Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Markets Podcast. I'm Paul Sweeney, alongside
Speaker 1: my co host Matt Miller. Every business day we bring
Speaker 1: you interviews from CEOs, market pros, and Bloomberg experts, along
Speaker 1: with essential market moving news. Find the Bloomberg Markets Podcast
Speaker 1: on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to podcasts, and
Speaker 1: at Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. All right, the Federal
Speaker 1: Reserve is raising interest rates. I think we all get that.
Speaker 1: The question now that I hear from a lot of
Speaker 1: investors is how aggressively will they be doing? Are we
Speaker 1: talking twenty five basis points at a time, fifty basis points?
Speaker 1: How much an aggregate? Let's check in with somebody who
Speaker 1: kind of does this stuff for living. David Riley, chief
Speaker 1: investment strategist for Blue Bay Asset Management. David, the US
Speaker 1: Federal Reserve is in a hiking mode. How do you
Speaker 1: envision it playing out? Hi, Paul, Well, I actually think
Speaker 1: the Fed is more likely to have a hiking cycle
Speaker 1: rather like the one that we had in and that's
Speaker 1: where the Fed, you know, it was actually very aggressive.
Speaker 1: It hiked rates by three hundred basis points in the
Speaker 1: course of um twelve months. It kind of got ahead
Speaker 1: of inflation issues. The economy did slow down, but it
Speaker 1: didn't go into recession, and so you know, the FED
Speaker 1: engineered a soft landing for the economy, retained its kind
Speaker 1: of UM anti inflation or reinforced is anti inflation credentially.
Speaker 1: So I actually think that's a more likely past now
Speaker 1: for the FED because it is behind the inflation curve
Speaker 1: than this kind of you know model that a lot
Speaker 1: of people look at, which is two thousand and four
Speaker 1: to six, where it was a very gradual, very predictable,
Speaker 1: twenty five basis point hike at each meeting. What does
Speaker 1: this mean then for positioning? Paul and I have talked
Speaker 1: a lot about duration. Are one hundred year bond is
Speaker 1: down about fifty has duration does not do well in
Speaker 1: higher rates. How are you thinking then about what this
Speaker 1: means for positioning an important folio out. Yeah, so I
Speaker 1: do think that, um, you know, we've we've got a
Speaker 1: lot now priced in. I still think the market is
Speaker 1: underpricing where the FED is actually going to go up.
Speaker 1: So in terms of positioning in our fixed income port boliers,
Speaker 1: we would still have over the medium term a UM
Speaker 1: short duration bias when it comes to US rates would
Speaker 1: still rather express that at the shorter end than at
Speaker 1: the longer end, because as you've been reporting, we're you know,
Speaker 1: seeing a pretty dramatic flattening of the treasury curve and
Speaker 1: it's and it's quite I mean we've we've also had
Speaker 1: a sort of intra day UM that tend to invers
Speaker 1: as well. So and then within credit, I think it
Speaker 1: makes sense to be thinking about kind of moving up
Speaker 1: in quality, getting access in a high inflation environment to
Speaker 1: real assets, so maybe taking some exposure through you know,
Speaker 1: securitized mortgage securities as well. All right, David, I'm going
Speaker 1: for yield. I'm ready to take some risk. I'm going
Speaker 1: looking at the high yield market, maybe even the leverage
Speaker 1: loan market. What are some of the sectors I should
Speaker 1: be looking at right now? Yeah, I mean the sectors
Speaker 1: that have done you know, pretty well within the high
Speaker 1: yield and leverage loan space, UM, as you would expect,
Speaker 1: has been UM energy, UM. I think the other areas
Speaker 1: where I would go would be and we have been going,
Speaker 1: is some of the more defensive sectors, so UM, consumer staples, healthcare. UM.
Speaker 1: There's not so much tech, but you know, what you
Speaker 1: want to get I think is exposure to sectors or
Speaker 1: those names which can absorb those higher input prices, those
Speaker 1: higher input input costs that are coming from you know,
Speaker 1: higher gasoline, higher ore prices, and energy prices more more
Speaker 1: generally have the you know, the pricing power to absorb that,
Speaker 1: where I would the void would be things like sort
Speaker 1: of some of the industrials, you know, auto park suppliers
Speaker 1: margins are pretty low. They're going to get I think
Speaker 1: quite um squeezed in terms of those margins. And more recently,
Speaker 1: I've actually been shifting from loans back into high yield
Speaker 1: bombs because you know, we've had a lot of repricing
Speaker 1: or higher rate risk is now in in in high
Speaker 1: your bomb prices. Well, in terms of leverage loans, we're
Speaker 1: going to see significant increase in the cost of that
Speaker 1: funding for a lot of uh for a lot of companies.
