Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Penel podcast on Paul Swing You.
Speaker 1: Along with my co host Lisa Brahma Waits, each day
Speaker 1: we bring you the most noteworthy and useful interviews for
Speaker 1: you and your money, whether at the grocery store or
Speaker 1: the trading floor. Find a Bloomberg Penl podcast on Apple
Speaker 1: podcast or wherever you listen to podcasts, as well as
Speaker 1: at Bloomberg dot com. There are a number of tech
Speaker 1: dar langs expected to have initial public offerings, including Airbnb,
Speaker 1: uh and Casper, among others. But the real question is
Speaker 1: why even go public when the private market is becoming
Speaker 1: more in robust, both on the initial financing side of
Speaker 1: things as well as a trading side. Joining us now
Speaker 1: Kelly Rodriguez, chief executive officer of Forge, which helps facilitate
Speaker 1: some of that trading and activity in private markets before
Speaker 1: companies go public, or for companies who may never go public. Kelly,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for being here with us in
Speaker 1: our interactive broker studios. Can we just get started? You
Speaker 1: know why a company would want to go public at
Speaker 1: this point given what you're seeing in private markets. I
Speaker 1: think at at this point, with all of the access
Speaker 1: to liquidity that you see for a private company, the
Speaker 1: reason to go is that you've matured to the point
Speaker 1: that you want to let a retail investor around the
Speaker 1: world get access to your stock. But from the standpoint
Speaker 1: of just access to liquidity in general, there isn't a reason.
Speaker 1: So what we saw in twenty nineteen enter nineteen is
Speaker 1: boy a lot of anticipation about a lot of big
Speaker 1: unicorn and deals coming public, opportunity for investors investor really
Speaker 1: cool transformative companies like uber like Lift, like we Work.
Speaker 1: It didn't work out well for the public investors in
Speaker 1: What do you think happened for some of those big
Speaker 1: marquee deals that just didn't trade well on the public markets.
Speaker 1: A couple of things. The data that we have showed
Speaker 1: that historically, if you were going to come into an
Speaker 1: I p O as an investor, twenty nineteen was a
Speaker 1: year that marked you should have gotten in six to
Speaker 1: eighteen months before. And if you look at where these
Speaker 1: deals priced in twenty nineteen UM, we could see from
Speaker 1: the private market demand the bid ask uh that they're
Speaker 1: probably going to be pretty flat. I also think there
Speaker 1: was a there's a path to profitability question that's now
Speaker 1: central to all of these unicorns is sort of raises
Speaker 1: a key point, right. Has the dynamism in the US
Speaker 1: equity market moved from public to private? And and that's
Speaker 1: sort of implicit in what you're saying. Basically, the idea
Speaker 1: of being the real gains are to be had before
Speaker 1: the vast majority of people can get access to these companies.
Speaker 1: Is that changing? Is there better access? Yeah? I think this,
Speaker 1: This is what we're at Forge all about. And I
Speaker 1: think what we're trying to do is address the regulatory
Speaker 1: issues and the access issues for people to participate in
Speaker 1: the private markets, because look, this has been an asset class.
Speaker 1: It's been performing for twenty years. It's just most people
Speaker 1: can't get into it. Uh, and so that is shifting,
Speaker 1: all right. So of the four plus unicorns out there
Speaker 1: roughly that are still in the private markets, if I
Speaker 1: want to, how many of those companies can I, in
Speaker 1: theory buy into and as private? Yes, in theory you
Speaker 1: can get into all of them right now? Are our
Speaker 1: data suggests that of them are investable today? Okay? So
Speaker 1: I but I come to you or I go through
Speaker 1: I mean, how do how do how would I actually
Speaker 1: do that? That That I have to be an institutional investor?
Speaker 1: Can I can an your retail investor do this? This
Speaker 1: is really the emergence of the private markets at a
Speaker 1: at a broad level in the world. This is what
Speaker 1: Forge serves. Were there to help companies get access to
Speaker 1: that liquidity and help investors get access to those companies.
