Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Business Week. I'm Karl Masser and I'm
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Quick Takes Tim Stanovk. We're here every day bringing
Speaker 1: you the latest news from the world to business and finance,
Speaker 1: plus technology, politics, economics, all purtnising the power of Business
Speaker 1: Week reporters and editors, not to mention our journalists and
Speaker 1: analysts in more than one twenty countries. You can download
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Business Weekend iTunes, SoundCloud, or Bloomberg dot Com. You
Speaker 1: can also listen to our radio show at two pm
Speaker 1: Eastern Time on the Bloomberg Radio or watch us on
Speaker 1: YouTube search Bloomberg Global News. So it definitely could have
Speaker 1: gone either way, at least according to economist estimates which
Speaker 1: were all over the place. What did happen is that
Speaker 1: the US labor market showed unexpected strength last month, despite
Speaker 1: record COVID niniteen infections and really showing signs of extending
Speaker 1: the momentum into the new year. A surging wages added
Speaker 1: more pressure on the FED two raise rates. You were
Speaker 1: all over this week about the wide range of estimates
Speaker 1: for those non farm payrolls that four hundred sixty seven
Speaker 1: thousand game that you referred to in jobs. That's our
Speaker 1: past all economist estimates at seven thousand job difference between
Speaker 1: the number that we got from a DP earlier this week.
Speaker 1: It's to forecasting right now. Yeah, I'm gonna give them one.
Speaker 1: It's it's like there's a there's a good article in
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg right now about how tough it is for
Speaker 1: economists right now. Hey, let's talk about this with us.
Speaker 1: Susan Arthur, chief executive officer at career Builder. She joins
Speaker 1: us on the phone from Philadelphia. Susan, how are you hey? Good?
Speaker 1: Hey Tim, Hey Carol, thanks for having me ony, great
Speaker 1: to have you with us. Did you see this coming?
Speaker 1: You have great data at career Builder. We see uh,
Speaker 1: you know what we see at career Builder is millions
Speaker 1: of jobs flowing through this site every day. It is
Speaker 1: picking up constantly. Um. But to say we could have
Speaker 1: landed this exact prediction, no, Um. We do see some
Speaker 1: other emerging trends under the numbers though, that are new
Speaker 1: for us, and I'll take you through that. Yeah, because
Speaker 1: because you know what, Susan, that's what we love like
Speaker 1: talking to someone like you that you guys can get
Speaker 1: really specific about where is the momentum and what going on?
Speaker 1: So so digg in dig into that area for us
Speaker 1: if you would, sure, So things that we all know
Speaker 1: and that are obvious, like the top you know, top
Speaker 1: number of postings are transportation and logistics and moving cargo,
Speaker 1: and that the healthcare jobs are of three hundred three
Speaker 1: hundred plus percent. You're a rear what's newly emerging for us?
Speaker 1: Obviously the work from home thing is persisting, but what's
Speaker 1: also newly emerging for us in terms of demand is
Speaker 1: about a five hundred and increased in demand for community
Speaker 1: and social service occupation. So under that vernacular, I think
Speaker 1: of the top ten jobs in social work, in licensed therapists,
Speaker 1: in family therapists, in substance abuse fields. So that's an
Speaker 1: enormous emerging trend. And if you think about that in
Speaker 1: the concept text of the pandemic and the workforce and
Speaker 1: burnout and everything folks have managed um through COVID, I
Speaker 1: mean it is spiking at an extraordinary rate. What's that
Speaker 1: increases that year over year? A month over month? What
Speaker 1: year over year? Okay, January Jannuerar, right, right, So it's
Speaker 1: pretty and it leads like for us it's one of
Speaker 1: the leading of healthcare for us your every years three
Speaker 1: So it's out there, it's standing out. Transportations up for
Speaker 1: us on our site hundred sixty seven percent. But it's
Speaker 1: really leading extraordinary numbers. And then other numbers are you
Speaker 1: would not be surprised about tax planners. We're from home
Speaker 1: tax planners, things like that. Not so surprising, right, But um,
Speaker 1: that's that's probably the biggest category of labor that's breaking
Speaker 1: out for US UM with really big numbers. What about
Speaker 1: when it comes to just sheer aggregate job postings on
Speaker 1: Career Builder, how much has that increased in recent months?
Speaker 1: It has increased since the beginning of the pandemics three
Speaker 1: x three and then year over year two percent, So
Speaker 1: it's pasting. It's up all the time, the number of
Speaker 1: postings flowing through this site all the time. In the
Speaker 1: number of job seekers flowing through the site is continually up.
