Speaker 1: Ye, Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast and I'm Tom
Speaker 1: Keane Jaily. We bring you insight from the best in economics, finance, investment,
Speaker 1: and international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot Com, and of course on the Bloomberg. Joining
Speaker 1: us now is Christian Below of Autonomous Research, Senior analyst
Speaker 1: Christie Great to catch up. Just run me three your
Speaker 1: first take please, Yeah, it's it's a morning guys that
Speaker 1: thanks for having me on. Um. Look, it's it's a
Speaker 1: pretty strong set of results. UM. At this point we're
Speaker 1: really accustomed to Goldman are generally doing quite well relative
Speaker 1: to expectations and to do it again, UM, you know,
Speaker 1: really strong numbers and equities, investment, banking and UM and
Speaker 1: also on the efficiency front. So as I think all in, um,
Speaker 1: all in, a really strong set of results is on in.
Speaker 1: When it comes to Goldman Sachs, people talk about strategy. Yes,
Speaker 1: they did beat on trading overall that was driven by equities.
Speaker 1: They had a miss in debt trading. What are you
Speaker 1: looking for in terms of how they're guiding their strategy
Speaker 1: going forward as they try to shift from just investment
Speaker 1: banking centric place to something that includes more lending. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so I think you have to understand the strategy in
Speaker 1: the broader context. They've been growing the banking business, if
Speaker 1: you like the traditional banking business for quite a while.
Speaker 1: It's almost a ticcade now UM, and you see really
Speaker 1: strong growth in in in the net interest income and
Speaker 1: in the loan in the loan book. But but I
Speaker 1: think as we go forward that will play an increasingly
Speaker 1: important part in the story UM in terms of building
Speaker 1: out you know, far more predictable revenue sources. So lending
Speaker 1: will be one, but the asset management business, the private
Speaker 1: wealth business, alternative asset management business, and even in the
Speaker 1: traditional UM you know, core investment banking M and A M,
Speaker 1: A d C M type businesses. I think these are
Speaker 1: the businesses they have to grow. They are focused on
Speaker 1: growing and will ultimately drive the voluation of the company
Speaker 1: going forward. Christian and your research, you know, you always
Speaker 1: do a great job if you compare even put a
Speaker 1: slash market at the g s MS combine. I'm fascinated
Speaker 1: by what you think we see Frazier at City Group
Speaker 1: trying to do a Gorman and increase wealth management. We've
Speaker 1: got others as well. What is the Pixie does that
Speaker 1: James Gorman has in wealth management that everybody else in
Speaker 1: asset management, that everybody else wants to copy. Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: it's a great point. Look, I think James Gorman's daughter
Speaker 1: and absolutely unelievable job. But Morgan Stanley, UM, you know,
Speaker 1: you know this one time because you've been here for
Speaker 1: a long time and you know Morgan Stanley was more
Speaker 1: or less basket case UM a decade ago, and they've
Speaker 1: turned out really to be I think UM almost op
Speaker 1: posted a child of how you do a a a
Speaker 1: corporate restructure in UM. Look, I think they've really done
Speaker 1: a good job in in focusing the wealth management business
Speaker 1: around efficiency over the last decade and lending, which is
Speaker 1: boosted pretax margins almost double with pretext margins UM since
Speaker 1: they are quired UM Smith Bonney from City. I think
Speaker 1: going forward the key for that business will be growth.
