WEBVTT - China's Surging Interest Bill Underscores Debt Strain (Podcast)

0:00:05.800 --> 0:00:08.360
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg p m L Podcast. I'm Pim

0:00:08.400 --> 0:00:11.200
<v Speaker 1>Fox along with my co host Lisa A. Bramowitz. Each

0:00:11.240 --> 0:00:14.440
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you the most important, noteworthy, and useful

0:00:14.480 --> 0:00:17.079
<v Speaker 1>interviews for you and your money, whether you're at the

0:00:17.120 --> 0:00:20.360
<v Speaker 1>grocery store or the trading floor. Find the Bloomberg p

0:00:20.520 --> 0:00:33.560
<v Speaker 1>m L Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and Bloomberg dot com.

0:00:33.560 --> 0:00:38.560
<v Speaker 1>As we talk about China easing their monetary and fiscal policies,

0:00:38.880 --> 0:00:41.000
<v Speaker 1>there is a big question which is how much more

0:00:41.080 --> 0:00:44.599
<v Speaker 1>ammunition do they really have? Joining us now? I am

0:00:44.640 --> 0:00:47.280
<v Speaker 1>so pleased to say, as Victor she associate professor at

0:00:47.400 --> 0:00:51.480
<v Speaker 1>UC San Diego, a former principle for the Carlisle Group

0:00:51.479 --> 0:00:54.760
<v Speaker 1>and a former professor at Northwestern Victor, thank you so

0:00:54.880 --> 0:00:57.320
<v Speaker 1>much for being with us. I want to talk about

0:00:57.400 --> 0:01:00.880
<v Speaker 1>the composition of China's debt and how much ability they

0:01:00.920 --> 0:01:03.920
<v Speaker 1>have to lever up further. So let's first talk about

0:01:04.160 --> 0:01:08.240
<v Speaker 1>where do you see the biggest debt problem in China? Um,

0:01:08.280 --> 0:01:10.959
<v Speaker 1>thanks for having me on. So I think the biggest problem,

0:01:11.040 --> 0:01:13.280
<v Speaker 1>you know, obviously people have talked about the domestic debt,

0:01:13.280 --> 0:01:17.320
<v Speaker 1>which is you know, around three GDT. That's not good,

0:01:17.400 --> 0:01:21.240
<v Speaker 1>but domestically, They've got a lot of UH policy tools

0:01:21.240 --> 0:01:24.039
<v Speaker 1>to deal with that. I think the biggest trouble spot

0:01:24.120 --> 0:01:26.720
<v Speaker 1>that a lot of investors may not realize is China's

0:01:26.760 --> 0:01:31.720
<v Speaker 1>external debt. Among em countries, China is the largest that

0:01:31.880 --> 0:01:36.039
<v Speaker 1>are by far according to b i S data, and

0:01:36.080 --> 0:01:38.360
<v Speaker 1>if you include Hong Kong, which of course is a

0:01:38.360 --> 0:01:41.960
<v Speaker 1>part of China UM, China's external debt now stands around

0:01:41.959 --> 0:01:45.720
<v Speaker 1>two point five trillion dollars. So that's an enormous amount,

0:01:45.880 --> 0:01:49.240
<v Speaker 1>even given as three trillion dollars in point exchange reserved.

0:01:49.880 --> 0:01:53.200
<v Speaker 1>And doesn't about one point two trillion of that have

0:01:53.400 --> 0:01:59.800
<v Speaker 1>to be rolled over this year? Yeah? Well, actually, you know, uh,

0:02:00.080 --> 0:02:02.720
<v Speaker 1>hundreds of billions have to be rolled over every month

0:02:02.800 --> 0:02:06.120
<v Speaker 1>because a lot of it is is short term loans

0:02:06.200 --> 0:02:10.720
<v Speaker 1>that Chinese banks have borrowed to finance the foreign exchange

0:02:10.760 --> 0:02:15.480
<v Speaker 1>needs of Chinese companies and even China's overseas investments such

0:02:15.480 --> 0:02:18.560
<v Speaker 1>as part of the One Belt, One Road initiative. So

0:02:18.919 --> 0:02:22.160
<v Speaker 1>here's here's where I'm wondering. Where the concern comes in

0:02:22.639 --> 0:02:26.480
<v Speaker 1>is the fear basically that China is restricted in how

0:02:26.560 --> 0:02:29.079
<v Speaker 1>much it can weaken its currency because if it does

0:02:29.120 --> 0:02:32.919
<v Speaker 1>so overly then it will have a harder time rolling

0:02:32.960 --> 0:02:37.160
<v Speaker 1>over these obligations and repaying them. There there are many

0:02:37.160 --> 0:02:41.840
<v Speaker 1>different potential risks there. There's the evaluation risks because you know,

0:02:41.880 --> 0:02:45.000
<v Speaker 1>even though a lot of these loans is denominated in dollars,

0:02:45.160 --> 0:02:49.760
<v Speaker 1>of course the underlying assets that ultimately back a lot

0:02:49.760 --> 0:02:53.679
<v Speaker 1>of these loans are women be denominated um. The other

0:02:53.720 --> 0:02:56.280
<v Speaker 1>concern is that you know, of course the threat of

0:02:56.360 --> 0:02:59.200
<v Speaker 1>the trade war if it were to shrink China's trade

0:02:59.200 --> 0:03:03.480
<v Speaker 1>surplus and then meaningful way um because currently obviously the

0:03:03.520 --> 0:03:06.600
<v Speaker 1>trade surplus has been what China has been using the

0:03:06.760 --> 0:03:10.679
<v Speaker 1>services dead and if um the trade surplus would the

0:03:10.720 --> 0:03:12.680
<v Speaker 1>shrink in a meaningful way, then that that would be

0:03:12.680 --> 0:03:16.560
<v Speaker 1>a problem for China general e M. Panic. You know,

0:03:16.600 --> 0:03:18.880
<v Speaker 1>what China has done in the past couple of years

0:03:18.960 --> 0:03:23.760
<v Speaker 1>is to constantly increase his external debt in order to

0:03:23.880 --> 0:03:27.240
<v Speaker 1>roll over the existing debt and and to pay for

0:03:27.440 --> 0:03:30.360
<v Speaker 1>some of the interests even with new loans. And so

0:03:30.639 --> 0:03:34.080
<v Speaker 1>you know that pipeline were to freeze, that also would

0:03:34.120 --> 0:03:36.040
<v Speaker 1>cause a problem for China. I want to pick up

0:03:36.040 --> 0:03:38.280
<v Speaker 1>on the interest point because this was something that was

0:03:38.320 --> 0:03:40.280
<v Speaker 1>brought to my attention and I actually reached out to

0:03:40.400 --> 0:03:44.640
<v Speaker 1>about this, Uh, just how much money China is spending

0:03:44.800 --> 0:03:47.520
<v Speaker 1>on interest payments? Can you talk a little bit about that.

