WEBVTT - John Wick’s Blowout Opening Lifts Lions Gate

0:00:01.280 --> 0:00:05.640
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg business Week Inside from the reporters and

0:00:05.840 --> 0:00:09.400
<v Speaker 1>editors who bring you America's most trusted business magazine, plus

0:00:09.480 --> 0:00:13.640
<v Speaker 1>global business, finance and tech news. The Bloomberg Business Week

0:00:13.680 --> 0:00:22.880
<v Speaker 1>Podcast with Carol Masser and Tim Stenebec from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:27.040 --> 0:00:29.560
<v Speaker 1>All right, everybody, in other busy days, you know, media

0:00:29.600 --> 0:00:33.199
<v Speaker 1>frenzy around former President Donald Trump. We covered that a

0:00:33.240 --> 0:00:36.280
<v Speaker 1>lot earlier, and while it kind of felt like today

0:00:36.320 --> 0:00:38.040
<v Speaker 1>almost was like you were watching a bit of a

0:00:38.080 --> 0:00:40.519
<v Speaker 1>streaming series, we did want to share with you a

0:00:40.520 --> 0:00:43.519
<v Speaker 1>couple of stories Buyer Bloomberg Business Week team from the

0:00:43.560 --> 0:00:46.320
<v Speaker 1>actual world of media and entertainment that you can find

0:00:46.360 --> 0:00:48.680
<v Speaker 1>at Bloomberg dot com slash business Week. In fact, one

0:00:48.720 --> 0:00:50.160
<v Speaker 1>of the stories is going to be in the upcoming

0:00:50.159 --> 0:00:52.600
<v Speaker 1>new issue of Bloomberg Business Week out later this week.

0:00:53.159 --> 0:00:55.640
<v Speaker 1>One is on a streaming service at Linsgate is still

0:00:55.640 --> 0:00:58.840
<v Speaker 1>looking to unload. Another about the writer strike that Maddie

0:00:58.960 --> 0:01:01.840
<v Speaker 1>is fearful is booming and we'll disrupt her viewing habits.

0:01:02.000 --> 0:01:04.600
<v Speaker 1>So let's get to Bloomberg News reporter Thomas Buckley. He's

0:01:04.600 --> 0:01:07.200
<v Speaker 1>out there in Los Angeles joining us via zoom and

0:01:07.280 --> 0:01:09.959
<v Speaker 1>right here in our studio is the editor of Bloomberg

0:01:09.959 --> 0:01:12.000
<v Speaker 1>business Week, Joel Webber. So, Joe, let's can we start

0:01:12.040 --> 0:01:14.640
<v Speaker 1>with lions Gate? Why not? All right? So I seen

0:01:14.680 --> 0:01:19.360
<v Speaker 1>john Wick yet number four except that one. I'm ready

0:01:19.360 --> 0:01:22.840
<v Speaker 1>for it. It's not going to save the day. No, Well,

0:01:22.600 --> 0:01:24.920
<v Speaker 1>we hope, you know, we live in Hope, and and

0:01:25.160 --> 0:01:30.440
<v Speaker 1>this has become obviously a real hit and favorite in Hollywood.

0:01:31.240 --> 0:01:32.880
<v Speaker 1>Was a bit of a sleeper and then it just

0:01:33.080 --> 0:01:37.920
<v Speaker 1>continued to rack up more and more eyeballs. Um, what's

0:01:37.959 --> 0:01:41.480
<v Speaker 1>at stake here for lions Gate? Though? Because um, maybe

0:01:41.480 --> 0:01:44.600
<v Speaker 1>you've seen the recent Business Week cover Dungeons and Dragon

0:01:45.360 --> 0:01:49.760
<v Speaker 1>cover story which overtook at the box office this weekend.

0:01:50.560 --> 0:01:54.920
<v Speaker 1>John Wick? So what's at store for for Lionsgate? Who

0:01:55.240 --> 0:01:59.360
<v Speaker 1>really has has bet the house on john Wick? Well,

0:01:59.440 --> 0:02:00.760
<v Speaker 1>let me tell you, well, I mean at first i'd

0:02:00.760 --> 0:02:03.280
<v Speaker 1>be REMISAPPI didn't say that You're going to be absolutely

0:02:03.360 --> 0:02:05.200
<v Speaker 1>loving john Wick four when you go see it. If

0:02:05.240 --> 0:02:09.960
<v Speaker 1>you enjoyed one, two, and three up, can't wait? Yeah, exactly.

0:02:10.520 --> 0:02:12.320
<v Speaker 1>There are actually no plans for a sequel. When john

0:02:12.360 --> 0:02:14.960
<v Speaker 1>Wick one came out, says tremendous feed To have gotten

0:02:15.000 --> 0:02:21.280
<v Speaker 1>this far with the franchise is exactly right, and and

0:02:21.360 --> 0:02:23.720
<v Speaker 1>John Wick has really moved into one of them, Lionsgate's

0:02:23.840 --> 0:02:26.480
<v Speaker 1>largest franchises of late they will so you know, own

0:02:26.880 --> 0:02:29.680
<v Speaker 1>the rights to the likes of Twilight and Hunger Games.

0:02:29.720 --> 0:02:33.000
<v Speaker 1>And what's interesting, it's structupposing the strength of that film

0:02:33.080 --> 0:02:36.519
<v Speaker 1>studio against some of the weakness in its streaming service operations.

0:02:36.800 --> 0:02:39.760
<v Speaker 1>And that's precisely why the company is seeking to demerge

0:02:39.800 --> 0:02:42.920
<v Speaker 1>Wishes and Effects, say unwind, a merger that they created

0:02:42.960 --> 0:02:45.480
<v Speaker 1>in twenty sixteen from the acquisition of Stars for the

0:02:45.560 --> 0:02:48.560
<v Speaker 1>four point four billion dollars. The acquisition has not delivered

0:02:48.560 --> 0:02:50.800
<v Speaker 1>for them. The combined market cab of the company now

0:02:51.000 --> 0:02:55.600
<v Speaker 1>is around half that and so they're exactly and their

0:02:55.680 --> 0:02:59.800
<v Speaker 1>feeling is once they unwind the two distinct businesses, investors

0:03:00.120 --> 0:03:02.400
<v Speaker 1>see more value in each rather than the sum of

0:03:02.400 --> 0:03:04.680
<v Speaker 1>the parts. Why didn't streaming, I mean, come on, help

0:03:04.720 --> 0:03:07.079
<v Speaker 1>me out here, Thomas. I mean, streaming supposed to be

0:03:07.120 --> 0:03:08.880
<v Speaker 1>all the rage, and I know we're kind of getting

0:03:08.919 --> 0:03:11.399
<v Speaker 1>some filtering of that, I feel like over the last

0:03:11.440 --> 0:03:13.720
<v Speaker 1>year or so, because we do have so many different services,

0:03:13.720 --> 0:03:16.280
<v Speaker 1>But why did it not work out? I mean, Stars

0:03:16.360 --> 0:03:18.240
<v Speaker 1>was the home of an Outlander. Didn't we know that

0:03:18.480 --> 0:03:23.440
<v Speaker 1>was kind of a huge as well, and some other things. Yeah,

0:03:23.440 --> 0:03:26.919
<v Speaker 1>but why didn't work out? So yeah, right to a

0:03:27.000 --> 0:03:29.399
<v Speaker 1>nice sense, streaming was all the rage stillers all the rage.

0:03:29.440 --> 0:03:32.200
<v Speaker 1>The issue is that investors really have shifted their focus

0:03:32.200 --> 0:03:35.360
<v Speaker 1>from what used to be entirely subscribe the growth to

0:03:35.640 --> 0:03:38.080
<v Speaker 1>now profitability with the rights of interest rates and seeing

0:03:38.080 --> 0:03:40.200
<v Speaker 1>how a lot of these tech companies adapt to this

0:03:40.280 --> 0:03:43.840
<v Speaker 1>new normal in streaming. There is an enormous cash burn

0:03:43.920 --> 0:03:46.280
<v Speaker 1>associated with the business. I mean, you saw, for example,

0:03:46.600 --> 0:03:50.640
<v Speaker 1>the departure last year of the Disney chief executive officer

0:03:50.760 --> 0:03:53.920
<v Speaker 1>Bob Chapec as a result of a one point five

0:03:53.920 --> 0:03:57.280
<v Speaker 1>billion dollar loss in a single course run streaming. So

0:03:57.320 --> 0:03:59.480
<v Speaker 1>I think that now the attention has turned to that

0:03:59.560 --> 0:04:02.080
<v Speaker 1>side of the This is a little more investors a

0:04:02.200 --> 0:04:05.600
<v Speaker 1>much more favoring, you know, solid studio operations that can

0:04:05.640 --> 0:04:08.160
<v Speaker 1>be arms dealers, rather than prioritize shows for their own

0:04:08.480 --> 0:04:12.840
<v Speaker 1>streaming operations. Well, it seems like Lionsgate didn't exactly help

0:04:12.960 --> 0:04:15.720
<v Speaker 1>the Stars case here, based on some comments that you

0:04:15.800 --> 0:04:19.520
<v Speaker 1>got from a source who basically said that a John

0:04:19.560 --> 0:04:23.400
<v Speaker 1>Wicks spinoff was pulled from the Stars lineup after Amazon

0:04:23.440 --> 0:04:26.559
<v Speaker 1>and Comcast Peacocks streaming service offered lions Gate one hundred

0:04:26.560 --> 0:04:32.400
<v Speaker 1>million dollars for the show. That seems tough. It seems

0:04:32.440 --> 0:04:34.960
<v Speaker 1>tough for Stars. And this is what's quite interesting. I mean,

0:04:35.000 --> 0:04:37.800
<v Speaker 1>it's tough for Stars, but great for Lionsgate because I

0:04:37.839 --> 0:04:40.440
<v Speaker 1>think that there when you have a real you know,

0:04:40.520 --> 0:04:43.160
<v Speaker 1>equity story for the studio going forward, as they can

0:04:43.240 --> 0:04:46.600
<v Speaker 1>farm out you know, very high value, high price properties

0:04:46.640 --> 0:04:49.400
<v Speaker 1>like this to the highest bidder, that highest bidder is

0:04:49.520 --> 0:04:51.719
<v Speaker 1>unlikely to be starts for any of its shows going

0:04:51.760 --> 0:04:54.919
<v Speaker 1>forward because it starts, you know, relative to likes of

0:04:54.960 --> 0:04:58.799
<v Speaker 1>Netflix is you know, under a fifth the size of Netflix,

0:04:59.360 --> 0:05:02.960
<v Speaker 1>and you know, fellow competitors, so I think that, you know,

0:05:03.160 --> 0:05:05.320
<v Speaker 1>going forward, it is going to be tough of the

0:05:05.400 --> 0:05:07.039
<v Speaker 1>Stars to compete. And I think that, you know, the

0:05:07.040 --> 0:05:08.920
<v Speaker 1>people who run Stars have said that of their own

0:05:08.960 --> 0:05:12.360
<v Speaker 1>volition as well. But it puts signs get in a

0:05:12.400 --> 0:05:15.320
<v Speaker 1>great studio wherein they can you know, sell as I mentioned,

0:05:15.320 --> 0:05:17.360
<v Speaker 1>to the highest bidder and and do very well from

0:05:17.360 --> 0:05:21.680
<v Speaker 1>their existing franchises. Okay, so there's some other stuff happening

0:05:21.680 --> 0:05:25.799
<v Speaker 1>in Hollywood, like a potential writer strike, and it's we've

0:05:25.839 --> 0:05:29.119
<v Speaker 1>seen that before, but it's been a little while. So

0:05:29.480 --> 0:05:33.320
<v Speaker 1>what what the timeline look like here and what are

0:05:33.320 --> 0:05:36.159
<v Speaker 1>the you know, the issues, because I think streaming comes

0:05:36.240 --> 0:05:39.919
<v Speaker 1>up yet again in that whole conversation, right, yeah, absolutely, So.

0:05:39.960 --> 0:05:41.960
<v Speaker 1>The last time we saw a significant right strike, as

0:05:41.960 --> 0:05:44.520
<v Speaker 1>you mentioned, was probably in two thousand and seven, when

0:05:44.560 --> 0:05:47.240
<v Speaker 1>the strike lasted about one hundred days, give or take,

0:05:47.560 --> 0:05:49.839
<v Speaker 1>and it costs the LA economy, you know, anywhere between

0:05:49.880 --> 0:05:53.960
<v Speaker 1>two and three billion dollars. That's because all Hollywood productions

0:05:54.160 --> 0:05:57.479
<v Speaker 1>shut down during a writer strike. I mean scripts have

0:05:57.600 --> 0:06:01.520
<v Speaker 1>to be finast and reworked to your production. Obviously, that

0:06:01.560 --> 0:06:05.679
<v Speaker 1>can't happen if all your writers are picketing the lines.

