Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to What Goes Up, a Bloomberg weekly
Speaker 1: market podcast. I'm Sarah Pontzec, a market supporter on the
Speaker 1: Cross Asset Team, and I'm Mike Reagan, a senior editor
Speaker 1: at Bloomberg. On this show, we'll speak with expert guests
Speaker 1: from inside Bloomberg and beyond to break down what's moving stocks, bonds, currencies,
Speaker 1: and commodities, and how each asset class is affecting the others.
Speaker 1: On the show, this week, it's a tale of new highs.
Speaker 1: The sp finally took out its previous September record, the
Speaker 1: US dollar is also at the highest levels of the year,
Speaker 1: and the oil rally just can't seem to be tamed.
Speaker 1: The question, Mike, is if all of that can continue?
Speaker 1: That is the question, of course, and I'm happy to
Speaker 1: say our two guests will give us the exact answer
Speaker 1: to that question, right or intend to pinpoint where the
Speaker 1: markets that war as you here is Chris nag, executive
Speaker 1: editor at Bloomberg, and he will tall us the exact
Speaker 1: date and time that the bowl market will end. Is
Speaker 1: that right, Chris? I have that information, but you have
Speaker 1: to you have to wait until later in the show.
Speaker 1: Also joining us lup Kawa of the cross As Team.
Speaker 1: Luke has been very busy Europe in Canada recently. Right,
Speaker 1: I was indeed up in the coldest G seven capital
Speaker 1: a great, great time in in Ottawa, in rainy Ottawa
Speaker 1: watching the Leafs lose in Game seven and having my
Speaker 1: heartbroken again. Okay, well we'll avoid that topic from that case, Lukawa,
Speaker 1: what caused this record in stocks this week? It's great
Speaker 1: when you have a stock market that is actually just
Speaker 1: a handful of stocks, as as the name would suggest.
Speaker 1: But more and more this rally has become a concentrated phenomena,
Speaker 1: and you know, you could point out that this is
Speaker 1: a source of weakness or a potential vulnerability, just that
Speaker 1: you know, a few tech heavyweights are essentially doing the
Speaker 1: heavy lifting, empowering it higher. But then you have Facebook
Speaker 1: and Microsoft, two of those tech heavyweights just you know,
Speaker 1: absolutely killed on earnings and do exactly what people expect
Speaker 1: them to do with stocks in terms of Facebook top
Speaker 1: line growth, and you know, not getting their business model
Speaker 1: up ended by regulators and instead just saying, you know,
Speaker 1: the three billion, five billion cost of doing business. And
Speaker 1: then Microsoft the cloud, just showing that that business is
Speaker 1: a structural growth business and not kind of having the
Speaker 1: decline people might have thought in the fourth quarter. So
Speaker 1: really it's just a story of you know, just the
Speaker 1: heavyweights are the heavyweights. They've really taken over and they've
Speaker 1: given us less reason to dope them. So to dial
Speaker 1: it back a bit, it was back on Tuesday when
Speaker 1: the sp finally hit those highs, it was that was
Speaker 1: the magic number. And Chris, of course there are always
Speaker 1: bowl and bear cases to be made, but why don't
Speaker 1: you walk us through what are the reasons that bulls
Speaker 1: are coming out now and saying why this can keep going? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean the obvious, the most obvious answer to that
Speaker 1: is that the FED remains incredibly uh friendly to the market.
Speaker 1: It's not going to do anything this year. It got
Speaker 1: like everyone else traumatized it end of at the end
Speaker 1: of two thousand eighteen, and it's basically vowed to sit
Speaker 1: there as stocks continue to go up ten percent a
Speaker 1: month or something or that seems to be basically their posture.
Speaker 1: The other bowl cases, I mean, you can you can
Speaker 1: ascribe it to a handful of tech heavyweights, fine, but
Speaker 1: I also point out that those heavyweights are basically of
Speaker 1: the NATS back one D. They're a good portion of
Speaker 1: the SMP. There's still a kind you know, the same
Speaker 1: thing that's driven the bull market for ten years, the
Speaker 1: fact that there is an enormous amount of efficient earnings
Speaker 1: production going on in the US economy, at least in
Speaker 1: the mega cap publicly traded space, that it's just it
Speaker 1: drowns out everything else. The margins remain incredibly fat, return
Speaker 1: on whatever equity invested capital remains strong, and it's just
Speaker 1: a hard train to get in the way of. And
Speaker 1: then on the micro level, like you had the everyone
Speaker 1: was worried about earnings recession, earnings estimate's coming in. We've
Speaker 1: seen in the past week as more and more of
Speaker 1: the big ones report earnings, that you've actually seen full
Speaker 1: year estimates start to firm a little bit, and the
Speaker 1: second quarter estimates haven't been slashed anywhere near to the
Speaker 1: same degree as the first quarters. That whole earnswer session thing. Oh,
Speaker 1: it looks to be going the way of the only mammoth.
