WEBVTT - Bloomberg Wall Street Week - May 26, 2023

0:00:00.560 --> 0:00:02.880
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Wall Street Week.

0:00:02.920 --> 0:00:04.520
<v Speaker 2>We turn our attention to the markets.

0:00:04.519 --> 0:00:04.840
<v Speaker 3>This week.

0:00:05.000 --> 0:00:08.760
<v Speaker 2>USCPI nembers reinforcing concerns about inflation.

0:00:08.480 --> 0:00:10.840
<v Speaker 1>The financial stories that shape our worth, a.

0:00:10.880 --> 0:00:13.560
<v Speaker 2>Really different reaction to the market. Some more indications of

0:00:13.800 --> 0:00:16.079
<v Speaker 2>just how hot the US economy really is.

0:00:16.079 --> 0:00:18.760
<v Speaker 1>Through the eyes of the most influential voices.

0:00:18.720 --> 0:00:21.639
<v Speaker 2>Katherine Keating, CEO of B and Y Moan, Ryan Winnahan,

0:00:21.760 --> 0:00:24.520
<v Speaker 2>a Bank of America, Sam Zell Sharman and founder of

0:00:24.520 --> 0:00:26.960
<v Speaker 2>Atrey Group Investments, Bloomberg.

0:00:26.560 --> 0:00:31.200
<v Speaker 1>Wall Street with David Weston from Bloomberg Radio this week.

0:00:31.240 --> 0:00:33.400
<v Speaker 2>There may have been a lot going on, but it

0:00:33.440 --> 0:00:36.199
<v Speaker 2>seemed like all Global Wall Street could talk about were

0:00:36.360 --> 0:00:39.000
<v Speaker 2>those on again, off again talks at the White House

0:00:39.080 --> 0:00:42.040
<v Speaker 2>of the dead Ceiling I Speaker McCarthy kept insisting there

0:00:42.080 --> 0:00:45.280
<v Speaker 2>would be no default provided there were spending guts. We're

0:00:45.320 --> 0:00:48.640
<v Speaker 2>not going to default, but we have to spend less

0:00:48.960 --> 0:00:52.400
<v Speaker 2>than we spent last year. House Minority Leader Hakim Jefferies

0:00:52.440 --> 0:00:56.240
<v Speaker 2>responded that the cuts McCarthy was demanding just go too far.

0:00:56.880 --> 0:01:04.680
<v Speaker 4>House Republicans are determined to either extract deep, painful cuts

0:01:05.280 --> 0:01:08.440
<v Speaker 4>that will hurt the health, the safety, or the well

0:01:08.480 --> 0:01:12.679
<v Speaker 4>being of everyday Americans or crash the economy, and.

0:01:12.680 --> 0:01:15.080
<v Speaker 2>President Biden conceded that there would have to be some

0:01:15.319 --> 0:01:18.760
<v Speaker 2>spending cuts, but that there had to be revenue increases

0:01:18.840 --> 0:01:19.360
<v Speaker 2>as well.

0:01:19.520 --> 0:01:21.920
<v Speaker 5>We've got to get something you can sell to both sides,

0:01:22.560 --> 0:01:24.240
<v Speaker 5>and we need to cut spending.

0:01:24.319 --> 0:01:25.720
<v Speaker 3>But are they revenue matters?

0:01:26.080 --> 0:01:28.880
<v Speaker 2>And through it all, Wall Street insiders like Steve Schwartzman

0:01:29.040 --> 0:01:31.960
<v Speaker 2>continue to insist that in the end they'll work it out.

0:01:32.000 --> 0:01:37.760
<v Speaker 3>Tomhow this is someone of micheal wills and desire to

0:01:37.880 --> 0:01:40.440
<v Speaker 3>not blink in the whole world is watching.

0:01:40.920 --> 0:01:44.400
<v Speaker 2>But despite all the budgets, storm and drawing, there were

0:01:44.480 --> 0:01:47.320
<v Speaker 2>some other things worth paying attention to this week, like

0:01:47.400 --> 0:01:50.400
<v Speaker 2>China's move against Micron selling its chips there.

0:01:50.840 --> 0:01:55.120
<v Speaker 6>Broadly, this action appears inconsistent with the PRC's assertions that

0:01:55.200 --> 0:01:58.160
<v Speaker 6>it is open for business and committed to a transparent

0:01:58.200 --> 0:01:59.200
<v Speaker 6>regulatory framework.

0:01:59.360 --> 0:02:02.040
<v Speaker 2>FED minutes from the last meeting showed how uncertain the

0:02:02.080 --> 0:02:04.600
<v Speaker 2>Central Bank is about where it is heading next.

0:02:04.840 --> 0:02:07.960
<v Speaker 5>But mined show FED officials were more divided than usual

0:02:08.040 --> 0:02:13.200
<v Speaker 5>at their May meeting as they debated uncertainties about bank problems, inflation,

0:02:13.680 --> 0:02:14.840
<v Speaker 5>and the debt limit.

0:02:15.080 --> 0:02:18.240
<v Speaker 2>And Nvidia shot the lights out with revenue projections as

0:02:18.280 --> 0:02:20.320
<v Speaker 2>the world stampedes to AI.

0:02:20.720 --> 0:02:23.040
<v Speaker 6>When you look at the data center market, it is

0:02:23.280 --> 0:02:26.600
<v Speaker 6>white hot. People that are developing data centers don't even

0:02:26.639 --> 0:02:29.800
<v Speaker 6>get them developed before one of the fangs leases for

0:02:29.880 --> 0:02:30.560
<v Speaker 6>thirty years.

0:02:32.120 --> 0:02:35.160
<v Speaker 2>The US economic numbers came in stronger than anticipated, with

0:02:35.200 --> 0:02:38.239
<v Speaker 2>personal and business spending up and the year over your

0:02:38.280 --> 0:02:42.320
<v Speaker 2>PCE core deflators stubbornly up at four point seven percent.

0:02:42.680 --> 0:02:44.680
<v Speaker 2>But the markets for the week pretty much reacted to

0:02:44.720 --> 0:02:47.520
<v Speaker 2>those two other stories, the debt, ceialing negotiations and what

0:02:47.600 --> 0:02:49.720
<v Speaker 2>AI means for tech, with the S and P five

0:02:49.800 --> 0:02:52.320
<v Speaker 2>hundred upo point three two percent for the week ending

0:02:52.360 --> 0:02:54.640
<v Speaker 2>of just over that forty two hundred number of people

0:02:54.720 --> 0:02:57.040
<v Speaker 2>have been focused on and two hundred points above our

0:02:57.080 --> 0:02:59.720
<v Speaker 2>Bloomberg Elves median estimate for the end of the year

0:03:00.160 --> 0:03:04.160
<v Speaker 2>four thousand. Vanasak was up a whopping two point five percent,

0:03:04.480 --> 0:03:07.040
<v Speaker 2>while the yield on the tenure added another twelve basis

0:03:07.080 --> 0:03:09.880
<v Speaker 2>points and in the week just under three point eight percent.

0:03:10.160 --> 0:03:11.960
<v Speaker 2>To take us through the week. In the markets, Welcome

0:03:12.040 --> 0:03:15.200
<v Speaker 2>now Lori Kalvacinas, she's RBC Capital Markets Head of US

0:03:15.240 --> 0:03:18.840
<v Speaker 2>Equity Strategy, and Jillian Teent Financial Times chair of the

0:03:18.919 --> 0:03:21.680
<v Speaker 2>editorial board and editor at large US. So welcome back

0:03:21.680 --> 0:03:22.079
<v Speaker 2>to both of you.

0:03:22.160 --> 0:03:22.359
<v Speaker 7>Laurie.

0:03:22.400 --> 0:03:23.720
<v Speaker 2>Let me start with you and what's going on with

0:03:23.760 --> 0:03:27.320
<v Speaker 2>the markets. Given all of the nervousness on some front

0:03:27.440 --> 0:03:30.000
<v Speaker 2>about the debt, it's surprising, least to me, the equity

0:03:30.040 --> 0:03:32.239
<v Speaker 2>markets didn't really react all that much, did they.

0:03:32.720 --> 0:03:35.360
<v Speaker 8>They didn't. I would say the market's generally been reacting

0:03:35.400 --> 0:03:37.920
<v Speaker 8>by rotating as opposed to pulling money out. And if

0:03:37.960 --> 0:03:40.640
<v Speaker 8>you talk to US based equity investors, they'll tell you, hey, look,

0:03:40.640 --> 0:03:43.160
<v Speaker 8>we've seen this story before. The stakes are high, but

0:03:43.200 --> 0:03:44.560
<v Speaker 8>we think a deal is going to get done. So

0:03:44.600 --> 0:03:47.360
<v Speaker 8>they've moved out of cyclicals and into things like tech

0:03:47.400 --> 0:03:50.080
<v Speaker 8>and defensives, which is generally what you see in debt

0:03:50.120 --> 0:03:53.280
<v Speaker 8>sealing drawdowns. But at the same time, we're hearing from

0:03:53.280 --> 0:03:55.400
<v Speaker 8>the big kind of non US investors that they've been

0:03:55.480 --> 0:03:57.840
<v Speaker 8>very worried about this. They don't know our politics as well,

0:03:58.400 --> 0:04:00.480
<v Speaker 8>So I would say kind of the steadier and the

0:04:00.520 --> 0:04:03.720
<v Speaker 8>more kind of even keeled local investors are taking it

0:04:03.760 --> 0:04:05.560
<v Speaker 8>in stride. That doesn't mean they don't care, that doesn't

0:04:05.600 --> 0:04:07.360
<v Speaker 8>mean the markets won't react if we don't end up

0:04:07.360 --> 0:04:09.560
<v Speaker 8>getting a deal. But there is a patience here that

0:04:09.640 --> 0:04:10.200
<v Speaker 8>makes sense.

