Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keene, Jay Leye.
Speaker 1: We bring you insight from the best in economics, finance, investment,
Speaker 1: and international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot Com, and of course on the Bloomberg Yes
Speaker 1: Front and Cents. For me this week, the big data
Speaker 1: point of the week, I think p M is out
Speaker 1: of Europe. This coming Friday will be a big focus
Speaker 1: on this market looking ahead to it all. I'm really
Speaker 1: pleased to say David Kelly joins US now JP Morgan
Speaker 1: Aid Management, Chief Global Strategist. David, fantastic to have you
Speaker 1: with us. Talked to me about the message that you
Speaker 1: have for clients this Tuesday morning. Well, yeah, I think
Speaker 1: the messages you've You've got to look at the sort
Speaker 1: of different paths that markets and the economy have taken.
Speaker 1: I think we've gotten a little complacent. You know, this
Speaker 1: is eleven years into an expansion, not much it seemed
Speaker 1: to go on. So the markets keep on drifting high
Speaker 1: iron in terms of equity markets, rates keep on drifting lower.
Speaker 1: But the main story is really the one that you
Speaker 1: and Tom have been talking about, which is there are
Speaker 1: plenty of signs of the global economies slowing down. Very
Speaker 1: weak numbers out of Japan, week numbers out of Europe
Speaker 1: and China obviously in some trouble here. And in the
Speaker 1: US we're looking at about one percent growth maybe even
Speaker 1: less for the first quarter, and that brings US down
Speaker 1: to about one point seven percent year over year. So
Speaker 1: there is this slowdown. We're not seeing recession yet, but
Speaker 1: given these slowdown and the troubles in the in the
Speaker 1: global economy, it does seem like the market is a
Speaker 1: little too exuberant here. Let's take the analysis and take
Speaker 1: it a step further. What's the capital annocation decision? What
Speaker 1: are the decisions for captain allocation that supplement your worldview? Well,
Speaker 1: I you really if you start with the notion that
Speaker 1: valuations have just become a little unhinged from each other.
Speaker 1: What's expense if your bonds expensive? US equities are a
Speaker 1: bit expensive, what's cheap um? Global equities are cheap um?
Speaker 1: And so I've been a little overweight global equity, international
Speaker 1: equities well to the US notwithstanding their short term problems.
Speaker 1: And then also with in the US market, um, if
Speaker 1: you look at the things like utilities and reads above
Speaker 1: twenty times earnings. To look at financials damage about thirteen
Speaker 1: times earnings. So there are pockets of value within the
Speaker 1: US market, but generally speaking, I'd look carefully at evaluations,
Speaker 1: and this is a kind of market in which I
Speaker 1: would want to make sure I load up on the
Speaker 1: on the cheap stuff and make sure I'm not overweight
Speaker 1: the expense of stuff. And a profit warning from Apple
Speaker 1: twelve months ago and then the stock double David, The
Speaker 1: problem is going into that profit warning, the stock was
Speaker 1: down by about a third or one percent from the high.
Speaker 1: This is a stock that's near all time highs as
Speaker 1: the company issues of revenue warning. Just in terms of
Speaker 1: how we set up now versus twelve months ago, it
Speaker 1: just feels like night and day. David. Yeah, well, and
Speaker 1: I think the key is if you're a long term investor,
Speaker 1: and what I mean is you're not going to be
Speaker 1: spending the money in the next four or five six years,
Speaker 1: You've got to stop trying to make a timing decision.
Speaker 1: The real question is never when it is what and
Speaker 1: you and you just are not going to be able
Speaker 1: to time the way markets behave in terms of bad
Speaker 1: news good news, I mean market market is gonna work
Speaker 1: in very perverse ways in the short run, but in
Speaker 1: the long run, the economy does really matter, and the
Speaker 1: long run is about earnings and interest rates, and so
Speaker 1: you just go to you know, try and to take
Speaker 1: that long term. You recognize what happens is you have
Speaker 1: this this spread and evaluation, somethings get very cheap, something
Speaker 1: to get very expensive, and then you have something some
Speaker 1: sort of shock, and everybody has to pay attention again.