Speaker 1: But yet, if you look at some of the earnings
Speaker 1: out this week, I'm thinking of UPS and three M.
Speaker 1: I mean, these are sort of year old cliche macro indicators.
Speaker 1: You know, UPS is the the biggest, one of the
Speaker 1: biggest shipping companies in the world. Three M is the
Speaker 1: maker of fifty things. I think what we used to say,
Speaker 1: you know, in the Bloomberg stories, is it safe to
Speaker 1: ignore these? I mean, are people just assuming these are
Speaker 1: idiosyncratic stories, company specific stories and not really the macro
Speaker 1: indicators that maybe we we once thought they were. Um,
Speaker 1: I think to some degree the SOB stories we've always
Speaker 1: had around the market for the entire ten years. We've
Speaker 1: also had bad eco growth for much of the or
Speaker 1: not not bad, but middling equal eco growth for most
Speaker 1: of the the bullmark, and people have been able to
Speaker 1: live with it. So I agree those are a little concerning.
Speaker 1: It's hard entire way to write stuff like that off
Speaker 1: is idiosyncratic given the pervasiveness of their reach, those two companies.
Speaker 1: And certainly you know something was being signaled at the
Speaker 1: end of last year, regardless of the fact that it
Speaker 1: got put away so quickly. I mean, that's what happens
Speaker 1: when the FED utterly pivots on itself. But um, for
Speaker 1: the moment, I think you do have to kind of
Speaker 1: give the benefit of the doubt to the idea that
Speaker 1: this is not uncharacteristic of how it's always looked. There's
Speaker 1: always been scattered blow ups going on, and then you
Speaker 1: kind of have, you know, this scenario where along our
Speaker 1: our last kind of leg higher march to all time highs,
Speaker 1: you had healthcare really selling off and cyclical is absolutely
Speaker 1: going haywire. So you had in the cyclicals defensive index,
Speaker 1: you had essentially a huge parabolic move. And now what
Speaker 1: we have, you know, just a rotation, a reversal of that,
Speaker 1: and it's just another iteration of these protective rotations that
Speaker 1: have protected the market because you know, nothing goes down
Speaker 1: all at once except for you know, your February eighteen,
Speaker 1: Andrew Q. I want to come back to talk of
Speaker 1: profits recession just for a bit, because I know about
Speaker 1: eight percent of companies are beating on earnings this quarter.
Speaker 1: But still it seems like a lot of people are
Speaker 1: talking about that hockey stick fourth quarter about a nine
Speaker 1: percent gain. Does it seem like that is potentially more
Speaker 1: reasonable to achieve now to bring this here into full growth.
Speaker 1: I've never seen it as quite as odd as others.
Speaker 1: It seems to me just to be more function of math.
Speaker 1: There's sequential growth expected quarter by quarter by quarter, and
Speaker 1: there's no real acceleration in the sequential quarter by quarter
Speaker 1: by quarter growth that's expected for twenty nineteen. So this
Speaker 1: is just more function to me of base effects. Where
Speaker 1: where it gets weird is I I don't understand how
Speaker 1: the margin story gets so much better in Q four
Speaker 1: and and that's one thing that like this will not
Speaker 1: become clear to me after the first quarter results or
Speaker 1: the second quarter results, of the third quarter results. That
Speaker 1: would be something I need to essentially see to believe
Speaker 1: or have a lot more visibility, because I just can't
Speaker 1: unpack and understand it. And yet so here we are
Speaker 1: off to this amazing start to the year in stocks,
Speaker 1: but the latest figures I've seen still indicate that money
Speaker 1: is flowing out of stock funds UM and I don't
Speaker 1: think hedge funds have really embraced this rally, you know,
Speaker 1: based on some of the indicators we would use to
Speaker 1: to uh sort of suss that out. Is this all
Speaker 1: buy backs? I mean, is is buy backs the main
Speaker 1: catalysts and any sort of threat to buy backs the
Speaker 1: main risk to the to the EQUATIONY Well, first of all,
Speaker 1: it's hard to imagine a threat to buy backs. I
Speaker 1: just sort of story that Buffett may announce some extremely
Speaker 1: high numbered buy backs next year. It's not that typical
Speaker 1: that those actually go away until a recession happens. So
Speaker 1: if the recession happens, it would be to some degree
Speaker 1: the west of anyone's problems. I I don't necessarily fall
Speaker 1: into the camp that buy backs are really that big
Speaker 1: of a source of fuel for the for the rally.