0:04:10.600 --> 0:04:13.560
<v Speaker 2>So so, Laurie, what about that recession question, because we

0:04:13.640 --> 0:04:16.479
<v Speaker 2>have been hearing these predictions of a recession in twenty

0:04:16.520 --> 0:04:18.080
<v Speaker 2>twenty three, it was going to be the second quarter,

0:04:18.080 --> 0:04:19.359
<v Speaker 2>it's going to be the third quarter, and it's a

0:04:19.360 --> 0:04:21.919
<v Speaker 2>fourth quarter. Is it just a matter of timing or

0:04:22.000 --> 0:04:24.360
<v Speaker 2>is there a question even whether there will be a recession.

0:04:24.400 --> 0:04:26.479
<v Speaker 8>I think there's a question, a legitimate one, about whether

0:04:26.520 --> 0:04:27.880
<v Speaker 8>or not we're even going to get it, or if

0:04:27.880 --> 0:04:30.640
<v Speaker 8>you end up getting something similar to twenty fifteen twenty sixteen,

0:04:30.680 --> 0:04:33.320
<v Speaker 8>which was pretty close but not quite. And I think

0:04:33.400 --> 0:04:35.359
<v Speaker 8>what's interesting, and I see this more from the lens

0:04:35.360 --> 0:04:38.240
<v Speaker 8>of earnings, is that we're in an asynchronous cycle in

0:04:38.279 --> 0:04:40.960
<v Speaker 8>terms of the economy. There are different industries and different sectors.

0:04:40.960 --> 0:04:43.760
<v Speaker 8>They're going through different processes at different points in time.

0:04:44.080 --> 0:04:46.479
<v Speaker 8>If you think about sort of your inflation, you know

0:04:46.560 --> 0:04:50.640
<v Speaker 8>sort of beneficiaries, the beneficiaries of higher interest rates, things

0:04:50.680 --> 0:04:53.720
<v Speaker 8>like financials and energy they saw big upward revisions last year,

0:04:53.960 --> 0:04:57.240
<v Speaker 8>while tech companies, growth companies, supply chain centric sectors were

0:04:57.240 --> 0:05:00.279
<v Speaker 8>all seen downward revisions. Now the tables have turned everything

0:05:00.320 --> 0:05:02.240
<v Speaker 8>that was getting hurt last year as in a recovery,

0:05:02.440 --> 0:05:04.760
<v Speaker 8>and things that were benefiting from inflation and interest rates

0:05:04.760 --> 0:05:07.760
<v Speaker 8>stramping are seen their downward revision cycle. That's a very

0:05:07.880 --> 0:05:10.239
<v Speaker 8>very confusing cross current, but if you spread the pain

0:05:10.400 --> 0:05:13.040
<v Speaker 8>out a bit, you could actually skate by without a

0:05:13.040 --> 0:05:14.600
<v Speaker 8>true sort of recession happening.

0:05:15.040 --> 0:05:17.200
<v Speaker 2>One more before we turn to everybody's favorite topic, which

0:05:17.240 --> 0:05:19.479
<v Speaker 2>is of course artificial intelligence. But Jillian, to you, you

0:05:19.560 --> 0:05:21.480
<v Speaker 2>mentioned the FED and what the FED is likely to do.

0:05:21.880 --> 0:05:24.520
<v Speaker 2>We got some strong numbers in this week, actually indicating

0:05:24.520 --> 0:05:26.839
<v Speaker 2>both on the inflation staying up but also the economy

0:05:26.920 --> 0:05:30.040
<v Speaker 2>being quite strong. Where do you think the FED is heading?

0:05:30.120 --> 0:05:32.000
<v Speaker 2>Do you think they're going to continue to rise at all?

0:05:32.120 --> 0:05:33.280
<v Speaker 2>And by the way, if you want to, you can

0:05:33.320 --> 0:05:35.520
<v Speaker 2>give us the job's number for next Friday. It's okay.

0:05:36.640 --> 0:05:38.480
<v Speaker 3>Well, if I did that, i'd be a trader.

0:05:40.279 --> 0:05:42.839
<v Speaker 9>I think the FED is under pressure to keep raising,

0:05:42.920 --> 0:05:46.240
<v Speaker 9>keep tightening. It may skip that for this coming meeting

0:05:46.279 --> 0:05:48.320
<v Speaker 9>and do a wait and see stance, but I certainly

0:05:48.360 --> 0:05:50.000
<v Speaker 9>don't think it's going to cut any time soon. And

0:05:50.040 --> 0:05:53.040
<v Speaker 9>I'm actually think the market projections of twenty five bases

0:05:53.080 --> 0:05:56.520
<v Speaker 9>point rise now is quite reasonable given the fat that

0:05:56.560 --> 0:05:59.960
<v Speaker 9>we still haven't seen a significant decline in the inflation rate,

0:06:00.200 --> 0:06:03.279
<v Speaker 9>and the economy hasn't yet shown signs of being in recession.

0:06:03.640 --> 0:06:05.440
<v Speaker 9>I think in many ways, a more interesting issue that

0:06:05.480 --> 0:06:08.200
<v Speaker 9>the Fed's also facing, though, is, you know, is it

0:06:08.240 --> 0:06:11.480
<v Speaker 9>going to give any hint of rethinking the inflation target

0:06:11.480 --> 0:06:14.680
<v Speaker 9>going forward again. One of the messages that came back

0:06:14.720 --> 0:06:17.560
<v Speaker 9>from being down in the South earlier this week and

0:06:17.640 --> 0:06:19.560
<v Speaker 9>talking to people is that a lot of the commercial

0:06:19.560 --> 0:06:23.680
<v Speaker 9>real estate sector are constantly asking FED officials, you know,

0:06:23.760 --> 0:06:26.000
<v Speaker 9>are you going to change the inflation target. There's a

0:06:26.040 --> 0:06:29.240
<v Speaker 9>kind of desperate hope amongst many in that sector that

0:06:29.400 --> 0:06:33.320
<v Speaker 9>actually the rate rises will stop because the inflation target changes. Now,

0:06:33.360 --> 0:06:36.680
<v Speaker 9>the fled's been very keen to squash that quite forcefully,

0:06:37.240 --> 0:06:39.760
<v Speaker 9>but that question is going to liner and linger, particularly

0:06:39.760 --> 0:06:43.120
<v Speaker 9>if the inflation keeps coming in higher than people had expected.

0:06:43.360 --> 0:06:45.400
<v Speaker 2>I'm going to turn to that subject, which is everyone's

0:06:45.400 --> 0:06:48.400
<v Speaker 2>favorite subject and now is generative AI. And if it

0:06:48.400 --> 0:06:51.200
<v Speaker 2>weren't our favorite preessional subject before. When Vidio came out

0:06:51.240 --> 0:06:54.120
<v Speaker 2>with those earnings projections, it was really pretty extraordinary. We

0:06:54.160 --> 0:06:56.839
<v Speaker 2>have people saying this is as big as electricity or

0:06:56.960 --> 0:07:01.599
<v Speaker 2>fire or the invention of the wheel overestimating what this

0:07:01.720 --> 0:07:03.600
<v Speaker 2>generative AI mean for us all.

0:07:03.839 --> 0:07:07.120
<v Speaker 9>Well, the reason why the Navidio stot hoped sodomatically and

0:07:07.200 --> 0:07:09.600
<v Speaker 9>came up with the extordy ownings is very much down

0:07:09.600 --> 0:07:13.239
<v Speaker 9>to the dazzle factor, but also the confusion factor. Because

0:07:13.360 --> 0:07:16.360
<v Speaker 9>investors know that something big is happening, they don't really

0:07:16.440 --> 0:07:19.280
<v Speaker 9>understand the technology. They don't understand the degree to which

0:07:19.280 --> 0:07:22.440
<v Speaker 9>companies that our AI companies actually have a moat that

0:07:22.560 --> 0:07:25.800
<v Speaker 9>can defend them from you know, new rivals, and so

0:07:25.840 --> 0:07:27.680
<v Speaker 9>there's a lot of uncertaintly there. The one thing that's

0:07:27.680 --> 0:07:30.200
<v Speaker 9>crystal clear though, is that this is going to require

0:07:30.240 --> 0:07:32.080
<v Speaker 9>a lot of computing power and a lot of chips.

0:07:32.600 --> 0:07:35.440
<v Speaker 9>So people are grasping on anything they can see the

0:07:35.480 --> 0:07:38.720
<v Speaker 9>shiny new thing to try and have a play at

0:07:38.720 --> 0:07:41.800
<v Speaker 9>this whole wave. In terms of the significance of generative

0:07:41.880 --> 0:07:46.160
<v Speaker 9>AI is obviously very significant. You know, we've had AI

0:07:46.240 --> 0:07:48.120
<v Speaker 9>for a very long time. It's all part of our

0:07:48.400 --> 0:07:51.680
<v Speaker 9>everyday experience. But you know, for me, one of the

0:07:51.680 --> 0:07:54.800
<v Speaker 9>ways to explain what's going on is that as an anthropologist,

0:07:54.880 --> 0:07:57.360
<v Speaker 9>I always used to joke that the one thing that

0:07:57.440 --> 0:08:00.400
<v Speaker 9>AI couldn't do is have a sense of human and

0:08:00.440 --> 0:08:04.680
<v Speaker 9>tell jokes, because jokes are fundamentally rooted in culture, which

0:08:04.760 --> 0:08:07.000
<v Speaker 9>is hard to describe and hard to define and often

0:08:07.120 --> 0:08:12.120
<v Speaker 9>very contradictory. And most of the traditional platforms inside computers

0:08:12.240 --> 0:08:16.000
<v Speaker 9>looked for logic and patterns and things like that. What

0:08:16.080 --> 0:08:19.080
<v Speaker 9>you'll start to see with platforms like Generator of AI

0:08:19.520 --> 0:08:21.920
<v Speaker 9>are machines that are so sophisticated and so good at

0:08:21.960 --> 0:08:26.680
<v Speaker 9>watching people and replicating human behavior even if it's not logical,

0:08:27.040 --> 0:08:30.080
<v Speaker 9>and behaving like an anthropologist not a scientist, that you're

0:08:30.080 --> 0:08:33.440
<v Speaker 9>starting to get AI platforms which are almost beginning to

0:08:33.480 --> 0:08:37.040
<v Speaker 9>tell jokes. So it's really quite a big change in

0:08:37.160 --> 0:08:39.640
<v Speaker 9>terms of what's happening. The big question though, is what

0:08:39.679 --> 0:08:43.760
<v Speaker 9>it means in terms of real world applications and company valuations.