Speaker 1: And when they pay attention, the stuff that's most expensive
Speaker 1: tends to get hit the hardest. Um. So, you know,
Speaker 1: I would not try to time this very much, but
Speaker 1: just recognize there's some areas of the market, some areas
Speaker 1: of global markets which are cheaper than others. Let's get
Speaker 1: a little more specific. In the Bank of America Maryland
Speaker 1: February fund manager survey that came out today, over half
Speaker 1: of those who responded said that the most crowded trade
Speaker 1: was the long US tech growth stocks, but they also
Speaker 1: said that growth stocks are expected to outperform value talks
Speaker 1: over the next twelve months. Attention here, they're overcrowded, yet
Speaker 1: will continue to outperform. Do you view this as an
Speaker 1: area that is particularly expensive and worth perhaps lightning up
Speaker 1: on Well, yeah, I think that that's a fair fair point.
Speaker 1: And and the key is that if you have not rebalanced,
Speaker 1: you're probably overweight anyway. And that's really the most important
Speaker 1: thing to to look at because of the outperforms of
Speaker 1: large cap growth stocks. But as of you know, the
Speaker 1: end of last week, the large cap growth sector overall
Speaker 1: broad sector was about thirty percent above its average PE
Speaker 1: ratio of the last twenty years. Small cap value is
Speaker 1: about five below UM. So you know, I think this
Speaker 1: is a time if you can to move a little
Speaker 1: bit of money out of large cup growth into small
Speaker 1: cap value to try to, you know, be a little
Speaker 1: bit more normal in what is increasingly abnormal market. David
Speaker 1: ten years assume means it's thirty year bond with handle
Speaker 1: goal is going to edge up to six d here
Speaker 1: in two cups of coffee? Is well? Is the market
Speaker 1: getting out front of the FED? Or does the FED
Speaker 1: have control of the situation where they can wait for
Speaker 1: the March meeting and the meetings after that decide to
Speaker 1: cut rates. I don't really think this is about the FED,
Speaker 1: or should be about the FED, because the said there's
Speaker 1: really no point in the FED cutting rates. If the
Speaker 1: FED cuts raised in March um, it is not going
Speaker 1: to estimate any economic growth and will simply leave them
Speaker 1: with less ammunition if we actually face a recession. I
Speaker 1: don't see a recession right now. But I think the
Speaker 1: bigger point is money is funneling towards richer and richer Americans,
Speaker 1: and you know, the gap between rich and poor is increasing.
Speaker 1: What that's doing is it's leaving a huge fund of
Speaker 1: money to be invested in market. So you know, the
Speaker 1: average person might spend some money. Richer people tend to
Speaker 1: invest money, and that's pushing down yields, pushing up stock prices,
Speaker 1: and I think, what's really go You know what's fascinating
Speaker 1: to me. It's not about inflation or even the economy.
Speaker 1: It is that there's so much money pushing into the
Speaker 1: bond market that you know, for example, tip seals are
Speaker 1: now running at about ten basis points negative on the
Speaker 1: ten year tip and that's that's crazy. You're locking in
Speaker 1: negative real return for ten years. This is really important.
Speaker 1: Back up David and explain that's a little I think
Speaker 1: jargon laced for our listeners, including me. The tips yield,
Speaker 1: what's the tips yield? And what's it mean that it's
Speaker 1: a negative by a little teen sweens amount? Well, what
Speaker 1: what it is? That these are treasury inflation protective securities?