0:06:06.240 --> 0:06:09.320
<v Speaker 1>At the moment, what's at stake is really in part

0:06:09.360 --> 0:06:12.680
<v Speaker 1>of residuals from streaming. A number of writers feels like

0:06:12.960 --> 0:06:15.680
<v Speaker 1>their conditions are necessarily as good as they were ten

0:06:15.800 --> 0:06:18.640
<v Speaker 1>years ago, and the rise of streaming has really affected

0:06:18.640 --> 0:06:21.240
<v Speaker 1>them in that regard. And what's interesting is there is

0:06:21.279 --> 0:06:23.440
<v Speaker 1>some parallel give them the two thousand and seven writers strike.

0:06:23.600 --> 0:06:27.200
<v Speaker 1>The main point of contention there happened to be DVD residuals,

0:06:27.200 --> 0:06:28.960
<v Speaker 1>and we're seeing the same sort of thing now. And

0:06:29.040 --> 0:06:33.800
<v Speaker 1>now you said something it was like a technology interpretation.

0:06:33.800 --> 0:06:39.480
<v Speaker 1>Please do you not remember those? Yeah? What does that mean? No?

0:06:39.560 --> 0:06:42.080
<v Speaker 1>Go ahead, No, it's just it's so interesting the DVD

0:06:42.240 --> 0:06:44.599
<v Speaker 1>thing in comparison to what I was thinking about reading

0:06:44.640 --> 0:06:46.920
<v Speaker 1>your story as someone who's I shouldn't bring up laser

0:06:46.960 --> 0:06:49.279
<v Speaker 1>discs then either, huh. I guess I'll be like laughed

0:06:49.279 --> 0:06:52.440
<v Speaker 1>out of the studio VHS is I mean, all of it.

0:06:52.880 --> 0:06:55.159
<v Speaker 1>But it's so interesting because one of the things that

0:06:55.200 --> 0:06:58.800
<v Speaker 1>the writers are thinking about is the performance of their

0:06:58.839 --> 0:07:00.800
<v Speaker 1>shows and whether or not they should be getting a

0:07:00.839 --> 0:07:03.200
<v Speaker 1>premium if their show gets a lot of clicks or

0:07:03.240 --> 0:07:05.840
<v Speaker 1>makes it into the Netflix top ten. As someone who

0:07:05.920 --> 0:07:08.720
<v Speaker 1>works on our social team mainly, I would never want

0:07:08.720 --> 0:07:10.880
<v Speaker 1>to be judged on the clicks because that can also

0:07:10.920 --> 0:07:13.280
<v Speaker 1>be a bad thing if it doesn't go well. What

0:07:13.320 --> 0:07:16.640
<v Speaker 1>are your sources saying about that? Yeah? Absolutely, And this

0:07:16.720 --> 0:07:18.840
<v Speaker 1>is a fascinating thing, right, I mean I think that previously,

0:07:18.880 --> 0:07:20.880
<v Speaker 1>writers who are writing for TV, I mean, when the

0:07:21.000 --> 0:07:23.760
<v Speaker 1>shows are widely syndicated around the world, you know they

0:07:23.880 --> 0:07:29.280
<v Speaker 1>would benefit from that very consistent income and cold plan. Accordingly, now,

0:07:29.400 --> 0:07:31.560
<v Speaker 1>I think you know, if a writer is paid upfront

0:07:31.600 --> 0:07:33.440
<v Speaker 1>for a show and it happens to then break into

0:07:33.480 --> 0:07:36.520
<v Speaker 1>the top ten, and that's very limited upside for them

0:07:36.600 --> 0:07:39.640
<v Speaker 1>because the performance based bonus is that much smaller than

0:07:39.680 --> 0:07:44.080
<v Speaker 1>it is to say, by comparison a big film released

0:07:44.120 --> 0:07:46.400
<v Speaker 1>in theaters and how well that does at the box office.

0:07:46.760 --> 0:07:48.560
<v Speaker 1>I think a lot of them are thinking, we'll look,

0:07:48.600 --> 0:07:51.440
<v Speaker 1>we're seeing our shows breaking in the top ten, racking up,

0:07:51.480 --> 0:07:53.559
<v Speaker 1>you know, hundreds of millions of hours worth of viewing,

0:07:53.600 --> 0:07:56.520
<v Speaker 1>and we're not being compensated fairly for it. So what

0:07:56.600 --> 0:07:59.600
<v Speaker 1>are the goals that the Writer's Guild is seeking out for?

0:08:01.040 --> 0:08:03.960
<v Speaker 1>So basically they are working under a current contract that

0:08:04.040 --> 0:08:06.920
<v Speaker 1>expires on May first, and so they've sat down now

0:08:07.000 --> 0:08:10.280
<v Speaker 1>with the studios and promot to understand, you know, perhaps

0:08:10.320 --> 0:08:13.240
<v Speaker 1>that loggerheads not making much progress yet, but what they're

0:08:13.240 --> 0:08:17.440
<v Speaker 1>seeking is a number of assurances, certainly as regards to

0:08:17.480 --> 0:08:20.760
<v Speaker 1>residual compensation, so that they're better paid for that shows

0:08:20.800 --> 0:08:22.840
<v Speaker 1>going forward. You know, it does feel like, you know,

0:08:22.920 --> 0:08:25.400
<v Speaker 1>we constantly see this as things change, especially in terms

0:08:25.440 --> 0:08:28.880
<v Speaker 1>of how we consume content. Thomas is that, you know,

0:08:29.000 --> 0:08:30.560
<v Speaker 1>it's got to kind of catch up right with the

0:08:30.600 --> 0:08:32.760
<v Speaker 1>players in it so that they are just like compensated.

0:08:32.760 --> 0:08:35.600
<v Speaker 1>I'm curious what outside observers are saying that do they

0:08:35.640 --> 0:08:38.200
<v Speaker 1>have a good point that it makes sense because things

0:08:38.200 --> 0:08:42.600
<v Speaker 1>are changing exactly it is changing. I think that, you know,

0:08:42.679 --> 0:08:44.680
<v Speaker 1>it's it's interesting because as I think about this story,

0:08:44.720 --> 0:08:46.760
<v Speaker 1>it can sometimes feel a bit like inside Baseball. But

0:08:46.800 --> 0:08:49.160
<v Speaker 1>the truth is there are some real world, you know,

0:08:49.440 --> 0:08:51.520
<v Speaker 1>ramifications for us of you as I mean, certainly during

0:08:51.559 --> 0:08:54.360
<v Speaker 1>the last writer strike you had shows from The Simpsons,

0:08:54.360 --> 0:08:56.280
<v Speaker 1>the Desperate Housewives that all had to make do with

0:08:56.400 --> 0:08:59.319
<v Speaker 1>far shorter seasons because Hollywood just ground to a halt.

0:08:59.600 --> 0:09:01.480
<v Speaker 1>So but you know, even though it might feel like

0:09:01.480 --> 0:09:04.520
<v Speaker 1>inside Baseball at times, we will be affected as fans

0:09:04.520 --> 0:09:06.720
<v Speaker 1>of these shows if they don't find a resolution in

0:09:06.760 --> 0:09:10.920
<v Speaker 1>the coming weeks. What do you think the potential impact

0:09:11.040 --> 0:09:13.600
<v Speaker 1>of that is going to look like? In which specific

0:09:13.640 --> 0:09:17.360
<v Speaker 1>shows do that? Don't worry like watching things Maddie's terrified? Specifically?

0:09:17.400 --> 0:09:21.360
<v Speaker 1>Can we I'm sorry, let's just up and final Succession right,

0:09:21.480 --> 0:09:24.560
<v Speaker 1>because it's already done and that's the that's the only

0:09:24.600 --> 0:09:26.880
<v Speaker 1>thing that I live and die for. But what are

0:09:26.960 --> 0:09:29.080
<v Speaker 1>what are the other ones in production right now that

0:09:29.120 --> 0:09:30.800
<v Speaker 1>we need to worry about? And what's the timeline? Like

0:09:31.120 --> 0:09:32.840
<v Speaker 1>let me let me read that thine back to you

0:09:33.120 --> 0:09:36.040
<v Speaker 1>every US movie and TV show risk stopping as writer

0:09:36.240 --> 0:09:42.160
<v Speaker 1>strike clothes like, truly, this is an existential one, right, Thomas, Exactly,

0:09:42.240 --> 0:09:45.800
<v Speaker 1>It's it's pretty pervasive. Um. What I will say is

0:09:45.840 --> 0:09:48.640
<v Speaker 1>that you know, hopefully what happens in the situations and

0:09:48.679 --> 0:09:51.440
<v Speaker 1>they can't find a resolution and people do go on strike.

0:09:52.040 --> 0:09:55.439
<v Speaker 1>You know, the risk are very very high profile shows,

0:09:55.640 --> 0:09:58.560
<v Speaker 1>you know, being outright canceled. It's probably quite low. I

0:09:58.559 --> 0:10:01.079
<v Speaker 1>think that what we saw the last write to strike

0:10:01.240 --> 0:10:03.080
<v Speaker 1>is that you know, the shows that work canceled are

0:10:03.120 --> 0:10:06.040
<v Speaker 1>probably you know, shows that the studios weren't necessarily that

0:10:06.160 --> 0:10:09.600
<v Speaker 1>bent on renewing anyway. So there is a comfort there.

0:10:09.640 --> 0:10:12.320
<v Speaker 1>And also put any fan of reality TV out there,

0:10:12.360 --> 0:10:15.360
<v Speaker 1>you know that a genre doesn't necessarily to you know,

0:10:15.600 --> 0:10:18.480
<v Speaker 1>that much writing at all. If any I think, you know,

0:10:18.559 --> 0:10:21.760
<v Speaker 1>they their appetites will be satiated and the thank god, yeah,

0:10:21.800 --> 0:10:24.040
<v Speaker 1>I hope you like reruns though it could be a

0:10:24.040 --> 0:10:27.320
<v Speaker 1>little bit right like and remember last time, the part

0:10:27.320 --> 0:10:30.520
<v Speaker 1>of the joy was like, you know, people took a

0:10:30.600 --> 0:10:33.360
<v Speaker 1>little break, and I remember more than a few actors

0:10:33.400 --> 0:10:36.760
<v Speaker 1>who looked a little different when they came back. There

0:10:36.840 --> 0:10:39.319
<v Speaker 1>was the continuity folks were like, wait, wait, wait, wait

0:10:39.480 --> 0:10:41.880
<v Speaker 1>a minute, we got a problem here. Um, okay, So

0:10:42.000 --> 0:10:46.560
<v Speaker 1>timeline May first, exactly, So that's when the contract expires.

0:10:46.559 --> 0:10:49.320
<v Speaker 1>And so currently negotiations being had between the two parties.

0:10:49.320 --> 0:10:52.440
<v Speaker 1>And I hope in part resolution before May first. All right,

0:10:52.600 --> 0:10:55.120
<v Speaker 1>And and are you hearing anything moving on that front

0:10:56.360 --> 0:10:58.400
<v Speaker 1>at the moment, I'm not hearing a lot of resolution.

0:10:58.440 --> 0:11:01.920
<v Speaker 1>I'm hearing of our talks and that and that the

0:11:02.040 --> 0:11:05.160
<v Speaker 1>talks are a little bit more tense than usual. How

0:11:05.200 --> 0:11:08.640
<v Speaker 1>would you compare the intensity of the talks to previous

0:11:09.400 --> 0:11:14.240
<v Speaker 1>writer strikes. I would say that it's probably the most

0:11:14.240 --> 0:11:17.120
<v Speaker 1>tensible it's been since two thousand and seven. I know

0:11:17.280 --> 0:11:20.319
<v Speaker 1>certainly that a number of agencias and studios are really

0:11:20.360 --> 0:11:23.400
<v Speaker 1>preparing themselves for potential strikes. So that means, you know,

0:11:23.480 --> 0:11:26.520
<v Speaker 1>stockpiling scripts and the like to make sure that there

0:11:26.600 --> 0:11:30.160
<v Speaker 1>isn't that dramatic a close down if a strike were

0:11:30.200 --> 0:11:33.240
<v Speaker 1>to occur. I think that the view from the top

0:11:33.280 --> 0:11:36.840
<v Speaker 1>of these places is that, you know, if not fifty fifty,

0:11:37.040 --> 0:11:39.679
<v Speaker 1>then that probably is going to be a strike. It's

0:11:39.720 --> 0:11:42.120
<v Speaker 1>probably more fifty one forty nine in favor of a strike.