0:08:43.880 --> 0:08:46.480
<v Speaker 2>So as a loyal turn to you here and how

0:08:46.480 --> 0:08:48.720
<v Speaker 2>big this could be? Is this a new lease on

0:08:48.760 --> 0:08:50.040
<v Speaker 2>life for all of tech essentially?

0:08:50.200 --> 0:08:51.840
<v Speaker 8>So, look, I think this is another thing you can

0:08:51.840 --> 0:08:54.000
<v Speaker 8>put in the category of rallies that have been deserved.

0:08:54.040 --> 0:08:55.960
<v Speaker 8>I know it's sort of trendy to go out and say,

0:08:56.000 --> 0:08:57.840
<v Speaker 8>you know, the market is toppy and this is just

0:08:57.880 --> 0:09:01.040
<v Speaker 8>all this AI hype and it's not deserved. I think

0:09:01.080 --> 0:09:03.360
<v Speaker 8>there's a paucity of growth stories out there right now,

0:09:03.360 --> 0:09:05.960
<v Speaker 8>and when you think about the conversation on reshoring that's

0:09:05.960 --> 0:09:08.000
<v Speaker 8>been going on and talking to a lot of investors

0:09:08.040 --> 0:09:09.760
<v Speaker 8>about that in recent months, is kind of the only

0:09:09.840 --> 0:09:12.640
<v Speaker 8>big interesting growth narrative out there. Well, now we've got

0:09:12.640 --> 0:09:15.800
<v Speaker 8>something to keep it company, which is AI. Ultimately, my

0:09:15.880 --> 0:09:18.920
<v Speaker 8>gut is that this is going to be another productivity enhancer,

0:09:19.000 --> 0:09:22.360
<v Speaker 8>something very cool, something very interesting that enhances productivity. Is

0:09:22.400 --> 0:09:24.679
<v Speaker 8>it going to completely transform society? I'm not quite sure.

0:09:24.720 --> 0:09:26.400
<v Speaker 8>I'm in that camp, But in terms of the market

0:09:26.440 --> 0:09:28.800
<v Speaker 8>and why it's getting so excited, I think it's because

0:09:28.800 --> 0:09:31.080
<v Speaker 8>there hasn't been a lot of other things in this

0:09:31.160 --> 0:09:33.480
<v Speaker 8>kind of category of secular growth stories to get excited

0:09:33.520 --> 0:09:34.120
<v Speaker 8>about recently.

0:09:34.240 --> 0:09:36.040
<v Speaker 2>Julian, I'm going to ask you to do something very unfair.

0:09:36.080 --> 0:09:39.199
<v Speaker 2>You have a terrific column in the Financial Times ABOUTIA

0:09:39.240 --> 0:09:41.400
<v Speaker 2>I believe it's called in Ukraine. Could you just give

0:09:41.480 --> 0:09:43.199
<v Speaker 2>us thirty or forty five seconds of that because I

0:09:43.360 --> 0:09:45.160
<v Speaker 2>thought it was really extraordinary. I'd love you to come

0:09:45.200 --> 0:09:46.520
<v Speaker 2>back and really explain it more detail.

0:09:46.640 --> 0:09:49.520
<v Speaker 9>As an Idea is an app that Ukrainians thought three

0:09:49.600 --> 0:09:52.680
<v Speaker 9>years ago to enable Ukrainian citizens to do all the

0:09:52.800 --> 0:09:55.320
<v Speaker 9>usual government functions that any of us ever have to do,

0:09:56.080 --> 0:09:58.600
<v Speaker 9>not by going to an office and filling in paper storms,

0:09:58.840 --> 0:10:01.640
<v Speaker 9>but on your phone with app. And initially it seemed

0:10:01.679 --> 0:10:03.800
<v Speaker 9>like just a very minor tool that a few people

0:10:03.880 --> 0:10:07.960
<v Speaker 9>might use for things like vaccinations, status in COVID. But

0:10:08.040 --> 0:10:11.120
<v Speaker 9>these days seventy percent of Ukrainian phones have this app.

0:10:11.240 --> 0:10:14.120
<v Speaker 9>Half the population is using it. They're doing almost everything

0:10:14.160 --> 0:10:16.400
<v Speaker 9>to do with the government on this cell phone app.

0:10:16.440 --> 0:10:18.400
<v Speaker 9>And the key point is that not only has it

0:10:18.440 --> 0:10:22.160
<v Speaker 9>meant that Ukraine's kept functioning even as refugees have flooded

0:10:22.240 --> 0:10:25.120
<v Speaker 9>everywhere because they've all got their passports and stuff on

0:10:25.120 --> 0:10:27.320
<v Speaker 9>their phone, but it's also meant that they have one

0:10:27.360 --> 0:10:30.320
<v Speaker 9>way potentially to try and cut down in corruption. And

0:10:30.360 --> 0:10:32.480
<v Speaker 9>the crucial thing to understand, the reason why it's so

0:10:32.520 --> 0:10:34.920
<v Speaker 9>important this week is because they're trying to take it.

0:10:34.920 --> 0:10:37.640
<v Speaker 9>The USAID is trying to take it and export it

0:10:37.679 --> 0:10:38.520
<v Speaker 9>to other countries.

0:10:38.800 --> 0:10:41.160
<v Speaker 2>A tech export from Ukraine. How about that, and particularly

0:10:41.160 --> 0:10:43.240
<v Speaker 2>if it deals with DMV, I'd be all for it.

0:10:43.440 --> 0:10:46.440
<v Speaker 2>Many Thanks to Lori Calvascino of RBC Cattle Markets and

0:10:46.520 --> 0:10:49.120
<v Speaker 2>Julian tat Has, the Financial Times coming up could your

0:10:49.200 --> 0:10:53.000
<v Speaker 2>friendly neighborhood chat Ai beat the stock market. We're going

0:10:53.040 --> 0:10:56.640
<v Speaker 2>to hear from investing guru David Booth's Dimensional Fund ad Advisors.

0:10:56.760 --> 0:10:58.800
<v Speaker 2>He has some doubts about it. He's not sure that

0:10:58.840 --> 0:11:01.000
<v Speaker 2>you can beat the market within. That's going to come

0:11:01.040 --> 0:11:05.640
<v Speaker 2>up next on Wall Street Weeedons.

0:11:07.080 --> 0:11:11.240
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Wall Street Week with David Weston from

0:11:11.400 --> 0:11:12.319
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Radio.

0:11:12.520 --> 0:11:15.640
<v Speaker 2>Private equity, it's come a long way since Henry Cravis

0:11:15.720 --> 0:11:17.760
<v Speaker 2>and George Roberts put it on the map with that

0:11:17.840 --> 0:11:21.040
<v Speaker 2>twenty five billion dollar buyout of R JR. Nabisco back

0:11:21.080 --> 0:11:24.600
<v Speaker 2>in nineteen eighty eight, made famous in Barbarians at the Gate.

0:11:24.880 --> 0:11:27.880
<v Speaker 1>I'm talking about putting a mountain of money into everybody's

0:11:27.920 --> 0:11:29.040
<v Speaker 1>pocket right now.

0:11:29.200 --> 0:11:32.000
<v Speaker 2>And it has evolved since Democrats tried to make Mitt

0:11:32.040 --> 0:11:35.160
<v Speaker 2>Romney's role in running Bain Capital and issue in the

0:11:35.200 --> 0:11:37.520
<v Speaker 2>twenty twelve presidential campaign.

0:11:37.880 --> 0:11:39.880
<v Speaker 3>It's a very healthy and positive debate.

0:11:39.920 --> 0:11:42.000
<v Speaker 5>That doesn't mean the private equity world is going to

0:11:42.080 --> 0:11:42.800
<v Speaker 5>enjoy it very much.

0:11:42.960 --> 0:11:46.240
<v Speaker 2>Today, private equity is a massive asset class with over

0:11:46.320 --> 0:11:50.240
<v Speaker 2>eleven trillion dollars invested and another three trillion dollars and

0:11:50.280 --> 0:11:54.679
<v Speaker 2>so called dry powder waiting to be deployed. Although higher

0:11:54.800 --> 0:11:57.280
<v Speaker 2>rates slowed things down at the end of last year,

0:11:57.559 --> 0:12:00.240
<v Speaker 2>it's just beginning to show signs of coming back.

0:12:00.559 --> 0:12:03.920
<v Speaker 10>Fourth quarter of twenty two you had nothing today, you

0:12:04.040 --> 0:12:07.319
<v Speaker 10>actually had the markets loosening out for the right deals.