Speaker 1: So what the government does. They give you a yield
Speaker 1: and then they say, but we'll give you whatever inflation is,
Speaker 1: so basically takes inflation out of the picture. This is
Speaker 1: what you get after inflation. But the point is that
Speaker 1: number has now turned negative. So so essentially they say,
Speaker 1: whatever inflation turns out to be your we will reward
Speaker 1: you for that. But apart from that we will give
Speaker 1: you we will give you actually a negative return. Now,
Speaker 1: well you know, I mean think about it when when
Speaker 1: you save money, the ideas you save money, you're disciplined
Speaker 1: enough to save because you want to have eleven apples
Speaker 1: in the year instead of ten apples. What this says
Speaker 1: is we'll give you nine apples in a year. And
Speaker 1: people are still willing to do that. That's called German
Speaker 1: negative rights. David Kelly, thank you so much. That JP
Speaker 1: right now an Apple, we've a show of of of Switzerland.
Speaker 1: Neil Campling joins us right now, uh with a the
Speaker 1: brighter thematic view on Apple. Neil, how do you take
Speaker 1: Apple over to other tech companies in China. Is that
Speaker 1: a legitimate exercise or is it just too much guessing? Well?
Speaker 1: I think for one thing, Apple is the first major
Speaker 1: who have explicitly come out where they're warning for the
Speaker 1: Q one to say they will be impacted, even though
Speaker 1: they haven't actually given us the quantifiable of how big
Speaker 1: the impact is, and we would expect many others to
Speaker 1: to follow. Um. You know, there are the supply chain
Speaker 1: risks or Apple itself given an Apple is twelve of
Speaker 1: global semiconductor demand purchases. There is also the fact that
Speaker 1: if we look at the SMP five hundred in totality,
Speaker 1: to date, we've had earnings calls from three hundred and
Speaker 1: sixty four companies of the SMP five hundred. Of those,
Speaker 1: only thirty four have said that there will be an
Speaker 1: impact from coronavirus in their guidance or modified guidance in
Speaker 1: some capacity due to the virus. So the vast majority
Speaker 1: have not mentioned the virus, either because they just do
Speaker 1: not know yet or in a few instances because there
Speaker 1: won't be an impact because perhaps there are a utility company.
Speaker 1: But the majority, i think it's fair to say, just
Speaker 1: don't yet know how big the impact will be. But
Speaker 1: this is an ongoing, dynamic situation which is still to
Speaker 1: play out, I think for many companies and near I've
Speaker 1: been surprised that for many companies we haven't seen the
Speaker 1: kind of news that was dropped by Apple yesterday. But
Speaker 1: I guess to your point, they just can't get their
Speaker 1: hands around this year. What's been amazing for many of
Speaker 1: us reading through the south Side research, No, it's getting
Speaker 1: our hands around the analyst community and their views is
Speaker 1: the T word just keeps coming up again and again
Speaker 1: and again. Transitory, temporary, transitory, temporary, nil. At what point
Speaker 1: do you look at things and say, perhaps this one
Speaker 1: be as transitory as some people think. I think that's
Speaker 1: when we have to start thinking that if you think
Speaker 1: that in China specifically, given the size of the economy,
Speaker 1: there is effectively no no red envelope season for this year. UM.
Speaker 1: There Now we're seeing some data such as the germanw
Speaker 1: data this morning, UM, such as the Beer of a
Speaker 1: Fun manager surveys. They're all now being impacted in terms
Speaker 1: of lower confidence. We are seeing issues in terms of
Speaker 1: hitting European confidence and that the risk, I think is
Speaker 1: that there won't be this snap back potentially in Q
Speaker 1: two because of this kind of hangover effect that affects
Speaker 1: many industries and it's not just specific to pure Chinese demand.