0:11:42.160 --> 0:11:44.040
<v Speaker 1>At the minutes Okay. So one of the things that

0:11:44.080 --> 0:11:48.080
<v Speaker 1>I'm just remembering is actually the last time this happened,

0:11:48.480 --> 0:11:52.079
<v Speaker 1>there was that surge in reality TV shows, which you

0:11:52.160 --> 0:11:55.679
<v Speaker 1>mentioned because you don't need a screenplay for reality TV.

0:11:55.960 --> 0:11:58.680
<v Speaker 1>So is there is there some speculation or talk that

0:11:59.320 --> 0:12:04.960
<v Speaker 1>between I don't know, like TikTok on TV or Reality

0:12:05.080 --> 0:12:08.720
<v Speaker 1>TV like new versions of reality TV? Are we going

0:12:08.760 --> 0:12:11.840
<v Speaker 1>to see any of that? Like what happens? Like, you know,

0:12:11.920 --> 0:12:16.680
<v Speaker 1>how quickly do they do they dust off that playbook? Yeah?

0:12:16.720 --> 0:12:18.959
<v Speaker 1>They can absolutely default to that. Um. I don't know

0:12:19.000 --> 0:12:21.240
<v Speaker 1>about you guys. Are certainly myself during the pandemic, I

0:12:21.280 --> 0:12:24.000
<v Speaker 1>watch way too much. Reality TV got into the Kardashians

0:12:24.040 --> 0:12:27.120
<v Speaker 1>in a big way. Also below Deck, I don't know

0:12:27.120 --> 0:12:30.840
<v Speaker 1>really you've seen that show, but it's fair exactly. So

0:12:31.000 --> 0:12:34.000
<v Speaker 1>these are shows that are, you know, relatively inexpensive to

0:12:34.120 --> 0:12:38.720
<v Speaker 1>shoot versus you know, a scripted show certainly less expensive

0:12:38.760 --> 0:12:41.200
<v Speaker 1>to script. So I think that that's something that could

0:12:41.240 --> 0:12:43.080
<v Speaker 1>definitely take off in a big way all over again

0:12:43.120 --> 0:12:45.360
<v Speaker 1>if we were to see us right, that's right, So

0:12:45.440 --> 0:12:48.920
<v Speaker 1>this could fuel some extra creativity on the reality TV

0:12:49.080 --> 0:12:54.000
<v Speaker 1>show the word development process. That's exciting. Blow Deck just

0:12:54.080 --> 0:12:56.360
<v Speaker 1>hitting ten years by the way, that is a must watch,

0:12:56.760 --> 0:13:00.440
<v Speaker 1>all the variations. Hey, listen, we just have a nitor

0:13:00.480 --> 0:13:02.520
<v Speaker 1>a minute and a half left here while we have you,

0:13:02.640 --> 0:13:07.839
<v Speaker 1>and forgive me, I'm going to go a little bit.

0:13:09.200 --> 0:13:11.200
<v Speaker 1>It is a week where we get a lot on

0:13:11.240 --> 0:13:14.679
<v Speaker 1>the labor market. Are things are there still? What is

0:13:14.679 --> 0:13:16.920
<v Speaker 1>the labor market? You know on the West Coast when

0:13:16.960 --> 0:13:20.880
<v Speaker 1>it comes to filming and doing stuff within the content world?

0:13:22.360 --> 0:13:24.600
<v Speaker 1>I think you know you saw the huge wave of

0:13:24.679 --> 0:13:28.560
<v Speaker 1>layoffs originating in Silicon Valleys as the West Coast is concerned.

0:13:28.559 --> 0:13:31.040
<v Speaker 1>I mean, Hollywood is certainly catching up to that very quickly.

0:13:31.160 --> 0:13:34.120
<v Speaker 1>The story at the moment this most closely followed is

0:13:34.240 --> 0:13:36.640
<v Speaker 1>the number of layoffs that occurring at Disney right, and

0:13:36.760 --> 0:13:40.440
<v Speaker 1>they're cutting a workforce for about seven thousand people. That

0:13:40.440 --> 0:13:43.359
<v Speaker 1>doesn't include so much you know, front of health employees

0:13:43.400 --> 0:13:46.439
<v Speaker 1>at their parks, but certainly a number of back office

0:13:46.440 --> 0:13:50.280
<v Speaker 1>employees losing their jobs. Sad time for the company in

0:13:50.280 --> 0:13:53.360
<v Speaker 1>that regard, But everybody is seeking to streamline as fast

0:13:53.400 --> 0:13:56.439
<v Speaker 1>as possible to prepare for a new normal, new normal

0:13:56.600 --> 0:13:58.520
<v Speaker 1>new you heard it there. I don't even know what

0:13:58.559 --> 0:14:02.480
<v Speaker 1>that is. Reality TV, Bring it on, Bring it on.

0:14:02.760 --> 0:14:07.200
<v Speaker 1>Love is blind. Um, We're gonna leave it there. Thomas,

0:14:07.200 --> 0:14:11.040
<v Speaker 1>thank you so much, So appreciate two great stories. Thomas Buckley,

0:14:11.240 --> 0:14:14.079
<v Speaker 1>reporter at Bloomberg News via Zoom from Los Angeles, History

0:14:14.200 --> 0:14:16.560
<v Speaker 1>on Stars and lines Gate. You can catch that in

0:14:16.559 --> 0:14:18.839
<v Speaker 1>the new issue of Bloomberg Business Week. You'll be out

0:14:18.840 --> 0:14:21.480
<v Speaker 1>on newsstands on Thursday. It's already on the Bloomberg and

0:14:21.600 --> 0:14:23.480
<v Speaker 1>you can find it up Bloomberg dot com slash business Week.

0:14:23.520 --> 0:14:26.480
<v Speaker 1>Jill Webber, the editor Bloomberg Business Week, your favorite indulgence

0:14:26.640 --> 0:14:32.520
<v Speaker 1>when it comes to streaming. Oh man, uh, Bluie what yeah, exactly.

0:14:32.720 --> 0:14:38.720
<v Speaker 1>We don't have a kid, all right, Disney Plus, what

0:14:38.760 --> 0:14:42.720
<v Speaker 1>would you watch? Oh, it's it's Hanny Time. Very you know,

0:14:42.760 --> 0:14:46.080
<v Speaker 1>it's like less than ten minutes and so wholesome, like

0:14:46.200 --> 0:14:49.320
<v Speaker 1>you know, Bluie Blue. I'll give it a try tonight.

0:14:49.400 --> 0:14:52.080
<v Speaker 1>We'll be looking it up. Don't regret. I always look

0:14:52.080 --> 0:14:55.880
<v Speaker 1>at him differently then, you know these facets. Um, Joel,

0:14:55.880 --> 0:14:57.640
<v Speaker 1>thank you so much, really appreciate it. As we said,

0:14:57.640 --> 0:14:59.560
<v Speaker 1>the new shop Bloomberg Business Week coming out later on.

0:15:00.360 --> 0:15:03.880
<v Speaker 1>You're listening to the Bloomberg Business Week podcast. Catch us

0:15:03.960 --> 0:15:07.200
<v Speaker 1>live weekday afternoons from three to six Eastern Listen on

0:15:07.360 --> 0:15:11.360
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg dot com, the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business app,

0:15:11.680 --> 0:15:15.120
<v Speaker 1>or watch us live on YouTube. We do want to

0:15:15.160 --> 0:15:17.640
<v Speaker 1>also bring you one of the most read stories. I

0:15:17.720 --> 0:15:20.560
<v Speaker 1>think it is the most read on the Bloomberger has

0:15:20.600 --> 0:15:22.320
<v Speaker 1>been for most of the day. It's about what we

0:15:22.440 --> 0:15:24.840
<v Speaker 1>often say is the most listened to voice on Wall Street,

0:15:24.920 --> 0:15:27.920
<v Speaker 1>Jamie Diamond. He came out with his annual letter to shareholders.

0:15:27.920 --> 0:15:30.480
<v Speaker 1>So let's get into it with Sally Bakewell. She joins

0:15:30.560 --> 0:15:33.720
<v Speaker 1>Maddy and me. She is Bloomberg News America's finance team leader.

0:15:33.760 --> 0:15:36.760
<v Speaker 1>She's here in our Bloomberg Interactive Broker's studio. Sally, we

0:15:36.880 --> 0:15:39.400
<v Speaker 1>know it when Jamie Diamond talks, when he goes to Washington,

0:15:39.480 --> 0:15:41.800
<v Speaker 1>when he writes something, we all go over it with

0:15:41.880 --> 0:15:44.840
<v Speaker 1>a fine tooth comb. Right, yes, correct, we do. So

0:15:45.320 --> 0:15:48.160
<v Speaker 1>what did we get from him today? I think one

0:15:48.200 --> 0:15:52.440
<v Speaker 1>of the big takeaways here is his perspective on regulation

0:15:52.600 --> 0:15:56.120
<v Speaker 1>and how it caused potentially a lot of what happened

0:15:56.160 --> 0:15:59.000
<v Speaker 1>with Silicon Valley Bank. So, by the way, let's note

0:15:59.080 --> 0:16:02.960
<v Speaker 1>he has long ray old against post financial crisis regulation.

0:16:03.120 --> 0:16:06.320
<v Speaker 1>He's called it complex, he's said it harms the country.

0:16:07.120 --> 0:16:09.760
<v Speaker 1>He's been pretty vociferous about it. Is he now a

0:16:09.840 --> 0:16:14.120
<v Speaker 1>fanboy of it? No, he's so that would be fantastical,

0:16:14.640 --> 0:16:18.640
<v Speaker 1>fantastically interesting. So here today in his annual letter that

0:16:18.880 --> 0:16:22.760
<v Speaker 1>is passed out, as you say, by bankers, traders, politicians alike,

0:16:23.280 --> 0:16:27.520
<v Speaker 1>he said that post crisis regulation that actually encouraged banks

0:16:27.640 --> 0:16:29.960
<v Speaker 1>to load up on a lot of these US Treasury

0:16:30.000 --> 0:16:34.040
<v Speaker 1>bonds that ultimately sort of became their downfall because they

0:16:34.240 --> 0:16:37.400
<v Speaker 1>saw their value eroded as interest rates rose, and they

0:16:37.480 --> 0:16:40.040
<v Speaker 1>weren't really prepared or hedged for that. And so we

0:16:40.160 --> 0:16:42.600
<v Speaker 1>have banks like Silicon Value Bank and Signature Bank that

0:16:42.640 --> 0:16:44.280
<v Speaker 1>were left with these sort of big holes in the

0:16:44.360 --> 0:16:46.760
<v Speaker 1>balance sheet and that ultimately led to their demise. And

0:16:46.880 --> 0:16:49.440
<v Speaker 1>he was also kind of like everyone it was at

0:16:49.520 --> 0:16:52.840
<v Speaker 1>fault here, right, Like, it's the banks themselves, it's regulation,

0:16:52.960 --> 0:16:56.960
<v Speaker 1>it's the authorities. What was his biggest concern? Would you

0:16:57.040 --> 0:17:01.160
<v Speaker 1>say on what authorities could do in term of overreaction?

0:17:01.320 --> 0:17:05.360
<v Speaker 1>Do we have any specifics from him about his biggest worry? There?