0:03:47.760 --> 0:03:49.920
<v Speaker 1>I don't think a lot of people are aware that

0:03:50.000 --> 0:03:54.680
<v Speaker 1>at this point, given its debtload, a substantial proportion of

0:03:54.680 --> 0:03:57.360
<v Speaker 1>of of its of the money that it borrows may

0:03:57.360 --> 0:04:01.280
<v Speaker 1>have to go towards just even repaying interest. Yes, so

0:04:01.360 --> 0:04:05.360
<v Speaker 1>domestically China has a has a really big debt problem. Um.

0:04:05.400 --> 0:04:09.080
<v Speaker 1>You know, when you have debt that is GDP, and

0:04:09.080 --> 0:04:11.880
<v Speaker 1>when you're interest rate is not zero like the case

0:04:11.920 --> 0:04:15.280
<v Speaker 1>of Japan and some of the European countries, um, you

0:04:15.360 --> 0:04:17.560
<v Speaker 1>end up spending a lot of the new credit just

0:04:17.720 --> 0:04:22.000
<v Speaker 1>to service uh the interest payment, which by my calculation

0:04:22.600 --> 0:04:26.400
<v Speaker 1>is something like nineteen trillion women b or you know,

0:04:26.520 --> 0:04:30.279
<v Speaker 1>roughly three trillion dollars per year. So every month the

0:04:30.320 --> 0:04:35.640
<v Speaker 1>monetary authorities have to come up with dollars just to

0:04:35.960 --> 0:04:38.760
<v Speaker 1>service the interests in the economy and it and if

0:04:38.760 --> 0:04:42.400
<v Speaker 1>it wants the economy to grow from investment on top

0:04:42.440 --> 0:04:45.359
<v Speaker 1>of that, it would have to provide even more money.

0:04:45.440 --> 0:04:48.880
<v Speaker 1>So that's why I think investors in China are very savvy. Now.

0:04:49.640 --> 0:04:53.560
<v Speaker 1>When the PBOC cuts reserve requirement ratio by one, the

0:04:53.640 --> 0:04:56.880
<v Speaker 1>market actually didn't really react to it, because you know,

0:04:56.920 --> 0:04:59.560
<v Speaker 1>it's just part of the course. That's the minimum amount

0:04:59.760 --> 0:05:03.240
<v Speaker 1>that the monetary authorities need just to roll over its

0:05:04.160 --> 0:05:07.040
<v Speaker 1>enormous debt pile. Uh, it would have to do a

0:05:07.080 --> 0:05:10.919
<v Speaker 1>lot more. It would have to deregulate the shadow banking industry,

0:05:11.040 --> 0:05:14.599
<v Speaker 1>which it just successfully regulated, would basically have to undo

0:05:14.680 --> 0:05:17.080
<v Speaker 1>all of that in order to get the economy going. Yet,

0:05:17.920 --> 0:05:22.000
<v Speaker 1>will the additional money that's necessary to finance either the

0:05:22.120 --> 0:05:25.880
<v Speaker 1>rollover or indeed new borrowing on the part of China,

0:05:26.000 --> 0:05:29.640
<v Speaker 1>will that compete for investor dollars who have to also

0:05:29.800 --> 0:05:36.400
<v Speaker 1>fund US treasury borrowings. Um? So I think, you know,

0:05:36.560 --> 0:05:42.200
<v Speaker 1>the the domestic and external part are relatively separate, um

0:05:42.240 --> 0:05:44.680
<v Speaker 1>and of course increasing them. And I think there's this

0:05:44.800 --> 0:05:49.560
<v Speaker 1>implicit competition in the sense that Chinese investors increasingly do

0:05:49.680 --> 0:05:54.480
<v Speaker 1>not want to hold their money in women b because, um,

0:05:54.520 --> 0:05:57.200
<v Speaker 1>they know that the monetary authorities would just have to

0:05:57.279 --> 0:06:01.080
<v Speaker 1>keep on printing money to to prevent a crisis, knowing

0:06:01.160 --> 0:06:04.600
<v Speaker 1>that they would rather hold foreign currencies, and so that

0:06:05.040 --> 0:06:09.600
<v Speaker 1>creates almost this sort of private demand for the U. S. Treasuries.

0:06:10.120 --> 0:06:13.080
<v Speaker 1>As a result, of course, the Chinese government has done

0:06:13.080 --> 0:06:17.560
<v Speaker 1>a lot to prevent domestic money from flowing overseas to

0:06:18.240 --> 0:06:23.080
<v Speaker 1>overseas assets. They've been relatively successful. Um. And so right

0:06:23.120 --> 0:06:25.359
<v Speaker 1>now that you know that, we were not seeing a

0:06:25.440 --> 0:06:29.240
<v Speaker 1>massive capital flight, but the temptation is there. Uh and

0:06:29.400 --> 0:06:34.080
<v Speaker 1>the moment that the regulators um looseness grips, so to speak. UM,

0:06:34.160 --> 0:06:36.359
<v Speaker 1>I think a lot of money would want to flow

0:06:36.440 --> 0:06:39.000
<v Speaker 1>out of China. Victor. I want to talk a little

0:06:39.040 --> 0:06:43.680
<v Speaker 1>bit about something that you mentioned that just servicing non

0:06:43.720 --> 0:06:47.599
<v Speaker 1>financial debt in China totaled about three trillion dollars. You

0:06:47.600 --> 0:06:52.800
<v Speaker 1>said that basically, Uh, that was roughly twenty two of

0:06:52.839 --> 0:06:57.599
<v Speaker 1>the gross domestic product of China. So this is a

0:06:57.680 --> 0:07:04.559
<v Speaker 1>significant headwing to economic growth at this point. Is that correct? Yes, Um,

0:07:04.600 --> 0:07:07.640
<v Speaker 1>it is a significant headwind. UM. And and we've seen that,

0:07:07.720 --> 0:07:10.640
<v Speaker 1>we've seen you know, so China actually did not de

0:07:10.920 --> 0:07:15.440
<v Speaker 1>leverage uh. It's it's a financial system in the past year,

0:07:16.120 --> 0:07:19.000
<v Speaker 1>despite the rhetorics, UM, it just slowed down the rate

0:07:19.040 --> 0:07:22.160
<v Speaker 1>of growth of credit UM from you sort of mid

0:07:22.800 --> 0:07:27.560
<v Speaker 1>teens to around ten percent. Uh. And that already in

0:07:27.640 --> 0:07:33.400
<v Speaker 1>itself caused a drastic slowdown of growth. UM. You know,

0:07:33.480 --> 0:07:38.240
<v Speaker 1>actual deleveraging would immediately cause a financial crisis. So going forward,

0:07:38.880 --> 0:07:42.120
<v Speaker 1>if it wanted growth to resume at at a at

0:07:42.120 --> 0:07:44.800
<v Speaker 1>a real rate of you know, six percent, seven percent,

0:07:45.200 --> 0:07:48.440
<v Speaker 1>which are the policy objectives still, then it would have

