Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Penl Podcast. I'm Paul swing you,
Speaker 1: along with my co host Lisa Brahma wits. Each day
Speaker 1: we bring you the most noteworthy and useful interviews for
Speaker 1: you and your money. Whether at the grocery store or
Speaker 1: the trading floor. Find a Bloomberg Penl podcast on Apple
Speaker 1: podcast or wherever you listen to podcasts, as well as
Speaker 1: at Bloomberg dot com. Well after the close today, the
Speaker 1: Walt Disney Company scheduled to release its first quarterly earning
Speaker 1: since it acquired most of the assets of the twenty
Speaker 1: one century Fox Company for over seventy billion dollars. To
Speaker 1: break down those numbers, we've welcome our good friend Porter
Speaker 1: bib Porters and managing partner at Media Tech Capital Partners.
Speaker 1: He joins us live here on our Bloomberg Interactive Broker
Speaker 1: studio Supporter. I think when these numbers come out, one
Speaker 1: of the things that people are really going to focus
Speaker 1: on is Bob Biker's plan for transforming this company into
Speaker 1: a streaming company. What's your take on their ability to
Speaker 1: do that. Well, they've got the ability, but Bob Bikers
Speaker 1: a little late to the game, so it's going to
Speaker 1: cost him a lot more than it might have if
Speaker 1: he jumped in two or three or four years ago
Speaker 1: when he started talking about streaming. But there's no question
Speaker 1: that Disney has the content and the management and the
Speaker 1: capabilities of of making Disney plus and not not to
Speaker 1: exclude ESPN and ESPN plus absolute winners. It's going to
Speaker 1: cost them a lot more than I've seen the numbers.
Speaker 1: People are talking about hundreds of millions. I think it's
Speaker 1: gonna be if you look at at what what Netflix
Speaker 1: is spending now last year, thirteen billion this year probably
Speaker 1: close to fifteen billion for new content. Disney doesn't have
Speaker 1: to do all of that, but they're gonna have to
Speaker 1: market the hell out of their services, and it's gonna
Speaker 1: be billions of dollars before they start to make profit.
Speaker 1: So that's the big cost is the marketing. It's a
Speaker 1: big cost now, But the marketing is the big marketing
Speaker 1: because they they've announced that they're going to open up
Speaker 1: their entire archive of Disney and Fox. Everything that Fought
Speaker 1: and Disney have ever produced in history is going Instead
Speaker 1: of holding it back for five to seven years for
Speaker 1: each next generation of viewers, they're opening it up now
Speaker 1: on day one and that's going to be a huge
Speaker 1: asset if if you're a parent and you have kids,
Speaker 1: you you cannot survive if you don't subscribe to Disney Plus.
Speaker 1: So the real the bear case for Disney over the
Speaker 1: last several years has just been this court cutting issue
Speaker 1: and the impact that it has on ESPN. Yet, we
Speaker 1: just saw Disney sold some of the regional sports networks
Speaker 1: to Sinclair for what I think the market thought was
Speaker 1: a very low price, half of the estimated value. So
Speaker 1: what is your view of sports? And you know, sports programming,
Speaker 1: sports rights and all that Sports is propping up cable
Speaker 1: right now because so much of live sports is still
Speaker 1: on cable and not streaming. But once those rights run
Speaker 1: out and the streamers start to spend money for sports rights, uh,
Speaker 1: Cable is going to be in a very vulnerable position,
Speaker 1: maybe not even survive more than four or five years. Okay,
Speaker 1: So if Cable doesn't survive four or five years, who
Speaker 1: gets destroyed and who gets to win the game? Here?
Speaker 1: The big question that that all the content producers are
Speaker 1: facing right now when they look at that the opportunities
Speaker 1: and streaming is how are they going to make the
Speaker 1: same kind of money they were getting from the cable
Speaker 1: companies who pay them billions of dollars in transmission fees
Speaker 1: for the content that they were giving to the cable distributors.