0:17:05.840 --> 0:17:09.520
<v Speaker 1>Great question. He very much cautioned against any kind of

0:17:09.720 --> 0:17:13.000
<v Speaker 1>knee jerk reaction in regulation, and I guess he also

0:17:13.080 --> 0:17:15.399
<v Speaker 1>doesn't want to see a repeat of the financial crisis,

0:17:15.480 --> 0:17:17.800
<v Speaker 1>where probably in his view, that's exactly what they did,

0:17:17.960 --> 0:17:21.480
<v Speaker 1>and they proposed all these, in his view again unnecessary

0:17:21.560 --> 0:17:23.840
<v Speaker 1>rules that have made things a bit difficult for the

0:17:23.880 --> 0:17:26.359
<v Speaker 1>banking industry, even though it has also protected them in

0:17:26.480 --> 0:17:30.240
<v Speaker 1>some regard. So he just said, any regulation that we

0:17:30.320 --> 0:17:32.520
<v Speaker 1>have now and there is likely to be some because

0:17:32.560 --> 0:17:35.920
<v Speaker 1>we know that Biden is looking at increasing scrutiny on

0:17:36.040 --> 0:17:38.840
<v Speaker 1>banks with one hundred billion to two hundred and fifty

0:17:38.840 --> 0:17:42.159
<v Speaker 1>billion assets, that we are likely to see heightened and

0:17:42.240 --> 0:17:44.159
<v Speaker 1>tough and regulation. He said, it should just be a

0:17:44.280 --> 0:17:47.280
<v Speaker 1>real the right mix of rules that take into consideration

0:17:47.720 --> 0:17:50.960
<v Speaker 1>things like the banks and should deposits, their accounting practices,

0:17:51.040 --> 0:17:53.560
<v Speaker 1>their deposit concentration. I think he just doesn't want to

0:17:53.600 --> 0:17:56.600
<v Speaker 1>sort of blunt whackamole like tools. It's kind of interesting

0:17:56.640 --> 0:17:58.840
<v Speaker 1>considering we know we went and met right with Trojury

0:17:58.880 --> 0:18:01.840
<v Speaker 1>Secretary Janet Yell, and you know he is a voice

0:18:01.920 --> 0:18:07.080
<v Speaker 1>that government officials certainly reach out to. I know there

0:18:07.200 --> 0:18:09.560
<v Speaker 1>was a lot of speculation. I mean, is he gunning

0:18:09.640 --> 0:18:13.639
<v Speaker 1>for a position in Washington, perhaps next Treasury secretary? I mean,

0:18:13.720 --> 0:18:18.119
<v Speaker 1>is that's something I don't know a great question, because

0:18:18.160 --> 0:18:20.480
<v Speaker 1>he asked it right, Yeah, and he did sort of

0:18:20.600 --> 0:18:23.760
<v Speaker 1>reprise his role of the from the past financial crisis.

0:18:23.840 --> 0:18:26.280
<v Speaker 1>By the way, he is the only CEO still in

0:18:26.400 --> 0:18:29.600
<v Speaker 1>command since they've just press remarkable. Yeah, and he has

0:18:29.720 --> 0:18:31.960
<v Speaker 1>you know, he has been positioning himself as a kind

0:18:32.000 --> 0:18:35.600
<v Speaker 1>of elder statesman like character on the banking and sort

0:18:35.640 --> 0:18:40.359
<v Speaker 1>of geopolitical and other spheres and stages. So who can

0:18:40.400 --> 0:18:42.520
<v Speaker 1>say what's on his mind, but he doesn't shy away

0:18:42.600 --> 0:18:45.800
<v Speaker 1>from being in these roles. And indeed he and Yellen

0:18:45.960 --> 0:18:49.000
<v Speaker 1>kind of conjured up this plan which Diamonds sort of

0:18:49.000 --> 0:18:51.760
<v Speaker 1>took the lead on to basically rescue one of their

0:18:51.800 --> 0:18:54.679
<v Speaker 1>smaller peers in First Republic when he sort of galvanized

0:18:54.720 --> 0:18:57.960
<v Speaker 1>eleven banks to all throw in thirty billion dollars of

0:18:58.080 --> 0:19:01.200
<v Speaker 1>rescue money to that bank. Well, our final two minutes

0:19:01.240 --> 0:19:03.920
<v Speaker 1>with you on this, there were some non banking things

0:19:03.960 --> 0:19:06.960
<v Speaker 1>that he talked about. He's talked about AI before, but

0:19:07.040 --> 0:19:09.239
<v Speaker 1>he brought it up again, right. He also brought up

0:19:09.680 --> 0:19:12.879
<v Speaker 1>the importance of free market capitalism. What were the things

0:19:13.000 --> 0:19:16.240
<v Speaker 1>outside of the banking turmoil that he brought up that

0:19:16.320 --> 0:19:19.000
<v Speaker 1>stood out to you as critical? Yeah, so I think

0:19:19.680 --> 0:19:23.800
<v Speaker 1>CHAT GBT AIM were two things that they said that

0:19:23.920 --> 0:19:26.440
<v Speaker 1>they Jamie Diamond said that they are you know, looking

0:19:26.480 --> 0:19:29.560
<v Speaker 1>at and using I had to say, because every CEO

0:19:29.720 --> 0:19:32.240
<v Speaker 1>is now saying but go ahead, No exactly that, but

0:19:33.119 --> 0:19:35.600
<v Speaker 1>you know, finding ways to use it to fight against fraud.

0:19:35.640 --> 0:19:39.600
<v Speaker 1>For example, energy security has been a topic that he

0:19:39.680 --> 0:19:42.520
<v Speaker 1>talks about a lot, and you know, improving investments into

0:19:42.560 --> 0:19:46.520
<v Speaker 1>renewable energy to sort of improve energy security was another one.

0:19:46.560 --> 0:19:49.639
<v Speaker 1>He also brought up succession and pointed to you know,

0:19:49.720 --> 0:19:52.639
<v Speaker 1>the number of successor candidates that are well known to

0:19:52.680 --> 0:19:54.880
<v Speaker 1>the board and well known to the community that could

0:19:55.040 --> 0:19:57.480
<v Speaker 1>replace him if he ever, one day and it's not

0:19:57.600 --> 0:20:01.160
<v Speaker 1>looking likely, decided to not be Jai JP Morgan see

0:20:01.160 --> 0:20:04.120
<v Speaker 1>you anymore? Is there a bottom line takeaway? Because you guys,

0:20:04.240 --> 0:20:06.080
<v Speaker 1>you know you and your team, you know, covering the

0:20:06.119 --> 0:20:09.399
<v Speaker 1>banks on Wall Street, covering the finance industry at an

0:20:09.440 --> 0:20:12.840
<v Speaker 1>interesting time another time, if you will, how do you

0:20:13.119 --> 0:20:17.800
<v Speaker 1>kind of put what Jamie Diamond said against the whole

0:20:17.880 --> 0:20:20.040
<v Speaker 1>industry and how you're thinking about it and thinking about

0:20:20.119 --> 0:20:23.240
<v Speaker 1>stories and so on and so forth. Definitely, regulation, the

0:20:23.400 --> 0:20:26.880
<v Speaker 1>unintended consequences they're in I think is the big takeaway

0:20:26.920 --> 0:20:30.000
<v Speaker 1>from Jiffy Diamond's letters. Stay all right, it's an interesting

0:20:30.040 --> 0:20:32.880
<v Speaker 1>Carol though. We were just talking about how usually when

0:20:32.880 --> 0:20:35.480
<v Speaker 1>a Jamie Diamond shareholder letter comes out, that's like the

0:20:35.560 --> 0:20:37.960
<v Speaker 1>big news for a large part of our shows. And

0:20:38.000 --> 0:20:40.000
<v Speaker 1>look at us today. Well, and it's interesting because it

0:20:40.080 --> 0:20:42.680
<v Speaker 1>really did stay atop the most read I'm just looking

0:20:42.720 --> 0:20:44.600
<v Speaker 1>now it's number two in the past eight hours, and

0:20:44.680 --> 0:20:46.920
<v Speaker 1>now we have how the markets ended. But it's it's

0:20:46.960 --> 0:20:48.959
<v Speaker 1>been a funny day right where our focus has been

0:20:49.000 --> 0:20:51.480
<v Speaker 1>so much on what's been going on in Lower Manhattan,

0:20:51.520 --> 0:20:54.119
<v Speaker 1>not because the financial sector are the exchange is down there,

0:20:54.240 --> 0:20:57.399
<v Speaker 1>but because of the former president. Thank you for breaking

0:20:57.440 --> 0:20:59.359
<v Speaker 1>it down, because we know it's something that our audience

0:20:59.440 --> 0:21:02.720
<v Speaker 1>really cares about. Sally Bakewell, she's Bloomberg News America's Finance

0:21:02.760 --> 0:21:06.119
<v Speaker 1>team leader. Joining us here in our Bloomberg Interactive Broker's studio.

0:21:06.920 --> 0:21:10.439
<v Speaker 1>You're listening to the Bloomberg Business Week podcast. Catch us

0:21:10.520 --> 0:21:14.520
<v Speaker 1>live weekday afternoons from three to six Eastern on Bloomberg Radio,

0:21:14.720 --> 0:21:17.960
<v Speaker 1>the Bloomberg Business App, and YouTube. You can also listen

0:21:18.119 --> 0:21:21.280
<v Speaker 1>live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station,

0:21:21.520 --> 0:21:25.840
<v Speaker 1>Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty. Something that we

0:21:25.920 --> 0:21:29.240
<v Speaker 1>want to get to and is certainly front and center

0:21:29.359 --> 0:21:31.800
<v Speaker 1>this week, and that is what's going on with the

0:21:31.960 --> 0:21:34.200
<v Speaker 1>US workforce because we get a lot of data points

0:21:34.240 --> 0:21:36.920
<v Speaker 1>this week. Yep, we got the job the Jolts Report today,

0:21:37.040 --> 0:21:39.520
<v Speaker 1>I should say, which, as our Bloomberg Economics team noted,

0:21:39.560 --> 0:21:43.040
<v Speaker 1>shows the labor market is unambiguously cooling. And then we've

0:21:43.080 --> 0:21:45.920
<v Speaker 1>got jobs numbers on Friday as well. Right, A lot,

0:21:46.040 --> 0:21:49.240
<v Speaker 1>a lot to unpack here with more thoughts, especially when

0:21:49.240 --> 0:21:51.639
<v Speaker 1>it comes to skills and jobs at the high end

0:21:51.880 --> 0:21:55.960
<v Speaker 1>of the labor market. We're going to speak with Amelia Tiagi.

0:21:56.720 --> 0:21:59.040
<v Speaker 1>She is the co founder and CEO of the executive

0:21:59.080 --> 0:22:02.080
<v Speaker 1>talent consultant Business Talent Group, which is owned by the

0:22:02.200 --> 0:22:06.320
<v Speaker 1>executive search and consulting firm Hydrick and Struggles. Amelia is

0:22:06.359 --> 0:22:09.480
<v Speaker 1>with us on Zoom from Rome. Amelia, thank you so

0:22:09.640 --> 0:22:12.440
<v Speaker 1>much for joining us. Just for anyone who may not

0:22:12.560 --> 0:22:14.720
<v Speaker 1>be familiar, can you back up and tell us a

0:22:14.720 --> 0:22:18.280
<v Speaker 1>little bit about your firm and your clients as well. Sure,

0:22:18.359 --> 0:22:20.399
<v Speaker 1>I'm happy too. It's good to be here, and I

0:22:20.480 --> 0:22:23.639
<v Speaker 1>should say I am visiting Rome. I'm actually based in America.

0:22:24.440 --> 0:22:27.680
<v Speaker 1>I'm the co founder and CEO of Business Talent group,

0:22:27.760 --> 0:22:32.359
<v Speaker 1>a Hydrick and Struggles company. We provide on demand talent,

0:22:33.080 --> 0:22:38.520
<v Speaker 1>interim executives, management consultants, and experts to companies. We have

0:22:38.600 --> 0:22:40.840
<v Speaker 1>a network of over twenty thousand and we're the leader

0:22:40.840 --> 0:22:43.160
<v Speaker 1>of the US. So what are you seeing in terms

0:22:43.200 --> 0:22:45.280
<v Speaker 1>of demand for your executives? I mean, give us an idea,

0:22:45.359 --> 0:22:47.480
<v Speaker 1>give us some color if you will, how it compares

0:22:47.520 --> 0:22:51.680
<v Speaker 1>to perhaps a year ago or before that, industries where

0:22:51.720 --> 0:22:56.520
<v Speaker 1>there's lots of demand or not geography in terms of variations. Sure,

0:22:57.080 --> 0:23:00.520
<v Speaker 1>so we do a study every year tracking the trends

0:23:00.560 --> 0:23:04.000
<v Speaker 1>that we're seeing across the market. We literally study thousands

0:23:04.080 --> 0:23:06.760
<v Speaker 1>of inquiries that we hear from all sectors of the economy.

