> 0:16:25.240 helps us kind of dig through this issue. We welcome 0:16:25.320 --> 0:16:28.480 our our guest, Maria Geiss. She has a writer and director. 0:16:28.560 --> 0:16:30.880 Maria's thanks so much for joining us here at Bloomberg. 0:16:31.360 --> 0:16:35.640 How did it ever get so bad for women in Hollywood? 0:16:35.680 --> 0:16:39.320 What's the history there? Well, let's see, let's start with 0:16:39.760 --> 0:16:43.360 what Hollywood does today. I mean, Hollywood pays out seven 0:16:43.480 --> 0:16:47.520 billion dollars in wages every year, It creates eight percent 0:16:47.680 --> 0:16:51.320 of the media content that's distributed globally, and it helps 0:16:51.440 --> 0:16:54.840 form our cultural narrative through the stories that are told there. 0:16:54.960 --> 0:16:58.640 This is an incredibly powerful industry and it's run by 0:16:58.680 --> 0:17:03.680 a very small group of mostly white liberal men. UM 0:17:03.840 --> 0:17:08.000 the history of of Hollywood, as told so beautifully in 0:17:08.040 --> 0:17:11.439 the film by Tom Donahue called This Changes Everything Screen 0:17:11.520 --> 0:17:15.440 here Last Night, UM shows that in the pioneer days 0:17:15.720 --> 0:17:19.119 of of Hollywood, which began in eighteen ninety six with 0:17:19.200 --> 0:17:24.440 the invention of the movie camera, the cinematograph um invited 0:17:24.480 --> 0:17:28.000 women in and there were lots and lots of women directors, writers, 0:17:28.080 --> 0:17:32.040 and producers up until the big money came in. And 0:17:32.119 --> 0:17:34.280 as soon as the big Wall Street money came in, 0:17:34.960 --> 0:17:38.480 women got pushed out. So we really saw almost no 0:17:38.760 --> 0:17:43.280 women in the industry as storytellers from about nineteen thirty 0:17:43.720 --> 0:17:47.720 until nineteen seventy nine. After the civil rights movement of 0:17:47.800 --> 0:17:50.639 the nineteen sixties and the women's lib movement of the 0:17:50.720 --> 0:17:53.879 nineteen seventies, and then we began to see some shift. 0:17:54.080 --> 0:17:56.879 So really one can look at this as an economic issue, 0:17:57.520 --> 0:18:01.879 a battle for resources. It's a patriarch have has the 0:18:02.320 --> 0:18:04.399 so to what extent has the meat too? This is 0:18:04.480 --> 0:18:07.200 just recent history. To what extent has the meat too movement? 0:18:07.520 --> 0:18:10.480 Do you think going going to impact Hollywood going forward? 0:18:11.080 --> 0:18:14.880 Because it seems to be of the Me too movement? 0:18:15.240 --> 0:18:18.639 UM came in based on the work of the A 0:18:18.800 --> 0:18:21.320 C l U and the e O c SO. On 0:18:21.400 --> 0:18:25.840 October six, the e O C the Equal Rights um 0:18:26.720 --> 0:18:30.320 Commission of the United States Department of Justice started an 0:18:30.359 --> 0:18:37.080 investigation for women directors in Hollywood and UH. Two years later, 0:18:37.240 --> 0:18:42.080 almost the day, on October five, the New York Times 0:18:42.200 --> 0:18:46.000 finally had the Kahan s to publish the expose s 0:18:46.080 --> 0:18:49.040 on Harvey Weinstein. Incidentally that they had been holding onto 0:18:49.280 --> 0:18:52.800 since two thousand and four for thirteen years. So when 0:18:52.960 --> 0:18:56.320 Hillary Clinton was in the Clintons were no longer in power, 0:18:56.400 --> 0:19:01.159 and Trump was now in power. UH, the major media 0:19:01.680 --> 0:19:05.640 was emboldened to publish these stories. It was a watershed moment, 0:19:05.680 --> 0:19:08.560 there's no question about it. But I believe, you know, 0:19:08.720 --> 0:19:12.960 also a diversion because Hollywood has been able to use 0:19:13.800 --> 0:19:17.560 me too and the stories of sexual harassment and abuse 0:19:17.600 --> 0:19:22.200 in the workplace and actresses to um control the narrative. 0:19:22.960 --> 0:19:26.000 And that's what they're doing because when you talk about 0:19:26.040 --> 0:19:29.879 equal employment Opportunity law and the enforcement of Title Federal 0:19:30.040 --> 0:19:34.399 enforcement Title seven in Hollywood, you're talking about fundamentally a 0:19:34.520 --> 0:19:37.920 redistribution of jobs from men to women. And that is 0:19:38.000 --> 0:19:41.000 something that Hollywood doesn't want you very quickly here just 0:19:41.000 --> 0:19:43.200 because of time. You came out of U c l A. 0:19:43.320 --> 0:19:46.960 There's other combines of screenwriting and directing around the world. 