0:12:07.400 --> 0:12:13.160
<v Speaker 2>Leaving us all to look for that right deal and

0:12:13.240 --> 0:12:15.320
<v Speaker 2>to take us into the world of private equity. We

0:12:15.320 --> 0:12:18.480
<v Speaker 2>welcome to people who are in it from HGGC. We have,

0:12:18.559 --> 0:12:21.880
<v Speaker 2>first of all Steve Young, who's the chairman of HGGC

0:12:22.360 --> 0:12:24.560
<v Speaker 2>as well as the co founder, and we also have

0:12:24.679 --> 0:12:28.319
<v Speaker 2>Rich Lawson who's the CEO and also co founder of HGGC.

0:12:28.600 --> 0:12:31.000
<v Speaker 2>So welcome, gentlemen. It's great to have you here. First

0:12:31.040 --> 0:12:33.840
<v Speaker 2>of all, give us a sense of how HGGC fits

0:12:33.880 --> 0:12:35.760
<v Speaker 2>into this world of private equity. Steve, if you want

0:12:35.760 --> 0:12:36.959
<v Speaker 2>to go first, from.

0:12:36.760 --> 0:12:40.240
<v Speaker 11>The very beginning, from our roots, we decided that we

0:12:40.280 --> 0:12:43.080
<v Speaker 11>wanted to do private equity differently, and we believe that

0:12:43.120 --> 0:12:48.400
<v Speaker 11>across the table were people that were founders, you know,

0:12:48.880 --> 0:12:53.680
<v Speaker 11>financial sponsors, management teams. Across the table as somebody who

0:12:53.720 --> 0:12:56.720
<v Speaker 11>cares more about who I am than the last dollar

0:12:57.000 --> 0:12:59.120
<v Speaker 11>and what I bring to the table than.

0:12:59.000 --> 0:12:59.679
<v Speaker 1>The last dollar.

0:13:00.160 --> 0:13:03.000
<v Speaker 11>Fundamental principle is that partnership investing.

0:13:02.800 --> 0:13:04.320
<v Speaker 3>Will we'll wile of the world.

0:13:04.400 --> 0:13:07.040
<v Speaker 11>And fifteen years ago that was a little bit of

0:13:07.080 --> 0:13:10.000
<v Speaker 11>a bet. Today partnership investing has taken over the world.

0:13:10.320 --> 0:13:13.400
<v Speaker 11>And so for us, the differentiation that we make is

0:13:13.400 --> 0:13:17.760
<v Speaker 11>that we live here, we seek your reference across the table.

0:13:17.840 --> 0:13:20.119
<v Speaker 11>We need your reference at the end of this engagement

0:13:20.520 --> 0:13:22.920
<v Speaker 11>where because that's how we're going to go forward, because

0:13:22.920 --> 0:13:25.240
<v Speaker 11>that's all we do is partnership investing. Where others will

0:13:25.280 --> 0:13:28.080
<v Speaker 11>say we're partnership investors, but they rent here, they rent

0:13:28.080 --> 0:13:30.160
<v Speaker 11>here for the time, and they don't really it's not

0:13:30.240 --> 0:13:31.480
<v Speaker 11>rooted to who they are rich.

0:13:31.559 --> 0:13:34.440
<v Speaker 2>This partnership investing sounds really nice, and like I understand

0:13:34.440 --> 0:13:36.480
<v Speaker 2>why you might attract a lot of heels that way,

0:13:36.679 --> 0:13:38.640
<v Speaker 2>can you make as much money? Because that's not, let's

0:13:38.640 --> 0:13:41.720
<v Speaker 2>be frank, the model historically associated with private equity. We

0:13:41.760 --> 0:13:43.520
<v Speaker 2>think it was coming in and buying it, tripping a

0:13:43.520 --> 0:13:45.120
<v Speaker 2>lot of costs out and reselling it.

0:13:45.440 --> 0:13:47.840
<v Speaker 6>Where we focus is in the middle market, so medium

0:13:47.920 --> 0:13:51.080
<v Speaker 6>sized businesses. So for us, as a seven billion dollar

0:13:51.160 --> 0:13:54.640
<v Speaker 6>private equity firm, where we tend to see the opportunity

0:13:54.640 --> 0:13:57.760
<v Speaker 6>to create real appha is buying good businesses in the

0:13:57.800 --> 0:14:01.439
<v Speaker 6>middle market as traditionally defined with the goal of transforming

0:14:01.440 --> 0:14:03.040
<v Speaker 6>them into great companies.

0:14:02.760 --> 0:14:03.120
<v Speaker 3>So rich.

0:14:03.160 --> 0:14:05.000
<v Speaker 2>It sounds like when you come in, it's not the

0:14:05.040 --> 0:14:08.520
<v Speaker 2>management team that you're replacing. You don't come in by definition.

0:14:08.600 --> 0:14:10.840
<v Speaker 2>You've picked companies that have good management teams. So what

0:14:10.920 --> 0:14:13.880
<v Speaker 2>is it you're providing? Is it capital? Basically, and typically

0:14:13.880 --> 0:14:16.400
<v Speaker 2>in private equity, we think of leveraging up your capital

0:14:16.480 --> 0:14:18.000
<v Speaker 2>is equity as I understand.

0:14:17.600 --> 0:14:19.560
<v Speaker 6>It, we would think about it in sort of three

0:14:19.560 --> 0:14:22.720
<v Speaker 6>different deal market types. One is buy and built with

0:14:22.920 --> 0:14:26.200
<v Speaker 6>very important in this type of macro environment. The second

0:14:26.240 --> 0:14:31.240
<v Speaker 6>would be in business transformation, helping up upgrading core capabilities

0:14:31.240 --> 0:14:34.880
<v Speaker 6>and processes. And third is growth enablement, maybe changing the

0:14:34.880 --> 0:14:38.000
<v Speaker 6>go to market process, the go to market motion, helping

0:14:38.040 --> 0:14:42.240
<v Speaker 6>businesses called global But again we're taking very distinctly medium

0:14:42.280 --> 0:14:46.240
<v Speaker 6>sized companies call it a billion dollars of enterprise value below,

0:14:46.640 --> 0:14:50.560
<v Speaker 6>and we're creating multi billion dollar enterprises over the course

0:14:50.600 --> 0:14:53.680
<v Speaker 6>of a partnership with the owners of that business.

0:14:54.120 --> 0:14:56.600
<v Speaker 2>Steve, I understand you focus on the middle market, if

0:14:56.640 --> 0:14:59.120
<v Speaker 2>I can call it that. Are there particular sectors that

0:14:59.200 --> 0:15:02.720
<v Speaker 2>you tend to be attracted to or see deals from.

0:15:03.360 --> 0:15:05.800
<v Speaker 11>We live in Palo Alto, California. That's our that's our

0:15:06.400 --> 0:15:08.920
<v Speaker 11>our base of operations. So we've been in technology for

0:15:09.000 --> 0:15:11.720
<v Speaker 11>twenty five thirty years. So we're going to do some technology,

0:15:11.720 --> 0:15:15.000
<v Speaker 11>no question. But how tech has informed places like business services,

0:15:15.600 --> 0:15:19.440
<v Speaker 11>financial services, and even some consumer in particular places is

0:15:19.440 --> 0:15:21.920
<v Speaker 11>where we will kind of trade. We won't go further

0:15:22.000 --> 0:15:24.360
<v Speaker 11>than that, but that's a pretty wide swath, but we

0:15:24.440 --> 0:15:27.960
<v Speaker 11>are gaining, uh through our thematic sourcing efforts, uh, some

0:15:27.960 --> 0:15:31.120
<v Speaker 11>real expertise in our shop and uh, you know, we'll

0:15:31.600 --> 0:15:32.120
<v Speaker 11>we are.

0:15:32.000 --> 0:15:33.840
<v Speaker 3>Now trying for the first time.

0:15:33.880 --> 0:15:35.920
<v Speaker 11>You think I've been in kind of working to do

0:15:35.960 --> 0:15:39.120
<v Speaker 11>a sports angle and sports investing from the very beginn

0:15:39.120 --> 0:15:42.040
<v Speaker 11>income my previous life, but I I took my my heroes,

0:15:42.120 --> 0:15:45.640
<v Speaker 11>Roger Staubach's uh uh he told me that, you know

0:15:45.640 --> 0:15:47.400
<v Speaker 11>when I when I first retired, So what should I do?

0:15:47.440 --> 0:15:49.920
<v Speaker 11>What's your what your recommendation is just run? And so

0:15:49.960 --> 0:15:52.680
<v Speaker 11>I ran. And so I felt a little bit awkward,

0:15:53.200 --> 0:15:55.520
<v Speaker 11>you know, reinvesting back into sports. But now I've kind

0:15:55.520 --> 0:15:57.760
<v Speaker 11>of matured in my private equity life that I've been

0:15:57.800 --> 0:15:59.240
<v Speaker 11>in longer than I played football.

0:15:59.400 --> 0:16:01.280
<v Speaker 2>Well, I was going to ask you that, Steve, obviously,

0:16:01.360 --> 0:16:03.200
<v Speaker 2>given we all think of you as a forty nine

0:16:03.280 --> 0:16:05.600
<v Speaker 2>ers hold on. That's the way we know Steve Young.

0:16:06.120 --> 0:16:09.040
<v Speaker 2>Given that do you get more deal flow out of sports?

0:16:09.040 --> 0:16:10.240
<v Speaker 2>So people tend to come to you. And I know

0:16:10.280 --> 0:16:12.840
<v Speaker 2>you've done a lot of work actually with other former

0:16:12.880 --> 0:16:15.320
<v Speaker 2>professional athletes to help them in their business ventures.