Speaker 1: So a bit more bias towards more defensive sectors, higher
Speaker 1: margin um and also to you know, starting to shift
Speaker 1: from from loans into high yield I am curious when
Speaker 1: you think about credit, how much of that is a
Speaker 1: sort of a fundamental strong economy call versus shorter modified
Speaker 1: duration than investment grade and it's just a shorter duration call. Yeah,
Speaker 1: as a the fair point, um. I mean, I do
Speaker 1: think when you look at it's interesting when you look
Speaker 1: at the credit market more more broadly, um, including in
Speaker 1: particularly within the high yield market. I mean, we're just
Speaker 1: not seeing of sort of really meaningful signs signs of
Speaker 1: of of of cracks. And I do think that, you know,
Speaker 1: the liquidity position of companies, including within the high yield market,
Speaker 1: is actually still very strong. I mean they've built up huge,
Speaker 1: you know, pretty big cash balances. Leverage is actually now
Speaker 1: the lower it was just prior to the pandemic. So
Speaker 1: I think, you know, default rates, the fundamental kind of
Speaker 1: credit risk is actually looking still um, pretty good. So
Speaker 1: I still think it makes sense, as you've suggested, to
Speaker 1: have a bias towards higher yielding because you've got that
Speaker 1: kind of spread cushion against higher rates and it's a
Speaker 1: shorter duration asset. So, David, you know, like the rest
Speaker 1: of the world, we're watching what's happening in the Ukraine,
Speaker 1: and but for Americans there's a little bit of yeah,
Speaker 1: but it's over there, But over there is in the
Speaker 1: backyard of Europe. How is the European credit markets reacted
Speaker 1: to the geopolitical issues taking place to the war taking
Speaker 1: place in Ukraine. Yeah, I mean it's been interesting because
Speaker 1: I mean, it's certainly the case that European credit has
Speaker 1: um since Russia's invasion of Ukraine underperformed u US credit.
Speaker 1: It's sold off initially much harder, and then it's come
Speaker 1: back um or tightened less quickly. And I think that
Speaker 1: makes sense because you know, I mean, I think the
Speaker 1: economic and the year political risks are much greater for
Speaker 1: Europe than they are for the United States in terms
Speaker 1: of the Russia Russia Ukraine crisis. And you know, gas
Speaker 1: prices is a huge issue for for for Europe. Even
Speaker 1: though we've seen you know, some um the recent decline
Speaker 1: or or drop in European natural prices, they're still you know,
Speaker 1: five six times where they were a year ago. And
Speaker 1: you know, talking to some of our analysts have been taught,
Speaker 1: you know, analyzing companies and talking some of those European companies,
Speaker 1: they're feeling some companies are starting to fill this neece
Speaker 1: from this increase in emper prices. And we've just seen
Speaker 1: German inflation at levels we've not seen since the early
Speaker 1: mid nine seventies, and that's painful to consumers, but it's
Speaker 1: painful for businesses as well. Ye. Good stuff. Hey, David,
Speaker 1: thanks so much for joining us. David Riley, chief investment
Speaker 1: strategist for Bloombley Asset Management. We got Michael McKee, Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Economics Editor. Here's here in a Bloomberg Interactive Broker studio.
Speaker 1: After chatting with Richmond FED President Thomas Barkin, again he
Speaker 1: seems like a reasonable business base. FED president came across
Speaker 1: pretty reasonable to me. But Rachel going up and they're
Speaker 1: gonna do what it takes. Rachel going up, They're gonna
Speaker 1: do what it takes. Uh, He's a little less convinced.
Speaker 1: I think that grates have to go as high as
Speaker 1: some people are suggesting, and he's open to a fifty
Speaker 1: basis point move, but not saying it's definitely has to happen.
Speaker 1: He's not a voter this year, but in terms of
Speaker 1: his opinion, because I think he maybe gets a view
Speaker 1: from the district, from the CEOs in his district that
Speaker 1: as you heard, things maybe slowing down a little bit,
Speaker 1: not a whole lot, but these things tend to gain
Speaker 1: momentum as you go along. You had a really good
Speaker 1: question about sort of the wage spiral and maybe that
Speaker 1: self fulfilling prophecy of if inflations higher costs arising, you
Speaker 1: need higher wages to keep up with that, and then
Speaker 1: companies have the ability to raise costs again because they
Speaker 1: know that workers are getting paid more. Is that a
Speaker 1: legitimate concern. Well, it's been the fence concerned all along.