Speaker 1: I do what you're saying is absolutely right. This is
Speaker 1: a totally unloved and flow less is the word now recovery.
Speaker 1: But to a largic stent, that's part of the bull case.
Speaker 1: I would say, I mean stocks can go up. Stocks
Speaker 1: went up two thousand nine, two thousand eleven with virtually
Speaker 1: zero flows or or the opposite, and most for most
Speaker 1: of the period. It really isn't necessarily the sole driver
Speaker 1: of the market, this idea that money has to be
Speaker 1: being thrown at it. What has to be happening is
Speaker 1: people are driving harder bargains for to sell, and or
Speaker 1: people just the people who are buying are more eager.
Speaker 1: And right now there's a lot of people walking around
Speaker 1: who would say the fact that hedge funds haven't participated,
Speaker 1: the fact that et F flows have been relatively inn
Speaker 1: emic relative to past peaks, like vastly less than September
Speaker 1: and January is something that's yet to go right in
Speaker 1: this market. And the really big bull cases, the sort
Speaker 1: of melt up cases for two thousand nineteen or premised
Speaker 1: on those facts coming out of slightly different perspective from
Speaker 1: from the buy back story exact. I just think they're
Speaker 1: so fundamentally important to preventing downside more than they are
Speaker 1: to spurring upside. Just the idea that you know, a
Speaker 1: lot of these are pre programmed and kind of out
Speaker 1: of the hands of discretionary but the discretionary ones essentially like,
Speaker 1: what what do we know about the structure of the market,
Speaker 1: what do we learning que for QUE four? We learned
Speaker 1: that liquidity is terrible in single stocks. That's why the
Speaker 1: kind of long short tech de leveraging went absolutely awry.
Speaker 1: We learned that futures market depth doesn't really exist, so
Speaker 1: where is the cash bid for equities? That that to
Speaker 1: me means that buy backs are the supporting factor in
Speaker 1: markets that do prevent us from having these kind of
Speaker 1: volatility spirals. So I don't think they're like I think
Speaker 1: we'd maybe end up in the same place. But the
Speaker 1: sharp ratios would be you know, a heck of a
Speaker 1: lot worse without buy back. Can I just say one
Speaker 1: thing about buy back? So there was just a note
Speaker 1: a couple of weeks ago. They've got a huge amount
Speaker 1: of attention with golden things saying that. You know, net
Speaker 1: of issuance, you get about four billion dollars worth the
Speaker 1: buy backs in the US market this year, and it
Speaker 1: dwarfs all other net money that comes into the market
Speaker 1: at the same time. You look at Bloomberg data, something
Speaker 1: like ninety trillion dollars worth of stock trades every or
Speaker 1: in the US US sort of tagged stock market. So
Speaker 1: four in a billion dollars of net cash at the
Speaker 1: margin is certainly a lot of money, but it's a
Speaker 1: drop in the bucket compared to an amount of stock
Speaker 1: that goes back and forth every day. It's basically one
Speaker 1: day's value traded um. It matters, certainly, and it's net
Speaker 1: pure we net. It's easy to measure, but it doesn't
Speaker 1: entirely take into account the gross buying and selling that
Speaker 1: goes on in the market every day, basically people bringing
Speaker 1: their their paychecks to the market and people cashing them out.
Speaker 1: There's obviously ninety trillion arts with selling every year as well.
Speaker 1: Um So framed like that, it's not quite as obvious
Speaker 1: to me how how it single handedly juices the market.
Speaker 1: So we're still likely to see buybacks in the near term, absolutely,
Speaker 1: and there's still a lot of money on the sidelines
Speaker 1: that it seems like could come in to propel this higher.