0:16:15.680 --> 0:16:18.160
<v Speaker 11>So one of my passions is to try to pay

0:16:18.200 --> 0:16:21.640
<v Speaker 11>it forward and trying to create trying to create a

0:16:21.680 --> 0:16:26.360
<v Speaker 11>repository of transition stories from professional life into the next

0:16:26.400 --> 0:16:28.400
<v Speaker 11>phase of their lives. And I've always talked about that

0:16:28.480 --> 0:16:33.080
<v Speaker 11>as a hard ending to a passion for people and

0:16:33.120 --> 0:16:34.960
<v Speaker 11>then finding out that they're middle aged and they.

0:16:34.840 --> 0:16:35.280
<v Speaker 3>Don't have it.

0:16:35.360 --> 0:16:37.520
<v Speaker 11>You know, I was great at something and the next

0:16:37.560 --> 0:16:40.040
<v Speaker 11>day I'm not good at anything. And so how do

0:16:40.120 --> 0:16:42.080
<v Speaker 11>those transition stories and how to pay it forward for

0:16:42.160 --> 0:16:45.360
<v Speaker 11>other athletes Today, I'm really passionate about trying to figure

0:16:45.360 --> 0:16:47.720
<v Speaker 11>out how to tell those stories about people who have

0:16:47.800 --> 0:16:48.920
<v Speaker 11>transition good and bad.

0:16:49.600 --> 0:16:51.960
<v Speaker 2>Rich Palin, the last time I checked is in Silicon Valley.

0:16:52.080 --> 0:16:54.800
<v Speaker 2>We had Silicon Valley Bank has the failure of Silicon

0:16:54.880 --> 0:16:56.400
<v Speaker 2>Value Bank and some of the other regional banks. Has

0:16:56.400 --> 0:16:58.560
<v Speaker 2>it affected your business.

0:16:58.560 --> 0:17:01.160
<v Speaker 6>In a way, It's sort of excel rated the opportunity

0:17:01.200 --> 0:17:05.520
<v Speaker 6>around this tilt towards partnership, we find that that really

0:17:05.640 --> 0:17:10.600
<v Speaker 6>large and growing ecosystem of venture backed businesses are looking

0:17:10.680 --> 0:17:14.040
<v Speaker 6>for outcomes. Right, you have an ecosystem of venture capital

0:17:14.080 --> 0:17:18.080
<v Speaker 6>and growth equity investors. You have wonderful entrepreneurs that are

0:17:18.119 --> 0:17:20.640
<v Speaker 6>around these businesses. But if you think about what Steve

0:17:20.680 --> 0:17:24.040
<v Speaker 6>had mentioned, the essence of what we do, we're looking

0:17:24.160 --> 0:17:26.520
<v Speaker 6>for folks that in the kind of businesses that we're

0:17:26.560 --> 0:17:30.080
<v Speaker 6>transforming from good companies or good businesses to great companies

0:17:31.240 --> 0:17:34.919
<v Speaker 6>is numerous owners. And so what we found, David, is

0:17:34.960 --> 0:17:39.359
<v Speaker 6>that because of what's happened with the macro environment with

0:17:39.480 --> 0:17:43.480
<v Speaker 6>SVB and others, you have this really large universe of

0:17:43.840 --> 0:17:48.280
<v Speaker 6>smaller companies that would have typically raised a series CDF

0:17:48.560 --> 0:17:51.280
<v Speaker 6>and gone public that have now said, maybe it might

0:17:51.320 --> 0:17:53.720
<v Speaker 6>be better to join forces with one of our core

0:17:54.520 --> 0:17:56.000
<v Speaker 6>active portfolio companies.

0:17:56.280 --> 0:17:56.440
<v Speaker 1>Rich.

0:17:56.480 --> 0:17:59.359
<v Speaker 2>One of the precipitating causes of what happened at Silico

0:17:59.400 --> 0:18:02.480
<v Speaker 2>ELI back the higher interest rates that really took down

0:18:02.520 --> 0:18:05.080
<v Speaker 2>the valuations of a lot of private equity companies. Is

0:18:05.119 --> 0:18:06.160
<v Speaker 2>it affecting your business?

0:18:06.200 --> 0:18:06.400
<v Speaker 3>Rich?

0:18:06.760 --> 0:18:10.640
<v Speaker 2>The diminishment I assume of the valuations given what's going

0:18:10.880 --> 0:18:11.680
<v Speaker 2>with a discount rate.

0:18:11.960 --> 0:18:16.160
<v Speaker 6>In uncertain macro environments, business quality becomes more important than ever.

0:18:16.680 --> 0:18:19.119
<v Speaker 6>And because these companies tend to be more resilient in

0:18:19.160 --> 0:18:22.159
<v Speaker 6>the face of macro pressures, the type of businesses that

0:18:22.200 --> 0:18:27.400
<v Speaker 6>we look for invest in and help support transform. Even

0:18:27.440 --> 0:18:30.000
<v Speaker 6>if they do get impacted in the near term, you

0:18:30.040 --> 0:18:31.600
<v Speaker 6>will see them rebound quickly.

0:18:32.640 --> 0:18:36.080
<v Speaker 2>Steve, I can't let a Super Bowl Most Valuable Player

0:18:36.160 --> 0:18:38.879
<v Speaker 2>quarterback go without asking one question about valuations and professional

0:18:38.880 --> 0:18:41.240
<v Speaker 2>sports teams. They are through the roof as we talk

0:18:41.280 --> 0:18:43.280
<v Speaker 2>to people. It is just extraordinary. And I talked to

0:18:43.320 --> 0:18:45.400
<v Speaker 2>some of the investors to say they're going to keep going.

0:18:45.440 --> 0:18:47.240
<v Speaker 2>What do you make about some of the valuations we're

0:18:47.240 --> 0:18:48.919
<v Speaker 2>seeing now on some of the pro teams.

0:18:50.400 --> 0:18:52.080
<v Speaker 11>My stat might be a little bit off, but it's

0:18:52.119 --> 0:18:55.200
<v Speaker 11>not a lot off. Seventy five of the top one

0:18:55.280 --> 0:18:58.760
<v Speaker 11>hundred shows on television the highest rated shows on television,

0:18:58.800 --> 0:19:02.399
<v Speaker 11>Seventy five of the top one hundred were NFL football games.

0:19:02.520 --> 0:19:05.919
<v Speaker 11>Think of the power in that stat. Equity values have

0:19:06.320 --> 0:19:09.119
<v Speaker 11>twenty times in the last twenty years. And you know

0:19:09.240 --> 0:19:11.600
<v Speaker 11>people say players have played too much. Quarterbacks are making

0:19:11.600 --> 0:19:14.280
<v Speaker 11>sixty million dollars a year. As far as equity value

0:19:14.320 --> 0:19:17.480
<v Speaker 11>growth in the last twenty years. Quarterback salary growth has

0:19:17.560 --> 0:19:20.480
<v Speaker 11>not is only half of it, and so I'm not

0:19:20.480 --> 0:19:22.239
<v Speaker 11>saying this should be paid more. I'm just saying that

0:19:22.280 --> 0:19:25.359
<v Speaker 11>equity values are through the roof because of the power

0:19:25.800 --> 0:19:28.200
<v Speaker 11>of live television. And you've seen that around the sports

0:19:28.240 --> 0:19:30.920
<v Speaker 11>world and NBA it manage League Baseball was on its

0:19:30.960 --> 0:19:34.680
<v Speaker 11>back twenty years ago. I'm overstating it, but you know

0:19:34.880 --> 0:19:38.600
<v Speaker 11>now flourishing because life television runs the world, and the

0:19:38.720 --> 0:19:42.199
<v Speaker 11>NFL runs life television by a long way. So you

0:19:42.200 --> 0:19:45.399
<v Speaker 11>talk about the power of the NFL, that power only grows.

0:19:45.480 --> 0:19:47.679
<v Speaker 11>And that's why you think, you know, a forty nine

0:19:47.760 --> 0:19:50.560
<v Speaker 11>or team that's worth eight to ten billion dollars could

0:19:50.600 --> 0:19:53.240
<v Speaker 11>be twenty billion, could be I mean the upper ends

0:19:53.240 --> 0:19:55.280
<v Speaker 11>are you know, who knows. But the NFL has done

0:19:55.320 --> 0:19:57.720
<v Speaker 11>a great job of building equity value, that's for sure.

0:19:58.320 --> 0:20:00.400
<v Speaker 2>General, I can't thank you enough for joining us here

0:20:00.400 --> 0:20:02.440
<v Speaker 2>on Wall Street Week. That is Steve Young, of course,

0:20:02.480 --> 0:20:05.080
<v Speaker 2>as well as Rich Lawson of HGGC.

0:20:07.320 --> 0:20:07.760
<v Speaker 1>Coming up.

0:20:07.800 --> 0:20:10.240
<v Speaker 2>There's a big fight in Washington over the depth sit

0:20:10.440 --> 0:20:14.000
<v Speaker 2>what should there be? We ask Nobel Prize winning economist

0:20:14.000 --> 0:20:15.480
<v Speaker 2>Paul Krugman, what.

0:20:15.520 --> 0:20:19.600
<v Speaker 3>Really bothers me. Where we are right now is that

0:20:19.680 --> 0:20:24.040
<v Speaker 3>the programs that apparently are safer saying are programs for

0:20:24.119 --> 0:20:24.600
<v Speaker 3>the elderly.

0:20:25.320 --> 0:20:27.680
<v Speaker 2>That's next on Wall Street Week on Bloomberg.

0:20:30.000 --> 0:20:34.240
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Wall Street Week with David Weston from

0:20:34.359 --> 0:20:35.280
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Radio.