0:07:48.640 --> 0:07:52.120
<v Speaker 1>to pump a lot more money into the economy, and that,

0:07:52.240 --> 0:07:56.400
<v Speaker 1>of course will challenge people's confidence in the Roman b

0:07:57.360 --> 0:07:59.240
<v Speaker 1>I want to thank you very much for spending time

0:07:59.280 --> 0:08:02.560
<v Speaker 1>with us. A Vic She is the associate professor at

0:08:02.600 --> 0:08:06.120
<v Speaker 1>the University California, San Diego, joining us from La Joya

0:08:06.640 --> 0:08:10.920
<v Speaker 1>speaking about the need for China to service it's dollar

0:08:11.080 --> 0:08:13.760
<v Speaker 1>denominated debt and the amount of debt that it will

0:08:13.800 --> 0:08:31.320
<v Speaker 1>have to roll over this year. Big banks are pushing

0:08:31.560 --> 0:08:36.680
<v Speaker 1>back against the big equity exchanges. Basically, they want to

0:08:36.760 --> 0:08:39.960
<v Speaker 1>have their cake and eat it too. They want cheaper exchanges,

0:08:40.000 --> 0:08:42.800
<v Speaker 1>they want them faster, so they're going to create their own.

0:08:42.920 --> 0:08:44.800
<v Speaker 1>Joining us now to talk about that, Chris and Ag

0:08:45.160 --> 0:08:49.080
<v Speaker 1>executive editor focusing on equities for Bloomberg. So, Chris, what

0:08:49.280 --> 0:08:53.200
<v Speaker 1>exactly is this that a group of banks, Dine founders

0:08:53.200 --> 0:08:56.920
<v Speaker 1>including Morgan, Stanley, Ubs, Citadel, Virtue and others, were they

0:08:56.960 --> 0:08:59.920
<v Speaker 1>hoping to create here? Um, I think if you've got

0:08:59.920 --> 0:09:02.839
<v Speaker 1>to look at the US stock market structures. That's kind

0:09:02.840 --> 0:09:08.679
<v Speaker 1>of constantly evolving sort of Darwinian competitive arena, and there's

0:09:08.720 --> 0:09:11.080
<v Speaker 1>been there's been four or five waves of that over

0:09:11.080 --> 0:09:13.920
<v Speaker 1>the last twenty years. This is the latest sort of

0:09:14.200 --> 0:09:19.360
<v Speaker 1>you know, monopoly busting effort among in that in that cycle.

0:09:19.480 --> 0:09:23.000
<v Speaker 1>It's not exactly you know, a bunch of rag tag

0:09:23.120 --> 0:09:25.839
<v Speaker 1>up starts. You're dealing with the biggest financial institutions in

0:09:25.880 --> 0:09:30.160
<v Speaker 1>the country banding together, um to get some kind of

0:09:30.240 --> 0:09:34.840
<v Speaker 1>in road foothold in the not not really do opoly.

0:09:34.960 --> 0:09:37.720
<v Speaker 1>There's about there's about three companies to control most of

0:09:37.720 --> 0:09:40.600
<v Speaker 1>the the stock exchanges at the moment, and now there's

0:09:40.600 --> 0:09:42.080
<v Speaker 1>going to be there's gonna be four, and this is

0:09:42.080 --> 0:09:45.240
<v Speaker 1>going to be sort of mutually held thing by again

0:09:45.360 --> 0:09:47.960
<v Speaker 1>all of the biggest all of the biggest players in

0:09:48.000 --> 0:09:52.679
<v Speaker 1>the in the stock trading ecosystem, including interestingly the big

0:09:52.679 --> 0:09:55.560
<v Speaker 1>market makers which are really the power players in that

0:09:55.720 --> 0:09:59.839
<v Speaker 1>in that system, Virtue and UH Citadel, which are responsible

0:09:59.880 --> 0:10:02.760
<v Speaker 1>for or some ungodly number of trades in the in

0:10:02.760 --> 0:10:06.319
<v Speaker 1>the U S stock market. Chris, what did these banks

0:10:06.320 --> 0:10:10.400
<v Speaker 1>and brokerage firms object to when it comes to price? Um,

0:10:10.520 --> 0:10:13.559
<v Speaker 1>it's not I have to say not altogether queer frankly,

0:10:13.600 --> 0:10:16.160
<v Speaker 1>I mean they in some ways, A lot of these

0:10:16.480 --> 0:10:19.280
<v Speaker 1>a lot of these players are sort of they're sort

0:10:19.280 --> 0:10:21.880
<v Speaker 1>of the pantheon of villains and a lot of market

0:10:21.880 --> 0:10:24.480
<v Speaker 1>structure arguments, certainly Citadel and Virtue or not companies that

0:10:24.520 --> 0:10:28.319
<v Speaker 1>have enormous amounts of peers cried for them, um uh,

0:10:28.400 --> 0:10:31.400
<v Speaker 1>sort of straightforwardly one of the big cost centers. One

0:10:31.440 --> 0:10:33.280
<v Speaker 1>of the only things that anyone can make any money

0:10:33.280 --> 0:10:36.160
<v Speaker 1>doing in the stock market right now is selling data

0:10:36.320 --> 0:10:41.520
<v Speaker 1>on trades. This incredibly you know, this not enormous data

0:10:41.600 --> 0:10:45.960
<v Speaker 1>that is generated by the actual customers is then sold

0:10:46.280 --> 0:10:49.679
<v Speaker 1>back to those very customers. But at the same time,

0:10:49.760 --> 0:10:53.480
<v Speaker 1>don't these exchanges pay rebates to the brokers that send

0:10:53.480 --> 0:10:56.360
<v Speaker 1>them order flo that's right, and Virtue and Citadel or

0:10:56.400 --> 0:10:59.840
<v Speaker 1>presumably big collectors of those. So it's not entirely clear

0:11:00.040 --> 0:11:02.880
<v Speaker 1>what huge advantage they're hoping hoping to leverage out of

0:11:02.880 --> 0:11:06.679
<v Speaker 1>the existing should create for themselves by doing this. This

0:11:06.760 --> 0:11:10.520
<v Speaker 1>is not a hugely profitable business anymore. It's very low margin,

0:11:11.040 --> 0:11:14.360
<v Speaker 1>very extremely high volume. That's sort of been the direction

0:11:14.440 --> 0:11:17.320
<v Speaker 1>of market structure revolution over the last twenty years that

0:11:17.440 --> 0:11:20.800
<v Speaker 1>spreads on trades have gone ever ever slimmer, and the

0:11:20.840 --> 0:11:23.680
<v Speaker 1>amount of trades that happen by virtue of basically high

0:11:23.679 --> 0:11:27.440
<v Speaker 1>frequency traders computerized traders has gone way up. So what

0:11:27.520 --> 0:11:30.880
<v Speaker 1>they lack in profits they make up for in volume. So, Chris,