Speaker 1: UM growth has been sowhat slower as you see the
Speaker 1: migration of advisors away from the white Houses to the
Speaker 1: likes of a Schwab and the regional broken like a
Speaker 1: Raymond James. I think going forward for Morgan Stanley, a
Speaker 1: key part of the growth has to be pivoting that
Speaker 1: wealth business to growth UM and I think the eater
Speaker 1: acquisition and ultimately eating vents um will be will be
Speaker 1: very helpful in achieving that. If you're just joining us
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg Radio, Bloomberg Television worldwide, Christian Blue with this
Speaker 1: autonomous research after years with Bernstein and Credit SUAE, as
Speaker 1: we look at the state of global Well Street, Christian,
Speaker 1: we've seen enough come in. I love your broker centric view,
Speaker 1: but we've seen enough coming in from these banks. How
Speaker 1: do they prosper five years out? Everybody can't win at
Speaker 1: the same thing, So what is the sense of prosperity
Speaker 1: you see for major bank American Wall Street? Yeah, look,
Speaker 1: look at look It's it's a good question. Ultimately, um. Look,
Speaker 1: I think that the health of banks will will depend
Speaker 1: on the health of economies over time. So so I
Speaker 1: do think like economic prospects are a really big driver
Speaker 1: of of of of bank outlook. But also the reality
Speaker 1: is today's there's a lot of innovation out there, and
Speaker 1: you know, some of the smaller FinTechs have a lot
Speaker 1: of capital and the market is willing to give them
Speaker 1: even more capital to go innovate. So I think your
Speaker 1: ability to invest in technology, you ability to be nimble
Speaker 1: around how you um service customer focused on customer service,
Speaker 1: that's going to be very very important going forward, you know.
Speaker 1: But ultimately, you know, the banking business is really about
Speaker 1: you know, economic prospects and and and sort of like
Speaker 1: responsible lending. So those two were probably play a bigger
Speaker 1: path of parts. This whole digital thing, underscored by the
Speaker 1: eight thousand shares of a firm you've got on your sabbatical,
Speaker 1: I mean, John, to me, the great January issue of
Speaker 1: two thousand twenty one is the slash fintech digital banking
Speaker 1: thing and how all these companies are dept to it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm did so well. I considered not coming back, and
Speaker 1: that's why I've had the last four weeks after and
Speaker 1: enjoying myself on those mega gains in Finns. Christian build
Speaker 1: on that for a seriously, the conversation going forward and
Speaker 1: how much some of these names have got to spend. Yeah, look, look, look,
Speaker 1: you know the dollars you spend is one thing. How
Speaker 1: you spend it is another. Right, Clearly, if it was
Speaker 1: just about dollars, the biggest and best, the biggest banks
Speaker 1: would would would stream away so how you spend it,
Speaker 1: what you spend it on. UM, you know, your technology stack.
Speaker 1: All these things matter. But but look, make no mistake
Speaker 1: about it. UM. You know, banks are have a lot
Speaker 1: of complation on their hand with some of these very
Speaker 1: nimble and forward thinking fin techs. And it's no surprise that, UM,
Speaker 1: you hear on the banks focus a lot on the
Speaker 1: tech spending need to put in place to to be
Speaker 1: able to compete. Christian, we're getting bank earnings on a
Speaker 1: changing of the guard kind of day. We're going to
Speaker 1: get the last day of President Trump's presidency, and we
Speaker 1: have Janet Yellen testifying to the Senate Banking Committee, to
Speaker 1: Finance Committee to talk about her nomination as Treasury Secretary.
Speaker 1: She has in the past expressed some desire to regulate banks.
Speaker 1: This will be something that will follow under her purview.
Speaker 1: What are you looking forward to hear from her today
Speaker 1: in terms of how she will approach the banking sector
Speaker 1: in her tenure if she is confirmed. Yeah, Look, it's
Speaker 1: a good question. Look, I think the broader picture around UM,
Speaker 1: the regulatory and political climate around banks, I think is
Speaker 1: important context. I think coming into this crisis, for the
Speaker 1: most part part, banks have been part of the solution,
Speaker 1: quite frankly, and not the problem UM. So from the
Speaker 1: latest capital UH sort of seeker results that banks were
Speaker 1: able to get back to returning capital and it speaks
Speaker 1: to really the strength of um of of of the
Speaker 1: capital basis, and quite frankly, I think regularly should pack
Speaker 1: themselves on the back they did. They did a very
Speaker 1: good job post the financial crisis to show banks capital
Speaker 1: improve their um their risk management. And I think it's
Speaker 1: showed very well in the COVID crisis how resilientos banks are.
Speaker 1: And I think that's the broader context in terms of
Speaker 1: how um UM not just scaled, but I think how
Speaker 1: generally um the political climate will will deal with banks.
