Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Markets Podcast. I'm Paul Sweeney, alongside
Speaker 1: my co host Matt Miller. Every business day we bring
Speaker 1: you interviews from CEOs, market pros, and Bloomberg experts, along
Speaker 1: with essential market moving news. Find the Bloomberg Markets Podcast
Speaker 1: on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to podcasts, and
Speaker 1: at Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. All right, we have
Speaker 1: Rosalind Matthison in our Bloomberg Interactive Broker studio today. She's
Speaker 1: Executive everit for International Government for Bloomberg News based in London,
Speaker 1: but we have are here in the States this week.
Speaker 1: We found on the last hour meth that she is Australian.
Speaker 1: From some little news. What's the name of the town again, Ros,
Speaker 1: it's a code Goombungee Bungee Goombungee. It's an indigenous name. Wow,
Speaker 1: go figure. I mean, I I don't know. One day
Speaker 1: me and Roz traveled to a remote town in Austria
Speaker 1: to interview the former head of the FBI, James Komy.
Speaker 1: Together really was that in Austria? Yeah, that was awesome.
Speaker 1: That was such a cool I mean, you know, he
Speaker 1: had just written a book and obviously it was like
Speaker 1: comy versus Trump. But he's amazingly fascinating and also really tall, dude,
Speaker 1: extremely tall. Yeah, explained to us, what's happening in London today,
Speaker 1: folks forting us, we need to pay attention to a
Speaker 1: vote that's going on in Parliament. What's going on over there? Well,
Speaker 1: that's right. So it seems like enough of his own
Speaker 1: lawmakers have had enough of him, and so they've submitted
Speaker 1: letters calling for a leadership vote on his him leading
Speaker 1: the Tory Party, which of course means his leadership of
Speaker 1: the country as a whole. So that vote will happen
Speaker 1: in a couple of hours today, it goes. It takes
Speaker 1: about two hours for it to happen. They fall into
Speaker 1: a room one by one and cast their vote, yeah,
Speaker 1: your nay, and then there's an outcome. It looks like
Speaker 1: at this point he will probably win that vote because
Speaker 1: they need hundred eighty Tory lawmakers to go against him.
Speaker 1: But the question is, what is the damage that's being
Speaker 1: done simply by having this vote happen in the first place,
Speaker 1: And what is the margin by which he would presumably
Speaker 1: win this vote. It could be quite tight and tighter
Speaker 1: than he would like. Can that suggests of course that
Speaker 1: other knives will be out for him even despite the
Speaker 1: outcome today potentially, but the base cases that he wins,
Speaker 1: right because, um, his own party is bringing this vote essentially,
Speaker 1: and it's a system that I think a lot of
Speaker 1: Americans are unfamiliar with. They have this committee. It all
Speaker 1: seems so old and weird. Um, But what if they lose.
Speaker 1: They're bringing on an election that they're sure then later
Speaker 1: to lose. Well, that is the risk also from this
Speaker 1: is he might win, and then he might decide to
Speaker 1: call an election to try and get a fresh mandate
Speaker 1: from the public or to get rid of some of
Speaker 1: these Tory rebels. But why how could he? I mean,
Speaker 1: they're experiencing inflation just like we are, and they're doing
Speaker 1: very little about it, just like we are. I mean,
Speaker 1: people are a lot of people are being driven into
Speaker 1: poverty by these high energy praises right well, exactly in
Speaker 1: all the polling shows that going to an election anytime
Speaker 1: soon would be very self defeating for the Tories because
Speaker 1: of all the things that you mentioned, particularly the state
Speaker 1: of the economy, inflation, the idea has not delivered on
Speaker 1: his promises to bring development to areas in northern England
Speaker 1: UM and so on. He came in, of course in
Speaker 1: a landslide when UM in intercalentinam with a very large
Speaker 1: majority for a British prime minister, and that's all seemingly
Speaker 1: evaporated at this point. But he may decide just to
Speaker 1: go that because he is a very charismatic politician. He's
Speaker 1: a very charismatic campaign and maybe he thinks somehow, if
Speaker 1: you can call an election and get out there, he
Speaker 1: can somehow rally the faithful and get enough voters back
Speaker 1: for the Tories. But it's a very big ask given
Speaker 1: what we're seeing at the moment in the polling. All right,
Speaker 1: let's switch gears rather since we have you in studio,
Speaker 1: want to cover broad range here Ukraine, but we're not
Speaker 1: going into our fourth month. I guess over there in Ukraine,
Speaker 1: is there a consensus amongst the folks that really file
Speaker 1: this closely how this might play out here or is
Speaker 1: this just going to be a long, long slog. Well,
Speaker 1: it's certainly hitting that kind of grinding more of attrition,
Speaker 1: which we would imagine could go on for an extended period.