0:20:36.280 --> 0:20:39.440
<v Speaker 10>I thought Hamilton had it right. He said a national

0:20:39.440 --> 0:20:42.880
<v Speaker 10>debt could be a national blessing, and the national debt

0:20:42.960 --> 0:20:46.119
<v Speaker 10>having a liquid market there provides a good benchmark for

0:20:46.160 --> 0:20:49.280
<v Speaker 10>the private sector. It probably underpins the role of the

0:20:49.320 --> 0:20:52.360
<v Speaker 10>dollar in the world. It allows the Fed to conduct

0:20:52.760 --> 0:20:56.919
<v Speaker 10>monetary policy easily. I think we have to keep in

0:20:57.080 --> 0:21:01.240
<v Speaker 10>mind the costs of paying down the day. There is

0:21:01.400 --> 0:21:04.960
<v Speaker 10>among some people single minded focus on it, but there's

0:21:04.960 --> 0:21:06.200
<v Speaker 10>no free lunch in this world.

0:21:08.320 --> 0:21:11.359
<v Speaker 2>That was Larry Lindsay, President George W. Bush's director of

0:21:11.400 --> 0:21:13.880
<v Speaker 2>the National Economic Council back in two thousand and one.

0:21:14.160 --> 0:21:15.840
<v Speaker 2>That was a time when the concern was not about

0:21:15.840 --> 0:21:18.120
<v Speaker 2>how big the federal debt was, but that we might

0:21:18.200 --> 0:21:21.320
<v Speaker 2>actually pay it all off. To explain today what we

0:21:21.359 --> 0:21:23.520
<v Speaker 2>should and should not be worried about when it comes

0:21:23.560 --> 0:21:25.600
<v Speaker 2>to the debt and the deficits were running up, we

0:21:25.600 --> 0:21:28.000
<v Speaker 2>welcome to Dow Doctor Paul Krugman. He's distinguished Professor of

0:21:28.040 --> 0:21:30.199
<v Speaker 2>economics at the City University of New York and the

0:21:30.240 --> 0:21:32.960
<v Speaker 2>recipient of the Nobel Prize in the Economic Sciences. So,

0:21:33.040 --> 0:21:34.960
<v Speaker 2>doctor Kruman, thank you so much for being with us.

0:21:35.160 --> 0:21:37.720
<v Speaker 2>We hear a lot of talk from politicians in Washington,

0:21:37.760 --> 0:21:40.240
<v Speaker 2>as we should about the debt. We don't hear as much.

0:21:40.280 --> 0:21:43.040
<v Speaker 2>I don't hear about the economics of it all. Once

0:21:43.080 --> 0:21:44.920
<v Speaker 2>you give us your analysis of what we should be

0:21:44.960 --> 0:21:46.760
<v Speaker 2>concerned about with the debt and what we should not

0:21:46.800 --> 0:21:47.720
<v Speaker 2>be as concerned.

0:21:47.440 --> 0:21:54.720
<v Speaker 3>About, Okay, there is a pretty strong case the debt

0:21:54.760 --> 0:22:00.320
<v Speaker 3>is just a number that the United States absent loitical

0:22:00.400 --> 0:22:03.760
<v Speaker 3>games over the debt ceiling, which is a really uniquely

0:22:03.800 --> 0:22:08.960
<v Speaker 3>American dysfunction. Aside from that, there's no hint that financial

0:22:09.000 --> 0:22:13.280
<v Speaker 3>markets are concerned about America's ability to service its debt.

0:22:13.720 --> 0:22:16.640
<v Speaker 3>There's no real sign that the debt is putting any

0:22:17.040 --> 0:22:22.040
<v Speaker 3>strain on the economy. There are. US debt is very

0:22:22.119 --> 0:22:26.400
<v Speaker 3>high for by our own historical standards. The only time

0:22:26.440 --> 0:22:28.840
<v Speaker 3>we've been close to this level was in the immediate

0:22:28.880 --> 0:22:31.680
<v Speaker 3>aftermath of World War Two. But it's not that high

0:22:31.720 --> 0:22:34.480
<v Speaker 3>compared with what a lot of other countries have experienced

0:22:34.480 --> 0:22:40.240
<v Speaker 3>over the years without any kind of crisis. So the

0:22:40.320 --> 0:22:44.320
<v Speaker 3>numbers are enormous, but everything about the US economy is enormous.

0:22:44.320 --> 0:22:46.520
<v Speaker 3>So you say thirty one trillion dollars and you do

0:22:46.560 --> 0:22:49.720
<v Speaker 3>your best doctor evil imitation. But it's not at all

0:22:49.800 --> 0:22:54.080
<v Speaker 3>clear that the debt is a top priority you know

0:22:54.119 --> 0:22:57.000
<v Speaker 3>that it's a catastrophic issue, or even that it even

0:22:57.040 --> 0:22:59.440
<v Speaker 3>belongs in the top five or maybe even the top

0:22:59.480 --> 0:23:02.160
<v Speaker 3>ten of ISI she's to concern the United States.

0:23:01.880 --> 0:23:04.880
<v Speaker 2>So maybe not catastrophic, but is it a growing problem?

0:23:04.920 --> 0:23:07.399
<v Speaker 2>In this sense, the debt itself is just one number.

0:23:07.440 --> 0:23:09.320
<v Speaker 2>What about when you put it together with another number,

0:23:09.359 --> 0:23:12.200
<v Speaker 2>which is debt service? Because as I understand it, part

0:23:12.240 --> 0:23:16.080
<v Speaker 2>of the question is how fast is debt service costs growing?

0:23:16.240 --> 0:23:19.400
<v Speaker 2>We have had essentially zero cost of debt service. Those

0:23:19.440 --> 0:23:21.880
<v Speaker 2>are going up. Now does that pose a real risk?

0:23:23.240 --> 0:23:26.720
<v Speaker 3>The idea that having to that were then we're in

0:23:26.760 --> 0:23:28.760
<v Speaker 3>some kind of debt spiral where we have to borrow

0:23:28.880 --> 0:23:30.480
<v Speaker 3>to pay interest and then we have to I mean,

0:23:30.800 --> 0:23:33.600
<v Speaker 3>the numbers don't support that at all. The numbers don't

0:23:33.640 --> 0:23:35.919
<v Speaker 3>suggest that anything like that is going to be a

0:23:35.960 --> 0:23:40.840
<v Speaker 3>problem for the foreseeable future. So no, I mean it's

0:23:40.920 --> 0:23:44.679
<v Speaker 3>just it's we've gone from a point where money was

0:23:44.920 --> 0:23:50.800
<v Speaker 3>you know, free, or even in real terms, possibly we

0:23:50.800 --> 0:23:53.280
<v Speaker 3>were being the faraoh government was being paid to take

0:23:53.320 --> 0:23:55.920
<v Speaker 3>on debt to one where it costs something, but it's

0:23:55.920 --> 0:23:56.959
<v Speaker 3>still pretty small.

0:23:57.240 --> 0:23:59.159
<v Speaker 2>So let's talk about some of the proposals about it.

0:23:59.400 --> 0:24:01.760
<v Speaker 2>How to raising the death too much, and that is

0:24:01.840 --> 0:24:05.679
<v Speaker 2>some capping of spending, particularly discretionary spending. What are the

0:24:05.720 --> 0:24:08.800
<v Speaker 2>possible consequences of that if in fact we do freeze

0:24:08.880 --> 0:24:11.159
<v Speaker 2>or reduce spending off of twenty twenty two levels.

0:24:11.440 --> 0:24:15.600
<v Speaker 3>What really bothers me where we are right now is

0:24:15.640 --> 0:24:20.119
<v Speaker 3>that the programs that apparently are sacrisanc Are programs for

0:24:20.200 --> 0:24:25.080
<v Speaker 3>the elderly, Medicare, social Security are off the table. They're

0:24:25.080 --> 0:24:28.240
<v Speaker 3>being protected, and a lot of the stuff that discretionary

0:24:28.480 --> 0:24:37.160
<v Speaker 3>is really things like programs that support children, to support education,

0:24:37.400 --> 0:24:41.000
<v Speaker 3>that support nutrition for the young, which is the future.

0:24:41.240 --> 0:24:44.200
<v Speaker 3>So what's happening right now is that in the effort

0:24:44.280 --> 0:24:49.280
<v Speaker 3>to hold down headline spending right now, we're actually kind

0:24:49.280 --> 0:24:54.160
<v Speaker 3>of disinvesting in the country's future. And that's that's pretty alarming.

0:24:54.440 --> 0:24:57.360
<v Speaker 2>So that is a terribly important and very unpopular point.

0:24:57.400 --> 0:24:59.679
<v Speaker 2>Going back to the politics for a moment here, and

0:24:59.720 --> 0:25:01.520
<v Speaker 2>that is when you say let's cut things for the elder.

0:25:01.560 --> 0:25:04.040
<v Speaker 2>That's very popular. I'm elderly at this point. But at

0:25:04.040 --> 0:25:06.720
<v Speaker 2>the same time, we're not really investing in future growth,

0:25:06.760 --> 0:25:09.639
<v Speaker 2>as I understand, by paying more, for example, on social security,

0:25:09.880 --> 0:25:14.240
<v Speaker 2>whereas investing in education or children or infrastructure could increase

0:25:14.280 --> 0:25:16.280
<v Speaker 2>the future growth. To what extent do we need to

0:25:16.359 --> 0:25:19.439
<v Speaker 2>concerned about growing ourselves out of whatever debt issues we have.

0:25:20.640 --> 0:25:23.840
<v Speaker 3>Well, to a large extent, that's going to happen anyway.