Speaker 1: So it's both there's a demand on the on the
Speaker 1: side of companies looking for labor. At the same time
Speaker 1: there's demand on the side of individuals looking for work, right,
Speaker 1: and that individuals looking for work absolutely is part of
Speaker 1: the quit you know, this extraordinary quick thing we have
Speaker 1: going on in the churn in the workforce and it's
Speaker 1: people coming back. So as we come back post pandemic,
Speaker 1: we talk about going back to normal or how the
Speaker 1: labor force has been changed dramatically. How would how would
Speaker 1: you address that area has Is it going back to
Speaker 1: normal pre pandemic or is it something different? Carol, Let's
Speaker 1: do us like the complexion of the workforce is, you know,
Speaker 1: potentially permanently changing, meaning who works for whom, for how long? UM,
Speaker 1: What career mobility looks like, what requirements workers have about
Speaker 1: how the work, when they'll work, where they'll work, UM.
Speaker 1: Where we see employers meeting employees on skill development and
Speaker 1: um doing extraordinary work and you know, increasingly creative work
Speaker 1: to hold an employee longer and to sort of beat
Speaker 1: the average in terms of how long you retain people.
Speaker 1: So we see a lot of good things happening on
Speaker 1: the employer's side in terms of really trying to address
Speaker 1: who is this new workforce? Right? If if we take
Speaker 1: the aggregate number of people working and the generational complexion
Speaker 1: of that workforce and then what their expectations and needs are,
Speaker 1: we do see creativity, We see productivity, but we also
Speaker 1: do see sort of the see change and how work
Speaker 1: gets done and how much of that is permanent? I
Speaker 1: mean we're at right now. Working from home doesn't change,
Speaker 1: doesn't change radically. Does average tenure at a company continue
Speaker 1: to shrink maybe for the foreseeable future. Does the generation
Speaker 1: that stepped out a little bit early, you know, those
Speaker 1: couple million people, how much does that packed us? So
Speaker 1: we see this this enormous change on both sides, like
Speaker 1: of our marketplace, it's on both sides. What a workers need,
Speaker 1: what's going to get them? And then why are they
Speaker 1: going to stay? Yeah, we certainly feel like they're I
Speaker 1: kind of think the stories were going to calm down,
Speaker 1: but I feel like they're picking up momentum, especially as
Speaker 1: we I think people are really making decisions about coming
Speaker 1: back or or how they're gonna work. Like we just
Speaker 1: talked about the example of that thirty one year old
Speaker 1: who went to that competing tech firm to get an
Speaker 1: offer and he got a raise of seventy grand two. Right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's like pretty remarkable. Hey, Susan, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Susan Arthur, chief executive officer, a career builder, on the
Speaker 1: phone from Philadelphia. This is Bloomberg Business Week with Carol
Speaker 1: Messer and Bloomberg Quick takes Tim Stinovic on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: But administration may have to ask Congress to prove additional
Speaker 1: aid to fund coronavirus testing, therapeutics and vaccines. This is
Speaker 1: coming from the Washington Reports, the Washington Post reporting there's
Speaker 1: a bunch of things going up. But let's get to
Speaker 1: our guests. Yeah, Dr Ian LUs Faders, clinical professor of
Speaker 1: Medicine at n y U Land going to medical center.
Speaker 1: He joins us on the phone from Long Island this afternoon.