0:19:47.119 --> 0:19:49.840 Out of Tish came out and Bowden and Ryan Fleck 0:19:49.880 --> 0:19:53.240 and they're doing Captain Marvel in that do women have 0:19:53.440 --> 0:19:58.560 to advance and succeed going from small movies and working 0:19:58.680 --> 0:20:02.479 up the food time like you did, Frankly, or can 0:20:02.560 --> 0:20:06.840 they jump in now at a higher level. Uh? Basically, 0:20:06.960 --> 0:20:10.560 the way it stands right now, women directed, women were 0:20:10.600 --> 0:20:15.240 directing of episodic TV shows four percent of studio features 0:20:16.800 --> 0:20:20.520 and through Amazon and Netflix. Know that fundamentally, what is 0:20:20.560 --> 0:20:23.040 happening here is that women can work if they work 0:20:23.119 --> 0:20:27.080 for free. Women are doing the lower end of it's 0:20:27.200 --> 0:20:30.600 it's the exception. Lawrence said four years ago, she's sick 0:20:30.640 --> 0:20:35.840 of being adorable. I mean that's simple. Yeah, that women 0:20:36.040 --> 0:20:39.080 need to demand their rights under our laws. You see 0:20:39.160 --> 0:20:41.920 that changing over the grill at the Beverly Hills Hilton 0:20:42.040 --> 0:20:46.800 or at the Sunset Tourro Hotel. Is the dynamic changing? Um? 0:20:47.400 --> 0:20:50.040 I think that there is a great deal of pressure 0:20:50.200 --> 0:20:53.040 right now on the industry. I think the federal investigation 0:20:53.119 --> 0:20:54.680 and the work of the a C L you rock 0:20:54.760 --> 0:20:57.520 to the industry to its core, and they're worried about 0:20:57.640 --> 0:21:01.000 lawsuits and so um they're going to move those numbers 0:21:01.080 --> 0:21:06.280 up through inside efforts, but those will have not historically 0:21:06.400 --> 0:21:09.920 proven to be enduring. Is Disney Fox good for women? 0:21:10.080 --> 0:21:11.719 Is James Wurdock and the rest of them out there 0:21:11.800 --> 0:21:15.400 with Mr Igoran Disney Fox in the new combination? Nobody 0:21:15.520 --> 0:21:18.840 is good for women. Nobody is good for women. All 0:21:19.080 --> 0:21:22.960 all of these the organizations that make up Hollywood, including 0:21:23.080 --> 0:21:27.080 the unions, the talent agencies at studios, and the network 0:21:27.200 --> 0:21:31.200 streaming giants, they all need to be challenged by by 0:21:31.520 --> 0:21:34.960 by a legal action. Is that coming? Is that forthcoming? 0:21:34.960 --> 0:21:38.359 Do you think? I? My belief is because the a 0:21:38.560 --> 0:21:41.720 E O C has been um conducting this investigation and 0:21:41.800 --> 0:21:44.240 perhaps has been in settlement talks for three years and 0:21:44.440 --> 0:21:47.720 four months six months almost and we UM, don't know 0:21:47.920 --> 0:21:51.040 what is going on with that, because uh, they function 0:21:51.119 --> 0:21:54.720 in total confidentiality. However, we have been a small group 0:21:54.760 --> 0:21:57.000 of us have been working very very hard to move 0:21:57.119 --> 0:21:59.920 this into the court system, and I do believe that 0:22:00.080 --> 0:22:01.960 that is the necessary thing. This needs to end up 0:22:02.000 --> 0:22:04.359 in the Supreme Court. Right. It sounds like it sounds 0:22:04.400 --> 0:22:06.879 like pressure is building. It sounds like the me too 0:22:06.920 --> 0:22:09.920 movement might might accelerate that. So very interesting, married guys, 0:22:09.960 --> 0:22:11.760 thank you so much for joining us. Thank you Maria 0:22:11.760 --> 0:22:13.560 as a writer and directors who joins us here talking 0:22:13.560 --> 0:22:17.199 about this equality issue in Hollywood, which again very very 0:22:17.240 --> 0:22:21.040 difficult place historically for women to do well, even harder 0:22:21.240 --> 0:22:23.879 than the coal industry. Believe it or not, but hopefully 0:22:24.000 --> 0:22:38.159 change is coming to Hollywood. What an interesting time. I 0:22:38.200 --> 0:22:40.919 should point out we haven't mentioned it much of West Texas. 0:22:41.000 --> 0:22:44.920 Back to sixty dollars six zero dollars a barrel with 0:22:45.000 --> 0:22:47.600 Brent crude on the edge of seventy. This gets my attention. 0:22:47.680 --> 0:22:50.680 Sixty dollars a barrel and Brent crude with a style. 0:22:50.760 --> 0:22:54.639 Paul Sankey of Missouri and ons incredibly important, your folks, 0:22:54.760 --> 0:22:58.840