Speaker 1: They've been more of the solution than than part of
Speaker 1: the problem um And and you know, for the most part,
Speaker 1: you do need a strong bank to to sustain recoveries. Christiane,
Speaker 1: thank you. Always great to catch up, so come back.
Speaker 1: So in Christian Baldy, there of autonomous research. I don't
Speaker 1: think I want off check changes that I think it
Speaker 1: needs something else I want to check. Won't do it
Speaker 1: for branch shooting. He's Northwestern Mutual and of course they're
Speaker 1: looking at actual assumptions they're looking at long term investment
Speaker 1: is he provides investment guidance as their chief investment strategies. Brent,
Speaker 1: what is your line right now on investing for five years?
Speaker 1: I don't care about the here and now. I care
Speaker 1: about a more long term northwestern view. Is it a
Speaker 1: single digit return or can we do better? Yeah? I
Speaker 1: think it's a single digit return. But you mentioned something
Speaker 1: really important, because I think people get caught up phenomenal returns.
Speaker 1: It's only real returns that matter. And so within that
Speaker 1: real return being in the single digits is assumed to
Speaker 1: be in the lower inflation rate of inflation is higher. Certainly,
Speaker 1: um there is a revisiting of those estmates that you have,
Speaker 1: But in general I think people should just focus on
Speaker 1: real returns, and if returns on the single digits, it
Speaker 1: is likely that inflation will be low and so all
Speaker 1: in all, consumers and citizens will still be fine. Brent,
Speaker 1: you don't want to find amazing looking at markets right
Speaker 1: now and just going through a long list of research
Speaker 1: notes that reflect don valuations and say, you can only
Speaker 1: really develop an argument on valuations by looking at where
Speaker 1: valuations are relative to interest rates and returns. Therefore, are
Speaker 1: going to be great for the next several years because
Speaker 1: rates are going to stay so low. My difficulty with
Speaker 1: that brand is that we've all seen the last ten
Speaker 1: years in Europe in Japan where rates have been ultra
Speaker 1: low for a very long time and markets just have
Speaker 1: not returned big gains over the last several years. In Europe,
Speaker 1: low rates don't always get it done. Brand, Why is
Speaker 1: the United States any different? I just think because of
Speaker 1: the minetary policy that we've had and promising to do
Speaker 1: more in the fact that our long term growth rate
Speaker 1: is above those places that you mentioned because of demographics,
Speaker 1: because of productivity, so there is a little bit better
Speaker 1: of an outwork here in the US based upon that.
Speaker 1: I think one of the commentaries that you guys kind
Speaker 1: of missed in the beginning is that productivity is actually
Speaker 1: rising in the US and so perhaps our long term
Speaker 1: growth rate is inching up if you think about productivity
Speaker 1: finally coming back after being dormant for some time with
Speaker 1: the technology boom that we've had in the US, and
Speaker 1: so I would focus more on that. I think you're
Speaker 1: a correct. I mean that the risk to me is
Speaker 1: still and this probably combines into your earlier talk about
Speaker 1: there being no fiscal hawks. I mean to me, right now,
Speaker 1: the central banks around the globe, especially in the US,
Speaker 1: are going to do more until one of three things happens.
Speaker 1: Either the dollar falls too much, inflation rises too high,
Speaker 1: or perhaps people start demanding a real return on their
Speaker 1: fixed income because the stock market is built on the
Speaker 1: bond market. And so until those three things occur, and
Speaker 1: actually two of the three are considered positive right now,
Speaker 1: until they occur, then I think we continually have the
Speaker 1: market moving higher because right now the cost for policy
Speaker 1: makers on the other side is zero. There's nothing for
Speaker 1: them to contemplate. Um. They're actually trying to get a
Speaker 1: couple of those things to happen. And so until that changes,
Speaker 1: until this debt comes due, I think the market moved higher,
Speaker 1: all right, So, Brent, Implicit in John's question, and it's
Speaker 1: an important one, is this idea that perhaps there is
Speaker 1: a fundamental inconsistency between rates remaining so low and growth
Speaker 1: being sufficient and to justify equity valuations where they are.
Speaker 1: At what point does one of them have to give?
Speaker 1: Do we have to either get higher rates in the
Speaker 1: heels of more inflation, or stock valuations have to go
Speaker 1: down because people have been pricing in just too much growth.