Speaker 1: Dr LUs Bader, I want to get right to it
Speaker 1: because you sent our producer Paul Brennan a really interesting
Speaker 1: article that answers or tries to answer the question why
Speaker 1: some people get COVID when others don't. It's a question
Speaker 1: that Carol and I have each been asking ourselves a
Speaker 1: lot over the last year, because a lot of people
Speaker 1: around us have gotten COVID. Right. It's like one of
Speaker 1: those things, and we even talked about in the news room, Tim,
Speaker 1: if you think about it, we'll be sitting next to
Speaker 1: someone and they're like, yeah, I got it really bad,
Speaker 1: and you know, but my my wife, my husband, my partner,
Speaker 1: they're fine, or my kids are fine, or my kids
Speaker 1: got it and I'm fine, and and I know in
Speaker 1: my home we might have isolated when there was nervousness,
Speaker 1: but come on, you're all breathing. They're not saying you
Speaker 1: outside to the backyard, right, Carol, as much as they
Speaker 1: might have won. Dr in Lustbader, Clinical Professor of Medics
Speaker 1: at NYU Lane Goes Medical Center. Why Dr LUs Bader,
Speaker 1: do some people get COVID and others don't? Great question
Speaker 1: and Happy Friday, by the way, And lots of physicians
Speaker 1: in science US are looking at that, not just for
Speaker 1: COVID nineteen, but really for a whole variety of infections,
Speaker 1: whether they're bacterial or viral. Obviously, COVID nineteen is a
Speaker 1: viral infection, Influenza very common. We think there are probably
Speaker 1: several reasons. One or certain genetics, certain h l A types,
Speaker 1: in other words, certain markers on you ourselves that that
Speaker 1: are involved in self recognition may play a role. Also,
Speaker 1: probably prior exposure. COVID nineteen is a coronavirus, and there
Speaker 1: are many coronaviruses that cause the common cold, and we
Speaker 1: think that perhaps there's some cross reactivity, in other words,
Speaker 1: that if you've had common colds in the past, you
Speaker 1: have some antibodies to coronavirus, whether or without getting the
Speaker 1: COVID nineteen vaccines, and that may provide some protection. But
Speaker 1: you're exactly right. There are people where it rampages through
Speaker 1: the family everyone in the house gets it, and there
Speaker 1: are other families where it's either very mild infections we
Speaker 1: know some of those as in our host, or asymptomatic infections,
Speaker 1: or some people just don't get it and everyone else
Speaker 1: in the house has had it. So part of it
Speaker 1: is probably prior exposure, uh to a similar viruses. Part
Speaker 1: of it is genetics. Some of it may involve viral load,
Speaker 1: in other words, how much coughing or how much of
Speaker 1: the virus really lands in the names of parents. But
Speaker 1: even when they do experiments on people where they give
Speaker 1: the exact same amount, some people respond to the infection,
Speaker 1: others don't. Yeah, it is really Fascinating's funny. Tell her
Speaker 1: Rigs on our TV side also enter Bloomberg Radio audience.
Speaker 1: She and I've talked about it because she has been
Speaker 1: coming to work from day one, She's been traveling since
Speaker 1: day one of the pandemic. Has not officially gotten COVID.
Speaker 1: By the way, we get tested every week and we
Speaker 1: get tested all the time. We know if we had
Speaker 1: it and didn't and just didn't have symptoms. Right, she's
Speaker 1: had no positive and she's like, I wonder if I've
Speaker 1: just been slowly better. You better not curse her, Carol Singer.
Speaker 1: But we wondered, like, has she thought, you know, have
Speaker 1: I just been constantly exposed a little out of time
Speaker 1: and somehow created some super immunity to it. Um, So
Speaker 1: it's really interesting. Um. You've also shared with us a
Speaker 1: story and we were talking about this in preparation for
Speaker 1: a conversation with you about research on lockdowns having little
Speaker 1: impact on saving lives left for you to I'm sure
Speaker 1: you saw that if it was in the New York
Speaker 1: Post weigh in on that. So this was in the
Speaker 1: journal Cold Studies and Applied Economics Literature View and met Analysis.
Speaker 1: Met analysis means a number of studies were reviewed. In
Speaker 1: this case, they were twenty four of the effects of
Speaker 1: lockdowns on COVID nineteen mortality, and there were several authors,
Speaker 1: one of which is from you know Hopkins, although not officially.
Speaker 1: Uh Hopkins did not officially weigh in on this, and
Speaker 1: they really reviewed a number of studies from a variety
Speaker 1: of different countries looking at lockdowns and the effect on mortality,
Speaker 1: and part of this is a number crunching, and they
Speaker 1: found that it was really a minimal effect point two
Speaker 1: percent decrease in mortality and UH a slightly better effect
Speaker 1: on home self isolation, which was a two point nine
Speaker 1: percent reduction. So it really calls into questions some of
Speaker 1: the public policy. Should we be locking down and how
Speaker 1: effective is that? Obviously some countries like China have been
Speaker 1: very aggressive. Other countries in the scandinating like Sweden really
Speaker 1: are sort of open for everyone. And I think it's
Speaker 1: important to get this data review it, to criticize it
Speaker 1: UH and or accepted, because that should affect future future policy.