0:25:24.000 --> 0:25:26.800
<v Speaker 3>I mean when I say you need to adjust for inflation,

0:25:27.200 --> 0:25:30.119
<v Speaker 3>you really also need to ask about growth. And you know,

0:25:30.880 --> 0:25:33.080
<v Speaker 3>the example I always like to use is, you know,

0:25:33.080 --> 0:25:35.000
<v Speaker 3>how did we pay off the debt from World War Two?

0:25:36.119 --> 0:25:39.920
<v Speaker 3>And the answers we didn't. We had slightly higher debt

0:25:39.960 --> 0:25:42.719
<v Speaker 3>when John F. Kennedy took office that we did on

0:25:43.400 --> 0:25:47.760
<v Speaker 3>you know, when we declared victory over Japan, but the

0:25:47.800 --> 0:25:51.840
<v Speaker 3>debt had dwindled. It was it was less than half

0:25:51.920 --> 0:25:53.720
<v Speaker 3>the share of GDP that had been at the end

0:25:53.800 --> 0:25:56.520
<v Speaker 3>of World War Two because we had a growing economy

0:25:56.640 --> 0:25:59.280
<v Speaker 3>and a little bit of inflation over that period. And

0:25:59.359 --> 0:26:02.359
<v Speaker 3>this large we're still in a world where we really

0:26:02.440 --> 0:26:06.040
<v Speaker 3>are already set to, if not exactly grow out of

0:26:06.040 --> 0:26:09.520
<v Speaker 3>our debt, at least not have it grow very much

0:26:09.920 --> 0:26:16.400
<v Speaker 3>uncontrollably unless we do some really even more irresponsible things

0:26:16.440 --> 0:26:20.360
<v Speaker 3>that we do now. So and look, if you want

0:26:20.400 --> 0:26:23.840
<v Speaker 3>to try to accelerate economic growth, there's not a lot

0:26:23.880 --> 0:26:28.040
<v Speaker 3>of things that we know work. Investing more in children's

0:26:28.040 --> 0:26:31.080
<v Speaker 3>health nutrition is one of the things that we do

0:26:31.200 --> 0:26:34.160
<v Speaker 3>know works, but it works with a very long leg.

0:26:34.200 --> 0:26:36.680
<v Speaker 3>It's something that will show up thirty years from now

0:26:36.920 --> 0:26:39.680
<v Speaker 3>in a better economy. Aside from that, if you asked

0:26:39.720 --> 0:26:41.639
<v Speaker 3>what can we do to make the economy growth a

0:26:41.640 --> 0:26:44.280
<v Speaker 3>lot faster over the next ten years, the answer is

0:26:44.320 --> 0:26:45.480
<v Speaker 3>nobody knows the answer to that.

0:26:46.680 --> 0:26:49.840
<v Speaker 2>So, professor, you referred to the size of the debt,

0:26:50.160 --> 0:26:53.399
<v Speaker 2>going back to GDP right now, the rejections, I think

0:26:53.400 --> 0:26:55.320
<v Speaker 2>we're somewhere our line ninety seven ninety eight percent of

0:26:55.359 --> 0:26:58.560
<v Speaker 2>GDP something like that right now, and the rejection from CBO,

0:26:58.640 --> 0:27:00.919
<v Speaker 2>as you know, go up to undred and twenty percent,

0:27:01.200 --> 0:27:03.880
<v Speaker 2>and maybe keep going. At what point do we become

0:27:03.920 --> 0:27:05.919
<v Speaker 2>concerned about that? You say, now, it's not a problem,

0:27:06.000 --> 0:27:07.720
<v Speaker 2>But when does it become a problem. When would you

0:27:07.760 --> 0:27:09.960
<v Speaker 2>start saying, wait a second, we're running into trouble.

0:27:11.560 --> 0:27:14.040
<v Speaker 3>It's hard to come up with a number. And you know,

0:27:14.080 --> 0:27:17.360
<v Speaker 3>we've looked at Japan with two hundred percent of GDP,

0:27:18.240 --> 0:27:23.399
<v Speaker 3>and j Pan has lots of problems, but unwillingness of

0:27:23.440 --> 0:27:27.080
<v Speaker 3>the market to buy Japanese government bonds is not is

0:27:27.160 --> 0:27:31.520
<v Speaker 3>not one of them. I always I like to point

0:27:31.560 --> 0:27:34.720
<v Speaker 3>out that the if we go back to, you know,

0:27:34.760 --> 0:27:40.280
<v Speaker 3>the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain, first half the nineteenth century,

0:27:40.520 --> 0:27:44.240
<v Speaker 3>Britain had debt that was one hundred and eighty percent

0:27:44.280 --> 0:27:47.360
<v Speaker 3>of GDP at the end of the Napoleonic Wars. By

0:27:47.400 --> 0:27:49.800
<v Speaker 3>eighteen fifty it was only down to one hundred and

0:27:49.800 --> 0:27:52.400
<v Speaker 3>thirty percent of GDP. And this is the you know,

0:27:52.560 --> 0:27:54.720
<v Speaker 3>this is the Industrial Revolution, this is the birth of

0:27:54.760 --> 0:27:59.320
<v Speaker 3>the modern age taking place under what anybody now would say, Oh,

0:27:59.359 --> 0:28:03.800
<v Speaker 3>that must be a crippling debt burden. So, you know,

0:28:04.200 --> 0:28:09.000
<v Speaker 3>is there any there must be somehow we can't have

0:28:09.359 --> 0:28:12.800
<v Speaker 3>our death, can't exceed our total national wealth. But we're

0:28:12.800 --> 0:28:15.320
<v Speaker 3>nowhere close to that. And I don't see any number

0:28:15.359 --> 0:28:19.520
<v Speaker 3>anywhere in these projections that is one that based on history,

0:28:19.880 --> 0:28:21.480
<v Speaker 3>would lead you to be concerned.

0:28:22.359 --> 0:28:24.040
<v Speaker 2>One of the things we hear about from some quarters

0:28:24.040 --> 0:28:25.960
<v Speaker 2>at least is a concern about the strength of the dollar,

0:28:26.440 --> 0:28:29.240
<v Speaker 2>that in fact the globe will lose some confidence in

0:28:29.280 --> 0:28:32.520
<v Speaker 2>our fiscal abilities here in the United States, and we

0:28:32.680 --> 0:28:35.480
<v Speaker 2>have seen sort of a dilution of the dollar as

0:28:35.680 --> 0:28:38.680
<v Speaker 2>the reserve currency of the world. Fewer transactions that I

0:28:38.800 --> 0:28:41.880
<v Speaker 2>and stand today are being transacted in dollars than before.

0:28:42.080 --> 0:28:43.640
<v Speaker 2>You've written about the fact that you don't think there's

0:28:43.640 --> 0:28:46.400
<v Speaker 2>another currency that will overtake it, but that perhaps will

0:28:46.440 --> 0:28:49.600
<v Speaker 2>become more of a plurality. Is that a likely development

0:28:49.640 --> 0:28:51.240
<v Speaker 2>and is so what would be the consequences.

0:28:51.600 --> 0:28:53.680
<v Speaker 3>I always say that the big problem is not that

0:28:53.720 --> 0:28:58.360
<v Speaker 3>something else might take the dollar's place. The problem is

0:28:58.440 --> 0:29:00.640
<v Speaker 3>that there may be nothing else that can take the

0:29:00.680 --> 0:29:04.280
<v Speaker 3>dollar's place. When you think about the alternatives. The Euro

0:29:05.280 --> 0:29:11.960
<v Speaker 3>is unfortunately, because of eurocrises and divergences, there's not a

0:29:12.080 --> 0:29:15.000
<v Speaker 3>Euro bond market. They're just there's an Italian bond market,

0:29:15.000 --> 0:29:18.080
<v Speaker 3>a German bond market. So that's a fragmented market, which

0:29:18.080 --> 0:29:22.120
<v Speaker 3>means that eurosecurities are not liquid in the way that

0:29:22.200 --> 0:29:27.719
<v Speaker 3>dollar securities are. China has capital controls, It has an

0:29:27.720 --> 0:29:32.760
<v Speaker 3>authoritarian regime given to making erratic sudden changes in policy,

0:29:33.040 --> 0:29:35.880
<v Speaker 3>who wants to use R and B as a as

0:29:35.920 --> 0:29:41.080
<v Speaker 3>their key asset. Japan is just too small an economy.

0:29:41.400 --> 0:29:45.400
<v Speaker 3>So you know, it's not that the US derives a

0:29:45.520 --> 0:29:48.560
<v Speaker 3>huge advantage from the fact that the dollar is the

0:29:48.600 --> 0:29:51.920
<v Speaker 3>currency in the world. It's that the world there is

0:29:51.920 --> 0:29:55.160
<v Speaker 3>a huge advantage from the fact that there are safe,

0:29:55.240 --> 0:29:58.960
<v Speaker 3>highly liquid assets that can be used as collateral, that

0:29:59.000 --> 0:30:01.360
<v Speaker 3>can be used as the sort of underpinning of the

0:30:01.400 --> 0:30:04.800
<v Speaker 3>whole world financial system. And those safe liquid assets are

0:30:05.360 --> 0:30:09.920
<v Speaker 3>US treasury securities. And if we manage to destroy the credibility,

0:30:10.480 --> 0:30:13.000
<v Speaker 3>then the whole world, including US, but not the whole

0:30:13.000 --> 0:30:15.560
<v Speaker 3>world's suffice. It's not that somebody gains at our advantage.

0:30:15.600 --> 0:30:17.840
<v Speaker 3>It's that we undermined the whole system.