Speaker 1: They don't want people to start thinking that inflation is
Speaker 1: embedded and going to stay that way, because then they
Speaker 1: keep asking for more money. Tom was suggesting that we
Speaker 1: might be seeing the early signs of that slowing down
Speaker 1: because companies did raise prices and now people are they
Speaker 1: had to raise their wages to keep up with it
Speaker 1: and to get people back into the labor force. But
Speaker 1: people may at this point have gotten the rays they need,
Speaker 1: and if gasoline prices in particular come down soon, they
Speaker 1: may not need to continue that. But it is their
Speaker 1: biggest fear. I just had my year in review. I
Speaker 1: did not experience any wage spiraling anywhere. I mean, maybe
Speaker 1: inching is maybe the better thing. And you're gonna be
Speaker 1: complaining when you fill up that pancakes, right, all right?
Speaker 1: So this federal reserve um is there still an argument
Speaker 1: to me that they're behind the curve um. I'm not
Speaker 1: even sure what that means, but it's certainly something people
Speaker 1: toss out there. But it feels like my federal reserve
Speaker 1: is moving here while they are moving. They've moved once,
Speaker 1: and it looks like they're going to speed it up.
Speaker 1: Behind the curve is a sort of matter of where
Speaker 1: you sit and what your view is. Uh. People on
Speaker 1: trading desks are always going to look for a reason
Speaker 1: that they didn't lose money. Uh, something else made them
Speaker 1: lose money. Uh. So you know, some people are gonna
Speaker 1: say they're behind the curve, some not. The FED is
Speaker 1: trying to figure things out in a world that's different
Speaker 1: because of the pandemic from the past. So that's that's
Speaker 1: one of the troubles that they have. And now it's
Speaker 1: gonna be interesting to watch. As I asked Tom, you know,
Speaker 1: how do you how do you know you've done enough
Speaker 1: or done too much? When policy works with a lag
Speaker 1: and we're in a situation like we are now, speaking
Speaker 1: of curves, I've been breeding a lot of notes recently that,
Speaker 1: of course, sometimes we really look at the three month tenure,
Speaker 1: but if the FED is still behind the curve, the
Speaker 1: two year tenure is maybe doing a better job. I've
Speaker 1: given us more of a realistic view. Is the FED
Speaker 1: looking at yeld curves? What do you make of those comments? Now?
Speaker 1: I think the people who are looking at yield curves,
Speaker 1: or the people in the media, when the yield curve
Speaker 1: gets close to inversions, looking it's you got very excited
Speaker 1: and all twenty three seconds it was inverted you you
Speaker 1: were just ecstatic. Um, the FED, is the yield curve
Speaker 1: tells you that at some point do you think that
Speaker 1: the economy is going to slow down? The problem is
Speaker 1: there's no timing on It could be eighteen months, two
Speaker 1: years ahead of time, and is it really connected to
Speaker 1: the yield curve or is it something else that comes along.
Speaker 1: The FED looks at the three months eighteen months forwards
Speaker 1: because that tells you sort of where they are now
Speaker 1: and where the market expects them to be in a
Speaker 1: year and a half, which is a little bit more
Speaker 1: sensible in terms of what you're trying to figure out.
Speaker 1: But it makes a nice conversation piece and a question
Speaker 1: to ask people. All Right, Michael McKee, thank you so
Speaker 1: much for joining us here in our interactive broker studio,
Speaker 1: giving us a summary of your discussion just moments ago
Speaker 1: with Richmond FED President Thomas Barkin. Uh, he's uh Richmond
Speaker 1: the home of the University of Richmond Spiders, my alma mater.
Speaker 1: Right now, let's check in with Michael Hans Hans ce
Speaker 1: IO of Clarfelt Citizens Private Wealth. Michael, thanks so much
Speaker 1: for joining us here. You know, we look at these
Speaker 1: markets and kind of you know, not much going on today,
Speaker 1: but we've certainly had volatility so far in the year.