Speaker 1: But what about the valuation case, Because the argument can
Speaker 1: be made that tech stocks in particular are maybe looking expensive,
Speaker 1: but you also have the handful of people, many people
Speaker 1: out there pointing to interest rates saying well, they're low,
Speaker 1: and if you're saying that stocks are expensive, you're missing
Speaker 1: the whole point. Yeah. So I've been talking about this
Speaker 1: for about ten days, which means I've been wrong for
Speaker 1: ten days, and just looking at things like, you know,
Speaker 1: the NASDAC one hundreds forward p premium to the SMP
Speaker 1: five hundred, that's essentially taken out its peak ratio of
Speaker 1: NASDAC SMP again, taken out that peak high. It's since
Speaker 1: the dot com bubble and then outright and the outright
Speaker 1: things where I I really start to focus in on
Speaker 1: because when the forward p of the NASDACK gets to
Speaker 1: twenty two, that's when things have tended to break. So
Speaker 1: either you have to have the forward p in terms
Speaker 1: of the earnings estimates really going up nicely right now,
Speaker 1: or you should maybe see you know, the price, do
Speaker 1: a little bit of work, maybe go a little sideways,
Speaker 1: because we are not too far off from that level now.
Speaker 1: But again, like I think Credit SUITEZ recently or or
Speaker 1: socked in one of the one of those banks made
Speaker 1: the case, made the case that you know, in the
Speaker 1: melt up scenarios in which we are envisaging these kind
Speaker 1: of valuation things, especially with high growth, names go completely
Speaker 1: out the window, and it's a complete joke to even
Speaker 1: cast any faith in this. This reminds me of a
Speaker 1: good story you had out, Sarah. I love the headline,
Speaker 1: all the stuff bears are saying to spoil the SMP
Speaker 1: record party. Chris over here is laughing because the headline
Speaker 1: was a baby of his something to blame. I could,
Speaker 1: I could, I could have predicted that it. Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: why is it that we can enjoy a record without
Speaker 1: without seeing what these pesky bears have to say? Is
Speaker 1: it just risk management or story? Well, when it comes
Speaker 1: to the bear argument, there are a lot of bears
Speaker 1: out there, and part of the argument is is just that, Okay,
Speaker 1: yes we're back to those record highs, but we can't
Speaker 1: sustain a seventent rally that we've seen this year at
Speaker 1: the pace that we have seen it. They also point
Speaker 1: to fourth quarter earnings, but the issue is first quarter
Speaker 1: earnings has been a lot better than expected, and now
Speaker 1: it seems like that is falling off the back end.
Speaker 1: And then the valuation case. There are the bears out
Speaker 1: there that will look at the market and tell you
Speaker 1: that it does look expensive to them, and at this
Speaker 1: point in time they would rather be taking profits than
Speaker 1: throwing their money at this market. But look, one thing
Speaker 1: I'm so happy about with with this all time high
Speaker 1: and the one that we previously had in September, like
Speaker 1: what was going on in September that screamed all time high?
Speaker 1: Like where where? Where was the kind of euphoria? Where
Speaker 1: was the dancing in the streets? Don't see it now either.
Speaker 1: The only time I've seen anything this cycle that resembled
Speaker 1: what I am told in all time high should look
Speaker 1: like is January. I want another one of those blow
Speaker 1: off tops. Yeah that was a great fun, Sarah. I'm
Speaker 1: curious if any of these bears we're talking about two
Speaker 1: things that are sort of on my mind. One is
Speaker 1: the strong rallying dollar that we've seen, and also this
Speaker 1: sort of creep higher in oil prices. Uh you know
Speaker 1: West Texas interpetated oils in the neighborhood of what sixty six? There?
Speaker 1: Is it? What we get to the point where we
Speaker 1: have to worry about oil prices again? We're you know,
Speaker 1: is this economy so leveraged to oil production that it's
Speaker 1: it's the higher the better. So starting with oil, I
Speaker 1: would say the majority of investors I've spoken, particularly in
Speaker 1: this last week, they're not so worried about higher oil
Speaker 1: prices because now you look at the US and we
Speaker 1: are a net exporter of oil, and they say this
Speaker 1: could actually benefit the U. S economy in a way
Speaker 1: because of the businesses on the dollar component. I will
Speaker 1: say I was speaking with someone this past week who said,
Speaker 1: the dollar is now getting to levels that we are
Speaker 1: getting concerned about, especially for some of these more multinational
Speaker 1: companies that do a lot of their business overseas, because
Speaker 1: this could harm them. You have a stronger dollar overseas
Speaker 1: that could potentially mean lower sales are not as competitive
Speaker 1: and you but you haven't really seen that like three
Speaker 1: m a side during that happened, but you haven't really
Speaker 1: seen that generally priced int equities like look at the
Speaker 1: look at the pocket of US that we've been talking
Speaker 1: about is underperforming the most recently, you know, the Russell persistently.