Speaker 1: I think it's probably a combination of both. Right, So
Speaker 1: if people lose hope in the future, then certainly I think,
Speaker 1: or our growth rate dramatically slows, then I think the
Speaker 1: first part that you mentioned is certainly true and so um.
Speaker 1: The other side, which I still think is the bigger risk,
Speaker 1: is that rates do rise and you actually have the
Speaker 1: stock market having to reprice because now bonds are more
Speaker 1: attractive because I do view valuation, and this is where
Speaker 1: I think people miss the boat. Valuation to me as
Speaker 1: a relative tool, not an absolute tool. Money has to
Speaker 1: go somewhere. When our advisors sit down with the clients,
Speaker 1: they decide stocks or bonds, not not not not neither
Speaker 1: of each. This is so so important, folks, bred it's brand.
Speaker 1: It's right where I wanted to go, which is the
Speaker 1: idea of absolute and relative. The Nastaic one twelve months
Speaker 1: trailing t m T s up, the Russell two thousand
Speaker 1: out of nowhere is up twenty is well. I mean
Speaker 1: to polarities, if you will, in terms of factor analysis.
Speaker 1: In such do you sell those to get an absolute
Speaker 1: return on the other stuff, or do you do it
Speaker 1: on a relative basis and use new cash to go
Speaker 1: someplace else. Well, for the past six to nine months,
Speaker 1: have been coming on this show and others and talking
Speaker 1: about moving into cyclic glass, that's moving into small caps,
Speaker 1: things that are more leveraged to global growth or even
Speaker 1: just broadening US growth. And so if I take you
Speaker 1: back to a lot of these charts went completely off
Speaker 1: the rails um so tech started out performing everything else.
Speaker 1: Growth did better than value, small cap dramatically underformed large cap.
Speaker 1: And if you think back then, we were first introduced
Speaker 1: the trade war, which was designed to knock out levers
Speaker 1: of growth around the globe, and it had a pullback
Speaker 1: in the US also, it knocked our cyclical side out.
Speaker 1: The US pushed higher because we do have that big
Speaker 1: tech sector, especially in large cap stocks. And now you're
Speaker 1: starting to see the economy broadened back out. Even before
Speaker 1: COVID hopefully releases its grip, you're seeing manufacturing do well.
Speaker 1: We think that continues into and that broader inclusive growth
Speaker 1: means that the stock market will be broader and more inclusive,
Speaker 1: and so it is branching out into things like value.
Speaker 1: M is branching out into things like small caps, even
Speaker 1: emerging markets, and we think that continues in Brent conash
Speaker 1: you with philosophical question. Just to wrap things up, We've
Speaker 1: had so many times on programs like this people lining
Speaker 1: up to say they think we're in a bubble by definition?
Speaker 1: Can we be in a bubble if a majority of
Speaker 1: people that come on programs like this and think valuations
Speaker 1: are close to bubble territory? Look, I think there are
Speaker 1: there are parts of the market that are expensive, that
Speaker 1: are built upon dreams that may not come to fruition.
Speaker 1: I think there's a whole lot of parts of the
Speaker 1: market that will do well in the coming environment. And
Speaker 1: if I take you back, yes, there were parts of
Speaker 1: the market done that were expensive, and people talked about
Speaker 1: a lost decade, but the decade was really only lost
Speaker 1: in those expensive parts of the market. Things that hadn't
Speaker 1: done so well in the small caps, like value stocks,
Speaker 1: actually did well up until two seven and when the
Speaker 1: world fell apart of the seams, but they actually had
Speaker 1: a good run during the two thousands, and I suspect
Speaker 1: this time will be very similar. Things other than the
Speaker 1: things that have done well because of the narrowness of
Speaker 1: the market will actually perform into the future. And I
Speaker 1: guess that's the good news. By diverse locations, that you
Speaker 1: will have parts of your portfolio that will pull along
Speaker 1: the rest of the parts that may underperform. And I
Speaker 1: think they've kind of switched from what they were to
Speaker 1: what they will be. Branching of Northwestern brand Grites to
Speaker 1: catch up said thank you. This is without question my
Speaker 1: China conversation of the day. Leland Miller is different. Besides
Speaker 1: being exceptionally competent on Asia and on China for years,
Speaker 1: he's taken a different tact of looking at China data.