Speaker 1: You know, we should be locking people down if it's
Speaker 1: not going to be effective, it's certainly something to roll
Speaker 1: into the conversation. Ian. Thank you so much, Dr Ian
Speaker 1: LUs bid Or. He's clinical professor of medicine n y
Speaker 1: U Lang. Going glad to hear too that he sounds
Speaker 1: a lot better, because I know he's been dealing with
Speaker 1: all of this over the last few weeks. This is
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Business Week with Carol Messer and Bloomberg Quick Takes.
Speaker 1: Tim Stinovic on Bloomberg Radio. You're listening to Bloomberg Business
Speaker 1: Week with Carol Messer and Bloomberg Quick Takes Tim Stinovic
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg Radio. We also want to talk about the
Speaker 1: Remarks section of the new issue of Bloomberg Business Week
Speaker 1: gets out online, on newsstands and on the Bloomberg and
Speaker 1: Bloomberg's Chris con And writing about how President Binden is
Speaker 1: essentially rebranding Reaganomics to save his own economic agenda. We're
Speaker 1: talking supply side economics. We're doing that with Chris Condin,
Speaker 1: Federal Reserve in US economy reporter for Bloomberg News. Joel
Speaker 1: Weber is editor at Bloomberg Business Week. He joins us
Speaker 1: on the access line from Brooklyn. Joel, is it is
Speaker 1: it more of a question of of branding than it
Speaker 1: is of actual a difference in the meaning around supply
Speaker 1: side economics. It's uh, it is a rebrand uh. And
Speaker 1: and it is like maybe um, the most like head
Speaker 1: spinning thing that you know, I think a the Democrats
Speaker 1: could attempt to accomplish here with you know, supply side
Speaker 1: economic economics. That is this thing that goes back to
Speaker 1: the Reagan era. The whole idea of kind of Reaganomics
Speaker 1: kind of almost built around it. And what seems to
Speaker 1: be up the new the new strategy from the Biden
Speaker 1: administration basically kind of led by Janet Yellen and Treasury
Speaker 1: is to basically like take over that term and use
Speaker 1: it for purposes that could you know, help champion build
Speaker 1: back better. But Chris, um, how is it going over
Speaker 1: in d C? Well, I have to say Joel that
Speaker 1: there there is a corner of d C that is
Speaker 1: really excited about this. There are, we've come to find out, um,
Speaker 1: a whole bevy of liberal economists who have been really
Speaker 1: anxious for the Democrats to adopt a version of supply
Speaker 1: side ecn coomics and have been championing this. Now. It's
Speaker 1: very different, it must be said, from the the old
Speaker 1: traditional style because of the role it sees for government. Um,
Speaker 1: but there is definitely a group of folks out there. Uh,
Speaker 1: someone would say this is really nothing new, and others
Speaker 1: who would say, well, this is really what we finally need,
Speaker 1: is that a government being very active in marshaling resources
Speaker 1: into underinvested in public goods. Alright, so traditional reagonomics. I
Speaker 1: love this. It's like an economic lesson and taking us
Speaker 1: back through the politics and the Reagan era, um, which
Speaker 1: is one the Republicans are so proud of, right they
Speaker 1: laud uh that era in the White House. But traditional
Speaker 1: supply side economics, right, we're talking about it's a lot
Speaker 1: of tax policy that's at place here. Absolutely, absolutely, Carol.
Speaker 1: The heart of supply side economics is about how taxation
Speaker 1: alters human behavior by extension the economy. The idea, you know,
Speaker 1: if you're going to be for your next hour work,
Speaker 1: if you're going to be taxed at a much higher
Speaker 1: level than you lose some incentive to work, and you
Speaker 1: apply that broadly. This theory says that whatever the government
Speaker 1: does which requires taxation will on the margin, to some extent,
Speaker 1: hinder the supply of capital and labor to the economy.
Speaker 1: So the more you tax, the less the economy grows. Now,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of debate. The theory is is pretty
Speaker 1: well accepted, but the debate is around how much really.
Speaker 1: And then there's this other problem that by the administration
Speaker 1: is attempting to address that certain things that are absolutely
Speaker 1: necessary for a productive economy, the private sector just won't
Speaker 1: do enough of that. Just think about infrastructure, basic scientific research, education, Jenny,
Speaker 1: you know, in this saying we have neglected these things
Speaker 1: were far too long by over applying this idea of
Speaker 1: supplying economics, and only the government can come in and
Speaker 1: organize the resources to pour into these things in the
Speaker 1: amounts that are necessary. And if we do them, it
Speaker 1: will have some cost in the short term, as supply
Speaker 1: side economics says, but in the longer term, we'll have
Speaker 1: a much bigger payback. So that's their theory and that
Speaker 1: is their swiss What's interesting, Christ after reading your story,
Speaker 1: I learned that this is not necessarily something new to
Speaker 1: a certain circle in Washington of policy walks who have
Speaker 1: been for years calling for progressives and Democrats to embrace
Speaker 1: this absolutely true. Yeah, they're even I mean there are conservatives.