Speaker 1: Um so the risks of five G smartphones in the
Speaker 1: second half of the year could be impacted. Travel, tourism,
Speaker 1: retail is obviously having having the bront of some issues
Speaker 1: as well. If we've heard from we've heard from the
Speaker 1: likes of under Armor last week and Ralph Lauren as well,
Speaker 1: trying to give some sort of qualification around how risky
Speaker 1: this could be going forward. Now if you think that
Speaker 1: we haven't impacted that yet, but it will be an issue. Neil,
Speaker 1: with all your experience at mirror buz securities as you
Speaker 1: look at the broader effects and implications in response to
Speaker 1: the coronavirus and wondering what you're seeing in some of
Speaker 1: the emerging Asian economies. A lot of people saying that
Speaker 1: China is responding with more stimulus, that they'll be able
Speaker 1: to stave off some of the economic slowdown, some of
Speaker 1: these other economies less prepared to do. So what type
Speaker 1: of demand cannibalization, what kind of loss in demand are
Speaker 1: we going to see from those nations. It's a great question.
Speaker 1: I think that we're already I'm seeing, for example, visions
Speaker 1: down to Singapore GDP. For example, we've had South Korea
Speaker 1: UM politicians coming out just this morning and talking about
Speaker 1: a risk of an existential crisis is not controlled. UM.
Speaker 1: You know you're seeing impacts on auto vendors in South Korea.
Speaker 1: You would naturally expect some fall out into other countries
Speaker 1: such as Vietnam. So supply chain that exists around China
Speaker 1: is essential for the whole of the UH, the economic region.
Speaker 1: What your study or and they say, respect your guestimate
Speaker 1: of the elasticity of cutting expenses for industrial and tech
Speaker 1: and TMT, can they do they have the wiggle room
Speaker 1: to cut cross fast given revenue prospects that are slower.
Speaker 1: I think what we generally generally see if you're if
Speaker 1: you're a company that's reliant on industrial or your you're
Speaker 1: tech heavy's very difficult to reduce that. If you think
Speaker 1: of if you're a capacity utilization focused semiconduct to fab,
Speaker 1: you might not need the people that you would need
Speaker 1: a hon highst iPhone city, but you have to keep
Speaker 1: those fabs at plus capacity utilization rates otherwise your margins
Speaker 1: get negatively impacted very quickly and it's also very slow
Speaker 1: to to increase capacity and once it's been cut, so
Speaker 1: it's often not something you can just dial down for
Speaker 1: two weeks and not have an impact thereafter. And I'd
Speaker 1: like to turn to something else just to wrap things up.
Speaker 1: And that's the Trump administer ration, according to several reports,
Speaker 1: considering new restrictions on exports to kind of get technology
Speaker 1: into China. This is something that over the last month
Speaker 1: or so has been increasing the overlook because of what
Speaker 1: has been happening with the coronavirus. How closely are looking
Speaker 1: at those kind of moves potentially coming up this year? Neil,
Speaker 1: I think it's it's something which we described as an
Speaker 1: ongoing I P war between China and the U S
Speaker 1: which is very concerning for supply chains. For one thing,
Speaker 1: I think that we've had obviously the blacklisting of Harway
Speaker 1: last year, but actually what what it ended up happening
Speaker 1: was that Hallway just supply got components supplies from other
Speaker 1: countries outside of the US and displacing the US component companies.
Speaker 1: So the US is now looking at other tactics. If
Speaker 1: you basically banned equipment being shipped out to China and
Speaker 1: not giving those licenses. It has rumsfications for for many
Speaker 1: companies around the world. And I think basically what is
Speaker 1: happening here is we have a superpower battle to which
Speaker 1: which superpower nation becomes the lead for five G technologies
Speaker 1: because many reports suggestive fourteen trillion dollars of economic gains
Speaker 1: potential between now and twenties thirty five from five G
Speaker 1: and that I think is the heart of what's going
Speaker 1: on in this battle. A huge, huge issue right now
Speaker 1: between the United States and China and Europe Toime Europe,
Speaker 1: funny At somebody stuck somewhere in between, and Prime Minister
Speaker 1: Johnson maybe more in between than the others in between,
Speaker 1: you know, I mean his trip is canceled or somebody's
Speaker 1: trip is canceled. I haven't seen that. Yeah, I think
Speaker 1: we saw that over the weekend. He's not getting along
Speaker 1: with the President of the United States. Right now, we're
Speaker 1: going to touch on the politics story for a moment.