Speaker 1: So that's our central purpose. Outside of US, you'd have
Speaker 1: to go through a venture capital firm, become an LP,
Speaker 1: or find a way to directly contact the company. That's tough.
Speaker 1: And actually, when some of these I p o s
Speaker 1: didn't do so hot last year, one thing that was
Speaker 1: notable was you dig onto the hood of a lot
Speaker 1: of mutual funds and you actually find that mutual funds
Speaker 1: own a lot of those shares, particularly the later rounds
Speaker 1: of financing. But it does raise a question, Kelly. The
Speaker 1: idea here that private markets are becoming as liquid as
Speaker 1: public markets. They're becoming sort of dominated by companies of
Speaker 1: similar size to what you can find in public markets.
Speaker 1: What is the difference at this point between private and
Speaker 1: public equity markets. The most significant difference that we see
Speaker 1: is the way a company operates when they're private. The
Speaker 1: continue to invest and not have a quarter over quarter mentality.
Speaker 1: There's a strategic reason why that's valuable, and it's there's
Speaker 1: a reason why these companies are staying private for twelve, thirteen,
Speaker 1: fourteen years to get market dominance before they actually go
Speaker 1: out in price and start operating under that quarter over
Speaker 1: quarter basis. Another interesting development in the equity capital markets
Speaker 1: in twenty nineteen, at least to me, was direct public listings.
Speaker 1: Could you kind of help us understand what those are
Speaker 1: and are we can see more of them? Yeah, I
Speaker 1: think it's a huge trend. UM. The New York Stock Exchanges,
Speaker 1: as you have reported, is currently pushing to allow companies
Speaker 1: to raise capital these direct listings. We think they're amazingly
Speaker 1: efficient UM, and they really allow investors to come into
Speaker 1: deals UM on a market based pricing basis, meaning there
Speaker 1: isn't a cover price. They're really in the two that
Speaker 1: have been out there, we've done significant business around both
Speaker 1: Slack and Spotify, and you saw investors start to come
Speaker 1: in days before and write it through for the company itself. UM.
Speaker 1: It allows them to raise money, UM, not through this
Speaker 1: small group of investors who have been brought by an
Speaker 1: investment bank, but really to provide access broadly. The one
Speaker 1: concern that people have are one of the main concerns
Speaker 1: is that there is severe misvaluation going on in private markets,
Speaker 1: and we work as sort of heralded as the example
Speaker 1: of that. Do you think that that is accurate? I
Speaker 1: think it's becoming um more coming off from we we work.
Speaker 1: I think the focus of valuations really that's the theme
Speaker 1: of how twenty nineteen ended, and so I'd say that
Speaker 1: there have been a lot of valuation news in twenty nineteen,
Speaker 1: really on a couple of the big investors, soft Bank
Speaker 1: being one. I think when you see a broader group
Speaker 1: of people coming into these companies, you're gonna see pricing
Speaker 1: settled down. Kelly Rodriguez, thanks so much for joining us.
Speaker 1: Kelly Rodriguez is the chief executive officer of Forged, based
Speaker 1: in San Francisco, but joining us here in our Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Interactive Broker studio really fascinating part of the equity capital
Speaker 1: markets in twenty nineteen. You know, we're some of those
Speaker 1: big unicorn deals that did not trade well and maybe
Speaker 1: how that changed how investors are looking at some of
Speaker 1: these coming I think the key debate post crisis has
Speaker 1: been the evolution of private markets and how that has
Speaker 1: become increasingly dominant for a source of funding for companies
Speaker 1: of all sizes, not just the very smallest ones. And
Speaker 1: it really raises a question of some of the flaws
Speaker 1: in public markets, uh and where private markets are are
Speaker 1: sort of benefiting the public markets need to need to
Speaker 1: take on. Yeah, and we're seeing you know, we saw
Speaker 1: with Uburn Lift Company staying private longer because there is
Speaker 1: much capital. Let me know that consumers have really been
Speaker 1: the backbone of economic growth in the United States, and
Speaker 1: we got some data today that showed that the consumers
Speaker 1: still doing well. We are consumer retail sales today came
Speaker 1: in pretty strong for the month of December, indicating once
Speaker 1: again that the consumer continues to spend. It help us
Speaker 1: breakdown what's going on in all things retail. We welcome
Speaker 1: our good friend, uh Bert Flickinger, Managing director, Strategic Resource
Speaker 1: Resource Group, joining us here and I blew our interactive
Speaker 1: broker stat Studio. Bert, thanks so much for joining us.
Speaker 1: We did get those retail sales numbers today. What kind
Speaker 1: of stood out for you? What really stood out and
Speaker 1: and Lisa and Tom talked about it so well at
Speaker 1: the open, is that auto sales down shifted a little bit,
Speaker 1: and we're seeing the auto manufacturers charge real price premiums
Speaker 1: and actually making smaller cars, so the consumers uh won't
Speaker 1: pay more for less. And at the same time, on
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg terminal, you look at auto loans and auto
Speaker 1: credit is an all time high. So with consumers spending
Speaker 1: less on auto, they're spending they're spending more in restaurants
Speaker 1: and spending more on the rest of retail um importantly,
Speaker 1: what Lisa pointed out earlier, not on luxury. Well, so
Speaker 1: here's what I'm Here's what I'm struggling to understand. Its
Speaker 1: consumers are spending more in retail and clothes and stuff
Speaker 1: like that. And then it Coal's J. C. Penny even
Speaker 1: target disappointed the holiday of forecasts. How do we swear
Speaker 1: those two things? Lisa, this is a really important insight
Speaker 1: you're bringing up. And and the real idiosyncracy institutionally is
Speaker 1: how can the Bonti group of six different department stores
Speaker 1: to Barney's New York Liquid Aid and these retailers you're
Speaker 1: referencing aren't targeting those lost shoppers who are loyal to
Speaker 1: the other retailers from Herberts to Carson's to Barney's and
Speaker 1: shift them over the stores. The other thing we're seeing
Speaker 1: is the vendors are actually actually doing in some of
Speaker 1: the stores that some of the brand vendors are trying
Speaker 1: to get the shoppers to buy direct online from the
Speaker 1: brand instead of going to the store. So they're under
Speaker 1: allocating the inventory to the stores, and the stores are
Speaker 1: cutting working capital and don't don't have enough inventory in
Speaker 1: the stores themselves. How do you get the Bonton customer
Speaker 1: the Barneys customer two very different customers. Meanwhile, but how
Speaker 1: do you attract them? So, say, say with Shields and
Speaker 1: in Grand Forks, North Dakota, would part of our retail
Speaker 1: route is um go to the Shields customers and cross
Speaker 1: merchandise for the customer lists for the herburgers who are
Speaker 1: on the other side of the same shopping center. And
Speaker 1: then there's so many good means through uh am its on,
Speaker 1: uh analytics, Facebook analytics, survey monk key to find where
Speaker 1: shoppers shopped and then offer them UH discounts and coupons
Speaker 1: to convert them and all generations of their family UH
Speaker 1: from babies to pets, pet products to stuff for seniors.
Speaker 1: Just probably what if you could just clarify for me
Speaker 1: because I thought I had to handle on holiday sales
Speaker 1: that they are up three four pretty good. But then again,
Speaker 1: at least I was mentioned, we've had some retailers posts
Speaker 1: some of the holiday numbers that don't necessarily align with that.
Speaker 1: So was it is it? Clearly? Is it a game
Speaker 1: of winners and losers? It's not all retailers are lifting.
Speaker 1: It's it's just your reference, Paul. It's it's winners and losers.