Speaker 1: No one I know digs deeper on China than Mr Miller.
Speaker 1: He joins us right now, Leland, your note is very strong.
Speaker 1: You speak of deceptive data out of China. What is deceptive? Well,
Speaker 1: I think if you focus only on headline gross numbers,
Speaker 1: we're gonna get a very cheery story coming out of
Speaker 1: China right now, because their recovery is better than any
Speaker 1: other major economy in the world. But the true question,
Speaker 1: for Mark it should not be whether China can nail
Speaker 1: a certain GDP number in a particular quarter or a year.
Speaker 1: It should be how healthy is the growth? What is
Speaker 1: the composition of the growth, is its sustainable going forward,
Speaker 1: and when you look at the consumption economy, it's by
Speaker 1: far the weakest part of this recovery. And you see
Speaker 1: it in the retail data, you see it in the
Speaker 1: services data, and it's it's the real question mark looking forward,
Speaker 1: both in our data and in government data. You and
Speaker 1: I have talked for years about this about deceptive data
Speaker 1: in China. Do you look at the vector of which
Speaker 1: way they're moving or is it so messed up now
Speaker 1: even the vector the trend is deceptive. Well, you know,
Speaker 1: it's it's funny because during this recovery from a COVID
Speaker 1: virtual standstill last you know, last winter, we have seen
Speaker 1: very much the same thing as official data. We just
Speaker 1: haven't seen as intensive recovery. So we saw the beginning
Speaker 1: of the recovery. It was manufactured driven, then it was
Speaker 1: property driven, based basically the industrial economy, the supply elements
Speaker 1: of the economy driving driving China back to growth, but
Speaker 1: lagging behind consumption. Households are much more tame in their behavior.
Speaker 1: Retail services again, those those parts of the economy have
Speaker 1: not bounced back as much. So it's not that we're
Speaker 1: seeing a different picture. Sometimes we do. Sometimes we're totally
Speaker 1: diametric to to what to what the government's reporting right now,
Speaker 1: we're seeing a similar picture. We're just not seeing the
Speaker 1: intensity of the recovery that the Beijing is claiming. So, Leland,
Speaker 1: can you put this in the context of the U
Speaker 1: S GDP, Because a lot of people have said that
Speaker 1: the faster than expected growth in China puts it on
Speaker 1: track to exceed the US economy much sooner. Do you
Speaker 1: think that that's been overstated based on what you're seeing
Speaker 1: on the ground. Yeah, I know people care about this,
Speaker 1: but but the question I think is is not what
Speaker 1: we should be focusing on. If China wants to beat
Speaker 1: the U S and GDP, it could simply by building
Speaker 1: a endless bridge from from Beijing to Californi. In you
Speaker 1: the bridge would fall in the water, but by along
Speaker 1: the way you get enough aggregate growth, not productive growth,
Speaker 1: but aggregate growth to to to ramp up GDP levels
Speaker 1: into stratosphere. When you're looking at this, much more important
Speaker 1: would be p GDP per capita. I think the US
Speaker 1: GDP per capita six times or so greater than China.
Speaker 1: Household income, household wealth is more important. These are the
Speaker 1: things that make a country great and and it's it's
Speaker 1: I think a complete distraction to be looking just at
Speaker 1: the GDP number, which can be manufactured the short term
Speaker 1: but lead to serious long term problems if you do that,
Speaker 1: perhaps leland. At the same time, you see an increasing
Speaker 1: amount of foreign investment into China, people saying that the
Speaker 1: government will support the economy, that will support asset prices
Speaker 1: going forward, and will continue to do so as they
Speaker 1: try to give the appearance at least of faster than
Speaker 1: expected growth. Are you making an argument against those investments
Speaker 1: or perhaps against some of the enthusiasm that we're seeing
Speaker 1: somewhat on bridles from across the world. Not really, because look,
Speaker 1: if you're if you're investing in China right now, you're
Speaker 1: doing it probably for two major reasons. The first diversification purposes.