Speaker 1: They don't get that from anybody when they're streaming their
Speaker 1: own content. And the only two revenue streams they have
Speaker 1: are subscriptions and advertising. Disney has said initially no advertising
Speaker 1: on Disney plus the sports channels probably are going to
Speaker 1: have to have sponsorship and significant rights payments and advertising
Speaker 1: to make a profit, but they're they're going to be Uh,
Speaker 1: there's a serious shortfall in revenue generation from streaming versus
Speaker 1: cable in the near term. Well, I think you know,
Speaker 1: on the earnings called tonight for the for Disney, they
Speaker 1: can certainly take a well deserved victory lab for Avengers
Speaker 1: any game. I mean, I think over two billion dollars
Speaker 1: in global box office. There's a lot of folks out
Speaker 1: there saying it will be come the number one film,
Speaker 1: passing Avatar, which was at two point seven billion dollar
Speaker 1: global box office. What how does your view or what
Speaker 1: is your view of the Disney theatrical business over the
Speaker 1: next several years, Disney owned over sixty of the box
Speaker 1: office revenues from from eighteen when they add Fox on
Speaker 1: top of it, they've got nearly eight percent of the
Speaker 1: box office. They announced yesterday they they release dates theatrically
Speaker 1: of all of their blockbusters through seven and they are
Speaker 1: going to own the theatrical box office. Right. They pushed
Speaker 1: Avatar out a year was gonna be I guess in
Speaker 1: one right. Yeah, So for the Avatar fans at least
Speaker 1: I know you're diehard Avatar fan, you have to wait
Speaker 1: another year. Okay, thank you very much. And you probably
Speaker 1: know that you've seen Endgame about fifteen times, so you've
Speaker 1: added to the real unspoken potential for Disney. Though. Is
Speaker 1: China in streaming? Um? It's remarkable that Avengers Endgame generated
Speaker 1: three hundred and fifty million dollars at the box office
Speaker 1: in China, the biggest box office score that any American
Speaker 1: film has ever created in China. And there are legal
Speaker 1: and regulatory problems, but China is gonna I mean, Disney
Speaker 1: is going to solve those uh and partner with ten
Speaker 1: Center or uh e. She she the big streaming dominant
Speaker 1: factor in China, and that's a market that will generate
Speaker 1: billions of dollars of new revenue for Disney. What's Funny
Speaker 1: you mentioned China because Lisa and I all day and
Speaker 1: you know, all across the Bloomberg media obviously talking about
Speaker 1: the trade talks and the US and China, and one
Speaker 1: of the big parts of those trade talks. It's not
Speaker 1: just you know, soybeans and microchips, it's also movies and TV.
Speaker 1: That's right. So what do you expect to happen in
Speaker 1: these trade talks as it relates to some of those
Speaker 1: restrictions on Western As far as I've been able to discern, Uh,
Speaker 1: creative content is not even on the table in these
Speaker 1: trade talks. And to me this we're going to have
Speaker 1: an agreement because both the President g and President Trump
Speaker 1: need a success and need need a deal. But it's
Speaker 1: going to be a sham because they're they're staying way
Speaker 1: away from any of the technology transfer issues. They're staying
Speaker 1: way away from currency and currency manipulation. UM will buy
Speaker 1: some Chinese products, they will buy billions of dollars worth
Speaker 1: of soy and pork because they have a crisis in
Speaker 1: in pork in China right now with with swine disease.
Speaker 1: So uh, everybody wins, but nothing really changes. So just
Speaker 1: just to sort of pit Disney versus Netflix, because as
Speaker 1: he is going to give some guidance I'm sure from
Speaker 1: their streaming service. Looking at Netflix right now, shares up
Speaker 1: about thirty six percent so far year today. Eat, what
Speaker 1: will it take for Disney service to really be a
Speaker 1: Netflix killer? As you have said in the past, it's
Speaker 1: in my perspective, it's not a Disney is not a
Speaker 1: Netflix killer. What is a Netflix killer is the failure
Speaker 1: of individuals to bundle Netflix, Disney, maybe two or three
Speaker 1: other HBO maybe UH Comcasts, NBC universal streaming service that's
Speaker 1: going to launch this autumn. Uh. My sense is that
Speaker 1: people are gonna gonna put five or six of these
Speaker 1: streaming services together. That'll raise the cost to them the
Speaker 1: subscription cost of maybe seventy five dollars. It's still almost
Speaker 1: half of what you're paying cable. But if Netflix is
Speaker 1: not a part of that, they're they're gonna lose. And
Speaker 1: the big problem Netflix is facing right now is when
Speaker 1: can that company actually make a profit. That is a
Speaker 1: key question, especially given how much debt they currently have.
Speaker 1: Por Bib thank you so much for being with us
Speaker 1: here in our Bloomberg Actor Brokers Studios. Portabib Managing partner
Speaker 1: for Media Tech Capital Partners talking about all things Disney. Well,
Speaker 1: it's not just equity markets that have put in stellar
Speaker 1: performance this year. The credit markets have also performed exceptionally well.