0:23:07.240 --> 0:23:11.000
<v Speaker 1>We're seeing broad based growth and we're actually seeing that

0:23:11.200 --> 0:23:14.920
<v Speaker 1>as the economy gets choppier and there's more uncertainty out there,

0:23:15.280 --> 0:23:18.400
<v Speaker 1>that folks are really turning to on demand solutions because

0:23:18.440 --> 0:23:21.080
<v Speaker 1>they want that kind of flexibility. They still need to

0:23:21.119 --> 0:23:22.840
<v Speaker 1>get things done and they need it fast, but they

0:23:22.880 --> 0:23:27.280
<v Speaker 1>don't want to necessarily make long term commitments. The big story, though,

0:23:27.600 --> 0:23:32.159
<v Speaker 1>is the rise in demand for the interim cfo. We

0:23:32.359 --> 0:23:37.119
<v Speaker 1>saw demand for an interim CFOs double over the last year.

0:23:37.240 --> 0:23:41.480
<v Speaker 1>So what is that of that because because typically a CFO,

0:23:41.640 --> 0:23:43.280
<v Speaker 1>and if anything I've learned, you know, coming off the

0:23:43.359 --> 0:23:46.560
<v Speaker 1>financial crisis, the Great Financial Crisis, is that CFOs were

0:23:46.600 --> 0:23:49.400
<v Speaker 1>crucial to keeping companies running, making sure those balance sheets

0:23:49.440 --> 0:23:52.239
<v Speaker 1>are sound and solid and companies had money, same thing

0:23:52.400 --> 0:23:54.639
<v Speaker 1>during the pandemic. Right, we know that this is an

0:23:54.680 --> 0:23:57.760
<v Speaker 1>important position. So tell us about why this trend is happening.

0:23:58.800 --> 0:24:01.119
<v Speaker 1>You're exactly right. It's a critical position, and I think

0:24:01.160 --> 0:24:04.040
<v Speaker 1>it's getting harder. I think that's what's happening is that

0:24:04.200 --> 0:24:08.920
<v Speaker 1>the CFOs office is under more pressure, and as there's

0:24:09.040 --> 0:24:12.920
<v Speaker 1>more uncertainty in the economy, we're seeing turnover in the role.

0:24:13.240 --> 0:24:16.160
<v Speaker 1>There's some burnout among CFOs. There's a lot of companies

0:24:16.200 --> 0:24:19.560
<v Speaker 1>also that are experiencing changes in what the skills are

0:24:19.720 --> 0:24:23.000
<v Speaker 1>that they truly need in that role as there shifts

0:24:23.040 --> 0:24:26.960
<v Speaker 1>in the economy, so people pull in an interim CFO.

0:24:27.280 --> 0:24:30.639
<v Speaker 1>Often when the old CFO goes out, you need somebody

0:24:30.680 --> 0:24:33.639
<v Speaker 1>in really fast. You can't have any time with that

0:24:33.840 --> 0:24:37.200
<v Speaker 1>role vacant, especially in this kind of economy. That's so

0:24:37.680 --> 0:24:40.760
<v Speaker 1>interesting to me because I've always thought of the type

0:24:40.800 --> 0:24:43.440
<v Speaker 1>of person to pursue a CFO role as someone who

0:24:44.000 --> 0:24:47.359
<v Speaker 1>would not want to quit when things get tough and

0:24:47.440 --> 0:24:49.720
<v Speaker 1>when the economy gets a little bit tighter. So I

0:24:49.880 --> 0:24:52.320
<v Speaker 1>guess I just I would not have anticipated that being

0:24:52.400 --> 0:24:55.160
<v Speaker 1>the type of role where you see a lot of turnover,

0:24:55.359 --> 0:24:59.960
<v Speaker 1>just given some macroeconomic headwinds. Some of what we're seeing

0:25:00.280 --> 0:25:03.719
<v Speaker 1>is some skill realignment out there. You know. I think

0:25:03.760 --> 0:25:06.720
<v Speaker 1>the traditional skills of a CFO just sort of those

0:25:06.800 --> 0:25:11.280
<v Speaker 1>financial skills, oh, I think a ticket to play, and

0:25:11.440 --> 0:25:14.879
<v Speaker 1>the CFO is increasingly being asked to wear a number

0:25:14.960 --> 0:25:18.680
<v Speaker 1>of additional hats, especially in this kind of environment. In

0:25:18.800 --> 0:25:21.200
<v Speaker 1>some situations they're being asked to raise money and others

0:25:21.240 --> 0:25:23.720
<v Speaker 1>they're asked to manage cash in a whole different way.

0:25:24.119 --> 0:25:26.440
<v Speaker 1>They're asked to help with restructuring. They may even be

0:25:26.520 --> 0:25:29.679
<v Speaker 1>asked to assist with big IT projects. It's a lot

0:25:29.760 --> 0:25:33.320
<v Speaker 1>of hats, and with that skill alignment, I think you're

0:25:33.359 --> 0:25:38.240
<v Speaker 1>finding different changes going on in the role. We also

0:25:38.440 --> 0:25:41.960
<v Speaker 1>find the other trend that's happening behind the scenes. We

0:25:42.240 --> 0:25:45.600
<v Speaker 1>work with a network of over twenty thousand professionals who

0:25:45.720 --> 0:25:48.879
<v Speaker 1>want to be independent. They've chosen a different path. They

0:25:48.920 --> 0:25:51.320
<v Speaker 1>don't want to be in a traditional role for five

0:25:51.440 --> 0:25:54.679
<v Speaker 1>or ten or twenty years. They like going from project

0:25:54.720 --> 0:25:57.119
<v Speaker 1>to project. There's a lot of people who enjoy that

0:25:57.280 --> 0:25:59.520
<v Speaker 1>and who are seeking it out. And we're seeing a

0:25:59.640 --> 0:26:01.960
<v Speaker 1>growth on the talent side as well, and changes in

0:26:02.080 --> 0:26:04.720
<v Speaker 1>what senior level talent really want. Amelia, give us some

0:26:04.840 --> 0:26:08.040
<v Speaker 1>insight into the pay that these individuals typically get. And

0:26:08.119 --> 0:26:11.080
<v Speaker 1>I'm curious, especially if the CFOs in particular, as you're

0:26:11.119 --> 0:26:14.920
<v Speaker 1>talking about temporary or otherwise, you know, if they're in demand,

0:26:15.320 --> 0:26:18.119
<v Speaker 1>you know, how does that work? Is it per project?

0:26:18.400 --> 0:26:21.959
<v Speaker 1>Is it hourly? Are the individuals ultimately in the driver's

0:26:21.960 --> 0:26:25.359
<v Speaker 1>seat right now because CFO positions and finance professionals are

0:26:25.440 --> 0:26:29.280
<v Speaker 1>in demand. As you are saying, well, it's a great question,

0:26:29.520 --> 0:26:32.359
<v Speaker 1>and I do think they're in the driver's seat. They

0:26:32.400 --> 0:26:34.680
<v Speaker 1>get to pick and choose which projects they work on,

0:26:34.800 --> 0:26:37.040
<v Speaker 1>and so they work on what they think is most exciting,

0:26:37.119 --> 0:26:39.520
<v Speaker 1>and they get to pick the people that they want

0:26:39.560 --> 0:26:43.880
<v Speaker 1>to work on work with. Typically pay a structures pay

0:26:43.920 --> 0:26:48.639
<v Speaker 1>as you go and that offers companies total flexibility. So

0:26:48.880 --> 0:26:51.720
<v Speaker 1>maybe an engagement's going to last for a couple of months,

0:26:51.840 --> 0:26:54.359
<v Speaker 1>maybe it gets extended last six to eight months, but

0:26:54.480 --> 0:26:57.000
<v Speaker 1>you just pay as you go. We tend to see

0:26:57.040 --> 0:27:00.000
<v Speaker 1>a day rate is most common, but they're a variations

0:27:00.320 --> 0:27:05.240
<v Speaker 1>on that. Does it change the demographic too for the CFO,

0:27:05.480 --> 0:27:09.520
<v Speaker 1>I wonder if you're seeing more millennial gen zers getting

0:27:09.600 --> 0:27:13.920
<v Speaker 1>in on a top dog role like the CFO spot. Well,

0:27:14.000 --> 0:27:16.280
<v Speaker 1>that's certainly where the trend is going to go over time.

0:27:16.880 --> 0:27:20.199
<v Speaker 1>We see a lot of mid career professionals in this today,

0:27:21.200 --> 0:27:24.160
<v Speaker 1>but definitely where the younger folks are coming over time.

0:27:24.520 --> 0:27:27.080
<v Speaker 1>We also see where the trend is going, is that

0:27:27.200 --> 0:27:30.560
<v Speaker 1>a lot of the Gen Z and millennials want to

0:27:30.600 --> 0:27:33.960
<v Speaker 1>work independently. I think they're pushing me on even faster

0:27:34.160 --> 0:27:36.600
<v Speaker 1>than the gen xers did. Well, it's interesting you brought

0:27:36.680 --> 0:27:39.000
<v Speaker 1>up the idea of you know, these professionals want some

0:27:39.119 --> 0:27:41.639
<v Speaker 1>balance in their life as well. I want to just

0:27:41.760 --> 0:27:45.480
<v Speaker 1>full transparency. Your mom is Senator Elizabeth Warren, and she

0:27:45.720 --> 0:27:48.160
<v Speaker 1>is someone who you know, talks about things like pay

0:27:48.320 --> 0:27:51.000
<v Speaker 1>and equity in the system, often talking about executives in

0:27:51.040 --> 0:27:54.560
<v Speaker 1>the C suite. Are you finding that for younger finance

0:27:54.640 --> 0:27:57.920
<v Speaker 1>professionals that it isn't so much about pay, but it

0:27:58.119 --> 0:28:01.560
<v Speaker 1>is about that balance and that's what that they're prioritizing.

0:28:01.600 --> 0:28:04.560
<v Speaker 1>And just got about thirty seconds left. I think people

0:28:04.680 --> 0:28:08.200
<v Speaker 1>choose to be independent for a range of reasons. Professional

0:28:08.320 --> 0:28:10.760
<v Speaker 1>control is the number one reason we hear, although we

0:28:10.800 --> 0:28:14.160
<v Speaker 1>also hear that they're satisfied financially. All right, We're gonna

0:28:14.240 --> 0:28:16.240
<v Speaker 1>leave it on that note. Listen, we so appreciate getting

0:28:16.280 --> 0:28:20.600
<v Speaker 1>some time with you and hearing about your survey. Amelia

0:28:20.680 --> 0:28:23.680
<v Speaker 1>Tayugi she is, as we said, co founder and chief

0:28:23.720 --> 0:28:27.280
<v Speaker 1>executive officer Business Talent Group, joining us via zoom as

0:28:27.320 --> 0:28:30.000
<v Speaker 1>she said visiting Rome. She is based in the United States.

0:28:30.520 --> 0:28:34.000
<v Speaker 1>If you're listening to the Bloomberg Business Week podcast, catch

0:28:34.119 --> 0:28:37.440
<v Speaker 1>us live weekday afternoons from three to six Eastern Listen

0:28:37.520 --> 0:28:40.960
<v Speaker 1>on Bloomberg dot com, the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg

0:28:41.040 --> 0:28:45.000
<v Speaker 1>Business app, or watch us live on YouTube. We're gonna

0:28:45.040 --> 0:28:46.840
<v Speaker 1>get a read on how consumers are doing when it

0:28:46.920 --> 0:28:49.520
<v Speaker 1>comes to what they're being paid. On Friday, that's what

0:28:49.600 --> 0:28:52.760
<v Speaker 1>the latest read on average hourly earnings. It's all part

0:28:52.800 --> 0:28:55.480
<v Speaker 1>of the monthly jobs report. Luckily for us, we've got

0:28:56.040 --> 0:28:58.320
<v Speaker 1>a next guest who knows a lot about that as well,

0:28:58.440 --> 0:29:01.280
<v Speaker 1>joining us on that and on a campaign to create

0:29:01.320 --> 0:29:04.040
<v Speaker 1>a more inclusive and equitable workspace for members of the

0:29:04.120 --> 0:29:08.320
<v Speaker 1>black community. We welcome see Eaglestone Bracy. She's the President

0:29:08.360 --> 0:29:12.040
<v Speaker 1>of Unilever USA, CEO of Unilever Personal Care North America,

0:29:12.080 --> 0:29:15.000
<v Speaker 1>and she's with us on the phone from Englewood Cliffs,

0:29:15.080 --> 0:29:18.360
<v Speaker 1>New Jersey. See. Is so nice to have you here.