Speaker 1: It should be a you know, domestic focus, a bigger
Speaker 1: beneficiary of the strong dollar. Quickly. On the oil point,
Speaker 1: it's been interesting just from a mathematical standpoint, the positive
Speaker 1: correlation between changes in oil and changes in the s
Speaker 1: pretty durn high. So that's actually it's actually been like
Speaker 1: positively correlated, good contributor to the rally. But again on
Speaker 1: the dollar side, the the fun thing is that it
Speaker 1: does seem to be hurting the rest of the world.
Speaker 1: If you look at you know, M S c I
Speaker 1: all World x US and then you know, running correlations
Speaker 1: with the Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index, you'll actually see that
Speaker 1: the dollar strength is weighing on the rest of the
Speaker 1: world equities. And a large part of that is just
Speaker 1: this strait currency translation effect that it's having. You know,
Speaker 1: those are price and local and then once you convert
Speaker 1: into US, you know, you're you're fighting against the tide there.
Speaker 1: But that's what I think is the interesting point because
Speaker 1: we know generally a strong dollar is is not good
Speaker 1: for the world. It tightens credit conditions globally, so I
Speaker 1: can understand why oil prices are rising. It's really centered
Speaker 1: around supply. This week was really peaked after the Trump
Speaker 1: administration came out and said that they were going to
Speaker 1: end the waivers as it relates to exports from Iran.
Speaker 1: But when it comes to the dollar, I'm having a
Speaker 1: bit harder of a time understanding just the momentum that
Speaker 1: we continue to see. I mean, is this just another
Speaker 1: re Ducks where everyone thought we would see a weaker dollar,
Speaker 1: but maybe that's not the case exactly and almost for
Speaker 1: the same reason. I think that if you look at
Speaker 1: the strength in the equity market, like TDS economists and
Speaker 1: TV strategists Mark McCormick, he's been on this for a
Speaker 1: while saying essentially, if you think the US equity market
Speaker 1: is going to outperform, if you think, you know, rate
Speaker 1: spreads around the world are going to be fairly stable,
Speaker 1: then portfolio inflows into US equities should be a driver
Speaker 1: of the dollar. And I think it's it's a story
Speaker 1: that fits for now, so I like it. I like
Speaker 1: it too then Chris, are you worried about the dollar? No? No,
Speaker 1: uh yeah, you see things like the three mble up
Speaker 1: this week. You remember that it can it can do
Speaker 1: damage the big profit edifice. But and and like Luke
Speaker 1: was saying, it's uh the main sort of temperature taker
Speaker 1: on financial conditions. So yeah, along with everything else, it's
Speaker 1: a kind of a secondary concern. It's what about the
Speaker 1: relationship between oil and energy stocks though, because you look
Speaker 1: at crude up about this year. Energy can this kind
Speaker 1: of just add to that bowl case in a way, right,
Speaker 1: because energy hasn't been a huge particiption. I mean, energy
Speaker 1: is up a lot of energy stocks. But yeah, right,
Speaker 1: there's an argument that it hasn't caught up with with
Speaker 1: oil yet. Um and you know, another one of these
Speaker 1: basically arguments that some good things left to happen in
Speaker 1: the market and that that's going to be energy stocks rallies.
Speaker 1: Kind of difficult to get to be that disappointed. Look
Speaker 1: at what happened recently. What was the It was Snovis
Speaker 1: buying anti darko. If you look Abron Chevron, Chevron buying
Speaker 1: anti Darko. So if you look at that, you know,
Speaker 1: look at x l E. So you're more integrated players
Speaker 1: and how they've done versus how x OP the producers
Speaker 1: explorers have done. Look at that, track the oil price,
Speaker 1: see the gap, and you know the transaction completely and
Speaker 1: immediately makes sense. So I wonder if you know the
Speaker 1: market will start to say, hey, you know we're gonna
Speaker 1: be Chevron, We're gonna buy the producers, and I will
Speaker 1: say there is an e t F that tracks oil
Speaker 1: services companies and that et F is up more So
Speaker 1: you do see a difference when you dial in and
Speaker 1: really look on these coming natural guess is not having
Speaker 1: a great year, right so x and I'm SURES and
Speaker 1: gigantic natural gas producer, Luke. You keep a pretty close
Speaker 1: eye on volatility markets, and now with this rally its
Speaker 1: all time highs. We see the VIX CBOE Volatility Index
Speaker 1: at what about twelve and a half twelve and change,
Speaker 1: but moving higher, but moving higher, training higher, but moving high.