Speaker 1: And also the FED appears to I guess, remain content
Speaker 1: to remain on the sidelines. So to get a sense
Speaker 1: of what that all means for the fixing can market,
Speaker 1: we talked to Randy Brown. Randy as a chief investment
Speaker 1: officer for sun Life Financial. Randy, thanks so much for
Speaker 1: joining us. Just want to get your sense where you
Speaker 1: might see value in the corporate bond market today. Um, yeah,
Speaker 1: so good morning. Um we see value in the corporate
Speaker 1: bond market today really in the private corporate market, its
Speaker 1: public markets, and um really I put that on a
Speaker 1: couple of different reasons. One is, at this point in
Speaker 1: the cycle, which we think we're sort of late stages
Speaker 1: of the cycle. Everyone loves to ask what inning, we
Speaker 1: would say, seventh inning. We just don't know how many
Speaker 1: innings in the game anymore, so late late stages in
Speaker 1: the cycle. Certainly the runway has been extended. But um,
Speaker 1: we're seeing a lot of a lot of corporations that
Speaker 1: we believe are a bit over levered in the market
Speaker 1: in the public market. So we've moved a bit to
Speaker 1: the private markets where we're able to pick up spread,
Speaker 1: pick up um covenant protection, pick up collateral behind us
Speaker 1: UM as opposed to an unsecured credit, and so we've
Speaker 1: we've found value there. Okay, So this is actually really
Speaker 1: interesting because, uh, perhaps you give up a little bit
Speaker 1: of liquidity, but you get the extra spread and the
Speaker 1: extra protection on the covenants. And I'm just wondering how
Speaker 1: much access you're starting to see baked into private debt kets.
Speaker 1: I'm thinking, for example, Black Rocks CEO Larry Fink said
Speaker 1: yesterday at the n EPC Investment Conference in Boston, UH
Speaker 1: that perhaps investors are now overallocating to alternatives, and he
Speaker 1: was including private debt in that. What's your take on it, um,
Speaker 1: So I do agree with Larry, but we're talking about
Speaker 1: two different parts in the market. So I believe what
Speaker 1: Larry is speaking to UH in private debt is typically
Speaker 1: in the US, most investors when they speak a private
Speaker 1: debt are talking about middle market loans, and so there
Speaker 1: has been a huge amount of capital raised in that sector. UM.
Speaker 1: So those look more like the syndicated loan market, just
Speaker 1: in private space where we've been focusing as a life
Speaker 1: insurance company with UM capital, UM capital constraints, etcetera. We
Speaker 1: look at the at the investment grade part of the
Speaker 1: private debt market and there that's really typically the purview
Speaker 1: of the life insurance companies. A little bit in the
Speaker 1: in pension funds, that is not a particularly overcrowded space.
Speaker 1: It's really the middle market space. I believe that Larry
Speaker 1: refers to so many give us a sense of kind
Speaker 1: of you know, what are the sectors that you are
Speaker 1: attracted to the private equity or the private bond market,
Speaker 1: other sectors or types of issuers that are most attracted
Speaker 1: to that market. UM, It's really a broad swath. I
Speaker 1: think what I'd say is is UM it's a very
Speaker 1: diverse market. Anything from some corporates, some of the smaller
Speaker 1: UM corporates that don't feel that they want to take
Speaker 1: the UM operational overhead to go to the public market UM,
Speaker 1: but they think that they can access capital, which they
Speaker 1: can from from private sources with much less reporting burden.
Speaker 1: So you see it there. You've seen some sort of
Speaker 1: innovative structures where people need as an issuer, we need
Speaker 1: flexibility so flexibility in terms of terms, in terms of
Speaker 1: um of tenor um those sorts of things. So the
Speaker 1: private market gives the issuer a lot more flexibility as
Speaker 1: opposed to typically issuing five years, seven year, ten year,
Speaker 1: thirty year debt. Randy, I assume that you it's in life,
Speaker 1: You're not alone among insurers and going into this area. Correct,
Speaker 1: that's correct. Yeah, I've heard of this is sort of
Speaker 1: being an increasingly popular area over the past bunch of years,
Speaker 1: and I'm just wondering, what's the risk on the liquidity
Speaker 1: side if there was some sort of need to either
Speaker 1: read you your portfolio or for whatever reasons, sell these bonds,
Speaker 1: how much of an audience would there be for them? Um? Well,
Speaker 1: I I'd separate a good question, and it's one certainly
Speaker 1: I get internally and externally quite a bit. So I
Speaker 1: would say, first of all, we um we run a
Speaker 1: lot of liquidity stress tests, so we're not going into
Speaker 1: this sector with the idea that in a in a
Speaker 1: crisis we're going to need to sell it, because it
Speaker 1: really is pretty much a buy and whole type of product.
Speaker 1: That being said, in two thousand and eight, we as
Speaker 1: a company were able to sell quite a bit um,
Speaker 1: particularly in the one part of the market. Um, you know,
Speaker 1: the beauty of of of the life insurance model versus
Speaker 1: let's say the bank model is it's very hard to
Speaker 1: have a run quote run on the bank on a
Speaker 1: life insurance company. So we are we in pension funds
Speaker 1: really can take a very long perspective on our investments
Speaker 1: because we don't have those, um, those heightened liquidity and
Speaker 1: leverage constraints the banks have. So really just real quick here,
Speaker 1: how much have you increased your allocation to the private
Speaker 1: debt market. We've increased it about three percent of our
Speaker 1: assets over the last several years. It doesn't sound like
Speaker 1: a big move, but actually for for a life crow,
Speaker 1: that's actually a fairly big move from from zero percent allocation. No, no,
Speaker 1: we we've been in these markets for you know, over
Speaker 1: fifty years, so we're currently at about asset allocation in
Speaker 1: in just a private death space. Randy Brown, thank you
Speaker 1: so much for taking the time. Really interesting area and
Speaker 1: one that I hope we have you back to talk about.
Speaker 1: Randy Brown, Chief Investment Officer of sun Life and head
Speaker 1: of Investments for sun Life Investment Management. Well, I ran
Speaker 1: it is threatening to abandon limits on uranium enrichment unless
Speaker 1: Europe throws it an economic lifeline within sixty days, basically
Speaker 1: putting in peril potentially the Nuclear Accord joining US now
Speaker 1: to talk about this aerial coh and senior fellow at
Speaker 1: the Atlantic Council in Washington, D c Ariel. How scary
Speaker 1: is this? I mean, are we looking at what is
Speaker 1: ultimately a likely devolution of this nuclear treaty? Indeed, and
Speaker 1: I am wondering if this is walking into a mind
Speaker 1: filled without a map. Um, we have not just Iran
Speaker 1: being extremely aggressive. Uh. The more we push the Mulla regime, UH,
Speaker 1: the nasty they become. They funded uh the extremists in
Speaker 1: the Daza strip and organization called Palestine Islamic Jihad to
Speaker 1: shoot rockets in Israel. And then CAMAS, which also received
Speaker 1: support from Iran in the past and possibly is still
Speaker 1: receiving it. Uh. They chimed in shooting over six hundred
Speaker 1: rockets into Israel. Uh. They fund the fully owned subsidiary
Speaker 1: in Lebanon, Colchizbala, which our government, the US government said
Speaker 1: that it is um the prime the the a league
Speaker 1: of terrorists organizations around the world, and UH, unfortunately for US, UH,
Speaker 1: the Europeans, the Russians, and the Chinese are on the
Speaker 1: Iranians side and not on the U S side, And UH,
Speaker 1: walking into something like that without allies is really a
Speaker 1: questionable proposition. I would say so, Ariel, the Trump administration
Speaker 1: walked away from this nuclear agreement about a year ago,
Speaker 1: So from you know, given that perspective, how would you
Speaker 1: characterize the US position towards Iran? Now? Uh, the Trump administration,
Speaker 1: correctly in my opinion, disliked and President Trump disliked the
Speaker 1: deal negotiated by the Obama administration. It UH put at
Speaker 1: the clock kicking in terms of Iran being capable of
Speaker 1: developing nuclear weapons and still developing ballistic missiles UM as
Speaker 1: we speak. But at the same time, I think the
Speaker 1: Trump administration wanted to impose sanctions on Iran and bring
Speaker 1: that regime under pressure from its own people. Whether it's
Speaker 1: happening or not, I think is happening somewhat. But at
Speaker 1: the same time, we're targeting the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Core,
Speaker 1: and that is a nasty organization. Think about a combination
Speaker 1: of Buffon Assas and KGB. It has a military component
Speaker 1: and a security police component, and we declared these guy's terrorists.
Speaker 1: They declared us our troops in the Middle East terrorists.
Speaker 1: They said, we're going to they're going to target our
Speaker 1: troops in Iraq and elsewhere. Um Pompeo went to Iraq unannounced.
Speaker 1: So the things are escalating pretty fast. And again I
Speaker 1: am not sure whether this is the trump um strategy
Speaker 1: of making a lot of noise and scaring the opponent.
Speaker 1: We're trying to do it with the Chinese now with
Speaker 1: a threat of tariffs on Friday or uh this will
Speaker 1: go straight to a military clash and if it happens,
Speaker 1: the Iranians can mind can block the straight off for
Speaker 1: moose through which of exported oil in the world is flowing, right,
Speaker 1: and that will bring the oil prices way a bob
Speaker 1: hundred and twenty into range for a short time, but
Speaker 1: it will be a huge, huge spike in the oil price,
Speaker 1: and that may or may not. Going back to Ran
Speaker 1: and this idea where they're basically saying that Europe needs
Speaker 1: to send it to provide it through an economic lifeline
Speaker 1: within sixty days, This specific request actually is something that
Speaker 1: is written into the agreement, right, I mean, it's not
Speaker 1: that outrageous for you're on to be asking for this
Speaker 1: because the European region has promised to continue trading and
Speaker 1: engaging with with Iran if it did adhere to this agreement.
Speaker 1: So how does this how does this work out? Given
Speaker 1: Europe's relationship with the US not wanting to anchor them
Speaker 1: as well as frankly their promise under this pact. Indeed, UH,
Speaker 1: the chief of European the EU foreign Policy, we're not
Speaker 1: talking specific countries, We're talking Brussels. The EU, the chief
Speaker 1: of their foreign policy as a woman, culled Frederica Margarini.
Speaker 1: She was a former Italian foreign minister and she is
Speaker 1: not exactly a friend of the United States. UH. Nor
Speaker 1: by the way, in this position as Germany, Germany wants
Speaker 1: to continue to trade with Iran. There are a lot
Speaker 1: of interest for the German companies, and what the Europeans
Speaker 1: did was to set up this separate facility to trade
Speaker 1: with Iran. UH. The Iranians, in the meantime are reportedly
Speaker 1: setting up new oil prospecting licenses that will favor the Europeans.
Speaker 1: Those The Iranians are playing the oldest game in the book.
Speaker 1: They're trying to split the adversaries, split the EU from
Speaker 1: the United States, and the EU is planning right into
Speaker 1: the Iranian sands. Hary o' cohen, thank you so much. Ariels,
Speaker 1: a senior fellow the Atlantic Council, joining us on the
Speaker 1: phone from Washington, d C. As I mentioned earlier, IBM
Speaker 1: is in the market as we speak, with a twenty
Speaker 1: billion dollar corporate bond deal that marks, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: a very busy We've got Bristol Myers earlier this week,
Speaker 1: so shaping up to be a very busy week in
Speaker 1: the corporate bond new issue market. To dive a little
Speaker 1: bit deeper into what's going on in that market, we
Speaker 1: turned to Molly Smith. Molly's a corporate finance reporter for
Speaker 1: Bloomberg News. She joins us on the phone. Molly, thanks
Speaker 1: so much for joining us. So just give us the
Speaker 1: details here on this IBM deal. Thanks Ball. So, yeah,
Speaker 1: this was pretty well forecast. We all knew that UM
Speaker 1: IBM was going to be in the cards sometime this week,
Speaker 1: and they were really UM proactive in reaching out to
Speaker 1: make calls to investors yesterday while Bristol Myers was unfolding.
Speaker 1: UM it's been a very busy week and we've got
Speaker 1: an other busy one coming up next week with a
Speaker 1: lot of other forecast M n A deals, So a
Speaker 1: lot of supplot coming into the market right now, But
Speaker 1: these are all M and A transactions that investors have
Speaker 1: been waiting for and preparing their portfolios for to participate.
Speaker 1: One thing that's sort of interesting, Molly, is that you've
Speaker 1: seen a little bit of tumult in US equity markets,
Speaker 1: and you've seen spreads widen a little bit, and I
Speaker 1: want to emphasize little here, uh in the corporate debt markets.
Speaker 1: So it's interesting to see these huge deals coming and
Speaker 1: they're getting done. How well are they getting done? What's
Speaker 1: the pricing like, well, Bristol Paris yesterday? Um, extremely well.
Speaker 1: And again it really speaks to that these are not
Speaker 1: surprises these deals coming forward. When you're going to come
Speaker 1: forward with a top ten largest deal of all time
Speaker 1: in like the Neighborhood of twenty billion dollars, you're going
Speaker 1: to make sure that the demand is there on the
Speaker 1: investor base, so no one is being caught off guard.
Speaker 1: Investors have been preparing to participate in these deals. We
Speaker 1: saw IBM bon selling off yesterday, the people preparing to
Speaker 1: get more exposure or to that name today. Um and yeah.
Speaker 1: It is interesting when you see a little bit of
Speaker 1: that disconnects that equities have been plumping. Volatility is high,
Speaker 1: but when you have deals that people know are coming,
Speaker 1: and it's a bit of a you know, seasonality factor
Speaker 1: to that. We know that May is typically a heavier
Speaker 1: month heading into the summer months really starts to quiet down.
Speaker 1: So if you have these kinds of deals that you
Speaker 1: need to get done, this is the time to go forward.
Speaker 1: Although it is interesting, you know, yes, there have these
Speaker 1: have been well telegraphed deals. These do not come as
Speaker 1: a surprise. The demand has been there, but the question
Speaker 1: is still at what price And the fact that people
Speaker 1: are willing to price these deals a very attractive terms
Speaker 1: still for the issue or is despite some of the uncertainty,
Speaker 1: really sort of underscores the unbelievable demand for this debt
Speaker 1: that we have seen just persistently this year and frankly
Speaker 1: throughout the past decade. You know, it has been incredible.
Speaker 1: And even looking at the Bristol deal yesterday, I mean,
Speaker 1: the book ended up being what I mean more than
Speaker 1: it was three times oversubscribed in that neighborhood, so you
Speaker 1: could have even seen like the deal go bigger understandably
Speaker 1: and even just looking at how much of a bridge
Speaker 1: loan they had taken out that maybe they could have
Speaker 1: borrowed more, but UM speaking to a bit of the
Speaker 1: discipline that borrowers have had to and like staying within
Speaker 1: their lane and not trying to push the leverage too high,
Speaker 1: because obviously that's been a concerned in our market as well,
Speaker 1: especially with those single A names pursuing M and A
Speaker 1: and possibly going down to triple B, which it looks
Speaker 1: like so far Bristol Myers is dick clear of and
Speaker 1: IBM will probably as well. So'm only what are the
Speaker 1: use of proceeds by and large for some of these
Speaker 1: big monster deals? Are these to refinance existing debt? Are
Speaker 1: these for the fund M and A to fund capital spendaitures?
Speaker 1: What's kind of been the use of proceeds? This is
Speaker 1: a largely M and A so bristoally yesterday within the
Speaker 1: market to help fund to the takeover of Celgene there
Speaker 1: was a seventy four billion dollar transaction, the largest merger
Speaker 1: and pharmaceutical history. UM I believe some of the proceeds
Speaker 1: as well could be earbarnes for general corporate purposes and
Speaker 1: UM and also Bristol is pursuing them a five billion
Speaker 1: dollars share repurchase program them, so some of the proceeds
Speaker 1: may be used for that as well. IBM today this
Speaker 1: is us for their redhead trent Um takeover. That's the
Speaker 1: largest one that IBM has done in its history, and
Speaker 1: we've got next week coming up. T mobile Um likely
Speaker 1: will be moving forward Um with its bond sales help
Speaker 1: fund the Sprint acquisition, as well as on Fidelity National
Speaker 1: and World Pay. Molly Smith, thank you so much for
Speaker 1: being with us. Molly Smith is a corporate finance reporter
Speaker 1: for Bloomberg News, talking about the bon bonanza currently going
Speaker 1: on in the investment grade space and frankly we are
Speaker 1: seeing at the high old debts space as well, with
Speaker 1: the busiest day in about three months recently at people
Speaker 1: basically saying now is the time we've had these deals
Speaker 1: in the works, let's unrule them. Thanks for listening to
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg P and L podcast. You can subscribe and
Speaker 1: listen to interviews at Apple Podcasts or whatever podcast platform
Speaker 1: you prefer. Paul Sweeney, I'm on Twitter at pt Sweeney.
Speaker 1: I'm Lisa Bramwoy. It's I'm on Twitter at Lisa Bramwoy
Speaker 1: its one before the podcast. You can always catch us worldwide.
Speaker 1: I'm Bloomberg Radio thakak