Speaker 1: It's also leaders that in many of these retailers, you
Speaker 1: have a male monarchy of people who are nbas and
Speaker 1: came from hedge funds and didn't come up from the
Speaker 1: shop floors. So they're not promoting the best and the
Speaker 1: brightest women. And some of those retailers are really struggling
Speaker 1: from having older Caucasian guys that spend more time with
Speaker 1: the Wall Street analysts and they spend with their people
Speaker 1: in their own stores. So you can blame issues with
Speaker 1: with a lack of diversity in the C suite or
Speaker 1: what have you. I think that the sort of question
Speaker 1: that I have is there is this fundamental shift from
Speaker 1: the brick and mortar to online, and how much do
Speaker 1: you invest in the experience of going into brick and
Speaker 1: mortar versus invest in your online outfits to compete with Amazon, Lisa,
Speaker 1: the experience you're referencing is essential. So there's a lost
Speaker 1: magic of merchandizing. That Frozen two was the big biggest
Speaker 1: event over the holidays for children, for parents, for grandparents,
Speaker 1: and no, no retailer really tied in to Frozen two,
Speaker 1: So it was a whole merchandizing opportunity. And UH, Targets
Speaker 1: cavetching like crazy that toys sales were flat while Amazon
Speaker 1: completely eclipse Target and everybody else on toys because Amazon
Speaker 1: was the best and merchandise Frozen toys and the other toys,
Speaker 1: and the department stores and the discount stores lost that
Speaker 1: magic of merchandizing of Disney theme products and other events,
Speaker 1: and to Paul's point, just just merchandizing the entire store
Speaker 1: instead of selling out the window at Bloomingdale's across the
Speaker 1: street to LVMH, which is like imagine a line fixed fortification.
Speaker 1: The window never changes in selling all the prime real
Speaker 1: estate and the stores to the vendors who don't change
Speaker 1: the assortments and don't make it exciting and don't have
Speaker 1: themes to get shoppers out of the home, out of
Speaker 1: the apartment, out of the office to stop at the
Speaker 1: stores to shop because there's no excitement and no magic
Speaker 1: merchandising in retail. We've talked about the theme. I guess
Speaker 1: as we think about the Amazon effect on retail, of
Speaker 1: the u s still being overstored, give us your your
Speaker 1: perception of kind of that issue. How much more does
Speaker 1: the footprint need to shrink you think, Paul, you're calling
Speaker 1: out a crisis that's really underreported other than Bloomberg. As
Speaker 1: we shrank from four hundred percent overstored to two hundred
Speaker 1: percent overstored. So all these real estate property taxes and
Speaker 1: sales taxes that fund the educational systems for public schools
Speaker 1: across the country, that whole tax base is going to
Speaker 1: be wiped out. Two hundred thousand workers wiped out in
Speaker 1: the last two years, seventy percent of home or women.
Speaker 1: And as Lisa always references so well, the underfunded pension
Speaker 1: plans and all these retailers the employers have to fully fund.
Speaker 1: That's at risk as we shrink from four hundred percent
Speaker 1: to two hundred percent overstored. Burt Flickintar, thank you, thank
Speaker 1: you as always for your perspective for a Flickintar managing
Speaker 1: director for a Strategic Resource group, giving us some really
Speaker 1: important color into the retail sales that came out stronger
Speaker 1: than expected, particularly as Burt was mentioning, if you strip
Speaker 1: out autos, for example, the estimate was an increase of
Speaker 1: zero point five percent month over month, and it was
Speaker 1: zero point seven percent once you strip out autos, and
Speaker 1: it was similarly a beat. What are yousrew about autos
Speaker 1: and gas? It just on the impeachment process. We had
Speaker 1: some news out today that g A O says that
Speaker 1: the White House broke the law in aid delay. So
Speaker 1: that news is out, we will have more on that. Also.
Speaker 1: Leve Parnessey indicted associated Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, accused
Speaker 1: Trump of lying in an interview with msnbc is Rachel
Speaker 1: Maddow last night. This is the first TV interview since
Speaker 1: the Ukraine story. Brooklet's listening. President Trump no exactly what
Speaker 1: was going on. He was aware of all my movements. Uh,
Speaker 1: he wouldn't do anything without the consent of Y Julian
Speaker 1: or the President. In terms of the President what he
Speaker 1: has said about you, Um, he said about you and
Speaker 1: Mr Freman Egor Freman, I don't know those gentlemen, I
Speaker 1: don't know about them. I don't know what they do.
Speaker 1: You're saying that was not a true statement for the president.