Speaker 1: I think that's been the most interesting development that's taken
Speaker 1: place with the VIX as we kind of made this
Speaker 1: martial all time highs. You'll remember that in January, uh
Speaker 1: stocks up, valls up was a persistent common theme and
Speaker 1: everyone was trying to make excuses for it and talk
Speaker 1: around it, and then faultel the exploded, and uh, you know,
Speaker 1: we realized that maybe that was a warning sign. Last
Speaker 1: time we had stocks up falls up was June and
Speaker 1: we got you know, like a three percent sell off
Speaker 1: and the immediate aftermath. But this kind of this is
Speaker 1: something I'm watching, as you know. It's a sign that
Speaker 1: people are starting to either heade of this or wildly
Speaker 1: chase upside. And from what I can tell, looking at
Speaker 1: the implied volatilities of you know, out of the money
Speaker 1: options on the SMP five, it seems more that the
Speaker 1: downside being sought is the factory here. So folks, folks
Speaker 1: are starting to get worried about this as we you know,
Speaker 1: as we hit all time highs during earning season but
Speaker 1: still have a supportive but definitely not stellar macro back.
Speaker 1: You know what, another year follows up stocks up the
Speaker 1: whole year, Right, I think people would take that they'd
Speaker 1: be willing to live with a fifteen or twenty ViXS
Speaker 1: if they could get the We're not at that point
Speaker 1: in two thousand and eighteen where there's so much complacency.
Speaker 1: People were selling the VIC shorting the VIS basically to
Speaker 1: you know, pick up those nickels in front of the
Speaker 1: steam roller. Do you get the sense that we're not
Speaker 1: due for repeat of that as the lesson been learned? Well,
Speaker 1: I think just like a the products are gone, so
Speaker 1: we can't we can't so that that can't happen. That
Speaker 1: can't happen again. We can't have we can't have a repeat.
Speaker 1: We we will not have a repeat. That just that
Speaker 1: source of fire currently does not exist. But other other
Speaker 1: factors are essentially a positioning. We've all talked about flow
Speaker 1: less rally, that's something that augurs against a repeat. And
Speaker 1: also just levels of realized are a little lower now
Speaker 1: than they were in January, and levels have implied are
Speaker 1: a little higher. Like the opposite dynamic, the volatility risk
Speaker 1: premium is a lot higher. Now you can make a
Speaker 1: lot You can assume you will make a lot more
Speaker 1: money if you're selling ball now as opposed to when
Speaker 1: you were selling ball. That was really the That was
Speaker 1: a penny, that was not a dime in front of
Speaker 1: the steam roller. One man's penny is another man's time
Speaker 1: Canadian Canadian Canadian dollars, which brings us to you know
Speaker 1: what time? It is craziest thing, Mike ever saw in
Speaker 1: markets this week. This is a segment that we will
Speaker 1: be doing most every week, and Mike's going to come
Speaker 1: to us and he's going to ask us what the
Speaker 1: craziest thing we saw, and we have to come up
Speaker 1: with something better than him. Europe first, Chris so, I
Speaker 1: liked the price action Wednesday morning before anyone was at
Speaker 1: their desks and p G and E, which was when
Speaker 1: it rose two and then retraced the whole thing in
Speaker 1: five minutes after some industry journal reported that uh Warren
Speaker 1: Buffett was going to buy them, and then he immediately
Speaker 1: told Becky Quick on CNBC Didday that he that he wasn't.
Speaker 1: So I did. I did a little TSM on it,
Speaker 1: and twelve and a half million dollars worth of stock
Speaker 1: traded in that window and something like five shares, so
Speaker 1: lots of winners and losers. Yeah, that's pretty good. I'm
Speaker 1: not feeling too. I was away from the desk for
Speaker 1: two days this week, so I'm gonna give myself a past.
Speaker 1: But one thing I saw, and it happened on Thursday,
Speaker 1: on Thursday morning, right out of the gate company. I
Speaker 1: had never heard of it. Zero zero, So they were
Speaker 1: tumbling ten per cent out of the gate. No one
Speaker 1: could really figure out why. And it turns out that
Speaker 1: apparently people were, you know, they were thinking they were
Speaker 1: going to get acquired relatively soon. But the company had
Speaker 1: set up meetings at a conference and a couple of months,
Speaker 1: and then investors assumed, Hey, I guess that means they're
Speaker 1: not going to sell themselves by then, and you know,
Speaker 1: people have freaked out, and the stock was down ten
Speaker 1: percent assumption at its best, but that logic governs. I
Speaker 1: mean people that those those those conference meetings. I was
Speaker 1: trying to pretend this wasn't crazy. Probably probably reported the
Speaker 1: thing about the conference. Anyway, Sarah, what craziness have you
Speaker 1: witnessed this week? I'm gonna go with Tesla, and not
Speaker 1: because it's stock is down around the lowest level, but
Speaker 1: because just ahead of their earnings the day before this week,
Speaker 1: Elon Musk came out on stage at a conference and
Speaker 1: said that they are going to have completely autonomous robotaxis
Speaker 1: potentially on the road within a year. That was pretty crazy,
Speaker 1: all right. I got a couple of crazy things. The
Speaker 1: first one all this hype about gen Z. It makes
Speaker 1: me nervous for one reason. Why is that Generation Z
Speaker 1: that's the last letter. You've seen table, you've seen table.
Speaker 1: The next The next generation is Generation Alpha. I can
Speaker 1: tell you that. Okay. And all this mystery about oh,
Speaker 1: they're spending habits, I'll tell you where they're spending habits
Speaker 1: come from. I'm the father of three gen Z kids.
Speaker 1: It's all me. Yeah, but that's not spending habits. What's
Speaker 1: a good allowance these days? That depends how they keep
Speaker 1: the room clean and all that. And what's the dollar
Speaker 1: figure twenty a week or so? No, Wow, that's high
Speaker 1: that they milk a lot more off you than that,
Speaker 1: believe me. Alright, craziest thing I've ever seen. And I'm
Speaker 1: confessed this is not directly related to markets, but it's
Speaker 1: pretty close. I love the sec settlements with some hedge
Speaker 1: fund manager who gets in trouble, and we always do
Speaker 1: a great job of saying, Okay, he stole x million
Speaker 1: from clients, but the question always is what did he
Speaker 1: spend it on? So this guy in Massachusetts got in
Speaker 1: trouble for ripping off his clients and buying Taylor Swift
Speaker 1: tickets with it. Luke, I feel like that's get behind
Speaker 1: that's that's he didn't buy Taylor Swift tickets. He invested.
Speaker 1: That is an appreciating asset. It's not a bad trade.
Speaker 1: If you get him my book value and face value
Speaker 1: and some before the show. It might be the largest
Speaker 1: Taylor Swift fan out And it is amazing because you know,
Speaker 1: right now, essentially as as we're going live, this is
Speaker 1: this is FO six, this is the big day. I'm sure,
Speaker 1: I'm sure everyone else has been following Taylor Swifts. Can't
Speaker 1: count down on our Instagram too. We don't know what's coming.
Speaker 1: We we know it's big. Hopefully it's not an engagement,
Speaker 1: but maybe a new music video or something like Hopefully, Sir,
Speaker 1: I think that's got to be all the time we have.
Speaker 1: We have to leave it there. But Luke Kawa, Taylor
Speaker 1: Swift enthusiasts, and Chris Nangi, thanks so much for joining
Speaker 1: us today. Thanks my pleasure. What Goes Up will be
Speaker 1: back next week. Until then, you can find us on
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Terminal website and app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever
Speaker 1: you listen. We'd love it if you took the time
Speaker 1: to rate and review the show so more listeners can
Speaker 1: find us. And you can find us on Twitter, follow
Speaker 1: me at at Sara Ponzeck. Mike is at Reaganonymous, our
Speaker 1: guest Chris Nagi is at Chris nag One, and Luke
Speaker 1: Kawa is at l J Kawa. What Goes Up is
Speaker 1: produced by tober Foreheads. The head of Bloomberg Podcast is
Speaker 1: Francesco Leafy. Thanks for listening, See you next time.