Speaker 1: Most conservative economists absolutely admit that they are. Like I said,
Speaker 1: there are some things the government must do. You know,
Speaker 1: we want to build a navy. We can't rely on
Speaker 1: the private sector to do that. Um. But there are
Speaker 1: also these this this uh swap of liberal economists who
Speaker 1: have been saying the government needs to invest in these
Speaker 1: big public goods and not just provides the transfers to
Speaker 1: to help poor folks, to support underprivileged folks, but also
Speaker 1: we must invest in these things that are necessary for
Speaker 1: our economy. And they add crucially childcare, which isn't always
Speaker 1: included in these supply side ideas. But yell And and
Speaker 1: the bind administration are saying no, if we want a
Speaker 1: healthy supply of labor, in other words, parents with small children,
Speaker 1: if we want them into workforce, we must have affordable childcare.
Speaker 1: That's another new Democratic spin on supply side economics. Okay,
Speaker 1: so Chris, I want to ask. I mean, one of
Speaker 1: the amazing things about the story is like the number
Speaker 1: of sort of policymakers, former policymakers that you actually talked
Speaker 1: to UM. One of the big names that jumped out
Speaker 1: of me is Glenn Hubbard, who has obviously uh instrumental
Speaker 1: in George W. Bush's tax cuts in two thousand three.
Speaker 1: What did what did Glenn Hubbard have to say about
Speaker 1: this move by the Biden administration. Well, he's said a
Speaker 1: couple of different things on two different levels. First of all,
Speaker 1: on the economics, Uh, he doesn't think there's anything new
Speaker 1: about UM requiring the government to invest in certain things
Speaker 1: like infrastructure and education, etcetera. He very much quibbles with
Speaker 1: the idea that subsidizing childcare is really a supply side
Speaker 1: um argument and that kind of devolves into semantic so,
Speaker 1: but he's a skeptic on this front. Now. I also
Speaker 1: asked him interesting about the messaging side. I said, well,
Speaker 1: you were in government. Isn't it important for an administration
Speaker 1: to be able to have a good, clean message for
Speaker 1: what it's trying to accomplish. He agreed, He said absolutely, Yeah,
Speaker 1: you need to explain things and you want to try
Speaker 1: to win over nonbelievers. But he is very skeptical that
Speaker 1: invoking supply side economics would warm the hearts of rights
Speaker 1: on board. Well, we're definitely living in interesting political times.
Speaker 1: Chris Connin, thank you so much. Federal Reserve in US
Speaker 1: Economy reporter at Bloomberg News. Joe Webber, editor of Business Week,
Speaker 1: checked out that remarks in the new issue. This is
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Business Week with Carol Masser and Bloomberg Quick Takes.
Speaker 1: Tim Stinovic on Bloomberg Radio. Our Next UT's been investing
Speaker 1: in bitcoin and blockchain technology for almost a decade, founding
Speaker 1: Perfect Ventures back in It's an early stage VC fund
Speaker 1: focused on decentralization. So Tim, they're looking at the convergence
Speaker 1: of blockchain technology, machine learning, IoT and security and a
Speaker 1: lot more. We're talking Jolic, job and Putra. She's found
Speaker 1: her in managing partner at Future Perfect Venture. She joined
Speaker 1: us on the phone from Miami. Um, Jollic, it's great
Speaker 1: to chat with you again. It's been a few years
Speaker 1: since you and I have been able to speak. I
Speaker 1: mean even even when we we spoke a few years ago.
Speaker 1: You were early into crypto then, but you've been doing
Speaker 1: this for for close to a decade. I want to
Speaker 1: talk about cryptos moves today. It's something that I spoke
Speaker 1: about on bloomber TV a few minutes ago when I
Speaker 1: referenced that bitcoin is higher by ten right now, it's
Speaker 1: increasingly looking like it's trading like a tech stock, like
Speaker 1: like Amazon for example. How do you explain the correlation there? Well,
Speaker 1: in the beginning, we saw bitcoin was quite uncorrelated with
Speaker 1: the equity market. In the early days of bitcoin, and
Speaker 1: part of this story there is that it was created
Speaker 1: to be a self sovereign UH financial asset, a store
Speaker 1: of value where government policy would not influence the price action.