0:11:30.880 --> 0:11:34.680
<v Speaker 1>I wonder if there's a broader takeaway here about market structures,

0:11:34.679 --> 0:11:38.680
<v Speaker 1>since people are accusing the changes in market structure that

0:11:38.679 --> 0:11:43.400
<v Speaker 1>have moved trading towards a more electronic, faster, uh, you know,

0:11:43.640 --> 0:11:46.840
<v Speaker 1>less lucrative for the exchanges and others kind of model,

0:11:47.200 --> 0:11:49.160
<v Speaker 1>and that this is the reason why things are bouncing

0:11:49.200 --> 0:11:53.600
<v Speaker 1>around because there aren't humans in between. You buying that? Um,

0:11:53.640 --> 0:11:55.520
<v Speaker 1>I'm not sure that that. I totally buy that. I

0:11:55.520 --> 0:11:57.880
<v Speaker 1>feel like volatility we shall always have. I do think

0:11:57.920 --> 0:12:00.240
<v Speaker 1>that may be relevant to this, to the what's going

0:12:00.280 --> 0:12:02.199
<v Speaker 1>on here today, Like a lot of stuff that goes

0:12:02.200 --> 0:12:04.200
<v Speaker 1>on in market structure, if you look at it closely,

0:12:04.880 --> 0:12:09.079
<v Speaker 1>is a kind of big pr game, um and and

0:12:09.120 --> 0:12:12.640
<v Speaker 1>a serious one because uh, the regulatory sites for every

0:12:12.640 --> 0:12:15.120
<v Speaker 1>once in a while trained on high frequency trating. It's

0:12:15.640 --> 0:12:17.320
<v Speaker 1>I doubt this was the reason. But you had Stephen

0:12:17.400 --> 0:12:20.559
<v Speaker 1>nuch in three weeks ago talking about how high frequency

0:12:20.559 --> 0:12:22.679
<v Speaker 1>traders were responsible for all of the Volatili. They make

0:12:22.720 --> 0:12:25.720
<v Speaker 1>fairly easy targets. And one thing you get every now

0:12:25.800 --> 0:12:28.720
<v Speaker 1>and then is someone coming in saying sort of I'm

0:12:28.720 --> 0:12:31.280
<v Speaker 1>going to baptize the world and fire. I'm gonna simplify

0:12:31.400 --> 0:12:34.560
<v Speaker 1>everything and put out home homey sounding press release like

0:12:34.559 --> 0:12:36.360
<v Speaker 1>the one that went out this morning, saying look, we're

0:12:36.360 --> 0:12:38.880
<v Speaker 1>gonna come in and simplify everything. That's going to be cheaper,

0:12:39.000 --> 0:12:41.240
<v Speaker 1>you know, simple order types. You had a couple of

0:12:41.320 --> 0:12:43.520
<v Speaker 1>years ago with the Michael Lewis exchange of I E X,

0:12:43.559 --> 0:12:47.200
<v Speaker 1>the one profiled, and uh, flash boys, that this happens.

0:12:47.240 --> 0:12:49.959
<v Speaker 1>And this is a consideration where setting yourself up is

0:12:50.040 --> 0:12:53.280
<v Speaker 1>kind of a hero of market structure, however questionable what

0:12:53.400 --> 0:12:56.400
<v Speaker 1>ultimately is can be a worthwhile thing when regulators start

0:12:56.480 --> 0:12:58.679
<v Speaker 1>to get their dander up about stuff that may be

0:12:58.800 --> 0:13:00.880
<v Speaker 1>part of what's going on here. I mean, I don't know,

0:13:01.320 --> 0:13:03.640
<v Speaker 1>you know, I certainly it wouldn't be stated as one

0:13:03.679 --> 0:13:05.280
<v Speaker 1>of the goals of the thing, but it might be

0:13:05.360 --> 0:13:07.880
<v Speaker 1>nice to have, oh, we're coming in trying to save

0:13:07.920 --> 0:13:11.680
<v Speaker 1>everyone to point to in a couple months when Minuchin

0:13:12.600 --> 0:13:15.720
<v Speaker 1>starts setting up hearings and things like that. I don't

0:13:15.760 --> 0:13:17.520
<v Speaker 1>I don't know which occurs to me, it's not out

0:13:17.559 --> 0:13:19.360
<v Speaker 1>of the question that that's part of the motive here,

0:13:19.760 --> 0:13:23.400
<v Speaker 1>doesn't the security is an exchange commission really regulate how

0:13:23.520 --> 0:13:27.400
<v Speaker 1>much the exchanges can charge for their data? There's yeah,

0:13:27.440 --> 0:13:31.719
<v Speaker 1>and the exchange has recently lost uh uh some kind

0:13:31.760 --> 0:13:35.400
<v Speaker 1>of regulatory hearing where their their fees were sent back

0:13:35.440 --> 0:13:38.480
<v Speaker 1>to them for more explanation. Basically with the you know,

0:13:38.520 --> 0:13:41.079
<v Speaker 1>the expectation that they're probably gonna end up being cut.

0:13:41.720 --> 0:13:44.680
<v Speaker 1>At the same time, keeping exchanges, keeping the companies that

0:13:44.960 --> 0:13:48.520
<v Speaker 1>uh that are the sites of all trading in this

0:13:48.600 --> 0:13:51.640
<v Speaker 1>country is not totally bankrupt motive in and of itself.

0:13:52.040 --> 0:13:57.120
<v Speaker 1>It helps to have relatively profitable venues where you can

0:13:57.160 --> 0:13:59.199
<v Speaker 1>go and get your trade done in half a second.

0:13:59.520 --> 0:14:02.400
<v Speaker 1>It's not a completely bankrupt motive for the work for

0:14:02.679 --> 0:14:05.960
<v Speaker 1>you know, for capitalism, basically to have these things existing

0:14:06.120 --> 0:14:09.160
<v Speaker 1>so you know what of things to balance. Thanks very

0:14:09.200 --> 0:14:12.160
<v Speaker 1>much for being with us. Chris nig is Executive editor

0:14:12.200 --> 0:14:16.720
<v Speaker 1>for editor for Equities for Bloomberg, speaking about brokers forming

0:14:16.760 --> 0:14:19.520
<v Speaker 1>a new stock market to take on the New York

0:14:19.560 --> 0:14:40.080
<v Speaker 1>Stock Exchange, the NASTAC and the cbo E on Friday,

0:14:40.440 --> 0:14:44.480
<v Speaker 1>p G and E. This is the utility that supplies

0:14:44.520 --> 0:14:48.000
<v Speaker 1>electricity and power to most of northern California, said that

0:14:48.040 --> 0:14:51.640
<v Speaker 1>it is quote working diligently to assess the company's potential

0:14:51.760 --> 0:14:55.680
<v Speaker 1>liabilities as a result of the wildfires and the options

0:14:55.680 --> 0:15:00.840
<v Speaker 1>for addressing those liabilities, while those liabilities may lead to

0:15:01.080 --> 0:15:05.280
<v Speaker 1>bankruptcy filing and bankruptcy protection. Here to tell us more,

0:15:05.400 --> 0:15:08.720
<v Speaker 1>Kick Conoledge he is our senior Industrials and utilities analysts

0:15:08.720 --> 0:15:13.280
<v Speaker 1>for Bloomberg Intelligence Kit. Is this part of the negotiation

0:15:13.400 --> 0:15:17.560
<v Speaker 1>that goes on between the utility and lawmakers or is

0:15:17.560 --> 0:15:22.520
<v Speaker 1>there a serious issue here that PGNI could seek bankruptcy

0:15:22.520 --> 0:15:25.640
<v Speaker 1>protection because it needs it right? Well, I think him

0:15:25.680 --> 0:15:29.600
<v Speaker 1>there that it's both. Really, I think you can with utilities,

0:15:30.040 --> 0:15:34.600
<v Speaker 1>you can't separate, uh, the the financial condition from the

0:15:34.640 --> 0:15:40.960
<v Speaker 1>political condition that they are always dependent on what the

0:15:41.000 --> 0:15:44.840
<v Speaker 1>regulators and the legislators do. And of course that has

0:15:45.240 --> 0:15:49.160
<v Speaker 1>come to a critical situation in California, especially for Penny

0:15:49.200 --> 0:15:51.520
<v Speaker 1>and Northern California, because of all the wildfire. So you

0:15:51.560 --> 0:15:55.520
<v Speaker 1>have twenty five billion estimated or thirty billion. I saw

0:15:55.560 --> 0:16:00.800
<v Speaker 1>today somebody saying in liabilities for wildfire's potentially over the

0:16:00.840 --> 0:16:04.320
<v Speaker 1>next X number of years to be paid out. Somebody's

0:16:04.360 --> 0:16:06.720
<v Speaker 1>got to pay that, that would I mean, the whole

0:16:06.760 --> 0:16:10.120
<v Speaker 1>market cap of PG and E is only eleven billion

0:16:10.240 --> 0:16:13.560
<v Speaker 1>or ten billion now, so, uh, something's got to give.

0:16:13.720 --> 0:16:19.200
<v Speaker 1>So a bankruptcy filing as reported would would not I

0:16:19.240 --> 0:16:23.720
<v Speaker 1>think shock anybody, but whether it's needed at this point

0:16:24.040 --> 0:16:27.920
<v Speaker 1>is in question. So if its market cap is a

0:16:28.040 --> 0:16:31.280
<v Speaker 1>ten or a little bit above a billion dollars, just

0:16:31.360 --> 0:16:33.800
<v Speaker 1>give you a sense. It's total debt is more than

0:16:33.880 --> 0:16:36.360
<v Speaker 1>twice that at about twenty two billion dollars, and its

0:16:36.360 --> 0:16:39.760
<v Speaker 1>bonds have been plunging. I just have to wonder what

0:16:39.840 --> 0:16:42.440
<v Speaker 1>are the recoveries going to be like if they do

0:16:42.560 --> 0:16:46.000
<v Speaker 1>decide to declare bankruptcy or file for bankruptcy. Because this

0:16:46.080 --> 0:16:49.280
<v Speaker 1>is a company that is an investment grade credit rating,

0:16:49.800 --> 0:16:54.080
<v Speaker 1>right it is. Uh, it doesn't happen that much that

0:16:54.400 --> 0:16:57.400
<v Speaker 1>utility goes bankrupt, So we don't really know what would

0:16:57.400 --> 0:17:02.120
<v Speaker 1>happen in that situation. But uh, but interestingly, the one

0:17:02.160 --> 0:17:04.679
<v Speaker 1>that did go bankrupt, and oh one I believe it

0:17:04.760 --> 0:17:08.960
<v Speaker 1>was was p G and E. And I think the

0:17:10.320 --> 0:17:12.480
<v Speaker 1>you can go back and look at that, and the

0:17:12.560 --> 0:17:17.120
<v Speaker 1>recoveries were good for bondholders. I believe it was all

0:17:17.160 --> 0:17:20.080
<v Speaker 1>fully recovered. And you know, it's a while ago, so

0:17:20.119 --> 0:17:21.960
<v Speaker 1>I don't hold me to every detail, but I think

0:17:21.960 --> 0:17:25.280
<v Speaker 1>it was all fully recovered, and eventually the stock got

0:17:25.320 --> 0:17:28.280
<v Speaker 1>back to a point where it was higher than it

0:17:28.320 --> 0:17:31.400
<v Speaker 1>was before they went into bankruptcy. So but that took

0:17:31.440 --> 0:17:35.680
<v Speaker 1>four or five years. So it's a an extremely complex,

0:17:36.440 --> 0:17:41.160
<v Speaker 1>UH working out type of situation where of course everybody

0:17:41.160 --> 0:17:43.760
<v Speaker 1>wants to get paid, and the bond holders and the

0:17:43.800 --> 0:17:49.400
<v Speaker 1>stockholders and the UH trial lawyers and and the regulators

0:17:49.480 --> 0:17:52.800
<v Speaker 1>and so on. So it's it at least it will

0:17:52.800 --> 0:17:57.000
<v Speaker 1>take a long time to figure out who's owed what. UH.

0:17:57.040 --> 0:18:01.120
<v Speaker 1>But the bottom line is California. I think that the

0:18:01.160 --> 0:18:04.480
<v Speaker 1>cooler heads know that it only makes sense to have

0:18:04.560 --> 0:18:09.000
<v Speaker 1>an investment grade utility to run the polls and wires

0:18:09.040 --> 0:18:13.680
<v Speaker 1>and electrons in northern California. The shares of pgen E

0:18:13.760 --> 0:18:18.480
<v Speaker 1>are down a little bit more than today. What would

0:18:18.480 --> 0:18:23.960
<v Speaker 1>a bankruptcy filing do that would be positive for pg

0:18:24.119 --> 0:18:27.880
<v Speaker 1>n E. UH. What what it would do is it

0:18:27.920 --> 0:18:34.639
<v Speaker 1>would UH put the question of how you adjust the

0:18:34.720 --> 0:18:38.280
<v Speaker 1>debt to the amount of equity UH into a bankruptcy

0:18:38.320 --> 0:18:41.880
<v Speaker 1>court so that you would be relieved of the concern

0:18:42.000 --> 0:18:46.000
<v Speaker 1>that a sudden influx of demand for payment would immediately

0:18:46.080 --> 0:18:49.760
<v Speaker 1>tip over the company and lead to a liquidity crisis.

0:18:49.800 --> 0:18:52.960
<v Speaker 1>So you know, as with any bankruptcy, that's the kind

0:18:52.960 --> 0:18:56.800
<v Speaker 1>of situation. But overall the utility bankruptcy, the idea is

0:18:57.240 --> 0:19:00.879
<v Speaker 1>you take the piecemeal workout where as to the regulators,

0:19:00.880 --> 0:19:03.119
<v Speaker 1>back to the legislative, back to the regulators, and it

0:19:03.160 --> 0:19:05.400
<v Speaker 1>could just go on and on and nobody knows what's

0:19:05.400 --> 0:19:08.639
<v Speaker 1>going on. At least it gets organized in a bankruptcy

0:19:08.680 --> 0:19:11.320
<v Speaker 1>court and people start to say, Okay, what do you need?

0:19:11.400 --> 0:19:15.080
<v Speaker 1>What do you need? And the judge ultimately brings everything together.

0:19:15.600 --> 0:19:18.639
<v Speaker 1>And I think in this case, the state of California

0:19:18.640 --> 0:19:21.119
<v Speaker 1>would say what we need is a functioning utility. So

0:19:21.359 --> 0:19:23.040
<v Speaker 1>kid a lot of people are saying that this is

0:19:23.080 --> 0:19:27.159
<v Speaker 1>basically political warfare, and this is p g N saying, Okay,

0:19:27.280 --> 0:19:29.800
<v Speaker 1>you're not going to bail us out, fine world, file

0:19:29.840 --> 0:19:33.000
<v Speaker 1>for bankruptcy and put our credit rating in jeopardy and

0:19:33.320 --> 0:19:37.119
<v Speaker 1>throw the entire utility system, uh put it at risks.

0:19:37.280 --> 0:19:41.679
<v Speaker 1>So is this a dangerous precedent for other utilities. I

0:19:41.720 --> 0:19:46.480
<v Speaker 1>don't think any utility would uh lightly go into the

0:19:46.560 --> 0:19:49.200
<v Speaker 1>kind of situation that pg N is in so I'd

0:19:49.280 --> 0:19:51.960
<v Speaker 1>say I'm not aware of any other utility out there

0:19:52.000 --> 0:19:55.639
<v Speaker 1>now that has this kind of imbalance between as you

0:19:55.680 --> 0:19:59.520
<v Speaker 1>were discussing the debt and equity. Uh so, let's just

0:19:59.560 --> 0:20:02.159
<v Speaker 1>say it. You know, it's a very unpleasant situation, and

0:20:02.200 --> 0:20:04.359
<v Speaker 1>nobody wants to go through it if they don't have to.

0:20:04.920 --> 0:20:07.679
<v Speaker 1>But pg N is now in a situation where the

0:20:07.760 --> 0:20:11.600
<v Speaker 1>debt and the increased possibility of even much more debt

0:20:11.680 --> 0:20:15.959
<v Speaker 1>to pay the liabilities, uh is much more than they

0:20:15.960 --> 0:20:18.320
<v Speaker 1>can handle on their own at this point, and so

0:20:18.400 --> 0:20:23.200
<v Speaker 1>they have to look for more extreme out outcomes than

0:20:23.359 --> 0:20:25.480
<v Speaker 1>than you might hope for. Kick College, thank you so

0:20:25.560 --> 0:20:28.120
<v Speaker 1>much for being with us. Just to also note the

0:20:28.119 --> 0:20:32.119
<v Speaker 1>p g NI bonds that are maturing currently treating a

0:20:32.160 --> 0:20:35.440
<v Speaker 1>six and a half percent yield compared to a six

0:20:35.520 --> 0:20:39.840
<v Speaker 1>point one percent average yield on the junk rated bonds

0:20:39.920 --> 0:20:43.840
<v Speaker 1>with the top ratings of junk bonds. UM same about

0:20:43.920 --> 0:20:46.280
<v Speaker 1>average maturity, if not the p g ANY bonds are

0:20:46.280 --> 0:20:50.040
<v Speaker 1>actually maturing sooner, so they're being treated as junk in

0:20:50.080 --> 0:20:53.760
<v Speaker 1>the bond markets, even though credit rating companies are not

0:20:54.000 --> 0:20:56.040
<v Speaker 1>saying that that is what they are. Kick connle Edge,

0:20:56.040 --> 0:20:58.119
<v Speaker 1>thank you for joining us, Senior utilities industry in the

0:20:58.240 --> 0:21:18.720
<v Speaker 1>list for Bloomberg Intel legends he's bullish on markets for indeed,

0:21:18.720 --> 0:21:22.000
<v Speaker 1>he believes that stocks are currently undervalued. Here to tell

0:21:22.080 --> 0:21:24.800
<v Speaker 1>us more, David Cats. He's the chief investment officer for

0:21:24.960 --> 0:21:29.880
<v Speaker 1>Matrix Asset Advisors. He's got nearly eight hundred million dollars

0:21:29.880 --> 0:21:33.119
<v Speaker 1>of assets under management. David Cats a pleasure to have

0:21:33.240 --> 0:21:39.400
<v Speaker 1>you with us. Give us your thesis for for stocks. Well, basically,

0:21:39.440 --> 0:21:42.200
<v Speaker 1>you've just gone through the worst quarter in about a decade,

0:21:42.240 --> 0:21:46.560
<v Speaker 1>You've gone through the worst December in over uh ninety years.

0:21:46.680 --> 0:21:49.560
<v Speaker 1>We think stocks are now at a level that's pretty attractive.

0:21:49.640 --> 0:21:53.080
<v Speaker 1>The ultimate driver of stock prices is usually price earnings ratios.

0:21:53.400 --> 0:21:55.720
<v Speaker 1>The markets at about fourteen and a half times two

0:21:55.720 --> 0:21:59.040
<v Speaker 1>thousand and nineteen numbers, so that's a pretty good level

0:21:59.200 --> 0:22:01.760
<v Speaker 1>Historically you've done quite well from that, and we think

0:22:01.760 --> 0:22:04.720
<v Speaker 1>there's just much, much too much pessimism built into stock

0:22:04.800 --> 0:22:07.040
<v Speaker 1>prices right now, and there's a lot of room for

0:22:07.080 --> 0:22:08.600
<v Speaker 1>them to go high. There are a lot of great

0:22:08.640 --> 0:22:12.200
<v Speaker 1>businesses that are selling a ten eleven times earnings. Historically,

0:22:12.200 --> 0:22:13.720
<v Speaker 1>you're going to make pretty good money when you can

0:22:13.800 --> 0:22:16.600
<v Speaker 1>do that. Yeah, David is sort of highlight the pessimism

0:22:16.640 --> 0:22:19.879
<v Speaker 1>that you're talking about. Black Rocks annual survey of institutional

0:22:19.880 --> 0:22:23.000
<v Speaker 1>clients overseeing seven trillion dollars in assets globally came out

0:22:23.400 --> 0:22:26.879
<v Speaker 1>uh and more than half of them plan to cut

0:22:26.960 --> 0:22:31.399
<v Speaker 1>stock exposure this year, up dramatically from the proportion that

0:22:31.440 --> 0:22:34.000
<v Speaker 1>said the same thing last year. So where are you

0:22:34.080 --> 0:22:38.959
<v Speaker 1>adding opportunities and when did you start buying just one thing?

0:22:39.000 --> 0:22:41.320
<v Speaker 1>I'm at black Rock. What's interesting is probably if they

0:22:41.320 --> 0:22:43.920
<v Speaker 1>had done that Poul about six months ago, people were

0:22:44.000 --> 0:22:47.120
<v Speaker 1>universally bullish. So you've just had this really sharp sell

0:22:47.160 --> 0:22:49.359
<v Speaker 1>off and all of a sudden, sentiments turned pretty negative.

0:22:49.400 --> 0:22:53.000
<v Speaker 1>We think that's chasing what's happened rather than the future. Now.

0:22:53.040 --> 0:22:54.840
<v Speaker 1>What what we like here is we think there are

0:22:54.880 --> 0:22:58.160
<v Speaker 1>a wealth of industries and sectors that are pretty attractive.

0:22:58.160 --> 0:23:01.679
<v Speaker 1>We like the financials a great deal. Um Technology has

0:23:01.720 --> 0:23:03.600
<v Speaker 1>just been beaten up pretty badly, so we think there

0:23:03.640 --> 0:23:08.920
<v Speaker 1>are opportunities there. Communications services another area. Energy we think

0:23:08.920 --> 0:23:10.720
<v Speaker 1>it is poised to do a lot better. The stocks

0:23:10.760 --> 0:23:14.440
<v Speaker 1>have really been washed out, and select healthcare, so really

0:23:14.520 --> 0:23:18.240
<v Speaker 1>lots of different places to make money. The key driver

0:23:18.359 --> 0:23:22.840
<v Speaker 1>there is depressed valuation, good long term outlook. David I'm

0:23:22.880 --> 0:23:25.720
<v Speaker 1>assuming that everyone has access to more or less the

0:23:25.800 --> 0:23:28.879
<v Speaker 1>same information that you have access to so much it

0:23:28.960 --> 0:23:32.600
<v Speaker 1>must be your reading of the information that causes you

0:23:32.760 --> 0:23:35.480
<v Speaker 1>to be bullish and a bit of a contrarian. Maybe

0:23:35.520 --> 0:23:37.840
<v Speaker 1>you could just give us an example, whether it is

0:23:38.040 --> 0:23:41.520
<v Speaker 1>Comcast or whether it is Facebook or another stock, to

0:23:41.600 --> 0:23:46.480
<v Speaker 1>sort of highlight your strategy and why your perspective is different. Well,

0:23:46.600 --> 0:23:49.280
<v Speaker 1>our perspective is different because we try not to get

0:23:49.280 --> 0:23:52.280
<v Speaker 1>caught up in the day to day manias. So right

0:23:52.280 --> 0:23:55.040
<v Speaker 1>now the market is very, very focused on the negatives

0:23:55.080 --> 0:23:59.560
<v Speaker 1>associated with the trade war with interest rates. About six

0:23:59.560 --> 0:24:02.280
<v Speaker 1>weeks ago they were rising. Earnings are going to be

0:24:02.320 --> 0:24:04.320
<v Speaker 1>at a slower pace this year, so you hear that

0:24:04.400 --> 0:24:06.840
<v Speaker 1>from many strategists that how can the stock market go

0:24:06.960 --> 0:24:10.359
<v Speaker 1>up with slower earning space. We actually looked at the

0:24:10.400 --> 0:24:13.720
<v Speaker 1>period from nineteen thirty seven to two thousand and eighteen,

0:24:14.200 --> 0:24:17.760
<v Speaker 1>uh the level of earnings growth and its impact on

0:24:18.119 --> 0:24:21.320
<v Speaker 1>stock prices. How did the smp FI when earning s

0:24:21.320 --> 0:24:23.800
<v Speaker 1>growth was higher when it was lower, and we found

0:24:23.800 --> 0:24:26.800
<v Speaker 1>there was almost a zero correlation. So that really means

0:24:26.840 --> 0:24:29.520
<v Speaker 1>that that's not going to be the driver in aggregate

0:24:29.560 --> 0:24:31.479
<v Speaker 1>for stock prices this year. A lot of people are

0:24:31.480 --> 0:24:34.359
<v Speaker 1>getting caught up in that. We agree that earnings growth

0:24:34.400 --> 0:24:35.800
<v Speaker 1>is gonna be a lot slower than it was in

0:24:35.880 --> 0:24:38.840
<v Speaker 1>two thousand and eighteen, but you really can do pretty

0:24:38.880 --> 0:24:41.320
<v Speaker 1>nicely in a five or ten percent growth mode. In

0:24:41.400 --> 0:24:44.239
<v Speaker 1>terms of your question on individual stocks, Comcast has been

0:24:44.280 --> 0:24:47.240
<v Speaker 1>a great business that's growing at north of fifteen percent

0:24:47.280 --> 0:24:50.480
<v Speaker 1>a year for the last ten years. We really like management,

0:24:50.520 --> 0:24:53.520
<v Speaker 1>we like the acquisition that they made internationally, and you're

0:24:53.560 --> 0:24:56.440
<v Speaker 1>you're getting this wonderful business at about thirteen point nine

0:24:56.480 --> 0:25:00.200
<v Speaker 1>times earnings. UH Normally it'll sell UH at fifth seen

0:25:00.240 --> 0:25:02.840
<v Speaker 1>sixteen seventeen times earning, So you're getting a really good

0:25:02.840 --> 0:25:05.760
<v Speaker 1>business at a very attractive price. Another stock that you

0:25:05.800 --> 0:25:09.880
<v Speaker 1>find attractive is Facebook, which is kind of interesting because

0:25:09.960 --> 0:25:12.840
<v Speaker 1>there is a lot of pessimism around this one. Uh

0:25:13.080 --> 0:25:15.680
<v Speaker 1>the biggest bear on the street. Pivotal Research Group came

0:25:15.680 --> 0:25:17.760
<v Speaker 1>out today saying that Facebook is likely to see another

0:25:17.960 --> 0:25:20.359
<v Speaker 1>rough year and lowered their price target to a hundred

0:25:20.480 --> 0:25:23.840
<v Speaker 1>thirteen dollars from a hundred and twenty five dollars previously.

0:25:24.119 --> 0:25:26.560
<v Speaker 1>Currently shares it through a hundred and thirty eight dollars.

0:25:26.600 --> 0:25:29.000
<v Speaker 1>I'm just wondering where do you see Facebook shares going

0:25:29.000 --> 0:25:33.120
<v Speaker 1>and what gives you conviction that these bears are wrong? Well,

0:25:33.160 --> 0:25:36.000
<v Speaker 1>we're not that happy with Facebook management, and we really

0:25:36.040 --> 0:25:38.840
<v Speaker 1>do think that they run a business without a lot

0:25:38.880 --> 0:25:41.000
<v Speaker 1>of ethics. So we think regulation is going to be

0:25:41.000 --> 0:25:43.040
<v Speaker 1>a much better thing for them. We think they can

0:25:43.080 --> 0:25:46.639
<v Speaker 1>do a lot better in providing accurate information UH and

0:25:46.760 --> 0:25:52.360
<v Speaker 1>not chasing the dollar as their sole motivation. Having said that, UM,

0:25:52.400 --> 0:25:56.280
<v Speaker 1>they have a tremendous franchise, whether it's Facebook or Instagram

0:25:56.359 --> 0:25:59.119
<v Speaker 1>or What's app. UH, they make an enormous amount of

0:25:59.119 --> 0:26:02.840
<v Speaker 1>money advertise dollars are going more and more to social media,

0:26:02.920 --> 0:26:05.320
<v Speaker 1>and it really is one of the best ways to

0:26:05.359 --> 0:26:08.280
<v Speaker 1>target your ad and get the consumer to buy. So,

0:26:08.600 --> 0:26:10.639
<v Speaker 1>even though they've got a lot of business problems and

0:26:10.680 --> 0:26:12.960
<v Speaker 1>they're gonna have to spend a lot more money uh

0:26:13.000 --> 0:26:17.000
<v Speaker 1>in terms of uh managing themselves better, they're still going

0:26:17.080 --> 0:26:18.800
<v Speaker 1>to make a boatload of money. So for all of

0:26:18.840 --> 0:26:22.080
<v Speaker 1>the negatives, right now, Facebook is telling it about sixteen

0:26:22.119 --> 0:26:25.680
<v Speaker 1>point four times UH two thousand and nineteen earnings, they've

0:26:25.720 --> 0:26:28.159
<v Speaker 1>got about fifteen dollars cash per share, So if you

0:26:28.160 --> 0:26:31.120
<v Speaker 1>adjust for cash per share, it's at about fifteen times

0:26:31.200 --> 0:26:34.720
<v Speaker 1>adjusted earnings, and historically, when you can buy a very

0:26:34.760 --> 0:26:38.000
<v Speaker 1>good growth business at that type of price, you're gonna

0:26:38.000 --> 0:26:40.720
<v Speaker 1>do very very well. Tell us about your call for

0:26:40.760 --> 0:26:44.879
<v Speaker 1>the industrial sector, is that geared towards global economic growth.

0:26:46.480 --> 0:26:49.119
<v Speaker 1>So we we think that the global economy is going

0:26:49.160 --> 0:26:51.800
<v Speaker 1>to be okay. It definitely is going to be a

0:26:51.880 --> 0:26:55.280
<v Speaker 1>lot less robust than it was in two thousand eighteen. Uh,

0:26:55.320 --> 0:26:58.600
<v Speaker 1>Europe is struggling a little bit, China has slowed down.

0:26:58.880 --> 0:27:01.000
<v Speaker 1>But having said that, a lot of these companies have

0:27:01.119 --> 0:27:04.600
<v Speaker 1>sold off and are selling at twelve times earnings, and

0:27:04.640 --> 0:27:08.399
<v Speaker 1>we think that, uh, it's an absolute imperative that the

0:27:08.480 --> 0:27:10.639
<v Speaker 1>United States and China come up with some sort of

0:27:10.640 --> 0:27:12.879
<v Speaker 1>a trade deal. It's in both of their interests. We

0:27:12.920 --> 0:27:16.360
<v Speaker 1>think President Trump, while he might not like to do

0:27:17.040 --> 0:27:19.440
<v Speaker 1>a deal, is going to have to in order to

0:27:19.520 --> 0:27:22.679
<v Speaker 1>stabilize the US market. And if that's the case, we

0:27:22.680 --> 0:27:25.879
<v Speaker 1>think industrials are very well positioned to start to grow again.

0:27:26.200 --> 0:27:28.560
<v Speaker 1>And you're getting these companies at really good prices, whether

0:27:28.600 --> 0:27:31.520
<v Speaker 1>it's a United Technologies or an Eaton Corps or a

0:27:31.560 --> 0:27:35.679
<v Speaker 1>T Connectivity, really good businesses that will do better in

0:27:35.720 --> 0:27:39.199
<v Speaker 1>a reasonable global economy. So just real quick, are there

0:27:39.200 --> 0:27:42.840
<v Speaker 1>any stocks that you're staying away from. So the one

0:27:42.840 --> 0:27:45.720
<v Speaker 1>group that actually did pretty well last year, even though

0:27:45.760 --> 0:27:48.479
<v Speaker 1>the business was not that good were utilities. Uh, they

0:27:48.480 --> 0:27:51.480
<v Speaker 1>were a flight to quality. As a result, they're selling

0:27:51.480 --> 0:27:53.760
<v Speaker 1>at the high end of the evaluation range that we

0:27:53.800 --> 0:27:55.919
<v Speaker 1>normally would like for such a slow growth group. So

0:27:55.960 --> 0:27:58.080
<v Speaker 1>this is a group that we would be taking money

0:27:58.119 --> 0:28:00.520
<v Speaker 1>away from and putting into all of these There areas

0:28:00.520 --> 0:28:02.440
<v Speaker 1>that we just mentioned. So you're not buying pg N

0:28:04.840 --> 0:28:07.120
<v Speaker 1>surely not. I mean, when you're when you're looking at that,

0:28:07.119 --> 0:28:09.359
<v Speaker 1>that's just you're making a bet that they're not going

0:28:09.400 --> 0:28:12.520
<v Speaker 1>to go bankrupt. And generally when you buy utilities, you're

0:28:12.600 --> 0:28:15.080
<v Speaker 1>buying it for safety, So that would not fall into

0:28:15.119 --> 0:28:18.400
<v Speaker 1>that category if you're trying to buy a utility for safety. Uh.

0:28:18.440 --> 0:28:20.920
<v Speaker 1>Companies like Duke are very good companies, but we think

0:28:20.920 --> 0:28:23.399
<v Speaker 1>they're pretty fully priced. David Cats, thank you so much

0:28:23.440 --> 0:28:26.120
<v Speaker 1>for being with us. David Kat's chief investment Officer Matrix

0:28:26.200 --> 0:28:31.439
<v Speaker 1>Asset Manage Advisors. Matrix Matrix Asset Advisor is based in

0:28:31.480 --> 0:28:37.200
<v Speaker 1>New York. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg P and

0:28:37.280 --> 0:28:40.320
<v Speaker 1>L podcast. You can subscribe and listen to interviews at

0:28:40.360 --> 0:28:44.800
<v Speaker 1>Apple Podcasts. SoundCloud or whatever podcast platform you prefer. I'm

0:28:44.840 --> 0:28:48.280
<v Speaker 1>pim Fox. I'm on Twitter at pim Fox. I'm on

0:28:48.320 --> 0:28:51.600
<v Speaker 1>Twitter at Lisa Abramo. It's One before the podcast. You

0:28:51.640 --> 0:28:54.160
<v Speaker 1>can always catch us worldwide on Bloomberg Radio