Speaker 1: That was Leve Partners indicted associated Trump's personal lord Rudy
Speaker 1: Giuliani on with the MSNBC's Rachel Meadow last night to
Speaker 1: dig into this developing story. Welcome Clinton Watts, Distinguished Research
Speaker 1: Fellow the Foreign Policy Research Instit who's also a Senior
Speaker 1: Fellow at the Center for Cyber and Homeland Security, George
Speaker 1: Washington University, joining us on the phone. Clint, thanks so
Speaker 1: much for joining us. I want to start with Leve
Speaker 1: partners very damning commentary last night. Is he a credible
Speaker 1: witness in your mind? He is in certain context, the
Speaker 1: context where he is undertaking actions, when he's moving from
Speaker 1: place to place, when he's in Ukraine, when he saw
Speaker 1: into Rudy Giuliani. Absolutely, he's the first person witness. He's
Speaker 1: really one of the only first person witnesses who's been
Speaker 1: involved in a lot of the actions that if you
Speaker 1: rewind all the way to that whistleblower complaint. Uh, he's
Speaker 1: at the center of the storm what was actually going
Speaker 1: on where it gets a little I think somewhat dicey
Speaker 1: is when he starts talking or referencing very high level
Speaker 1: officials across the Trump administration, how does he know those things?
Speaker 1: And he says it almost seems that he's assuming this,
Speaker 1: or he's assuming that, for example, Attorney General bar the
Speaker 1: way he referenced the Attorney General that he was part
Speaker 1: of the team or are new It seems like he
Speaker 1: wasn't a first person witness to that. He was just
Speaker 1: sort of relaying his in person, you know, his interpretation
Speaker 1: of the event. And so I think the further you
Speaker 1: get away from Rudy Giuliani and what and what Partners
Speaker 1: was actually doing, maybe the less credibility there is or
Speaker 1: he's implying or inferring things that he doesn't have you know,
Speaker 1: direct actual witness uh information to. So there's that side
Speaker 1: of it. And then to this morning, coming out the
Speaker 1: Government Accountability Office, which is a nonpartisan part that takes
Speaker 1: a look at governmental actions, say that says that he
Speaker 1: said that the White House Budget Office violated federal law
Speaker 1: by with whole thing about million dollars appropriated by Congress
Speaker 1: to the Defense Department for security aid to Ukraine. I'm
Speaker 1: just wondering right now all of this that's been going
Speaker 1: on in Washington, d C. Has been treated like a
Speaker 1: side show by markets. They have not been paying attention.
Speaker 1: It's also been treated like a side show by a
Speaker 1: significant portion of the population. At what point does it
Speaker 1: cross through? If ever? From your perspective, I'm shocked that
Speaker 1: it hasn't. Mostly from the perspective of Congress, what Congress
Speaker 1: is saying is strip out you know how you feel
Speaker 1: about the president, um, strip out how you feel about
Speaker 1: members of Congress, the idea of the constitution and that
Speaker 1: and that's clearly you know, what I think we should
Speaker 1: be worried about, long run, is that Congress has oversight
Speaker 1: there the folks that established the budget, the executive brands
Speaker 1: of the presidents, the person that executes you know, those uh,
Speaker 1: those parameters of that budget and defends the law. And
Speaker 1: what you're seeing is the sentence in this case clearly
Speaker 1: not having you know, its authority undertaken as the administer
Speaker 1: of the budget by the executive branch. And why would
Speaker 1: they not want to look into that just from a
Speaker 1: balance of powers. It really shows how politics has really
Speaker 1: shaped this entire process around impeachment to where we should
Speaker 1: be asking, I think as a nation when Congress makes
Speaker 1: a law, when Congress appropriates funds, is it being followed
Speaker 1: through with according to the law. And the answer is no,
Speaker 1: it's it's very clear. And I think that's what the
Speaker 1: announcement from the Budget Office, when you look at what
Speaker 1: they were doing, today's announcement is super critical. We're basically
Speaker 1: saying that the president can do whatever he wants with
Speaker 1: the nation's money and it doesn't matter what the law say.
Speaker 1: And I think that is a damning thing for democracy.
Speaker 1: Imagine how this plays out one or two administrations from now,
Speaker 1: where presidents see this, they take power and they say,
Speaker 1: you know what, I'm going to use all levels of
Speaker 1: financial influence to help my own political campaign or my
Speaker 1: own personal feelings about any country. That's definitely not how
Speaker 1: we want our government to run. Okay. So, just to
Speaker 1: follow upon that, Colin, how do you think the new
Speaker 1: revelations by left partners as well as the g a
Speaker 1: O finding today, how do you think that will what
Speaker 1: will mean for the impeachment trial. I sadly think it don't.
Speaker 1: It won't mean much. It just seems that we're not
Speaker 1: going to have a real trial where evidence is put forward.
Speaker 1: Maybe you will see some Republican senators. We've already seen
Speaker 1: some notions that they would like to see witnesses come forward. Um,
Speaker 1: maybe it will change that in the sense that there
Speaker 1: will be enough Republicans that will push to see witnesses
Speaker 1: come forward. But then if you only have partners come
Speaker 1: I'm not sure we'll have much of an impact. I
Speaker 1: think the key person in all of this, to be honest,
Speaker 1: is John Bolton. I mean he is a witness who
Speaker 1: was trying to seems to pursue foreign policy in a
Speaker 1: in an appropriate way led by the government, not a
Speaker 1: personal compath, asked Rudy Giuliani. As a president lawyer, he
Speaker 1: seems to understand both the budget process, He's a long
Speaker 1: time hand in the US government. I also see him
Speaker 1: as somebody who was similar to Jeff Sessions, which is
Speaker 1: not going to violate the law and may have strong
Speaker 1: personal feelings and convictions about what they want to see
Speaker 1: the United States pursue, but won't really break out of
Speaker 1: the norms uh in this case. And I think that's what.
Speaker 1: If there's any witness that I think is important is this,
Speaker 1: I think it's John Bolton. And you saw that in
Speaker 1: the testimony of Fiona Hill during the House hearing. Clint Watts,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for being with us. Clint Watts
Speaker 1: is Distinguished Research Fellow for the Foreign Policy Research Institute,
Speaker 1: also Senior Fellow at the Center for Cyber and Homeland
Speaker 1: Security at George Washington University, and author of a book
Speaker 1: Messing with the Enemy, Surviving in a social media world
Speaker 1: of hackers, terrorists, Russians and fake news. Lucky to have
Speaker 1: with us today. The director of Research at the World
Speaker 1: Gold Council a Juan Carlos Artigas, and it joins us
Speaker 1: here in our Bloomberg in our active broker studios. It's
Speaker 1: really interesting to me to see how many pro gold
Speaker 1: calls we have gotten recently, including from a top executive
Speaker 1: from Bridgewater associate saying the gold is headed to two
Speaker 1: tho dollars now it's from fifteen fifty currently. What are
Speaker 1: the main drivers of that? Yeah, and thank you so
Speaker 1: much for having me, by the way, And what's interesting
Speaker 1: is that, um, there are not only the asset managers.
Speaker 1: When you talk to investors, they are we have seen
Speaker 1: more and more awareness and willingness to to consider gold.
Speaker 1: So what is behind this movie? If you look in
Speaker 1: particular at two thousand and nineteen, and you will see
Speaker 1: something like similar progressing into twenty. I would highlight um
Speaker 1: basically three things. Number one, market risk and uncertainty are high. Yes,
Speaker 1: the stock market is going on and you have, you know,
Speaker 1: some positive developments in the global economy, but not everything
Speaker 1: is is perfect and actually some of those high valuations
Speaker 1: in the stock market are worrying investors. So that's that's one.
Speaker 1: Geopolitical risk across the world is tensions, so on and
Speaker 1: sup for that's number one. The second part, and it's
Speaker 1: somewhat related, is that interest rates have fallen monetary policies
Speaker 1: quite a commulative There is a record number of central
Speaker 1: banks scotting rates or expanding alternative monetary policies and so
Speaker 1: on and so forth, which again reduces the opportunity cost
Speaker 1: of holding gold. So risk and uncertainty and opportunity costs
Speaker 1: are supporting investment demand. And in addition, I think that
Speaker 1: one of the things that is important to understand when
Speaker 1: it comes to gold is that while a lot of
Speaker 1: investors and market participants think about gold in the context
Speaker 1: of hedging and and risk, the verification and so on,
Speaker 1: there's an additional side of gold dual nature of gold
Speaker 1: also as a consumer good and it's an a world
Speaker 1: component in electronics, all the electronics we interact with, and
Speaker 1: understanding the performance of gold requires you to understand how
Speaker 1: these two sites interact. Talk to us about the central banks.
Speaker 1: I know they've been a historically have been virus of gold,
Speaker 1: aggressive virus. What's their activity level now? Is it related
Speaker 1: to gold? Central banks have are have been an integral
Speaker 1: part of the demand side of gold now for ten
Speaker 1: years in a row. Two thousand and nineteen will mark
Speaker 1: the tenth consecutive year of net central bank purchases. In fact,
Speaker 1: two thousand and eighteen marked a record central banks collectively,
Speaker 1: but the most amount of gold since nineteen sixty seven.
Speaker 1: Then we are waiting for final figures, final data and
Speaker 1: estimates on two thousand and nineteen, but it seems that
Speaker 1: it will be um you know, at par if not,
Speaker 1: you know, slightly lower, slightly higher than what we saw
Speaker 1: it for all in all, the most important thing central
Speaker 1: banks around the world and especially emerging markets have recognized
Speaker 1: the relevance of gold in foreign reserves as a way
Speaker 1: of divers diversifying those reserves, the reserves, but also and
Speaker 1: as an as an asset that produces or that contributes
Speaker 1: to safety, and though those are usually the way the
Speaker 1: words they use when when they disclose their purchases. This
Speaker 1: all makes sense. We've heard from a lot of people.
Speaker 1: We've been hearing it from a lot of people for
Speaker 1: a lot of years, and since two thousand thirteen it's
Speaker 1: been a real rough road for gold, with some real
Speaker 1: declines in the price. I'm trying to square that with
Speaker 1: the logic which would make sense that you've got, you know,
Speaker 1: basically central bank easing across the board, an effort to
Speaker 1: get inflation to pick up concerns about global growth and headwinds.
Speaker 1: So this is a sort of have in bed all
Speaker 1: these things make sense. Why haven't we seen a bigger rally? Well, actually,
Speaker 1: I think that gold has performed quite well about the
Speaker 1: past five years. It has the returns over the past
Speaker 1: five years have been comparable and if not higher than
Speaker 1: bond markets in general, and it has outperformed conceived probably
Speaker 1: the commality complex. Commality complex over that period actually have
Speaker 1: have negative returns. Goal has had positive returns. Again, what
Speaker 1: you need to understand with gold is that it's not
Speaker 1: just about fear, right. You have this dual nature which
Speaker 1: basically means that you do have You do see the
Speaker 1: celeration in uh in perspectives on on on economic growth
Speaker 1: that tends to soften consumer demand, and it provides a ballast.
Speaker 1: At the same time, when the price of gold like
Speaker 1: we saw in two thousand and thirteen comes down and
Speaker 1: it pulls back, you do see consumer the man stepping in,
Speaker 1: which again provides the ballast. So understanding gold in the
Speaker 1: short term you can potentially do it only through the
Speaker 1: lens of an investment safe haven type of of of activity,
Speaker 1: but over longer periods of time, you need to understand
Speaker 1: this two dynamics on Carlos and Articus. Thanks so much
Speaker 1: for joining and really appreciate you coming in here and
Speaker 1: sharing your thoughts on gold. Thanks for listening to the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Panel podcast. You can subscribe and listen to Inner
Speaker 1: used at Apple Podcasts or whatever podcast platform you prefer.
Speaker 1: Paul Sweeney, I'm on Twitter at pt Sweeney. I'm Lisa
Speaker 1: abram Woyits I'm on Twitter at Lisa Abram whits one.
Speaker 1: Before the podcast, you can always catch us worldwide. I'm
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Radio