Speaker 1: You want to put more money into a growing economy.
Speaker 1: The second thing is you look around the world and
Speaker 1: a lot of things look really bad right now. China
Speaker 1: has had the top COVID recovery, and so there's a
Speaker 1: lot of reason to put to put more money into
Speaker 1: China with all the opportunities there. I think where people
Speaker 1: fall short in their analysis is they look at China
Speaker 1: and they say Wow, there's this gross story. You've got
Speaker 1: one point three billion consumers. They must be buying a
Speaker 1: lot of things. There's gonna be this linear growth pattern.
Speaker 1: Let's let's just go in blind and and and you
Speaker 1: know you can see right now in the consumption data
Speaker 1: there's a lot of problems with what's happening in China
Speaker 1: right now. It just happens to look a lot better
Speaker 1: than a lot of other places. Leland. The other issue
Speaker 1: that we've seen this year has been the divergence in
Speaker 1: exports and imports, and we've seen a real increase in
Speaker 1: exports from China to the US and around the world.
Speaker 1: Do you expect the stronger un to really hamper that?
Speaker 1: I mean, how much do you expect that to become
Speaker 1: a headwind for the nation? I think Beijing is in a
Speaker 1: a bit of a pickle. They've allowed the REM and
Speaker 1: B to appreciate this year because they don't have much
Speaker 1: of a choice with the trade surplus hitting record highs recently.
Speaker 1: But they don't want to see a skyrocketing you want.
Speaker 1: What they want to do is they want to keep
Speaker 1: it relatively stable with a slight appreciation towards strength against
Speaker 1: the U. S dollar. So I think what they like
Speaker 1: is just this beautiful stability. But because China is a
Speaker 1: more attractive destination right now because of the COVID recovery
Speaker 1: being so being so well done. Uh you know, you've
Speaker 1: got these you've got these real pressures. So they're not
Speaker 1: in a danger area right now. But I guarantee you
Speaker 1: it's causing a lot of sleepless nights thinking where this
Speaker 1: could go if the US keeps going in the other
Speaker 1: direction and they're forced to keep making this currency go up,
Speaker 1: or face the political problems with not doing that beautiful stability.
Speaker 1: That's what we all want. Lan great and catch up
Speaker 1: lean the mid of that of the China basebook. Grastly
Speaker 1: is it the Packard Hospital of Stanford University, their school
Speaker 1: of medicine, I should say, and the Stanford Children's Hospital
Speaker 1: after tour of duty at the acclaimed Boston Children's Hospital
Speaker 1: and out of Pennsylvania medicine. And we're thrilled that she
Speaker 1: could join us right now. Dr Lee, Those of us
Speaker 1: of a certain age have the giving of a vaccine
Speaker 1: as being a doctor's office with a cold thing in
Speaker 1: the corner, or maybe not, or maybe it was drops
Speaker 1: of polio. How do you envision the vaccination of those
Speaker 1: younger in the coming months. Well, we're really looking forward
Speaker 1: to having the ability to have information around the safety
Speaker 1: and efficacy of at least are our teenagers, you know,
Speaker 1: twelve and older. UM. Currently we're able to vaccinate those
Speaker 1: who are sixteen and older when those phays has become
Speaker 1: available to us to be able to vaccinate at a
Speaker 1: local level. UM, but imagine that we're going to need
Speaker 1: to continue to push for vaccine clinical trials in the
Speaker 1: younger age group. UM. It's going to be really important
Speaker 1: for us to be able to uh, you know, uh
Speaker 1: protect all of our all of our kids and adults
Speaker 1: and our older adult population as effectively as possible. Do
Speaker 1: you assume that we will be using these new modern vaccines,
Speaker 1: the m r NA vaccines or do we await something
Speaker 1: more conventional, something more traditional, I mean much like the
Speaker 1: development to date. UM. My perspective is that we need
Speaker 1: to have a diverse portfolio to ensure that we have
Speaker 1: candidates that are potentially viable to be able to protect
Speaker 1: the younger population. So, you know, having testing the m
Speaker 1: r and A vaccines and those are anticipated to go
Speaker 1: into hopefully trials down to age six months M, but
Speaker 1: I also anticipate the other vaccine candidates we hope will
Speaker 1: continue to be in development for that population. We're gonna
Speaker 1: we're gonna need as many vaccine candidates as possible in
Speaker 1: order to get anything in a timely way. Dr Lee,
Speaker 1: can we get to hurt immunity without children being vaccinated well,
Speaker 1: so children are known to UM be able to be
Speaker 1: infected and also potentially asymptomatically be infected. So I think
Speaker 1: that is continuing to be a challenge UM in general.