Speaker 1: You're seeing Russian troops make incremental gains and then get
Speaker 1: pushed back again. And then further gains, but suddenly holding
Speaker 1: some of the ground that they've taken in the east
Speaker 1: of Ukraine at this point controlling about of Ukrainian territory
Speaker 1: either way, and very much entrenching themselves there. So what
Speaker 1: you'll see is potentially months and months and months of
Speaker 1: this very sort of like small bore fighting that's going
Speaker 1: on on the ground. And then the question is what
Speaker 1: does the rest of the world do with that, um,
Speaker 1: even if they ship in more and more weapons, particularly artillery,
Speaker 1: does that change the course of the war or are
Speaker 1: we stuck with this for the foreseeable future. And at
Speaker 1: some point, as you see France and Germany and other
Speaker 1: sort of dipping their toe into the water, does the
Speaker 1: Ukrainian president need to negotiate with with Russian the Russian
Speaker 1: Russian president and does that in turn involve him agreeing
Speaker 1: to see territory. What do we know about the casualties
Speaker 1: that the Ukrainians are are facing or you know, even
Speaker 1: if it just versus the Russians, I mean, do we
Speaker 1: know about numbers? Do we know, um, if they're if
Speaker 1: they're losing by a light Well, the numbers are very
Speaker 1: hard to get a clear view of because of course
Speaker 1: they're coming from either side with their own interpretation on it,
Speaker 1: but what's clear is that both sides are suffering extensive
Speaker 1: casualties in terms of manpower. At this point, Russia has
Speaker 1: lost a lot of equipment as well, which has been
Speaker 1: very difficult for it in terms of its campaign on
Speaker 1: the ground. But just as Russia has lost all the trips,
Speaker 1: so has Ukraine. And it's got conscriptions, so it's got
Speaker 1: fresh people coming in. But that will also become a
Speaker 1: problem for Ukraine the more this goes on. And because
Speaker 1: it's more experienced fighters, of course, we're the ones who
Speaker 1: are in there first. So what you do is you
Speaker 1: bring in less experienced people who are conscripted um and
Speaker 1: then over time that becomes very difficult for you crime
Speaker 1: as well. Difficult, difficult situation. Rosalind Math is an executive
Speaker 1: editor for International Government Bloomberg News based in London, but
Speaker 1: here in the States. This week, I getting the least
Speaker 1: briefly here in New York and head down to Washington,
Speaker 1: d C. Rights Power. That's where the power brokers are met,
Speaker 1: and that's where ros Mouth needs to be. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, there's just us here in New York and
Speaker 1: some others. So anyway, appreciate that. Let's get right to
Speaker 1: our next guest, because we got a lot to talk about.
Speaker 1: Prea Misra, Managing director and global head of Rates Strategy
Speaker 1: A TV Securities Cupria. You know, I'm looking at my
Speaker 1: Bloomberg terminal. My tenure treasury is kind of my first
Speaker 1: place to go and talking rates. I got a little
Speaker 1: headline there. It's a three spot on. That's notable, I guess,
Speaker 1: but it just seems like we're in this trading range
Speaker 1: here for interest rates, and that despite the fact that
Speaker 1: my Federal Reserve has said that it's raising rates pretty
Speaker 1: aggressively here, So well, what do you make of that? Sure?
Speaker 1: So thanks for having yes. I think rates are likely
Speaker 1: to be in a range for the near term because,
Speaker 1: as you said, the Fed is hiking. I think they
Speaker 1: want to see clear and convincing signs in Chapel's words
Speaker 1: of decline, and they were not seeing it yet of inflation.