0:29:18.760 --> 0:29:21.400
<v Speaker 1>We want to get into your campaign. It's really fascinating.

0:29:21.400 --> 0:29:23.600
<v Speaker 1>We want to share it with our audience. First up, though,

0:29:23.960 --> 0:29:25.840
<v Speaker 1>we'd be your miss not to ask you, as a

0:29:25.920 --> 0:29:31.200
<v Speaker 1>head of Unilever Unilever USA, to ask you about today's

0:29:31.280 --> 0:29:35.280
<v Speaker 1>environment when it comes to consumer spending, inflationary pressures, you know,

0:29:35.440 --> 0:29:37.720
<v Speaker 1>finding workers. How how do you see it? How would

0:29:37.760 --> 0:29:42.840
<v Speaker 1>you describe it? Hi? First, thank you for having me

0:29:43.280 --> 0:29:45.320
<v Speaker 1>on your show. It's great to be here and I'm

0:29:45.360 --> 0:29:48.960
<v Speaker 1>excited to talk about our initiative. Yeah, I do. I

0:29:49.040 --> 0:29:52.840
<v Speaker 1>am the president of Unilever. Unilever is quite a big

0:29:52.920 --> 0:29:57.040
<v Speaker 1>global company. We're over sixty billion dollars in euro we

0:29:57.160 --> 0:29:59.880
<v Speaker 1>compete in over one hundred and fifty markets and you know,

0:30:00.120 --> 0:30:04.040
<v Speaker 1>times continue to be dynamic. We're always optimistic about our growth,

0:30:04.680 --> 0:30:07.360
<v Speaker 1>health and the potential for the future. But one thing

0:30:07.400 --> 0:30:12.000
<v Speaker 1>we've learned during COVID times you cannot things don't stay still,

0:30:12.320 --> 0:30:15.200
<v Speaker 1>always changing, and we're excited that we have the portfolio

0:30:15.600 --> 0:30:17.760
<v Speaker 1>that helps us win in all sorts of times, the

0:30:17.880 --> 0:30:20.440
<v Speaker 1>good times and the bad times. So when you say

0:30:20.920 --> 0:30:23.400
<v Speaker 1>to leave this business, no, it's a massive company and

0:30:23.720 --> 0:30:26.360
<v Speaker 1>I've in the past talked with the CEO of all

0:30:26.400 --> 0:30:29.800
<v Speaker 1>of it and you guys, you know is certainly one

0:30:29.840 --> 0:30:31.960
<v Speaker 1>of the benefits during the pandemic when people were buying

0:30:32.040 --> 0:30:33.880
<v Speaker 1>so much stuff. But let me ask you when you

0:30:33.920 --> 0:30:37.440
<v Speaker 1>say dynamic, do you feel like more optimistic about the

0:30:37.520 --> 0:30:41.560
<v Speaker 1>future in terms of the economic global economic outlook or

0:30:41.680 --> 0:30:45.360
<v Speaker 1>are a little bit more cautious Again, I think at

0:30:45.480 --> 0:30:49.520
<v Speaker 1>Unilever we have such a breath in our portfolio that

0:30:49.680 --> 0:30:52.560
<v Speaker 1>we have the right products and the right price points

0:30:52.760 --> 0:30:55.680
<v Speaker 1>to across the times. Make sure we have what people need,

0:30:56.360 --> 0:30:59.000
<v Speaker 1>and that's what we're really focused on, is making sure

0:30:59.040 --> 0:31:02.080
<v Speaker 1>we meet people's needs. So I continue to be confident

0:31:02.160 --> 0:31:05.440
<v Speaker 1>in our business and our growth prospects consistent with what

0:31:06.000 --> 0:31:09.160
<v Speaker 1>you know we have previously discussed and share well. See

0:31:09.200 --> 0:31:11.200
<v Speaker 1>one of the ways that you are working to meet

0:31:11.280 --> 0:31:14.200
<v Speaker 1>customer needs is through campaigns like this one you've just

0:31:14.360 --> 0:31:18.239
<v Speaker 1>launched hashtag black hair is professional. I want to get

0:31:18.320 --> 0:31:21.040
<v Speaker 1>into the details of the campaign itself, but for folks

0:31:21.120 --> 0:31:24.320
<v Speaker 1>who just may not be familiar with the depth and

0:31:24.520 --> 0:31:27.560
<v Speaker 1>breadth of this issue. Can you talk to me about

0:31:28.080 --> 0:31:33.120
<v Speaker 1>the research that you've done on Black women in natural hairstyles,

0:31:33.560 --> 0:31:37.280
<v Speaker 1>not just at the workplace, but in general facing discrimination

0:31:37.400 --> 0:31:43.080
<v Speaker 1>on that. Yeah. Absolutely, we're here also to talk about

0:31:43.120 --> 0:31:46.440
<v Speaker 1>the crowneck. But it's really interesting. One of the brands

0:31:46.480 --> 0:31:48.680
<v Speaker 1>that we have a Unilever is Dove, and what we

0:31:48.760 --> 0:31:52.000
<v Speaker 1>are committed to is beauty inclusivity. What does that mean?

0:31:52.680 --> 0:31:55.560
<v Speaker 1>That means we all have the right to feel confident

0:31:55.600 --> 0:31:58.600
<v Speaker 1>and be seen as beautiful. What happens we have narrow

0:31:58.760 --> 0:32:03.320
<v Speaker 1>Eurocentric beauty standards that make most of us not feel beautiful.

0:32:03.480 --> 0:32:06.280
<v Speaker 1>In fact, seventy three percent of women today say that

0:32:06.320 --> 0:32:09.800
<v Speaker 1>they don't feel beautiful, and we know that's particularly true

0:32:09.920 --> 0:32:14.240
<v Speaker 1>among Black women and underrepresented populations. And what we've seen

0:32:14.360 --> 0:32:18.400
<v Speaker 1>happen in the workplace and in schools is that people

0:32:18.440 --> 0:32:22.920
<v Speaker 1>are turned away because of the way black women and

0:32:23.000 --> 0:32:26.600
<v Speaker 1>black kids our hair grows out of our head, textured hairstyles, locks,

0:32:26.680 --> 0:32:31.320
<v Speaker 1>bantu knots, etc. It's characterized as untidy or unkept, and

0:32:31.480 --> 0:32:35.160
<v Speaker 1>so they're grooming policies that are established that say you

0:32:36.200 --> 0:32:38.960
<v Speaker 1>have to not have braids, or you can't have locks

0:32:39.040 --> 0:32:41.720
<v Speaker 1>to go to school, or you'll be expelled, or corporate

0:32:41.800 --> 0:32:45.560
<v Speaker 1>grooming policies important in this case, will give you those

0:32:45.640 --> 0:32:49.480
<v Speaker 1>policies to say those hairstyles are not acceptable. And we

0:32:49.800 --> 0:32:55.200
<v Speaker 1>call that race based hacrimination because to change your hair

0:32:55.400 --> 0:32:57.080
<v Speaker 1>from the way it naturally grows out of your head

0:32:57.440 --> 0:33:01.080
<v Speaker 1>and a style that is reflective of your culture means

0:33:01.120 --> 0:33:06.000
<v Speaker 1>that you're not valuing and respectful of diversity. And that's

0:33:06.040 --> 0:33:08.520
<v Speaker 1>why we call that race based hair discrimination. So because

0:33:08.600 --> 0:33:13.920
<v Speaker 1>of that, what Dove champion back in twenty nineteen was

0:33:14.080 --> 0:33:17.160
<v Speaker 1>something called the Crown Coalition and the Crown Act, and

0:33:17.360 --> 0:33:20.480
<v Speaker 1>Crown is an acronym that stands for creating a respectful

0:33:20.520 --> 0:33:23.800
<v Speaker 1>and open world for natural hair. And we started at

0:33:23.880 --> 0:33:27.960
<v Speaker 1>first in California July third, twenty nineteen, Governor k Newsom

0:33:28.040 --> 0:33:31.880
<v Speaker 1>signed it, and today we have over twenty states that

0:33:32.000 --> 0:33:35.400
<v Speaker 1>have passed the Crown Act or similar legislation and over

0:33:35.600 --> 0:33:40.480
<v Speaker 1>forty municipalities, you know, a fancy word for cities, and

0:33:40.680 --> 0:33:43.360
<v Speaker 1>so we've made incredible progress. And you asked about the

0:33:43.480 --> 0:33:48.840
<v Speaker 1>research what helped us see how prevalent this issue is

0:33:48.920 --> 0:33:51.960
<v Speaker 1>of race based hair discrimination. We learned at the time

0:33:52.000 --> 0:33:55.040
<v Speaker 1>in twenty nineteen, eighty percent of black women believe that

0:33:55.120 --> 0:33:57.040
<v Speaker 1>we have to change our hair to fit in in

0:33:57.080 --> 0:34:00.320
<v Speaker 1>the workplace. But what we have done recently is a

0:34:00.440 --> 0:34:03.920
<v Speaker 1>new study and what we show is we've made progress.

0:34:04.280 --> 0:34:07.880
<v Speaker 1>It's no longer eighty percent, it's fifty seven percent, but

0:34:08.040 --> 0:34:11.279
<v Speaker 1>that's still too high and the issue still persist. So

0:34:11.520 --> 0:34:16.560
<v Speaker 1>we are committed to championing this legislation. We're not going

0:34:16.600 --> 0:34:20.120
<v Speaker 1>to stop until all fifty states have passed. But what

0:34:20.200 --> 0:34:22.640
<v Speaker 1>we've done we're really excited about is this partnership with

0:34:22.840 --> 0:34:26.160
<v Speaker 1>Dove and LinkedIn with Dove as a co founder of

0:34:26.440 --> 0:34:30.080
<v Speaker 1>the Crown Coalition that champions the Crown Act. Essie, what's

0:34:30.120 --> 0:34:32.560
<v Speaker 1>the direct correlation between those states that have passed the

0:34:32.680 --> 0:34:35.960
<v Speaker 1>legislation and improvement in those statistics where it is easier

0:34:36.960 --> 0:34:40.480
<v Speaker 1>for individuals from the black community. I think the impact

0:34:40.560 --> 0:34:43.320
<v Speaker 1>the Crown Act has had is actually beyond the states

0:34:43.600 --> 0:34:47.400
<v Speaker 1>that have passed. We hear all the time how what

0:34:47.560 --> 0:34:49.520
<v Speaker 1>a difference it makes in the states that have passed.

0:34:49.560 --> 0:34:52.960
<v Speaker 1>But also what we have done is I'm going to

0:34:53.000 --> 0:34:57.279
<v Speaker 1>put in air quotes help normalize textured hair, and that's

0:34:57.320 --> 0:35:00.600
<v Speaker 1>what this program we're doing with LinkedIn is about black

0:35:00.640 --> 0:35:04.879
<v Speaker 1>hair is professional. That's the campaign is all about establishing.

0:35:05.520 --> 0:35:09.480
<v Speaker 1>What is establishing what we've been fighting against is that

0:35:09.920 --> 0:35:14.000
<v Speaker 1>black hair has not been considered professional. It's been unkept, untidy,

0:35:15.080 --> 0:35:18.719
<v Speaker 1>not for the workplace, and trying to drive awareness in that.

0:35:18.880 --> 0:35:21.120
<v Speaker 1>What we see in that fifty seven percent number that

0:35:21.200 --> 0:35:24.600
<v Speaker 1>I shared is that more and more it is becoming normalized.

0:35:24.640 --> 0:35:28.200
<v Speaker 1>You are seeing more people in the workplace, black women

0:35:28.239 --> 0:35:31.560
<v Speaker 1>in the workplace wearing textured hair styles, but still not

0:35:31.840 --> 0:35:35.680
<v Speaker 1>enough and what we see I'm sorry, go ahead, no,

0:35:35.960 --> 0:35:37.680
<v Speaker 1>I guess I want to get to because we've all

0:35:37.760 --> 0:35:39.920
<v Speaker 1>got a couple of minutes or so left here. Is

0:35:40.000 --> 0:35:44.520
<v Speaker 1>it educating people understanding you know, maybe you know their

0:35:44.600 --> 0:35:49.400
<v Speaker 1>unconscious biaseness, are not understanding you know, different people in

0:35:49.480 --> 0:35:51.840
<v Speaker 1>our society or different cultures of black culture, you know

0:35:51.960 --> 0:35:54.720
<v Speaker 1>in particular, is that what it comes down to his education?

0:35:54.840 --> 0:35:58.080
<v Speaker 1>Do you think it comes down to education? And it

0:35:58.200 --> 0:36:03.840
<v Speaker 1>comes down to allowing education around what is professional and

0:36:04.000 --> 0:36:07.920
<v Speaker 1>telling stories and seeing people more and more with textured

0:36:07.960 --> 0:36:12.200
<v Speaker 1>hairstyle so in professional settings. And because black women think

0:36:12.280 --> 0:36:14.840
<v Speaker 1>that we have to change our hair. In the past,

0:36:14.920 --> 0:36:17.959
<v Speaker 1>you saw less than that and like approximately two thirds

0:36:18.000 --> 0:36:20.280
<v Speaker 1>of Black women change their hair for a job interview

0:36:20.719 --> 0:36:22.719
<v Speaker 1>because we believe we have to. So that is a

0:36:22.760 --> 0:36:26.800
<v Speaker 1>part of the education not doing that and changing corporate

0:36:27.280 --> 0:36:30.560
<v Speaker 1>mindsets to allow that to happen. No, Black women with

0:36:30.719 --> 0:36:34.200
<v Speaker 1>textured hair two times as likely to experience microaggressions in

0:36:34.280 --> 0:36:37.720
<v Speaker 1>the workplace. You know, it's really acute. Among young women,

0:36:37.840 --> 0:36:40.840
<v Speaker 1>let's call it twenty five to thirty four more of

0:36:40.920 --> 0:36:45.640
<v Speaker 1>them experience these issues. Forty four Black women under thirty

0:36:45.680 --> 0:36:47.920
<v Speaker 1>four feel pressured to have a headshot with straight hair.

0:36:48.480 --> 0:36:51.040
<v Speaker 1>So it is about education, and it's about creating an

0:36:51.160 --> 0:36:54.839
<v Speaker 1>environment where black women feel confident to wear their textured hairstyles,

0:36:55.160 --> 0:36:59.279
<v Speaker 1>which in turn creates more education and association with the

0:36:59.440 --> 0:37:03.279
<v Speaker 1>image of what it takes to be professional, which of

0:37:03.360 --> 0:37:06.080
<v Speaker 1>course is here is professional, which is a part of

0:37:06.120 --> 0:37:09.520
<v Speaker 1>the LinkedIn campaign. Absolutely, and thank you for walking us

0:37:09.560 --> 0:37:11.319
<v Speaker 1>through that. Se I wonder if you can talk about

0:37:11.360 --> 0:37:13.920
<v Speaker 1>the federal efforts on the Crown Act, because if I'm

0:37:14.000 --> 0:37:18.840
<v Speaker 1>understanding correctly, the Crown Act has faced challenges in getting

0:37:18.880 --> 0:37:22.120
<v Speaker 1>through at the federal level. Can you talk about just

0:37:22.520 --> 0:37:25.640
<v Speaker 1>I imagine that's very frustrating, and we've just got about

0:37:25.920 --> 0:37:29.879
<v Speaker 1>forty seconds left. Yeah, and forty seconds. I would say, hey,

0:37:29.960 --> 0:37:33.040
<v Speaker 1>we have not been successful with federal legislation, and we're

0:37:33.080 --> 0:37:37.640
<v Speaker 1>committed to getting federal legislation and it's through a bipartisan movement.

0:37:38.280 --> 0:37:40.480
<v Speaker 1>But in the meantime, we continue to go state by

0:37:40.560 --> 0:37:43.920
<v Speaker 1>state to make sure we have coverage there. So it's

0:37:43.960 --> 0:37:48.040
<v Speaker 1>our intention and we continue to make progress despite not

0:37:49.160 --> 0:37:51.879
<v Speaker 1>achieving our ambition in twenty twenty two. Well, we wish

0:37:51.920 --> 0:37:56.800
<v Speaker 1>you well with those efforts and progress. See Eaglestone Bracy

0:37:57.000 --> 0:38:00.279
<v Speaker 1>joining us on the phone from Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

0:38:00.320 --> 0:38:03.960
<v Speaker 1>She's the president of Unilever USA and CEO of Unilever

0:38:04.280 --> 0:38:08.440
<v Speaker 1>Personal Care North America. You're listening to the Bloomberg Business

0:38:08.480 --> 0:38:12.040
<v Speaker 1>Week podcast. Catch us live weekday afternoons from three to

0:38:12.200 --> 0:38:16.400
<v Speaker 1>six Eastern on Bloomberg Radio, the Bloomberg Business App, and YouTube.

0:38:16.680 --> 0:38:19.520
<v Speaker 1>You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our

0:38:19.560 --> 0:38:23.640
<v Speaker 1>flagship New York station, jose Say Alexa playing Bloomberg eleven

0:38:23.760 --> 0:38:29.520
<v Speaker 1>thirty stock market pulfing a four day rally. We did

0:38:29.640 --> 0:38:32.440
<v Speaker 1>see banks coming under some pressure. I'm so glad that

0:38:32.520 --> 0:38:35.120
<v Speaker 1>we have our next guest because he's got a technical

0:38:35.160 --> 0:38:37.840
<v Speaker 1>take on the markets, always looks at things really smart

0:38:37.920 --> 0:38:40.480
<v Speaker 1>and deeply. Riddy Watts is back with US chief investment

0:38:40.520 --> 0:38:43.600
<v Speaker 1>strategists at O'Neil Global Advisors. Lucky for us, he's here

0:38:43.640 --> 0:38:46.359
<v Speaker 1>in our Bloomberg Interactive Broker's studio. It is so nice

0:38:46.360 --> 0:38:48.600
<v Speaker 1>to have you here in studio. How are you? I'm

0:38:48.680 --> 0:38:50.440
<v Speaker 1>great and it's nice to see you in person. Now

0:38:50.480 --> 0:38:53.880
<v Speaker 1>at the pandemic is wound down and see a familiar face. Well,

0:38:53.920 --> 0:38:56.000
<v Speaker 1>can I say it's normal on a day where we

0:38:56.120 --> 0:38:58.120
<v Speaker 1>were just saying before we got going that you know,

0:38:58.440 --> 0:39:00.480
<v Speaker 1>it feels like we watch a lot of reality TV.

0:39:00.600 --> 0:39:03.120
<v Speaker 1>But this isn't you know reality TV. This is the

0:39:03.200 --> 0:39:05.880
<v Speaker 1>real world and it's it's interesting. Things keep coming at

0:39:05.920 --> 0:39:10.680
<v Speaker 1>as politically, economically, monetary, policy wise. How do you make

0:39:10.760 --> 0:39:12.920
<v Speaker 1>sense of it? Someone who looks at things technically, how

0:39:12.960 --> 0:39:15.560
<v Speaker 1>do you think about all of these issues that continue

0:39:15.560 --> 0:39:19.560
<v Speaker 1>to come at us? I think, unfortunately, the extreme bipartisan

0:39:19.680 --> 0:39:22.160
<v Speaker 1>nature of the political system right now is going to continue,

0:39:22.600 --> 0:39:25.600
<v Speaker 1>at least for the foreseeable future. That something investors have

0:39:25.719 --> 0:39:29.240
<v Speaker 1>to deal with. Right now, we have a mixed government. Obviously,

0:39:29.680 --> 0:39:34.120
<v Speaker 1>historically the market actually does okay under that scenario, and

0:39:34.239 --> 0:39:36.879
<v Speaker 1>so I really try to stay focused on what's going

0:39:36.920 --> 0:39:39.040
<v Speaker 1>on with the economy, and what's going on with companies.

0:39:39.520 --> 0:39:45.680
<v Speaker 1>So not super concerned about the Trump situation, even though

0:39:45.880 --> 0:39:48.880
<v Speaker 1>markets like predictability, right and this is a little bit unpredictable.

0:39:49.120 --> 0:39:51.400
<v Speaker 1>I think the market's much more concerned about what's going

0:39:51.440 --> 0:39:53.640
<v Speaker 1>on with the economy, what's going on with the FED,

0:39:53.800 --> 0:39:56.960
<v Speaker 1>what's going on with the financial system, and you know,

0:39:57.440 --> 0:40:00.120
<v Speaker 1>don't want to digress too far into into politics, but

0:40:00.120 --> 0:40:02.040
<v Speaker 1>I don't think that's what's driving stocks right now, all right,

0:40:02.080 --> 0:40:04.000
<v Speaker 1>So tell us what you think is driving stocks at

0:40:04.040 --> 0:40:05.680
<v Speaker 1>a year where, like I said, we just went through

0:40:06.000 --> 0:40:07.960
<v Speaker 1>I don't know whether to call it a bank crisis,

0:40:08.000 --> 0:40:09.480
<v Speaker 1>but we did have the collapse of three banks here

0:40:09.480 --> 0:40:11.400
<v Speaker 1>in the United States. We're continuing to watch to see

0:40:11.480 --> 0:40:14.040
<v Speaker 1>if there's other shoes that drop, whether it's a commercial

0:40:14.120 --> 0:40:17.000
<v Speaker 1>real estate or what have you. What does this market

0:40:17.160 --> 0:40:19.880
<v Speaker 1>show you tell you about maybe what's to come. I

0:40:19.960 --> 0:40:22.480
<v Speaker 1>think the market's focused on three things right now. It's

0:40:22.520 --> 0:40:24.759
<v Speaker 1>focused on what the Fed's going to do. And we

0:40:24.800 --> 0:40:28.120
<v Speaker 1>should note that the odds of another rating crease in

0:40:28.520 --> 0:40:31.200
<v Speaker 1>May has actually fallen to forty percent, So now the

0:40:31.280 --> 0:40:33.839
<v Speaker 1>market is not expecting another rating crease. The market's right

0:40:33.880 --> 0:40:36.360
<v Speaker 1>on this. I think it's very tough to say. I

0:40:36.440 --> 0:40:38.120
<v Speaker 1>think it's I think it is kind of fifty fifty.

0:40:38.360 --> 0:40:40.200
<v Speaker 1>Not not to dodge the question, but I think it's

0:40:40.239 --> 0:40:41.759
<v Speaker 1>kind of up in the air. But I think it's

0:40:41.800 --> 0:40:44.840
<v Speaker 1>clear that we are probably getting near the end of

0:40:44.920 --> 0:40:47.719
<v Speaker 1>the FED tightening cycle. I do think that is because

0:40:47.719 --> 0:40:49.719
<v Speaker 1>of the volatility we're seeing in treasuries. Does it look

0:40:49.760 --> 0:40:51.560
<v Speaker 1>what's the indication that tells you that, or is it

0:40:51.640 --> 0:40:53.839
<v Speaker 1>because of what we're hearing from the FED. I think

0:40:53.920 --> 0:40:57.000
<v Speaker 1>it's a couple of things. I think inflation is starting

0:40:57.080 --> 0:41:00.360
<v Speaker 1>to slow down. Okay, I think the economy is starting

0:41:00.440 --> 0:41:02.719
<v Speaker 1>to slow down. I think the FED has done an

0:41:02.719 --> 0:41:04.960
<v Speaker 1>awful lot in a very short period of time, and

0:41:05.040 --> 0:41:06.360
<v Speaker 1>at some point I think they're going to want to

0:41:06.400 --> 0:41:08.960
<v Speaker 1>pause and see how that plays through the system. I

0:41:09.080 --> 0:41:12.080
<v Speaker 1>think importantly, what is going on with the banks and

0:41:12.160 --> 0:41:15.560
<v Speaker 1>the real world is very significant. There is a credit

0:41:15.719 --> 0:41:20.520
<v Speaker 1>contraction going on. Remember, small banks make about forty percent

0:41:20.560 --> 0:41:22.880
<v Speaker 1>of the loans in the US, though in some areas

0:41:23.000 --> 0:41:25.920
<v Speaker 1>like commercial real estate, they make closer to seventy and

0:41:26.080 --> 0:41:29.200
<v Speaker 1>so that contraction of small business loans is going to

0:41:29.239 --> 0:41:31.840
<v Speaker 1>have a big impact on the economy. That's just starting.