Speaker 1: But as we've seen more hedge funds, corporate treasuries, uh
Speaker 1: more institutional investors get into the bitcoin UH market. We've
Speaker 1: seen more and more correlation there and and so that's
Speaker 1: where we've seen the price action very much, I'd say
Speaker 1: over the last couple of months especially, has been very correlated.
Speaker 1: Like you know, you've been involved in this space for
Speaker 1: a long time, longer and at a time when a
Speaker 1: lot of people were questioning what it was or not
Speaker 1: really being a believer it's it's certainly gotten a lot
Speaker 1: more legitimization today then versus where we were roughly a
Speaker 1: decade or so ago. How should we be thinking about
Speaker 1: cryptocurrencies were still I feel like trying to classify it
Speaker 1: collectible currency, commodity, Like, how how do you think about it? Well,
Speaker 1: our thesis from the beginning in two thousand fourteen was
Speaker 1: that blockchain technology, which underpins Bitcoin and what makes itself
Speaker 1: sovereign and decentralized through its computer network, that this blockchain
Speaker 1: technology was going to create ten x the value of
Speaker 1: the Internet simply because they would enable people all around
Speaker 1: the world to UH to transact directly with each other.
Speaker 1: That you can create new assets from being able to
Speaker 1: fractionalize the real estate a building, and you could turn
Speaker 1: a fractionalized piece of a real estate building into UH
Speaker 1: an asset that then can be tradeable um through blockchain
Speaker 1: uh technology and networks. So UM we look at it
Speaker 1: very broadly and and and the reason tokens and crypto
Speaker 1: is an important part of that is they enable the
Speaker 1: incentsive network to work properly behind this, this blockchain network
Speaker 1: and UM and and so we think different cryptocurrencies will
Speaker 1: serve different purposes. Bitcoin right now has become a store
Speaker 1: of value uh kin to gold, a digital gold. People
Speaker 1: hold it when they are worried about inflation, when they're
Speaker 1: worried about government policies devaluing uh the local currencies. So
Speaker 1: um so, so bitcoin has very much fallen into that narrative.
Speaker 1: Eftherium has been underpinning a lot of the growth of
Speaker 1: the n f T s. Um it's become currency to
Speaker 1: to buy these n s T s and so to
Speaker 1: access the n f T s you need to hold ETHEREUM.
Speaker 1: So that is serving um you know, a different purpose,
Speaker 1: its currency in this metaverse world. And we'll see other
Speaker 1: cryptos that that warm and get established to to serve
Speaker 1: different purposes. Just like you know, we don't have one
Speaker 1: internet company, right we we have UM, we have the Amazons,
Speaker 1: we have Googles, we have UM infrastructure companies and and
Speaker 1: so we think that same opportunity UH is going to
Speaker 1: exist within the cryptocurrency market. What are the opportunities that
Speaker 1: you're seeing right now at at Future Perfect Ventures. And
Speaker 1: we should note that you've invested in companies like blockchain,
Speaker 1: dot Com, the financial services platform, Current other platforms including
Speaker 1: Curio marketplace for digital collectibles and arts and entertainment. Where
Speaker 1: are the opportunities that you're seeing UH when it comes
Speaker 1: to venture capital, but also where can investors in public
Speaker 1: markets get into these opportunities? Yeah, so you know, we
Speaker 1: now have exchanges where it's fairly easy to go in
Speaker 1: and and buy different cryptos. You can have direct exposure
Speaker 1: to to cryptos UM their their companies like the Central Land,
Speaker 1: UH tokens like the Central Land and Sandbox, where if
Speaker 1: you believe that the metaverse is is going to be
Speaker 1: an important part of our future UM, then these are
Speaker 1: these are tokens that are providing platforms for developers to
Speaker 1: build metaverse products. So so I'd say any public investor
Speaker 1: has access to UH to a lot more than they
Speaker 1: did in in the early Internet days. And then you
Speaker 1: can also look at UM larger companies that are are
Speaker 1: you know, betting big on the future of webs three
Speaker 1: and that includes you know, companies like Microsoft that just
Speaker 1: purchase activision. Gaming is a big area where we're going
Speaker 1: to see um more more activity around blockchain enabled platforms um. Right,
Speaker 1: and then uh we uh, we're we're excited about all
Speaker 1: of those. And I'd say we're excited about the continuing
Speaker 1: decentralization of finance, right um and and how larger companies
Speaker 1: will incorporate some of the deep by products. Yeah, we
Speaker 1: definitely we see a lot of momentum. Come back because
Speaker 1: I love to continue the conversation with you or running
Speaker 1: out of time here, but uh, I hope we can
Speaker 1: return real soon with you. Gellic uh po excuse me?