Speaker 1: Although children are less likely to have hospitalization or severe disease,
Speaker 1: you know, we do see severe disease happen number one,
Speaker 1: but number two, I think it is going to be important.
Speaker 1: While we can also employ all of our other mitigation
Speaker 1: strategies specifically specifically for the younger population elementary school, we're
Speaker 1: still going to need options UH in order to be
Speaker 1: able to get back to a new normal UM. We
Speaker 1: are going to be wearing masks and doing social distancing
Speaker 1: and coverting for a long time until we have those
Speaker 1: tools available. There's also a question going forward about and
Speaker 1: rolling enough kids in some of these studies in order
Speaker 1: to get the data necessary to roll out the vaccine.
Speaker 1: Are you concerned about the safety considering the fact the
Speaker 1: younger individuals don't get as six from the virus and
Speaker 1: perhaps are a little more reticent as a result to
Speaker 1: go and get jabbed by a new vaccine. Safety is
Speaker 1: always going to be the number one priority, especially in
Speaker 1: the younger age group. UM agree that the benefit risk
Speaker 1: balance will be UM different for younger kids than it
Speaker 1: is for older But you know, we not only get
Speaker 1: vaccinated to protect ourselves, but also to protect our family
Speaker 1: members and loved ones. UM. I do think that the
Speaker 1: trials will emphasize for sure the safety profile these vaccines
Speaker 1: and younger children. I anticipate that UM it will be
Speaker 1: more challenging to evaluate to the same degree efficacy UM
Speaker 1: as quickly as we were able to do in the
Speaker 1: older adult population. But there are you know, immu and
Speaker 1: abridging studies that are anticipated to be able to understand
Speaker 1: whether or not the immune responding young children israelbust and
Speaker 1: can be as effective as we've seen in the older
Speaker 1: adult population. Ejectively are John Lawerman and Jason Gale did
Speaker 1: a terrific summary a day ago on the global set
Speaker 1: of mall shocks with big effect where they really damage
Speaker 1: people etcetera. For our audience on radio and TV. Now,
Speaker 1: how would you describe the risk of shock and what
Speaker 1: we need to look for in the minutes following a
Speaker 1: vaccine Regarding anaphylaxis, you know, all of our vaccination clinics
Speaker 1: have protocols in place to monitor everybody for fifteen minutes,
Speaker 1: so everyone should anticipate that after a vaccine, but thirty
Speaker 1: minutes for those who have a prior history of a
Speaker 1: severe allergic reaction. UM and individuals who for example, carry
Speaker 1: an EpiPen, you know, are our number one. We do
Speaker 1: screening before they come to make sure that they are
Speaker 1: eligible and can receive the vaccine safely. UM. There are
Speaker 1: still individuals who we want to make sure we provide
Speaker 1: access to vaccine because there are many people with food
Speaker 1: allergies or environmental allergies and so UM we will continue
Speaker 1: to monitor those individuals more closely per our protocol, and
Speaker 1: all clinics are prepared, are asked to be prepared at
Speaker 1: any vaccination clinic providing COVID vaccines to be able to
Speaker 1: manage UM, monitor, manage and then effectively be able to
Speaker 1: get those individuals to care as quickly as possible. It
Speaker 1: is a challenge with this particular vaccine grace ly. Thank
Speaker 1: you so much, Dr Lee with Stanford of course here
Speaker 1: their Children's hospital on the path forward with the vaccination.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and
Speaker 1: listen to interviews on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whichever podcast
Speaker 1: platform you prefer. I'm on Twitter at Tom Keane before
Speaker 1: the podcast. You can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio.