Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Intelligence Podcast. Catch us live weekdays at ten am
Speaker 1: Eastern on Apple, Cocklay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Business App. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts,
Speaker 1: or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 2: Within the farmer space, Novo Nordisk the eight rs American
Speaker 2: depository seats down by double digits, in fact lower for
Speaker 2: fifth day, losing about sixteen percent today, and this is
Speaker 2: after its next generation obesity shot Cagri Semma delivered less
Speaker 2: weight loss than Eli Lilly's rival treatment. Let's bring in
Speaker 2: Sam Fazzelli. He is our director of research for Global
Speaker 2: Industries and senior pharmaceutils analysts on what's happening here, and Sam,
Speaker 2: I mean, we've been keeping a close eye on Noah
Speaker 2: Nordous because it was a pioneer and weight loss drugs,
Speaker 2: but it appears that it has really fallen behind Eli
Speaker 2: Lilly and continues to fall behind even with this next
Speaker 2: gen obesity shot. The data shows a twenty point two
Speaker 2: percent weight loss after eighty four weeks compared with Eli
Speaker 2: Lilly's twenty three point six percent weight loss. I mean
Speaker 2: that sounds like, it's pretty small differences. Is that an
Speaker 2: unqualified failure?
Speaker 3: Well, the trial was set up Scarlett to test one
Speaker 3: drug against the other and it failed, right, So that's you.
Speaker 3: You know, when they start these trials, I have hypothesis,
Speaker 3: we think our drug is as good as this one,
Speaker 3: and they set the hypothesis up. They do the right
Speaker 3: number of patients to prove that agorisma is as good
Speaker 3: as tears appetite. It didn't prove that. What it does
Speaker 3: I mean, I don't really care about this. Twenty three percent,
Speaker 3: twenty five percent. A lot of people are happy with
Speaker 3: the weight loss they get and they maintain the weight loss.
Speaker 3: That's what they care about. This rapid weight loss of
Speaker 3: very large weight loss may matter for much more Obeis
Speaker 3: patients potentially, But the reality is this is handed the
Speaker 3: gift to Eli Lilly. Now, once the date is published,
Speaker 3: they can go out there and say, well, look we've
Speaker 3: beaten b GOV, We've beaten the next generation drug. They've
Speaker 3: got at least unweight loss on the surface. What happens
Speaker 3: to muscle laws and all that sort of stuff will
Speaker 3: come out, Oh for a fat versus visceral fat, et cetera.
Speaker 3: We've beaten them is the drug to take and they
Speaker 3: should be able to sell as much as they can
Speaker 3: make so, which is kind of what's been going on already.
Speaker 2: All Right, thank you for explaining that it's the relative
Speaker 2: effectiveness and in this case giving Eilily an easy win.
Speaker 2: Why is it that Nova Noordisk has lost so much
Speaker 2: ground and its edge to Eli Lilly. Does it come
Speaker 2: down to the science of it or is there something
Speaker 2: culturally at the company that's led to this underperformance.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I can't speak to the culture, to be honest
Speaker 3: with you. I mean, this has been a phenomenal story
Speaker 3: for years. Right, They were the pioneers in obesity, they
Speaker 3: in diabetes. With this class of drugs they brought for obesity.
Speaker 3: They have a lot to applaud for them. For the point,
Speaker 3: which is all these companies take calculated risks. Back in
Speaker 3: twenty fifteen sixteen, really took a calculated risk by this
Speaker 3: new molecule, a GLP one attached to it, a GOP.
Speaker 3: Let's forget what they are, but they are two different
Speaker 3: ways of modulating the system. And nobody thought that GOP
Speaker 3: would do what it did. So they were lucky. They
Speaker 3: threw the dice and they got the right answer, or
Speaker 3: they just had a very clever biology person said I
Speaker 3: disagree with the rest the world, GP will do this.
Speaker 3: So they ended up with a supercharge product. And then
Speaker 3: of course no one never went down that road. Even
Speaker 3: since twenty eighteen when we all saw the first data
Speaker 3: went wow, there's a whole bunch of other companies who
Speaker 3: did this. We have a list that we keep, not Novoe.
Speaker 3: They put their dice or they put their money on
Speaker 3: this combination amulin. A lot of people have too, but
Speaker 3: so it hasn't worked out. It's just the way that
Speaker 3: drug development goes. In six years time, you might find
Speaker 3: that some mechanism they've got starts to beat what Lily has,
Speaker 3: but we don't see that at the minute, and we
Speaker 3: haven't got any site on those things.
Speaker 4: Karen from the Jersey Shore Rights in and says she's
Speaker 4: a huge fan of weg be worked just great, Yo, Sam,
Speaker 4: Here we go merk splitting its main pharmaceutical unit in
Speaker 4: two as it prepares for the approaching patent experty of
Speaker 4: its best selling drug.
Speaker 5: What's going on here?
Speaker 3: Yes, so there's one other company that does this since
Speaker 3: been one of the you know, you plot the share
Speaker 3: charts and you go, Wow, that's pretty cool. And that's
Speaker 3: ask Seneca as has for a long time had a
Speaker 3: division a personally responsible for oncology business and responsible for
Speaker 3: oncology drug development. That's always been there. I think they
Speaker 3: recognized they had assets and that on coology drug development
Speaker 3: is quite different to every other area. Here's Mark now
Speaker 3: doing the same thing. Is it suggesting that they, because
Speaker 3: of the number of drugs that they've got coming some
Speaker 3: in on college or someone elsewhere, it's better to have
Speaker 3: two units that look after these two things, especially in
Speaker 3: the R and D side. I think doing the right thing.
Speaker 3: I don't think it tells us much about separating the
Speaker 3: reporting lines and all that sort of stuff, or the
Speaker 3: P and L look of things. I think it's much
Speaker 3: more to do with making sure that they're going to
Speaker 3: get the best chance in the specialty farmer as they
Speaker 3: call and oncology, and I think that's the right call
Speaker 3: to make by them.
Speaker 2: Does it lead to a formal spinoff where you might
Speaker 2: have two publicly traded companies or is this more like
Speaker 2: an internal division within the company.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I doubt this is about a spin off. I mean,
Speaker 3: who knows. I'm not in the board of listening to
Speaker 3: the or even a fly on the wall. And the
Speaker 3: thing is, I don't think you need to go that far.
Speaker 3: I think this just reckly reorganizing the business in a
Speaker 3: way that works best for the pipeline. And I think
Speaker 3: that's the right thing to do, especially if my colleague
Speaker 3: or Guessbacker and Vene Hamilton are right that actually the
Speaker 3: key truder that people think is going to expire in
Speaker 3: terms of their patents in twenty twenty nine has another
Speaker 3: extra three years of cash flow or four years of
Speaker 3: cash flow to twenty thirty three. Remember it's the bigest
Speaker 3: drug in the world. If they're right in their patent analysis,
Speaker 3: you know, this really puts that on collegey business in
Speaker 3: super charge mode.
Speaker 5: Yeah, Sam, thanks so much for joining us. Appreciate it.
Speaker 4: Sam Pazzelli, Director Research for Global Industries and senior Pharma
Speaker 4: analysts for Bloomberg Intelligence. He's based on London, where it's
Speaker 4: not snowing.
Speaker 5: Stay with us. More from Bloomberg Intelligence coming up after this.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Intelligence podcast. Catch us live
Speaker 1: weekdays at ten am. He's done on Apple, Corplay and
Speaker 1: Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 5: One of the big.
Speaker 2: Gainers in today's trade, or maybe Vegas an overstatement, but
Speaker 2: given that we're seeing sizable losses in the equity indexes,
Speaker 2: I'd say two point four percent move higher is kind
Speaker 2: of game, kind of.
Speaker 3: Big, right.
Speaker 2: Domino's Pizza DPZ is the ticker moving higher today. The
Speaker 2: company reported a bigger than expected rise in comparable sales.
Speaker 2: So let's bring in Michael Helen. He is our senior
Speaker 2: restaurant and food service analysts for Bloomberg Intelligence, and Michael,
Speaker 2: Domino's provides a lot of value to people. You see
Speaker 2: those ads for buy one, get one free, and they've
Speaker 2: added stuffed pizza crust to their repertoire. So people are
Speaker 2: getting value and they're getting something I guess in terms
Speaker 2: of food value as well. Talk to us about Domino's
Speaker 2: Pizza and the strategy here.
Speaker 6: Yeah, so you know, to your point, they are out
Speaker 6: performing the market pretty handily.
Speaker 3: Today.
Speaker 6: It was a pretty solid report. Saam store sales topped expectations.
Speaker 6: You know, they're doing it with a few different things. Yes,
Speaker 6: the food innovation stuff crust isn't groundbreaking, but it's something
Speaker 6: that their national competitors had already offered, right, and so
Speaker 6: they're trying to take a piece of that market here
Speaker 6: in the US value to your point, right, they're number
Speaker 6: one pizza player here in the United States. They have
Speaker 6: more stores than anyone else, and they have that scale,
Speaker 6: so they are able to offer price points that their
Speaker 6: competitors really can't match and and keep it profitable for
Speaker 6: the franchisees.
Speaker 5: You know.
Speaker 6: And then another big part of the strategy here has
Speaker 6: been the door Dash and Uber Eats expansion, right, So
Speaker 6: they're still delivering the food themselves, but they're posting their
Speaker 6: their food on the third party aggregator sites and that's
Speaker 6: been been a big boost to their business as well.
Speaker 4: What's the difference in economics might using one of their
Speaker 4: own drivers versus a third.
Speaker 5: Party like a door Dash. Yeah, it's a big difference, Paul.
Speaker 6: It's it probably costs a big player like Dominoes, it
Speaker 6: would probably you know, for them to deliver it themselves.
Speaker 5: It probably costs them.
Speaker 6: Half of what it would cost, maybe even less than
Speaker 6: half of what it would call. So it makes a
Speaker 6: huge difference on the delivery economics, you know. So for
Speaker 6: the chains that already have a delivery network like Dominoes.
Speaker 5: It's really a no brainer.
Speaker 2: One thing that Dominoes did over the last quarter was
Speaker 2: make more money by selling more food to its stores,
Speaker 2: charging higher prices for ingredients, collecting more fees from the
Speaker 2: franchise operators for advertising and royalties. That's good for the
Speaker 2: bottom line, But does it sour relationships with franchise operators?
Speaker 2: I mean, how does that? How does Dominoes manage that
Speaker 2: going forward?
Speaker 5: Yeah, that's that's a good question, Scarlett.
Speaker 6: You know, franchise ze relationships is crucial in this business
Speaker 6: because they're going to be the ones, you know, forking
Speaker 6: up the capital to build new stores, right, So you
Speaker 6: want to keep them happy with strong same source sales,
Speaker 6: you know, at three percent plus almost four percent. Game
Speaker 6: keeps them happy, you know, in terms of the supply chain,
Speaker 6: so you know, Domino's owns the supply chain. They want
Speaker 6: to make sure that their franchisees aren't skimping on quality, right,
Speaker 6: and so what they do to make this palatable for
Speaker 6: their franchisees is they actually split the revenues on a
Speaker 6: monthly basis via checks with their franchisees, right. And so, yes,
Speaker 6: prices are going up expected to go up low single
Speaker 6: digits this year for commodities and in the supply chain. Right,
Speaker 6: but they give back half of that half of their
Speaker 6: profit increase back to their franchises and a sharing agreement.
Speaker 4: All right, Mike, thanks so much for joining us as
Speaker 4: always our go to voice on all things in the
Speaker 4: restaurant business. Mike Kaitlin covers the restaurants for Bloomberg Intelligence.
Speaker 5: Stay with us. More from Bloomberg Intelligence coming up after this.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Intelligence podcast. Catch us live
Speaker 1: weekdays at ten am Eastern on Apple, Cocklay and Android
Speaker 1: Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever
Speaker 1: you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 4: A pair of retailers, retailers, they win some tailor relief,
Speaker 4: teriff relief on Supreme Court ruling.
Speaker 5: So how about that?
Speaker 4: So maybe some of these are pair of retailers that
Speaker 4: get a little bit of a break here as they've
Speaker 4: been bearing some of the brunt of the terror here.
Speaker 4: Mary Ross Gilbert joins his senior equity analysts.
Speaker 5: She covers the.
Speaker 4: Retail space for Bloomberg Intelligence. She's out there in La
Speaker 4: where it is not snowing. I can tell you that Mary,
Speaker 4: thanks so much for joining us here. Supreme Court ruling
Speaker 4: striking down some of those I reciprocal tariffs. What's it
Speaker 4: mean for the retailers that you cover?
Speaker 7: Yes, so, Paul, what this means is that we're going
Speaker 7: to get some relief. We're not getting complete relief from tariffs.
Speaker 7: So when you think about it, just before Trump over
Speaker 7: the weekend on Saturday, I mean, first, on Friday, he
Speaker 7: said he was going to exercise his ability to enforce
Speaker 7: Section one point twenty two of the nineteen seventy four
Speaker 7: Tariff Code, and you can go up to about fifteen percent.
Speaker 7: So on Friday he announced ten percent immediately or actually
Speaker 7: it was in three days, and then Saturday said immediately
Speaker 7: fifteen percent. So really, what that means is you're going
Speaker 7: to get about a twenty five percent savings from the
Speaker 7: tariff rates that these apparel retailers were paying just prior
Speaker 7: to this news that came out on Saturday. And so
Speaker 7: we estimate that the savings could be anywhere from twenty
Speaker 7: to fifty basis points, maybe a little more than that.
Speaker 7: And many of these apparel companies have been putting in
Speaker 7: mitigation measures, and of course the number one being well
Speaker 7: first of all diversifying away from China so they have
Speaker 7: a lot less exposure there, and then also their suppliers
Speaker 7: absorbing let's say, about half of the tariff impact, and
Speaker 7: then of course price increases and that's being passed on
Speaker 7: to the consumer, and it's done very selectively, and so
Speaker 7: that's why the savings, the net savings is going to
Speaker 7: be somewhere around twenty to fifty basis points. And just
Speaker 7: to give you an example, what companies have disclosed is
Speaker 7: on an annual basis, they were looking for a net
Speaker 7: tariff impact again net of these mitigation measures to be
Speaker 7: somewhere in that sort of one hundred to two hundred
Speaker 7: basis points in that range.
Speaker 4: So I guess it's interesting here because some of these
Speaker 4: retailers have in fact been right kind of in the
Speaker 4: crosshairs of the tariff debate. Have any of the companies
Speaker 4: that you covered they talked about whether they would even
Speaker 4: think about getting tear rebates if that's a possibility, Paul, that's.
Speaker 7: A really good question. It's I can't imagine that a
Speaker 7: rebate process could actually go into effect. It would be
Speaker 7: a nightmare to try to go back and recover these funds.
Speaker 7: It just seems I don't know, I think it's too complex.
Speaker 7: I think we just have to let whatever tariffs were
Speaker 7: already enforced and the funds received. I certainly hope that
Speaker 7: doesn't happen because that could turn out to be a
Speaker 7: very expensive nightmare trying to recover those funds, and then
Speaker 7: the idea would be, well, should it go back to
Speaker 7: the consumer once, you know, if companies were to recover it.
Speaker 4: So, yeah, it's very cool. So given that, I mean
Speaker 4: we've had, you know, roughly a year of these tariffs.
Speaker 4: Is there a kind of a ballpark that you've arrived at,
Speaker 4: or the companies have disclosed about how much they took
Speaker 4: into their margin versus maybe how much the importer took
Speaker 4: into its margin the consumer took into its margin.
Speaker 3: There.
Speaker 7: Yeah, it's very it's complex to say specifically, but I
Speaker 7: think what we were trying to allude to earlier, that
Speaker 7: one hundred to two hundred basis points is what these
Speaker 7: companies are effectively taking in on an annual basis based
Speaker 7: on commentary from the third quarter earnings call. So they
Speaker 7: might have gotten hit more or less depending on the
Speaker 7: retailer that we're talking about and goods that were sourced
Speaker 7: during various times, right, because if you had some retailers
Speaker 7: that sourced fall and winter during that time when China
Speaker 7: had a tariff that was well over one hundred percent,
Speaker 7: then that merchandise and their margin was affected very much
Speaker 7: so because they had already taken delivery of that product.
Speaker 7: So really it depends on the retailer. And then you
Speaker 7: have a couple of retailers, for example, Aritzia and Ralph Lauren.
Speaker 7: Both of those companies have been posting margin increases all
Speaker 7: year and so they've been able to benefit from strong sales.
Speaker 7: What that means is that they're able to leverage fixed
Speaker 7: costs and get incremental benefits there and also pass on
Speaker 7: price increases. And so even though they've been negatively impacted
Speaker 7: by tariffs, you're not seeing that net effect, whereas most
Speaker 7: of the other retailers you have seen margins dented, and
Speaker 7: they've disclosed every quarter what the tariff impact has been
Speaker 7: net mitigation measures, and also they'll provide sort of the
Speaker 7: gross impact. So like I said, I would say the
Speaker 7: net one hundred to or two hundred basis points. Think
Speaker 7: about gap Abercrombie gaps at the lower level, they set
Speaker 7: annual impact about one hundred to one hundred and ten
Speaker 7: basis points, Abercrombie and Fitch about one seven, and American
Speaker 7: Eagle they were sort of harder two hundred to two
Speaker 7: hundred and twenty five basis points.
Speaker 4: All right, very good, Mary Ross Gilbert, thank you so
Speaker 4: much for joining us.
Speaker 5: Mary ros Gilbert.
Speaker 4: She's a senior ecodanaly she covers the retail space for
Speaker 4: Bloomberg Intelligence, and she's located out there in La California office.
Speaker 5: Stay with us. More from Bloomberg Intelligence coming up.
Speaker 7: Fire for this.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Intelligence podcast. Catch us live
Speaker 1: weekdays at ten am Eastern on Apple, Cocklay and Android
Speaker 1: Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever
Speaker 1: you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 4: Friday, we had the Supreme Court strike down some of
Speaker 4: President Trump's reciprocal tires. We've got some new ones. They're
Speaker 4: back ten no, fifteen percent coming back.
Speaker 5: Are these things going to be litigated? I have no idea.
Speaker 4: Holly from she's a Bloomberg Intelligence litigation analyst. Holly, thanks
Speaker 4: much for joining us here. We had the Supreme Court
Speaker 4: ruling here, what's left to be gated? If any because
Speaker 4: there's still lots and lots and lots of tariffs out there.
Speaker 8: So what's left to be litigated probably is what happens
Speaker 8: with all the tariffs that have been collected, Like, do
Speaker 8: do the importers have to go who want refunds have
Speaker 8: to go to the Court of International Trade to see refunds?
Speaker 8: Do they have to file lawsuits or can they just
Speaker 8: file some kind of application with the Customs with Worder
Speaker 8: Protection Agency. So that's a question that's still outstanding. It
Speaker 8: doesn't affect the tariffs that Trump imposed via Section two
Speaker 8: thirty two, which work on things like aluminium, steel and
Speaker 8: auto and autoparts, and it doesn't affect through one tariffs
Speaker 8: that were imposed in twenty eighteen.
Speaker 2: Okay, So that's that's where it stands. Well on the
Speaker 2: main tariffs. What about the deminimous exemption. Explain to us
Speaker 2: how that works and whether that's affected by the Supreme
Speaker 2: Courts ruling.
Speaker 8: So the dominimus exemption is not necessarily affected. It's an exemption.
Speaker 8: It's not a terriff, so it's an exemption to a terriff.
Speaker 8: So we don't know if this if the ruling means
Speaker 8: that the that the Court that he cannot remove an
Speaker 8: a terror he cannot remove an exemption to a teriff.
Speaker 8: So it's not necessarily the case that that So the
Speaker 8: Supreme Court didn't answer that question. In other words, that
Speaker 8: ruling doesn't answer the question. But I think there's a
Speaker 8: case that's playing out now UH at the International Trade Court.
Speaker 8: That ruling was that that case case was stay pending
Speaker 8: appeal of the of the Supreme Court ruling. And so
Speaker 8: what I think happens is I think that the court
Speaker 8: will say that he probably can't remove that exemption via
Speaker 8: executive order. It probably has to be some kind of regulation.
Speaker 8: And it's not even clear that that that his his
Speaker 8: Trade secretary can promulgates. And it's not even clear that
Speaker 8: he can remove it at all, because there's some question
Speaker 8: as to whether that exemption is mandatory based on the
Speaker 8: language of the statue.
Speaker 4: You if I want to get a refund to some
Speaker 4: terroriffts that I've paid, how do I do that?
Speaker 8: So normally what you do is what happens is the
Speaker 8: goods come in you, you ask to me what you
Speaker 8: think you owe. The Customs Order Protection Agency decides whether
Speaker 8: that's correct. That's called liquidation. If that amount is finalized
Speaker 8: and it liquidates, you have one hundred and eighty days
Speaker 8: to protest what the Customs Agency says you owe. So
Speaker 8: that's normally how you get a refund. You file a protest,
Speaker 8: and they think that that might be the procedure used here,
Speaker 8: but nobody really knows because this has never happened before.
Speaker 4: Well, if I'm if I'm Nike or something like that,
Speaker 4: I mean, do I say you owe me hundreds of
Speaker 4: millions of dollars or something like that? Is that how
Speaker 4: we think it's going to go?
Speaker 5: Or are they are? They actually are people?
Speaker 4: Actually our companies actually go through that the work of
Speaker 4: doing this.
Speaker 8: Well, you know, it probably depends on the amount that
Speaker 8: they think that they're overpaid, and there are also you know,
Speaker 8: other issues that they may take into account. So you know,
Speaker 8: it's not clear whether all companies will see refunds. There
Speaker 8: are probably some companies that say it's not worth it
Speaker 8: for them to try, so they're going to weigh their
Speaker 8: right to do that. Some of them may be time
Speaker 8: barred from doing that by virtue of the deadline super protest.
Speaker 8: So we don't expect the full amount that's been collected
Speaker 8: to be refunded.
Speaker 2: Holly what will you be watching for and listening for
Speaker 2: when the President speaks in his State of the Union
Speaker 2: tomorrow When it comes to tariffs, I mean, he's going
Speaker 2: to say a lot of things, and we know that
Speaker 2: a lot of what he says he doesn't necessarily it's
Speaker 2: more in the spirit of what he wants. But specifically
Speaker 2: when it comes to the legality of some of this stuff,
Speaker 2: what will you be listening for, Well, we.
Speaker 8: Want to see what he like what you said, We
Speaker 8: want to see what he says because what he wants
Speaker 8: has to be justified by some kind of legal authority,
Speaker 8: and so we want to see, you know, what he's
Speaker 8: aiming to do, and then we'll try to figure out
Speaker 8: how he's going to do that. And so there are
Speaker 8: various tariffing tools that he has, and he's already imposed
Speaker 8: terrorist via Section one twenty two, but those are time
Speaker 8: limited for one hundred and fifty days, so we'll probably
Speaker 8: he'll probably use other authorities. And so that's something where
Speaker 8: we're going to look at, is you know, what is
Speaker 8: he trying to do? Can he use the other authorities
Speaker 8: to do that?
Speaker 4: Holly, was there anything or I guess what was most
Speaker 4: notable to you from the Supreme Court ruling on Friday.
Speaker 8: I think that was what was really striking was that
Speaker 8: that they said that this statue doesn't allow terriffs at all.
Speaker 8: So any tariff that he is imposed via this statute
Speaker 8: are probably going to be struck. So teriffs on India
Speaker 8: and Brazil are going to be struck. And what they
Speaker 8: said was a tariff is a tax, and so only
Speaker 8: Congress has the power to tax, and if they are
Speaker 8: going to delegate that power, they have to be very
Speaker 8: very clear when they do that, and you know, using
Speaker 8: this vague language and the statue you know, wasn't enough.
Speaker 8: And so that I think that was very interesting. And
Speaker 8: the other thing to note is that you know, they
Speaker 8: did talk about other tariffing powers he has, so it
Speaker 8: may be the case that you know, and we think
Speaker 8: that those tariffing powers rest on you know, better legal footing.
Speaker 8: So the challenges will be harder to the new terriffs
Speaker 8: the imposes if he's going to use you know, well
Speaker 8: settled authorities like Section two thirty two or the Trade
Speaker 8: Expansion Acts or Section three oh one or the Trade Act,
Speaker 8: which both of which he's used before, so challenges will
Speaker 8: probably be harder.
Speaker 2: All right, good stuff. Holly from Thank You So Much,
Speaker 2: Bloomberg Intelligence litigation analysts on how President Trump's fifteen percent
Speaker 2: tariff will likely stick, but if it doesn't, he is
Speaker 2: going to have several options. Holly mentioned section two thirty two.
Speaker 2: There's section two h one. There's section three h one.
Speaker 2: There's Section one twenty two, there's section three thirty eight.
Speaker 2: All of these things take time, so they can't be
Speaker 2: imposed instantly. They require investigation. And in the case of
Speaker 2: Section two thirty two, I believe, oh no, section one
Speaker 2: twenty two, there's like a you know, a time span,
Speaker 2: a time limit of only fifteen months, which seems like
Speaker 2: a lot of work to get a temporary terror Yeah.
Speaker 4: And I guess my question I asking a lot of folks,
Speaker 4: particularly on the political side, like Henrietta Trees. Clearly, this
Speaker 4: is pulling tariffs in general, is pulling very poorly. Affordability
Speaker 4: broadly defined, is polling as a very key issue. It's
Speaker 4: almost mind bogging that the president continues to double down
Speaker 4: and triple down on this whole terrorf issue. But it
Speaker 4: is certainly key to his trade policy, to parts of
Speaker 4: his economic policy.
Speaker 2: His geopolitical policy.
Speaker 3: Yep.
Speaker 5: But I would just if I were his advisor.
Speaker 4: I'm saying, but it's coming at a big cost, mister President,
Speaker 4: in terms of and we've got the midterm elections coming up,
Speaker 4: and we've got some people that are nervous. But I'm
Speaker 4: sure those discussions are being had.
Speaker 2: But well, he's the second term president, so maybe it's
Speaker 2: their problem, someone else's problem, not his problem.
Speaker 5: Exactly right.
Speaker 1: This is the Bloomberg Intelligence Podcast, available on Apple, Spotify,
Speaker 1: and anywhere else you get your podcasts. Listen live each weekday,
Speaker 1: ten am to noon Eastern on Bloomberg dot com, the
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio app, tune In, and the Bloomberg Business app. You
Speaker 1: can also watch us live every weekday on YouTube and
Speaker 1: always on the Bloomberg terminal