Speaker 1: Found her imagining partner future perfect ventures on the phone
Speaker 1: in Miami. I think she really explained it in a
Speaker 1: really clear way. We know now a lot more. I'm
Speaker 1: roa yeah, but you let me drive? Oh no, no, no no, please,
Speaker 1: I'll let me. I want to drive. It's good question. Drive.
Speaker 1: This is the drive to the Clore radio. Alright, ten
Speaker 1: half minutes left. Okay, we're there. We're getting that. Carol.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry for you all on YouTube. I'm like Oh,
Speaker 1: I'm so ready to wrap it up. Uh well okay,
Speaker 1: well I think the markets are around ready to wrap
Speaker 1: it up. We're seeing you know, a little bit of
Speaker 1: a rally today, Yeah, rally for the week overall. Let's
Speaker 1: get to it. Let's drive to the clothes with Brad McMillan,
Speaker 1: his chief investment officer maaging principal at Commonwealth Financial Network
Speaker 1: on the on the phone from Waltham, Massachusetts. Brad, how
Speaker 1: are you happy Friday? I am warm, I am crying.
Speaker 1: I'm calling that away. I know how you feel and
Speaker 1: how you feel. Um, we're gonna end up. It looks
Speaker 1: like the week with some gains overall. Yeah, two point
Speaker 1: six percent on the NASTAC the last five days on
Speaker 1: the S, which is fairly decent. I know we're still
Speaker 1: down a lot from the record highs. How do you
Speaker 1: come to conclusions after a week of trading like this week? Well,
Speaker 1: I think, um, you know, the Fed came out and
Speaker 1: said yes, we are going to raise rates, and the
Speaker 1: market reacted, and then the market took back, It took
Speaker 1: a step back and said, but wait a minute. The
Speaker 1: economy is really doing well, so earnings are going to
Speaker 1: be fine. Valuations are a little bit lower, but on
Speaker 1: the whole, onward and upward, and I think that's where
Speaker 1: we're going. So where does the FED come into this?
Speaker 1: And and we we had a little debate earlier with
Speaker 1: our friends at Bloomberg TV about what the jobs report
Speaker 1: means for what the Federal Reserve does with interest rates
Speaker 1: this year. How are you anticipating the FED raising rates
Speaker 1: by or after the March meeting? Well, I think the
Speaker 1: FED is going to start raising rates at March. I
Speaker 1: mean they pretty much telegraphed that. I think they're going
Speaker 1: to do it a quarter point and then we're probably
Speaker 1: looking at May and probably three or four during the
Speaker 1: course of the year. And the reason I say three
Speaker 1: or four is the Fed is actually on record of
Speaker 1: saying and wanted taper policy, but they don't want to
Speaker 1: shock them markets, and right now they're trying to talk
Speaker 1: to markets back from what they're saying. I expect more
Speaker 1: action on the balance sheet because even Esther George a
Speaker 1: perma Hawk, has been saying, you know, that's really where
Speaker 1: we need to make some move. So I think the
Speaker 1: market is probably saying it's too much in terms of
Speaker 1: the rate increases, and I think the Fed's listening. What
Speaker 1: does it mean though, for how we manage our portfolios
Speaker 1: right now? Honestly, not much when you look at where
Speaker 1: stock prices come from, its earnings and its valuations. Okay,
Speaker 1: earnings are going to do fine, as we talked about.
Speaker 1: In fact, the one message of the jobs report this
Speaker 1: morning is people are working. They're going to be spending.
Speaker 1: So it's all about valuations, and we seem valuations adjust,
Speaker 1: but most of that adjustment is done. I think right now,
Speaker 1: if you haven't done anything, you sit tight. What about
Speaker 1: when it comes to asset allocation, Brad, there, I think
Speaker 1: you need to take a close look at where you are.
Speaker 1: I mean a lot of people have gotten hands hard
Speaker 1: on some of the growth stocks, especially you know you
Speaker 1: look at um Facebook for example, or Netflix. You want
Speaker 1: to start putting money into stocks that are poised to
Speaker 1: position from growth, but aren't necessarily as pricey as some
Speaker 1: of the poster children are, because I think there's a
Speaker 1: lot of risk there as we saw. So go stay
Speaker 1: with growth, stay modestly overweight growth, but don't commit to
Speaker 1: the highest profile, how highest valued stocks. Is it hard
Speaker 1: to predict how the year will play out. I mean,
Speaker 1: we've done a lot of reporting, Brad, I'm sure your
Speaker 1: team and your researchers have taken a look at what
Speaker 1: happens early on in a rate hiking cycle. It tends
Speaker 1: to be good for the equity markets. But you know,
Speaker 1: this is a year, we're coming off of a couple
Speaker 1: of years in a year and a pandemic that we
Speaker 1: really don't have the playbook for something we can draw
Speaker 1: upon to kind of understand maybe what the trajectory is.
Speaker 1: So so, how do you think about it? How do
Speaker 1: you predict it? Because you've gotta make decisions. You do right, man,
Speaker 1: too money or advising others? Absolutely, Carol, and you're absolutely right.
Speaker 1: And I think one of the things people get caught
Speaker 1: up in is trying to predict some of the individual events,
Speaker 1: which I don't think we can do. You know, that's
Speaker 1: a fool's game. But if you just take a step
Speaker 1: back and you look at the biggest picture again, where
Speaker 1: are earnings reasonably going to go? Right now, we're expecting
Speaker 1: them to go up to ten or fifteen percent, so okay,
Speaker 1: we can expect earnings to go up. Where evaluation is
Speaker 1: going to go? Okay, if we go back to the
Speaker 1: pre pandemic, probably the bottom is going to be somewhere
Speaker 1: about sixteen times forward earnings, which is about fifteen, So
Speaker 1: that kind of says the market's going to be somewhere
Speaker 1: plus your minus five from where we started the year, okay,
Speaker 1: and there's probably more upside risk than down. So that's
Speaker 1: kind of what we're looking at as we think about
Speaker 1: the future. What would you say to somebody with trying
Speaker 1: to time the market right now? Now? I know it's
Speaker 1: not something that many people advise doing, but is there
Speaker 1: going to be a better opportunity to get in? Are
Speaker 1: we are? We have we hit the bottom yet. I
Speaker 1: think there's a reasonable chance we go down a little
Speaker 1: bit further. But I also think there's a reasonable chance
Speaker 1: we bounce. So I think it makes sense to you know, wait,
Speaker 1: if you're going to make that bet, but it is
Speaker 1: a bet by far. I think the better option is
Speaker 1: to say, Okay, I'm gonna dollar cost average in. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna put some money in in case I'm wrong, but
Speaker 1: I'm also going to save some money to put in
Speaker 1: later on a regular basis if in fact the market
Speaker 1: does go down. Where don't you want to be though?
Speaker 1: Stay away from I think the most highly hyped in
Speaker 1: priced stocks are the ones that are most vulnerable to disappointment.
Speaker 1: You know, I believe in growth, but I suspect there's
Speaker 1: probably another Facebook working out there, or another Netflix where
Speaker 1: we could see a significant drop down. So I would
Speaker 1: be very careful with stocks at or price for perfection.
Speaker 1: It's interesting, it's not Alphabet, it's not Microsoft, right, we
Speaker 1: saw that through earnings. Fair to say, it's not Amazon.
Speaker 1: What is it? It's about growth. You know, when you
Speaker 1: look at Amazon as an example, everybody's going to go
Speaker 1: to Amazon. They can bake in growth by upping their
Speaker 1: prime cost, which is what they've done. When you look
Speaker 1: at Netflix, for example, or when you look at Facebook,
Speaker 1: they are all about the growth in the number of
Speaker 1: users and when that's often so to their prospects. So
Speaker 1: I think that's the big difference. Is it a different
Speaker 1: Are they selling eyeballs? Are they actually minting money? And
Speaker 1: that's the question. All right, we gotta run. Hey, have
Speaker 1: a good weekend. Uh take care. We really appreciate your
Speaker 1: time as always. Brad McMillan, Chief investment Officer, Managing Principle,
Speaker 1: also at Commonwealth Financial Network, on the phone from Waltham, Massachusetts.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to Bloomberg Business Week. Download the podcast
Speaker 1: on iTunes, SoundCloud, or Bloomberg dot com, and you can
Speaker 1: also listen to our radio show at two pm Eastern
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg Radio or watch us on YouTube search Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Global News