Speaker 1: Where do we go from here? What are you telling
Speaker 1: your clients? Good morning? Thanks for having me. Volatility is
Speaker 1: likely going to persist for you know, the better part
Speaker 1: of this year, and I don't think it's a surprise
Speaker 1: to anyone. I think there's a fair amount of overall
Speaker 1: economic uncertainty and then you throw a geo political event
Speaker 1: into the mix that exacerbates, you know, the challenges that
Speaker 1: the FED has, and no surprise that we're seeing markets,
Speaker 1: you know, influx. What what we're expressing at this point
Speaker 1: in time as it relates our portfolios is you know,
Speaker 1: very little in the way of meaningful changes. Uh, as
Speaker 1: a reactionary function to to what's been going on. However,
Speaker 1: we are we are thinking about the outlook you know,
Speaker 1: given given where things are moving, but you know, the
Speaker 1: forefront UH conversations are let's not react to aggressively to
Speaker 1: the geopolitical aspect and let's keep our attention onto the
Speaker 1: path of the economy. Do you have to react though,
Speaker 1: to some of the inflationary pressures underway? So I think
Speaker 1: the elements around inflationary pressures in our minds have been
Speaker 1: in in UH position over time, right, And so to
Speaker 1: be underweight duration and fixed income has has been important.
Speaker 1: And you know, like the key seem that we've outlined
Speaker 1: over the course of the last year or so, because
Speaker 1: again it's difficult to to position in an environment where
Speaker 1: your compensation was just very limited. That dynamic is changing
Speaker 1: now and we do not feel we're in a position
Speaker 1: yet when we want to play offense and and yet
Speaker 1: long duration yet. But I think that's a meaningful positioning
Speaker 1: that we've had going into this, and I think that's
Speaker 1: that's been a clear benefit. I think over time, the
Speaker 1: interesting dynamic is that duration will become more interesting as
Speaker 1: everybody is most negative and pessimistic on the space, and
Speaker 1: that's that's actually been increasing. So the outlook for fixed
Speaker 1: income is becoming more constructive while this recent roundy off
Speaker 1: off of the lows and the equity market again, I
Speaker 1: think it just dictates that there's going to be a
Speaker 1: little bit less potential upside the balance of this year
Speaker 1: as we work through market market fluctuation. Okay, Michael, I've
Speaker 1: I've heard and read the recession word more and more
Speaker 1: over the last two to three weeks. Is that something
Speaker 1: that's in your outlook not not for this year? And
Speaker 1: I think think it's it's really interesting prior to guests outlining,
Speaker 1: and I think you know, Mike mckith mentioned that it's
Speaker 1: the media that's heavily focused on the yield curve. I
Speaker 1: think the old curve is is not necessarily the indicator.
Speaker 1: It's more of a symptom of what is going on
Speaker 1: and that and from the timing perspective, you know, the
Speaker 1: data is very clear that it's a difficult mat and
Speaker 1: isn't utilized to make significant adjustments, right, It's more of
Speaker 1: a coincidence factor of what's going on. Our clients are
Speaker 1: also focused on that, and that's certainly something that comes up,
Speaker 1: but it's not the first time. So the education around
Speaker 1: this is something that gives us. Can you know, the
Speaker 1: rate race of flax, right. You you look at a
Speaker 1: variety of other metrics, but I think we keep on
Speaker 1: coming back to the fact that we have re established
Speaker 1: trend economic growth. Uh. There there are good stabilizing factors
Speaker 1: in play this year, specifically balance sheet extation that's coming up.
Speaker 1: More exflation is absolutely coming, but I think that's also
Speaker 1: I think we're looking at historical time frames and again
Speaker 1: these are the types of words that come into play,
Speaker 1: but in the environment we're in, we're actually looking at
Speaker 1: above trend economic growth this year. The first quarter is
Speaker 1: going to likely come in a little bit softer, but
Speaker 1: if we have above trend growth for the balance of
Speaker 1: this year, you know, it does it does beget the
Speaker 1: need to have again, can newed equity exposure in a portfolio.
Speaker 1: The one the things that I think is really important
Speaker 1: that you don't I don't think we hear enough in
Speaker 1: in the media is that investing is not a binary game, right,
Speaker 1: and that that all too often and is what we
Speaker 1: really emphasize with our clients. We really thoughtfully construct portfolios
Speaker 1: that are highly diversified. And I think what's really important
Speaker 1: now with the context of the last couple of years
Speaker 1: and this entire cycle you know, and even coming into
Speaker 1: this year before we had market downturns and when markets
Speaker 1: were at all time clients are our major points to
Speaker 1: clients was resetting a level of expectation that we don't
Speaker 1: anticipate the race of return to continue in the manner
Speaker 1: of which they did last year. Was that bailed out
Speaker 1: by a well above historical norm equity market, and that
Speaker 1: mass some of the challenges within fixed income. Our outlook
Speaker 1: today has actually improved in a meaningful manner given where
Speaker 1: interest rates are interesting. All right, hey, Michael, thank you
Speaker 1: so much for joining us. Really appreciate getting your thoughts there.
Speaker 1: Michael hans see i oh of Harfeld Citizens Private Wealth Management.
Speaker 1: They're based in Terrytown, New York. And Michael's got a
Speaker 1: green dot next to his name, which is good to seek.
Speaker 1: Looking at the bitcoin here, we can't do that because
Speaker 1: Tom Keen is not here. Bitcoins off just about one
Speaker 1: percent here, still above forty seven thousand. Feels like it's
Speaker 1: been in this fairly tight trading range. Maybe that's just me,
Speaker 1: but you know, we see the moves one or two
Speaker 1: percent every day, but it's still kind of in this range. Uh,
Speaker 1: let's bring on Katie Gridfeld. She's a cross as reporter
Speaker 1: and Bloomberg Quick Take co anchor. She joins us here
Speaker 1: in a Bloomberg and her actor broker studio Crypto. What
Speaker 1: are you looking at take, Katie, Well, like you said, Paul,
Speaker 1: the price action we did see actually a break above
Speaker 1: that range, a little bit. It got above forty dollars
Speaker 1: a coin. It looks like it's staying there. Hasn't pushed
Speaker 1: much higher beyond that. And I think it was last
Speaker 1: week that we were having this debate with Matt Miller
Speaker 1: about whether it's a good or a bad thing, that
Speaker 1: you've really seen the volatility of bitcoin drop off. And
Speaker 1: I have some new numbers to share. This comes from
Speaker 1: Mike Reagan. He wrote a great column yesterday that if
Speaker 1: you look at the ratio of bitcoins realized volatility to
Speaker 1: t l T, it's that long bond long treasury et F,
Speaker 1: it'small into less than one point five five versus seven
Speaker 1: just six weeks ago. So you've really seen bitcoin volatility
Speaker 1: really drop off a cliff. Even though it did manage
Speaker 1: to get a little bit out of that range, it
Speaker 1: hasn't gone Why the retail investors, Okay, that's probably yeah, no,
Speaker 1: but you have seen some enthusiasm come out of the space.
Speaker 1: The fact that you saw that big draw down from
Speaker 1: basically November until February, I think that washed out a
Speaker 1: lot of positions. That's what I've been hearing. It really
Speaker 1: flushed out a lot of those retail players who haven't
Speaker 1: really come back into the market. You do hear about
Speaker 1: some big buys. I mean, micro Strategy was out yesterday
Speaker 1: with an announcement that um they would lever up to
Speaker 1: borrow more bitcoin, but maybe those retail participants aren't there
Speaker 1: like they were maybe six months ago. I'm curious the
Speaker 1: focus has been a lot on Bitcoin. I was watching Ethereum,
Speaker 1: which hasn't quite you know, sort of recouped a lot
Speaker 1: of the losses the way we saw with Bitcoin regaining
Speaker 1: some of the the year to date losses, Ethereum has to,
Speaker 1: but you just don't quite hear about it. The way
Speaker 1: we have about Bitcoin. Ethereum is funny. I mean crypto
Speaker 1: in general is funny. Where a bitcoin, it's supposed to
Speaker 1: be this magnificent store of value, really acts like a
Speaker 1: leverage tech stock. And then Ethereum, there is a lot
Speaker 1: of excitement around the Ethereum blockchain, but Ether the token
Speaker 1: more than anything, it acts like a leverage bet on Bitcoin.
Speaker 1: So it's interesting that in this rebound that we've seen
Speaker 1: in the crypto space, it's really been Bitcoin lead, not Ethereum.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna be interested to see if those correlations ever
Speaker 1: break apart at some point, because you do have some
Speaker 1: different fundamentals on those blockchains, but the tokens just trade
Speaker 1: in tandem. You hear that fundamental? I said it, Where
Speaker 1: are we now that there was a hack right on
Speaker 1: one of these crypto things on out now? I know
Speaker 1: it's a real classroom. We started about talking about hacks.
Speaker 1: What happened there? There are more and more hacks, so
Speaker 1: this is really interesting. Involves what's known as a bridge,
Speaker 1: which basically likes to move tokens from one block chain
Speaker 1: to another. So thank you know, it's pretty hard to
Speaker 1: move money from Venmo to PayPal. This is basically a
Speaker 1: bridge that kind of connects the different blockchains so you
Speaker 1: can move money around. But you're seeing more and more
Speaker 1: hacks of these bridges. You saw one in February with wormhole.
Speaker 1: You saw another one. Uh, news of this break yesterday.
Speaker 1: It's actually took six days for them to uncover this hack,
Speaker 1: and let me just explain what it was. So there's
Speaker 1: this play to earn game called Axie Infinity, and what
Speaker 1: we learned yesterday was that hackers sold about six hundred
Speaker 1: million dollars worth of tokens from the blockchain network connected
Speaker 1: to that game, specifically from the bridge that connects it.
Speaker 1: And again it took six days for them to uncover this,
Speaker 1: So that's a lot of money. So hold on. So
Speaker 1: you could argue that the thesis of ethery um or
Speaker 1: bitcoin or the blockchain is still intact, because that is
Speaker 1: supposed to be sort of right, this decentralized, unhackable if
Speaker 1: you will in quote. So the fact that they can
Speaker 1: say it was the bridge and not like the underlined blockchain,
Speaker 1: does that thesis then still hold up? Yes, I would
Speaker 1: say that that most people, most of the criticisms I've
Speaker 1: seen this is mostly focused on the fact that you
Speaker 1: have these bridges, and the problem with these bridges is
Speaker 1: that the computer code that makes the mark it it
Speaker 1: isn't audited. So basically, these hackers are finding ways to
Speaker 1: exploit that computer code in the way it's written. So
Speaker 1: you could form an argument that is it really a
Speaker 1: hack if we're just following the code. I think a
Speaker 1: lot of people would say that, yes, you are hacking it,
Speaker 1: but again it's in the code. They're finding these exploits
Speaker 1: that let them basically siphen these coins out of the bridges.
Speaker 1: All Right, we have a Federal Reserve here that is
Speaker 1: raising interest rates and pretty significantly. Do we have any
Speaker 1: idea how crypto broadly defined ken and will or could
Speaker 1: perform in this type of environment. It's a great question
Speaker 1: because the last time the Fed really was raising rates
Speaker 1: in that's when the last cycle ended. I mean, bitcoin
Speaker 1: was less than five thousand dollars of coins. It wasn't
Speaker 1: in the mainstream like it is now. So I think
Speaker 1: this is the biggest test that we're coming up a
Speaker 1: real full blown rate hiking cycle. I mean, if bitcoin
Speaker 1: continues to have the same properties that it does now
Speaker 1: where it's just a leverage bet on tech stocks, you
Speaker 1: would think that would be bad news for the price
Speaker 1: of bitcoin. But I mean we've seen tech stocks completely
Speaker 1: defyed that logic. So Paul to go back to his
Speaker 1: desk and try to figure out the discount rate to
Speaker 1: plug into the cash chairs to get the present value
Speaker 1: of bitcoin. If you could let me know that would
Speaker 1: be really helpful fashionable article out of it. Yeah, exactly,
Speaker 1: we'll have to see. I mean again, Bitcoin uh kind
Speaker 1: of steady today, still forty seven thousand dollars per token,
Speaker 1: and we quote it just like we quote equities and
Speaker 1: fixed income. It's an asset class to me. That's why
Speaker 1: I always keep it front center here, Jamie Diamond, I
Speaker 1: know is still a little uh skit issue about it,
Speaker 1: but the just and you talk to the younger folks
Speaker 1: in finance, this is it Crypto is it? I mean
Speaker 1: it is you. Yeah, it's not going away, so you've
Speaker 1: got to get in front of it, I think, and
Speaker 1: I think the regulators are trying to get in front
Speaker 1: of it too, because they are not but uh, you know,
Speaker 1: the SEC chairman against or maybe focusing on that. All right,
Speaker 1: Katie Gryfeld, thanks so much for joining us. As always,
Speaker 1: Katie Gryfeld, cross asset reporter and Bloomberg Quick Take a
Speaker 1: co anchor. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Markets podcast.
Speaker 1: You can subscribe and listen to interviews with Apple Podcasts
Speaker 1: or whatever podcast platform you prefer. I'm Matt Miller. I'm
Speaker 1: on Twitter at Matt Miller put on full Sweeney. I'm
Speaker 1: on Twitter at pt Sweeney before the podcast. You can
Speaker 1: always catch us worldwide at Bloomberg Radio