0:30:18.000 --> 0:30:20.040
<v Speaker 2>Okay, professor, thank you so very much for joining us

0:30:20.040 --> 0:30:23.120
<v Speaker 2>as Professor Paul Krugman of the City University of New

0:30:23.200 --> 0:30:28.120
<v Speaker 2>York coming up would arose by any other name, smell

0:30:28.240 --> 0:30:32.080
<v Speaker 2>as sweet. Some people seem to think so, including maybe

0:30:32.120 --> 0:30:34.840
<v Speaker 2>even the FED. That's the next one Wall Street Week

0:30:35.000 --> 0:30:35.680
<v Speaker 2>on Bloomberg.

0:30:37.560 --> 0:30:41.760
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Wall Street Week with David Weston from

0:30:41.880 --> 0:30:42.960
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Radios.

0:30:43.040 --> 0:30:45.360
<v Speaker 2>So AI may or may not be helping one on

0:30:45.400 --> 0:30:47.520
<v Speaker 2>the stock market at least right now. But the question

0:30:47.640 --> 0:30:49.480
<v Speaker 2>is what could it do for the longer term and

0:30:49.560 --> 0:30:51.840
<v Speaker 2>respect to investments, And for that we turn to a

0:30:51.960 --> 0:30:55.160
<v Speaker 2>truly gifted investor. He is David Booth. He is, of course,

0:30:55.440 --> 0:30:58.480
<v Speaker 2>the founder and chair of Dimensional Fund Advisors. David, thank

0:30:58.520 --> 0:31:00.800
<v Speaker 2>you so much for being with us, wrote a column

0:31:00.880 --> 0:31:03.080
<v Speaker 2>in The Financial Times expressing some, if I can put it,

0:31:03.160 --> 0:31:07.680
<v Speaker 2>skepticism about whether all of this generative AI may help

0:31:07.760 --> 0:31:10.280
<v Speaker 2>us be better stock pickers. How do you see it?

0:31:10.920 --> 0:31:12.800
<v Speaker 7>AI is going to be incredibly useful in a lot

0:31:12.800 --> 0:31:16.640
<v Speaker 7>of areas because it can process such enormous amounts of information,

0:31:17.160 --> 0:31:21.680
<v Speaker 7>and that's really what what selecting securities is all about,

0:31:21.880 --> 0:31:26.040
<v Speaker 7>is trying to figure out how much undiscounted information is

0:31:26.080 --> 0:31:29.640
<v Speaker 7>out there. So at first blush, it looks like it

0:31:29.640 --> 0:31:36.320
<v Speaker 7>could be incredibly useful, although regardless of how elaborate and

0:31:36.400 --> 0:31:42.240
<v Speaker 7>extensive your AI is is not as elaborate and extensive

0:31:42.280 --> 0:31:46.080
<v Speaker 7>as the market. You think of the stock market as

0:31:46.160 --> 0:31:48.880
<v Speaker 7>just being We think of it as this being this

0:31:49.080 --> 0:31:55.640
<v Speaker 7>enormous information processing machine that everyone in the world's out

0:31:55.640 --> 0:31:58.160
<v Speaker 7>there trying to buy and sell securities, and it's their

0:31:58.240 --> 0:32:04.680
<v Speaker 7>action that causes prices to be settled at reasonable at

0:32:04.680 --> 0:32:07.560
<v Speaker 7>reasonable levels.

0:32:08.200 --> 0:32:12.360
<v Speaker 2>So finally, one more thought, what's in a name? Shakespeare

0:32:12.360 --> 0:32:15.280
<v Speaker 2>had Romeo asked that question to suggest that this perceived

0:32:15.280 --> 0:32:19.440
<v Speaker 2>difference between his monocues and his beloved Juliet's capulets shouldn't

0:32:19.440 --> 0:32:22.200
<v Speaker 2>come between them. But in today's world, how a person,

0:32:22.520 --> 0:32:25.120
<v Speaker 2>or a product, or even a country is perceived can

0:32:25.160 --> 0:32:29.080
<v Speaker 2>be all important. Take for example, Korean car company Hyundai.

0:32:29.440 --> 0:32:33.560
<v Speaker 2>Once perceived as a reliable and expensive, rather boring alternative

0:32:33.560 --> 0:32:37.280
<v Speaker 2>to high priced and flashier European alternatives, it has gotten

0:32:37.320 --> 0:32:40.960
<v Speaker 2>a whole new lease on life, creating adventurous designs for

0:32:41.000 --> 0:32:44.680
<v Speaker 2>the EV world, making it a formidable competitor even to Tesla,

0:32:45.160 --> 0:32:47.560
<v Speaker 2>causing The Wall Street Journal this week to ask, how

0:32:47.600 --> 0:32:49.360
<v Speaker 2>did Hyundai get so cool?

0:32:49.720 --> 0:32:53.360
<v Speaker 3>It's a EV rhymes with Kevin, and it's not just.

0:32:53.480 --> 0:32:56.840
<v Speaker 2>Hyundai that's looking to freshen up its brand. Consider Facebook,

0:32:57.200 --> 0:32:59.640
<v Speaker 2>with Mark Zuckerbert going so far as to rename his

0:32:59.800 --> 0:33:02.440
<v Speaker 2>entire company and had bid to make up some lost

0:33:02.560 --> 0:33:06.240
<v Speaker 2>ground to TikTok, though the arc of his space shot

0:33:06.320 --> 0:33:08.760
<v Speaker 2>to the metaverse make it bent a bit by the

0:33:08.840 --> 0:33:10.960
<v Speaker 2>gravitational pull of generative AI.

0:33:11.560 --> 0:33:15.080
<v Speaker 5>AI is already crucial to the foundations of the metaverse

0:33:15.320 --> 0:33:16.960
<v Speaker 5>and will be even more so in the future.

0:33:17.080 --> 0:33:19.560
<v Speaker 2>All this rebranding has now apparently made it all the

0:33:19.640 --> 0:33:22.360
<v Speaker 2>way to the Oval Office, as the New York Times

0:33:22.440 --> 0:33:24.840
<v Speaker 2>caught Speaker of the House McCarthy as well as House

0:33:24.920 --> 0:33:28.720
<v Speaker 2>Minority Leader Hakim Jeffries holding an important debt ceiling meeting

0:33:28.800 --> 0:33:33.320
<v Speaker 2>with the President wearing those flashy dressed sneakers. But before

0:33:33.360 --> 0:33:35.880
<v Speaker 2>we get too terribly excited, it would be well to

0:33:35.920 --> 0:33:39.600
<v Speaker 2>remember some famous instances where attempts to rebrand fell well

0:33:39.760 --> 0:33:43.000
<v Speaker 2>short of the mark, Starting with the audio industry itself.

0:33:43.560 --> 0:33:46.440
<v Speaker 2>Does anyone remember the campaign in the late eighties to

0:33:46.520 --> 0:33:49.280
<v Speaker 2>make us think that the Oldsmobile was really for young people?

0:33:49.520 --> 0:33:54.320
<v Speaker 1>In short, the new Cutlass Supreme is your further as Oldsmobile.

0:33:55.080 --> 0:33:59.040
<v Speaker 2>And has anyone seen any Oldsmobiles around lately? Or how

0:33:59.080 --> 0:34:01.720
<v Speaker 2>about that so called new Coke who was going to

0:34:01.800 --> 0:34:03.520
<v Speaker 2>revive a time honored brand.

0:34:03.880 --> 0:34:06.000
<v Speaker 3>New Coke is catching on? Is better?

0:34:10.000 --> 0:34:10.399
<v Speaker 7>You said?

0:34:10.400 --> 0:34:13.520
<v Speaker 2>The word rebranding has been known to extend even to

0:34:13.640 --> 0:34:17.040
<v Speaker 2>the world of geopolitics, a Secuary of State Hillary Clinton

0:34:17.120 --> 0:34:20.760
<v Speaker 2>did with her famous campaign to turn things around with Russia.

0:34:21.640 --> 0:34:24.760
<v Speaker 3>We want to reset our relationship.

0:34:26.960 --> 0:34:29.280
<v Speaker 2>Looking back on it now in the light of Ukraine,

0:34:29.400 --> 0:34:31.640
<v Speaker 2>it's not clear exactly what the world got out of

0:34:31.719 --> 0:34:35.560
<v Speaker 2>that particular rebranding. Even the central banks are getting into

0:34:35.560 --> 0:34:38.319
<v Speaker 2>the game, with the debate raging this week about whether

0:34:38.400 --> 0:34:41.960
<v Speaker 2>the FED would execute a pause or a skip at

0:34:42.000 --> 0:34:42.879
<v Speaker 2>its June meeting.

0:34:43.640 --> 0:34:47.840
<v Speaker 3>I'm not a massive fan of these linguistic acrobatics that

0:34:47.960 --> 0:34:49.880
<v Speaker 3>central banks end up getting themselves into.

0:34:50.200 --> 0:34:52.799
<v Speaker 2>But maybe the place where we need rebranding the most

0:34:53.080 --> 0:34:56.840
<v Speaker 2>is in how Washington deals with things like budgets and deficits,

0:34:56.880 --> 0:34:59.239
<v Speaker 2>oh and oh yes, the full faith and credit of

0:34:59.239 --> 0:35:02.279
<v Speaker 2>the United States America. But that may take more than

0:35:02.400 --> 0:35:05.360
<v Speaker 2>just a new logo or new shoes with white soles.

0:35:05.840 --> 0:35:08.520
<v Speaker 2>For that, we may need a fundamental rethinking.

0:35:08.960 --> 0:35:12.040
<v Speaker 6>The point is, we need a new spending process.

0:35:12.440 --> 0:35:12.920
<v Speaker 7>That does it.

0:35:13.000 --> 0:35:15.240
<v Speaker 2>For this episode of Wall Street Week, I'm David Weston.

0:35:15.280 --> 0:35:17.120
<v Speaker 2>This is Bloomberg. See you next week.