Speaker 1: But I think what's happened in the rates market is
Speaker 1: we're also starting to price in growth fears, which is
Speaker 1: why I think we stay in a to seventy five
Speaker 1: three and a quarter ten year range because when you
Speaker 1: start getting to the upper end of the range, and
Speaker 1: we're right in the middle of the range now. But
Speaker 1: if we sell off, and I do think rates are
Speaker 1: likely with QT to get to that upper end of
Speaker 1: the range, then the market is going to get concerned
Speaker 1: about growth fears. And at what point I interest rates
Speaker 1: high enough that you start to impact intersensitive sectors housing,
Speaker 1: consumer durables, you know, the savings that we're all banking
Speaker 1: on the consumer. Those sailings are getting depleted every day,
Speaker 1: and so I think that the growth fears prevent rates
Speaker 1: from rising too much further out because we've priced in
Speaker 1: a lot. A lot in terms of FED hikes have
Speaker 1: already been priced in, so I do there's a ceiling
Speaker 1: there in terms of growth fears that prevents rates from
Speaker 1: rising a lot. And on the downside, which is why
Speaker 1: I think we stopped around that. To this, inflation is
Speaker 1: just too high, and so I don't think the FED
Speaker 1: is ready to blink or even um sort of suggests
Speaker 1: that it pauses. Likely I do think they won't be
Speaker 1: able to hike as much as is priced in. So
Speaker 1: we like the front end, but the long end, with
Speaker 1: inflation high QT happening, I think that long end has
Speaker 1: some more room to rise. How much of this is
Speaker 1: I mean, obviously, if the FED is going to keep
Speaker 1: hiking rates, and you know, the econ one oh one
Speaker 1: lesson is you don't want to hold this paper because
Speaker 1: you're going to be able to get something that yields
Speaker 1: more later. Um. But that's program perspective of somebody who
Speaker 1: wants UH to be clipping coupons? Right? Are they drawn
Speaker 1: in at three three and a quarter to a point
Speaker 1: where it kind of puts a cap on on the
Speaker 1: yields that can how high they can rise? Yeah, so
Speaker 1: you're bringing up the supply demand. I think supply demand
Speaker 1: is still negative for treasuries, meaning you know, three and
Speaker 1: a quarter with inflation at six eight, depending on which
Speaker 1: measure you're looking at. Yes, coupons are higher today than
Speaker 1: they were a year ago, but I think it's I'm
Speaker 1: hard pressed to think that it's attractive. We're still seeing
Speaker 1: outflows from fixed income funds. We've had one week of inflow,
Speaker 1: so I still don't think there's demand coming from you know,
Speaker 1: how much interest rates have risen. Where the demand is
Speaker 1: coming from people trying to hedge for recession risks or
Speaker 1: growth slow down, And so if you have a risk
Speaker 1: asset in your portfolio, having some treasuries that will provide
Speaker 1: that hedging property, which I have to say, treasuries were
Speaker 1: not a great hedge in the first quarter, but that
Speaker 1: hedge has come back. I think now we've growth slows down. Yeah,
Speaker 1: those hikes are going to get priced, and so it's
Speaker 1: more from a macro economy slowdown risk asset performance. That's
Speaker 1: where the demand for treasuries is coming from, not just
Speaker 1: from a raging stand I mean a key question is, um,
Speaker 1: how quickly you see inflation coming back down to you know,
Speaker 1: the two percent what we've decided I guess as an
Speaker 1: acceptable level. Does that come down to to you know,
Speaker 1: two or three percent at the end of I struggled
Speaker 1: to say that, or we we don't even have it
Speaker 1: at three. We have it a little bit above three
Speaker 1: at the end of next year. And so that's the
Speaker 1: tricky part. I mean, as much as the FED is
Speaker 1: committed I think to price stability, the administration's committed to it,
Speaker 1: there are aspects of inflation that are out of their control, food, energy,
Speaker 1: even parts of shelter. We have a demographic shift in
Speaker 1: housing and there just hasn't been enough creation of that
Speaker 1: housing in the last few years. So I think, um,
Speaker 1: you know, and I think this is a question, a
Speaker 1: tough question the FED will have to answer by your
Speaker 1: end is do they are they okay with inflation decelerating?
Speaker 1: They clearly want a deceleration, but if it decelerates to
Speaker 1: three and a half, it's still significantly lower than here
Speaker 1: is at okay? Can they be a little more patient
Speaker 1: trying to get to that two percent target over four
Speaker 1: years rather than one year? So you know, in our
Speaker 1: forecast right now, even so, at the end of this
Speaker 1: year were four and a half on PC, at the
Speaker 1: end of next year a little over three. But we
Speaker 1: think the FED might be comfortable as long as it's
Speaker 1: heading in the right direction, as long as we age inflation,
Speaker 1: which is also an important part of this, is not accelerating.
Speaker 1: I think, you know, their tolerance band will be tested
Speaker 1: by the market, but slowing growth will allow them to say,
Speaker 1: maybe we just have to tolerate high inflation for a while.
Speaker 1: But it's something I think we haven't really heard from
Speaker 1: the FED yet, and that that's still an open question.
Speaker 1: All right, pre Miser, thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 1: As always, we love getting your thoughts on kind of
Speaker 1: where rates may be heading and what this feder reserved
Speaker 1: maybe thinking about as we passed through the data misras
Speaker 1: a Managing director and global head of rate strategy at
Speaker 1: TD Securities. Here, all right, let's talk side our security
Speaker 1: will shift gears there. We're all putting more and more
Speaker 1: as we you know, in the last two years, work
Speaker 1: from homes, learn from home, putting more and more data
Speaker 1: in the cloud, doing more and more with technology, and
Speaker 1: of course that raises the concerns about data security, cybersecurity
Speaker 1: broadly define. Our next guest is absolutely on the front
Speaker 1: lines of that. Guilt Schwed is the CEO of Checkpoints
Speaker 1: Software Technologies. You can find that on nastack c h
Speaker 1: KP is a tick of your you put into your
Speaker 1: Bloomberg terminal. Guil, thanks so much for joining us here. Again,
Speaker 1: it just seems like your business cybersecurity is more important
Speaker 1: than it's ever been as we put more and more
Speaker 1: or we engage more and more with technology and put
Speaker 1: more and more data in the cloud. Give us just
Speaker 1: your thirty thousand foot view with where this tech stack
Speaker 1: is in terms of cybersecurity. Hi, Paul, I met the
Speaker 1: first year. Absolutely right, we are more vulnerable than ever
Speaker 1: to cyber attack, both because we're dependent on the Internet
Speaker 1: and the network so much, and also because the attacks
Speaker 1: are becoming more more sophisticated. The software that we use
Speaker 1: on every device, on our laptop, on our you know,
Speaker 1: home TV or vacuum cleaner, each one of them has software. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: all that software has vulnerabilities, and the hackers do take
Speaker 1: advantage of that. And and we are I think almost
Speaker 1: all time high in terms of number of attacks. So
Speaker 1: what's the answer. I mean, um, do you just have
Speaker 1: to keep building a better mouse trap over and over
Speaker 1: and over again? First we do, I mean our the
Speaker 1: systems we build in our industry are all are many
Speaker 1: of them are real time updated and they try to
Speaker 1: adjust themselves all the time. We're building systems that try
Speaker 1: to stop attacks, even attacks that we don't know about.
Speaker 1: That using AI looks at the different patterns of usage
Speaker 1: and when they see something that's suspiciously just stop it.
Speaker 1: And the yes, we do have run as fast as
Speaker 1: we can to top the attackers. Give us a sense guil.
Speaker 1: I think what gets some people who don't live this
Speaker 1: every day but get some really concerns when they hear
Speaker 1: about state sponsored cyber attacks. State sponsored ransomware, that type
Speaker 1: of thing. It gives a sense of how that has
Speaker 1: evolved and kind of what you think at all do
Speaker 1: going forward. So first, many large, many advanced economies and
Speaker 1: countries developed state sponsor technologies to either spy on the
Speaker 1: enemy or even attack at time of four. The challenge
Speaker 1: is not that we're trying just to fight our government
Speaker 1: were not. The challenges that with technologies falls into the
Speaker 1: hands of the wrong guys. And that's something. For example,
Speaker 1: last year there was a devastating attack on the city
Speaker 1: of Baltimore. The attack was by some foreign countries, but
Speaker 1: not foreign countries, foreign groups from foreign countries, but the
Speaker 1: technology they used was actually technology were developed by the
Speaker 1: n say that I think about a few miles from
Speaker 1: the same place the US and show the security agency.
Speaker 1: So the challenge that we have is that this is
Speaker 1: software technology, and sooner or later, almost any attack technology
Speaker 1: falls into the hands of the wrong guys. Bear us
Speaker 1: by publishing. Don't want to look like having some practical
Speaker 1: difficulties there with with he was about to share way
Speaker 1: too much truth with us, I think, and somebody hacked
Speaker 1: his phone line. Yeah exactly, But I know this company
Speaker 1: is based in Israel, as well. But I mean, I
Speaker 1: just think this. I mean, we hear from everybody, um
Speaker 1: and it's just when it hits the news every once
Speaker 1: in a while that comes to people's attention. But we
Speaker 1: hear companies talk about it all the time, the amount
Speaker 1: they're investing in cybersecurity, because every it seems like most,
Speaker 1: if not every company has a lot of data dependency.
Speaker 1: I gotta be honest with you. Listening to Gil just now,
Speaker 1: I was by the realization that technology is going to
Speaker 1: be the death of us all simply, we're we are
Speaker 1: basically engineering the end of our own world. Here. Should
Speaker 1: make a movie about that. At some point, AI is
Speaker 1: just gonna take over and you're not gonna worry about
Speaker 1: your social secourney. Ne're getting hacked. Kil Let me just
Speaker 1: ask you. I think we got you back on the line.
Speaker 1: Here is technology going to be the end of us all? Are? We?
Speaker 1: Are we eventually going to face our globe, our own
Speaker 1: global demise at the hands of like AI and technology.
Speaker 1: I'm actually quite optimistic. I think technology has a bigger
Speaker 1: and bigger role in our lives. But if we look
Speaker 1: at our personal safety and so on, it's much better
Speaker 1: now than it used to be. A twenty or fifty
Speaker 1: years ago, though the risks that we have to face
Speaker 1: are different. Gil What are gen V cyber text and
Speaker 1: why to they matter? Gen vere do what we call
Speaker 1: Gen five cyber attack are the most sophisticated attacks we
Speaker 1: see today. They are what we call ulti vectors. So
Speaker 1: the attacks get from one place like an up you
Speaker 1: download into the phone, which turns into something that gets
Speaker 1: into your computer, but at the end gets the malware
Speaker 1: into the data center of on the cloud or at
Speaker 1: your company. They are usually very hard to spot. They
Speaker 1: are usually every time they come they look a little
Speaker 1: bit differently, so you can just say this looks like
Speaker 1: an attack and they can create a lot of damage.
Speaker 1: Sometimes they would hide and still the data for a
Speaker 1: long period of time. Sometimes they would just create an
Speaker 1: attack that all on the same minute take down the
Speaker 1: entire hospital, or at the same minute take down the
Speaker 1: entire nation. We just celebrate, not celebrated. We just mentioned
Speaker 1: last week the fifth anniversary of the big attack on Ukraine,
Speaker 1: not the war in Ukraine now, but five years ago
Speaker 1: there was a huge attack. They took down the entire country.
Speaker 1: So these are pretty difficult attacks to deal with. When
Speaker 1: I think that's what we need to deal with today.
Speaker 1: Al Right, Gil, thanks so much for going joining us.
Speaker 1: Gil shwed there I think the longest serving CEO any
Speaker 1: NASDAC company, which is pretty cool talking about um uh,
Speaker 1: cybersecurity that in a sense, his company, Checkpoint, kind of invented,
Speaker 1: you know. They started this whole firewall thing, and that
Speaker 1: just seems like a great business to be in. I mean,
Speaker 1: I just can't imagine a company over until it's all over.
Speaker 1: I can't imagine a company saying we're gonna spend less
Speaker 1: this year on cybersecurity than we did last year. I
Speaker 1: just think every budget that comes in, you know, to
Speaker 1: the CFO, is a higher budget for spending on and
Speaker 1: that's good for the Checkpoints of the world and the
Speaker 1: other folks that cater to that. You know. One of
Speaker 1: the things that's definitely changed here during this pandemic kind
Speaker 1: of a I'm not sure if that's an anticipated fallout,
Speaker 1: but workers have a lot more leverage. It seems people
Speaker 1: are saying, I'm not coming back to the office, or
Speaker 1: you know, it's such a type market, I'm gonna go
Speaker 1: leave my current job for a better paying job. It's
Speaker 1: just really changed the whole dynamic of the workforce and
Speaker 1: how and where you work. Nia set Home joins us.
Speaker 1: She's a managing partner at set Home Law Group. Are
Speaker 1: these things let's start just with the work from home
Speaker 1: hybrid how do you do it kind of thing? I
Speaker 1: guess companies large and small still trying to figure it out.
Speaker 1: But it seems like the hybrid thing is kind of
Speaker 1: the preferred model that's emerging. Is that what you're seeing.
Speaker 1: I'm hearing a variety of opinions on this from the employees.
Speaker 1: I'm certainly hearing that hybrid is here to stay and
Speaker 1: that's what they're anticipating and what they're hoping for. But
Speaker 1: a lot of business owners are struggling with the hybrid
Speaker 1: model for many reasons. You know, the economics of it,
Speaker 1: and of course, you know, building culture and managing teams
Speaker 1: is more difficult when people are in disjointed um parts
Speaker 1: of the country. But you know, um, RONNIEA, the thing
Speaker 1: is um A lot of employees want to have the
Speaker 1: hired option or even completely work from home, and a
Speaker 1: lot of their old white male bosses say, no, you
Speaker 1: have to be in the office. Um. If I want
Speaker 1: to work from home and I am producing just as
Speaker 1: much or even better than I would be in the office,
Speaker 1: but I get fired for not coming in. Do I
Speaker 1: have a case? I don't believe. So. As long as
Speaker 1: the rule is applied the same for all employees, then
Speaker 1: I don't think you would have a case. But that's
Speaker 1: the debate right now. I work with a lot of
Speaker 1: small business owners not you know the fortune or even
Speaker 1: Fortune two thousand, if there is such a thing, and
Speaker 1: they're not yet certain as it's a productivity and whether
Speaker 1: it's better for employees to work from home or not.
Speaker 1: All right? How about another issue. Employed at a tech
Speaker 1: firm in Silk and Valley pandemic hits, I go to
Speaker 1: Jackson Hole and relocate and they say, fine, you can
Speaker 1: do your job there, but we're going to pay at
Speaker 1: Jackson Hole level wages, not Silicon Valley level wages. Is
Speaker 1: that okay? I think that is probably okay from a
Speaker 1: legal perspective, but it is a very tough, tough till
Speaker 1: to swallow. You're doing the same work, You're the same person,
Speaker 1: you just move to geography. I don't think that's the
Speaker 1: best conversation to have with employees. Is that conversation happening though?
Speaker 1: Because I can see, if I'm an employer, I would
Speaker 1: definitely want to have that conversation. It is. It is
Speaker 1: definitely happening, and a lot of the reason for that
Speaker 1: is because of the additional financial and administrative burdens that
Speaker 1: come with allowing your workforce to work in states where
Speaker 1: you may not be you know, already registered. If you're
Speaker 1: already registered to do business there, it doesn't make too
Speaker 1: much difference. But if you have to now pay taxes
Speaker 1: there and do a whole host of other things like
Speaker 1: for chesse, workers compensation insurance in these other states, then
Speaker 1: that conversation is taking place with a lot of stride.
Speaker 1: Now yet, Yeah, that's interesting. You know, my um my
Speaker 1: wife is looking to hire for a position and her
Speaker 1: company is willing to allow someone to work from home,
Speaker 1: but she says she can only hire from certain states.
Speaker 1: And I didn't really understand why, but I guess the
Speaker 1: point is for companies, this is a difficult landscape to
Speaker 1: navigate because, um, you've got to be able to pay
Speaker 1: workers comp in different states, or pay taxes in different
Speaker 1: states if you want to have employees who I guess
Speaker 1: have an I P address there. Right, Yes, that is true,
Speaker 1: and some of the laws are extremely cryptic as to
Speaker 1: what does even working from home means. So if you're
Speaker 1: working in another state and the company registers to do
Speaker 1: business there, are you really working from home? Are you
Speaker 1: working in the cafe? And then if you get injured,
Speaker 1: who's paying for that? So it can get quite complicated.
Speaker 1: So how do you think this is complaing for you?
Speaker 1: The smaller businesses that you deal with, Ronnie, I would
Speaker 1: think they would have less flexibility, less resources. So what
Speaker 1: are you advising them or what are you seeing them do? Well?
Speaker 1: I don't want to get into exactly what I advise
Speaker 1: them to do. However, I do have a discussion with
Speaker 1: them about the costs associated with expanding into states where
Speaker 1: they're not already uh, you know, having employees. So a
Speaker 1: lot of the clients that I work with that are
Speaker 1: in fashion and tech, so they marry both fashion and
Speaker 1: tex They don't really have any brick and mortar, but
Speaker 1: they have limited the states in which will allow people
Speaker 1: to work from home because of these additional burdens. It's
Speaker 1: a whole new world out there. It's a brave new
Speaker 1: worlds new world I know, and people are doing that
Speaker 1: remote work, Runnie said home, thank you so much for
Speaker 1: joining us. Ronnie, a Sad Home managing partner set Home
Speaker 1: Law Group. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Markets podcast.
Speaker 1: You can subscribe and listen to interviews with Apple Podcasts
Speaker 1: or whatever podcast platform you prefer. I'm Matt Miller. I'm
Speaker 1: on Twitter at Matt Miller three and on False Sweeney
Speaker 1: I'm on Twitter at pt Sweeney. Before the podcast, you
Speaker 1: can always catch us worldwide at Bloomberg Radio