Speaker 1: Is of course reigned supreme. This morning we had two poles,
Speaker 1: Emerist Paul More of a national poll in the Nevada
Speaker 1: and South Carolina and then a month university pol which
Speaker 1: was very specifically on Virginia as well, a land America
Speaker 1: has been very good to join us from Brookings. She's
Speaker 1: a senior fellow. There was some important books on presidents. Elena,
Speaker 1: I believe we have a debate and our Kevin SURREALI
Speaker 1: would suggested debate will be contentious, raucous, particularly if Mr
Speaker 1: Bloomberg uh shows up and is part of that debate
Speaker 1: as well. How does a grizzled pro like you look
Speaker 1: at one of these debates? What do you look for
Speaker 1: that we miss? Well? I think what you look for
Speaker 1: is who is going to have the greatest effect on
Speaker 1: the upcoming contest. So it's not necessarily who quote wins
Speaker 1: the evening, but what the momentum is coming out of
Speaker 1: the debate into the contest, because we are now in
Speaker 1: the real thing. So for instance, in the New Hampshire
Speaker 1: debate a couple of weeks ago, we saw a stellar
Speaker 1: performance by Senator Amy Globachar and that translated immediately into
Speaker 1: support from uncommitted, previously uncommitted voters in New Hampshire. And
Speaker 1: your study of these elections, are there too many candidates
Speaker 1: for the debate tomorrow? Like like you should somebody fall
Speaker 1: on the sword here before the debate to clear it
Speaker 1: up for the either the liberals or the moderates. Well,
Speaker 1: actually the field is cut down considerably for this debate.
Speaker 1: It's a much smaller field than we have had, and
Speaker 1: it's a very interesting field because we have two strong
Speaker 1: left of center candidates, especially senator standards, And of course
Speaker 1: the introduction of Michael Bloomberg into this mix is going
Speaker 1: to really shake things up, and we will see if
Speaker 1: he has actual voter appeal when he's on his own
Speaker 1: as opposed to in a package, um, you know, setting
Speaker 1: like a TV commercial. So when you mentioned Mike, so
Speaker 1: let's talk about him. The found a majority onder of Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: I'll pay the parent company of Bloomberg News. As we've
Speaker 1: seen in the previous debates, if you make a search
Speaker 1: in the polls, you'll become the focus of attention. Happen
Speaker 1: to Mattie put a judge just a couple of weeks back,
Speaker 1: and most people assume it what happened to Mr Bloomberg
Speaker 1: this coming Wednesday? And then how willing will they be
Speaker 1: to make that pivot to shopping that shopping that sword,
Speaker 1: so to speak, and aim at Mr Bloomberg himself. Well,
Speaker 1: that's going to be very interesting because I think that
Speaker 1: We have a little bit of precedent that in that
Speaker 1: in Tom stire Um, people are reluctant to be too
Speaker 1: mean to these front running billionaires because in fact stire
Speaker 1: and Bloomberg have been very generous with their money all
Speaker 1: the way across the board to the Democrats. So a
Speaker 1: Democratic uh candidate up there, on the one hand, would
Speaker 1: like to take down Michael Bloomberg a couple of notches.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, doesn't want to make them too mad,
Speaker 1: because we, the we and the Democrats, everybody needs his
Speaker 1: money going into the fall. There's also a question about
Speaker 1: how much people are going to be looking for some
Speaker 1: sort of message which is being given by the pot
Speaker 1: pulists versus the electability argument that the Canada could actually
Speaker 1: beat President Trump in an election. How much do you
Speaker 1: think where where do you think the Democratic Party is
Speaker 1: tipping at this point in terms of the importance of
Speaker 1: both of those things, a sort of driving message versus
Speaker 1: just beating Trump. Well, I think it's still mostly on
Speaker 1: the beating Trump page. However, Bernie Sanders has a very
Speaker 1: very coherent message. It's been a constant message and he
Speaker 1: has a very devoted core in the Democratic Party. What
Speaker 1: we're going to see probably not um in Nevada or
Speaker 1: South Carolina, at least for the first time on Super Tuesday.
Speaker 1: Is whether or not he can expand his base. Some
Speaker 1: people say it is both the ceiling um and the floor. Well,
Speaker 1: where are you on that? I mean, that was my question.
Speaker 1: You just answer my question. But but where are you
Speaker 1: on that? Is there any evidence that the senator from
Speaker 1: Vermont can quote unquot would expand his base? Um? There's
Speaker 1: a little bit of evidence absolutely, um, Um, but not
Speaker 1: much in New Hampshire. He um seems to have done
Speaker 1: not really as well as he did four years ago.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, Um, he is moving slightly among
Speaker 1: African American voters, which is something he hasn't done in
Speaker 1: the past. So there's a little bit of evidence that
Speaker 1: he's getting some traction beyond his traditional base. Ellen, thank
Speaker 1: you so much. Ellenne kimberk with Brookings this morning in
Speaker 1: Harvard joining us here and particularly where they're important books
Speaker 1: on presidential history as well. I'm Mark Paul swinging slide
Speaker 1: into our esteem guest. Michael Holland has been so entrenched
Speaker 1: in our equity cadence are equity discourse for decades that
Speaker 1: we forget his accomplishments not only with Oppenheimer Company years
Speaker 1: ago in a small shop called black Stone, but his
Speaker 1: worked for his Harvard uh College and also the Winston
Speaker 1: Churchill Foundation of the United States. This is not Michael
Speaker 1: Holland's first rodeo, is it, Tom, No, it's not his
Speaker 1: first great bullmarket. Michael Holland, Chairman of Holland and Company.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for joining us. Michael. So, you know,
Speaker 1: as we step back here and look at the market,
Speaker 1: the performance we had in twenty nineteen, the uh, you know,
Speaker 1: pretty solid start here to you know, to the extent
Speaker 1: that there are some concerns out there. One of them
Speaker 1: is the concentration of the performance. And you know, roughly
Speaker 1: a handful of names, some some tech names that we
Speaker 1: all know. The Amazons are, the Microsoft's are the Apples
Speaker 1: of the world. How concerned are you about that aspect
Speaker 1: of the market's overall performance. Well, concerned, Paul, is a word.
Speaker 1: I would just move back from that and say, mindful
Speaker 1: that when these things get crazed. And I was born
Speaker 1: into the business. Tom knows in something called the nifty
Speaker 1: fifty or a handful of stocks back in the seventies
Speaker 1: was doing what we're seeing today. But it's it's different
Speaker 1: in that the valuations of the big names, for the
Speaker 1: Microsoft's and the Apples, the valuations are not as egrageous
Speaker 1: as they were back then. Some friends have recently asked me,
Speaker 1: as they want to do, uh, when would you sell
Speaker 1: all of your stocks, which is a variation on some
Speaker 1: of the things Tom King has asked me over the years.
Speaker 1: And I would sell all my stocks if they became
Speaker 1: egrageously priced, as I observed pain Fleet in the nine
Speaker 1: seventies when I broke into the business, because the crash
Speaker 1: of those nifty fifty stocks was was breathtaking, and how
Speaker 1: much capital was was was destroyed, And so I think
Speaker 1: at this point it's it's something to be mindful of.
Speaker 1: I would actually say, you've actually actually asked a great question,
Speaker 1: because the coronavirus may actually cause it has the possibility
Speaker 1: of causing something like that to happen again if the
Speaker 1: world liquidity spigots go wide open sometime in the next
Speaker 1: six or twelve months. But but what's so interesting, Michael,
Speaker 1: is the backdrop are stunningly negative real yields and in
Speaker 1: some places in the world truenominal yields negative thirty year
Speaker 1: bond with the handle three cups of coffee. Ago is
Speaker 1: almost a negative yield that we saw in oh eight
Speaker 1: oh nine. What is that signal to you to see
Speaker 1: bond prices bid up and yields ever lower. Uh, it's
Speaker 1: it's something that we've never seen in our lifetimes in business.
Speaker 1: It makes all the economics of minds go go crazy
Speaker 1: when they talk about how do you how do you
Speaker 1: get real pricing in all of the world's markets when
Speaker 1: you have negative yields? There's a there's just a an
Speaker 1: inherent contradiction and and all of this so that risk
Speaker 1: free rates of return no longer have any meaning. So
Speaker 1: what But Tom, it's it's actually interesting because you and
Speaker 1: I hope are not talking about this a year from now.
Speaker 1: But it's possible that because of what you just described,
Speaker 1: as well as uh, the possibility that we have a
Speaker 1: Spiccot opening in terms of even further liquidity around the world,
Speaker 1: that we could get to crazy evaluations once again, which
Speaker 1: causes then we know what the other side of that is.
Speaker 1: But in the meantime, so the risk is in both directions,
Speaker 1: I think always, but I think now we have a
Speaker 1: little more risk in the other direction, which would be
Speaker 1: upward rather than onward. It's not a good time. Euro
Speaker 1: breaking down one oh seven nine, d X y stronger
Speaker 1: d X yes, dollar strength. Yeah, Michael, you know, it's interesting,
Speaker 1: were just following up on Tom's you know question about
Speaker 1: you know, the bond market. You're just looking at our
Speaker 1: commodity screen here on the Bloomberg terminal. You look at
Speaker 1: the energy down, double digit, metals down, mid single digits,
Speaker 1: aggs down, you know, read on the screen. So the
Speaker 1: commodity market is clearly saying, hey, maybe there's some slowing
Speaker 1: global growth. Maybe the coronavirus here is a big issue
Speaker 1: for global growth. The equity markets not so much. And again,
Speaker 1: is that just kind of go back to that argument
Speaker 1: of the Fed and central banks around the world keeping
Speaker 1: liquidity in the marketplace. Yes, and yes, and and and
Speaker 1: Paull to your to your point. Uh the inflation, That
Speaker 1: inflation has been a word that has been around Bloomberg
Speaker 1: a lot recently in the different formats and media. But uh,
Speaker 1: and and the inflation today is what Tom just talked about.
Speaker 1: With the bond markets. The prices there are stratospheric. Uh
Speaker 1: so knows bleed time in terms of prices and as
Speaker 1: he says, negative yields. So those financial assets, and then
Speaker 1: you have the stock market, you have the the facebooks
Speaker 1: and the test list and so on, so you have
Speaker 1: you have all of these things going on simultaneously with
Speaker 1: with the commodities marketing. There's no there's no inflation of
Speaker 1: that kind of thing to be worried about with gold, etcetera.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, you have inflation in the asset
Speaker 1: prices of financial assets, and right now I don't think
Speaker 1: it's as worrisome as your original question. Uh positive. But
Speaker 1: on the one hand, on the other hand, that's what
Speaker 1: I'm watching right now. We run out of time. Michael Holland,
Speaker 1: thank you as so much. I got about ten more
Speaker 1: questions and we'll continue with him another time. Mr Holland,
Speaker 1: Holland Company, thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast.
Speaker 1: Subscribe and listen to interviews on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or
Speaker 1: whichever podcast platform you prefer. I'm on Twitter at Tom
Speaker 1: Keene before the podcast. You can always catch us worldwide.
Speaker 1: I'm Bloomberg Radio.