0:41:31.960 --> 0:41:33.480
<v Speaker 1>The Fed's aware of that. I think they're gonna want

0:41:33.480 --> 0:41:35.759
<v Speaker 1>to see how that plays out. But you're a technicals

0:41:35.800 --> 0:41:38.919
<v Speaker 1>guy as well, So when you hear these big news

0:41:39.000 --> 0:41:42.280
<v Speaker 1>events like the banking crisis, quote unquote, like the OPEC

0:41:42.320 --> 0:41:46.279
<v Speaker 1>production cuts, do you weigh those heavily on how you're

0:41:46.320 --> 0:41:51.360
<v Speaker 1>thinking about markets? I do, I would say technically. A

0:41:51.400 --> 0:41:54.120
<v Speaker 1>couple things to say. First is, I'd say the top

0:41:54.239 --> 0:41:56.120
<v Speaker 1>thing for the market, it's been a very narrow market.

0:41:56.440 --> 0:41:58.640
<v Speaker 1>So if you look at the qqqs, which represent the

0:41:58.760 --> 0:42:02.040
<v Speaker 1>nastic one hundred, right, they're up about twenty percent year

0:42:02.080 --> 0:42:05.480
<v Speaker 1>to date. The equal weighted SNP is only up about

0:42:05.560 --> 0:42:08.399
<v Speaker 1>two So it's been a very narrow market. The market

0:42:08.480 --> 0:42:10.240
<v Speaker 1>has not been as strong as we haven't seen value

0:42:10.280 --> 0:42:12.800
<v Speaker 1>either on its right correct, and the market does not

0:42:12.840 --> 0:42:15.520
<v Speaker 1>look as strong as it appears on the surface. That's

0:42:15.560 --> 0:42:18.120
<v Speaker 1>the first point. The second point is once you do

0:42:18.320 --> 0:42:21.040
<v Speaker 1>get though to the end of the FED tightening cycle,

0:42:21.239 --> 0:42:23.160
<v Speaker 1>and we can debate right now whether we've already seen

0:42:23.200 --> 0:42:25.879
<v Speaker 1>the peak in ten year yields, they've pulled back a lot.

0:42:26.239 --> 0:42:29.680
<v Speaker 1>They've gone from basically four twenty five to three thirty

0:42:29.719 --> 0:42:32.600
<v Speaker 1>five today at the close that's a huge drop once

0:42:33.080 --> 0:42:36.440
<v Speaker 1>ten year yields peak. That's good for growth stocks and

0:42:36.600 --> 0:42:39.200
<v Speaker 1>long duration assets. And one of the things we're seeing

0:42:39.360 --> 0:42:41.800
<v Speaker 1>happen in the market over the last six weeks or

0:42:41.840 --> 0:42:45.680
<v Speaker 1>so is a shift away from cyclicality and back into growth.

0:42:46.160 --> 0:42:47.720
<v Speaker 1>So I do think we could be in a situation

0:42:47.760 --> 0:42:50.160
<v Speaker 1>where at the end of the year, maybe the economy

0:42:50.239 --> 0:42:52.960
<v Speaker 1>is not quite as good as it is right now,

0:42:53.640 --> 0:42:57.320
<v Speaker 1>but the FED tightening cycle has ended, bond yields have

0:42:57.440 --> 0:43:00.239
<v Speaker 1>come down, and people are feeling better about stock. Yeah,

0:43:00.239 --> 0:43:02.560
<v Speaker 1>it's pretty remarkable. I mean we've been now a two

0:43:02.600 --> 0:43:05.480
<v Speaker 1>year easily back below four percent three point eight two

0:43:05.600 --> 0:43:09.080
<v Speaker 1>to be exact. M Randy Having said that, do you

0:43:09.200 --> 0:43:12.200
<v Speaker 1>think recession? Did you say recession? I didn't say recession.

0:43:12.280 --> 0:43:14.840
<v Speaker 1>I like how you how you set that up. I

0:43:14.960 --> 0:43:16.920
<v Speaker 1>do think we're looking at a slower economy. I do

0:43:17.040 --> 0:43:20.080
<v Speaker 1>think at some form of recession is likely. But let's

0:43:20.120 --> 0:43:24.719
<v Speaker 1>remember stocks normally bottom during the recession and start going up.

0:43:25.000 --> 0:43:26.480
<v Speaker 1>They take a lot of the pain in front of

0:43:26.520 --> 0:43:29.440
<v Speaker 1>the recession because they're a discounting mechanize that already We've

0:43:29.480 --> 0:43:31.000
<v Speaker 1>done an awful lot of damage in the market over

0:43:31.040 --> 0:43:33.279
<v Speaker 1>the last year, so I mean the SMP is down

0:43:33.360 --> 0:43:36.719
<v Speaker 1>what roughly nine ten percent over the last year here. Um.

0:43:37.160 --> 0:43:38.880
<v Speaker 1>I think the thing everyone's really focused on in that

0:43:38.960 --> 0:43:40.319
<v Speaker 1>sense is are we going to go back and retest

0:43:40.400 --> 0:43:43.000
<v Speaker 1>that October loow? The October loow was a thirty four

0:43:43.160 --> 0:43:45.359
<v Speaker 1>ninety one. We've done some touch and go there, We've

0:43:45.560 --> 0:43:47.759
<v Speaker 1>we've gone down to around thirty seven sixty four was

0:43:47.800 --> 0:43:50.200
<v Speaker 1>the December low. UM. I don't know if we have

0:43:50.280 --> 0:43:53.200
<v Speaker 1>to go all the way back and retest that October low.

0:43:53.600 --> 0:43:55.759
<v Speaker 1>Right now, the market's been in kind of a trading range,

0:43:56.160 --> 0:43:58.879
<v Speaker 1>and that trading range is being driven by what's going

0:43:58.960 --> 0:44:01.440
<v Speaker 1>on with the FED. And then the next thing to

0:44:01.520 --> 0:44:03.880
<v Speaker 1>occur is going to be earning season. And I do

0:44:04.000 --> 0:44:06.360
<v Speaker 1>have a feeling that this earning season, which starts on

0:44:06.440 --> 0:44:09.359
<v Speaker 1>April fourteenth with the big banks reporting, though I will

0:44:09.440 --> 0:44:12.279
<v Speaker 1>note the big banks should actually be okay because they're

0:44:12.320 --> 0:44:14.640
<v Speaker 1>going to have an awful lot of deposit inflows, so

0:44:14.760 --> 0:44:17.360
<v Speaker 1>I think those quarters may actually be kind of positive.

0:44:17.920 --> 0:44:20.520
<v Speaker 1>But I think as we moved through earning season and

0:44:20.600 --> 0:44:22.480
<v Speaker 1>we start to listen to some of the industrials and

0:44:22.560 --> 0:44:25.560
<v Speaker 1>some of the consumer stocks, I do think estimates are

0:44:25.600 --> 0:44:28.319
<v Speaker 1>going to come down they've already started to come down.

0:44:28.719 --> 0:44:33.480
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg itself in your intelligence Bureau is looking for minus

0:44:33.520 --> 0:44:37.760
<v Speaker 1>two percent earnings growth for Q one. Used to be positive,

0:44:37.800 --> 0:44:40.520
<v Speaker 1>now it's coming down. So I do think the one

0:44:40.560 --> 0:44:42.400
<v Speaker 1>other negative the market has to kind of adjust to

0:44:42.600 --> 0:44:44.839
<v Speaker 1>is that earnings have to get reset for the new

0:44:44.920 --> 0:44:46.680
<v Speaker 1>reality on the economy. I have to say that one

0:44:46.680 --> 0:44:49.240
<v Speaker 1>of the conversations I think is smart to have about

0:44:49.320 --> 0:44:52.960
<v Speaker 1>our error right now is just this reset post pandemic. Right,

0:44:53.040 --> 0:44:55.759
<v Speaker 1>we had a normal economy, we had a pandemic. We

0:44:55.840 --> 0:44:58.480
<v Speaker 1>had an incredible amount of stimulus that came into on

0:44:58.560 --> 0:45:01.719
<v Speaker 1>a global basis, right, and then we're trying to figure

0:45:01.719 --> 0:45:03.799
<v Speaker 1>out work from home, We're trying to figure out real

0:45:03.920 --> 0:45:05.560
<v Speaker 1>estate needs, We're trying to figure out a lot of

0:45:05.640 --> 0:45:08.200
<v Speaker 1>things that got impacted by the pandemic and kind of

0:45:08.239 --> 0:45:09.960
<v Speaker 1>what the reality is. And that's the same thing when

0:45:09.960 --> 0:45:13.840
<v Speaker 1>it comes to valuations or earnings expectations, and there's do

0:45:13.880 --> 0:45:15.000
<v Speaker 1>you know what I'm saying, Like it's just kind of

0:45:15.040 --> 0:45:17.480
<v Speaker 1>a big macrowth think or rethink about kind of what

0:45:17.719 --> 0:45:20.320
<v Speaker 1>is our world supposed to be post pandemic now? Is

0:45:20.360 --> 0:45:22.880
<v Speaker 1>it like what it used to be pre pandemic or

0:45:22.960 --> 0:45:24.959
<v Speaker 1>is it something different? So I think that's well said.

0:45:25.080 --> 0:45:27.480
<v Speaker 1>And are we going back to a slower growth rate

0:45:27.600 --> 0:45:30.440
<v Speaker 1>that we were kind of in pre pandemic? So, in

0:45:30.520 --> 0:45:32.960
<v Speaker 1>other words, as we come off that sugar high of

0:45:33.040 --> 0:45:35.400
<v Speaker 1>the trillions of dollars that got pumped into the economy

0:45:35.600 --> 0:45:38.320
<v Speaker 1>and that place through, as we move through that and

0:45:38.440 --> 0:45:40.719
<v Speaker 1>we go through this tightening cycle, does that mean like

0:45:40.800 --> 0:45:42.040
<v Speaker 1>coming out of it, we're actually going to have a

0:45:42.080 --> 0:45:46.320
<v Speaker 1>pretty slow growth environment again for company earnings, company revenues

0:45:46.360 --> 0:45:49.080
<v Speaker 1>GDP and two percent inflation? Is that target? That's something

0:45:49.160 --> 0:45:51.200
<v Speaker 1>that we talk about a lot, Maddie. Yeah, yeah, And

0:45:51.239 --> 0:45:52.480
<v Speaker 1>I'm not sure we're going to get all the way

0:45:52.480 --> 0:45:54.840
<v Speaker 1>back to two percent. I think we probably won't. I

0:45:54.960 --> 0:45:59.640
<v Speaker 1>do think that the reverse in globalization and on shoring, etc.

0:46:00.200 --> 0:46:02.760
<v Speaker 1>Is going to lead to kind of a higher inflation

0:46:02.880 --> 0:46:05.520
<v Speaker 1>rate going forward as we do more manufacturing et cetera. Here,

0:46:05.920 --> 0:46:07.560
<v Speaker 1>but I think it can be lower than where it was.

0:46:07.680 --> 0:46:10.279
<v Speaker 1>Remember PC was four point six in the last print.

0:46:10.440 --> 0:46:13.400
<v Speaker 1>I think that's coming down. I think rates are going

0:46:13.440 --> 0:46:16.000
<v Speaker 1>to stabilize. So while I think the near term is

0:46:16.000 --> 0:46:18.360
<v Speaker 1>going to be very very bumpy, especially as we go

0:46:18.440 --> 0:46:20.799
<v Speaker 1>through earning season, I think at the end of the year,

0:46:20.920 --> 0:46:22.520
<v Speaker 1>we could be looking at a much much better picture

0:46:22.560 --> 0:46:25.080
<v Speaker 1>for stocks. Yeah, I wonder if we just look at

0:46:25.120 --> 0:46:27.600
<v Speaker 1>today though, I mean I wondered to what extent it

0:46:28.080 --> 0:46:30.600
<v Speaker 1>was technically driven a little bit as the SMP drops

0:46:30.760 --> 0:46:33.960
<v Speaker 1>right below a range, But we also have really weak volume.

0:46:34.440 --> 0:46:36.759
<v Speaker 1>What does that indicate to you? I would say if

0:46:36.760 --> 0:46:39.320
<v Speaker 1>you look inside those numbers, industrial stocks had a pretty

0:46:39.320 --> 0:46:41.759
<v Speaker 1>tough day to day. So I think we're continuing to

0:46:41.840 --> 0:46:45.680
<v Speaker 1>see elements of cyclicality in the market get sold off

0:46:46.000 --> 0:46:48.400
<v Speaker 1>and people moving back towards growth. So I think I

0:46:48.480 --> 0:46:50.319
<v Speaker 1>think we aren't a trading range. I think they're waiting

0:46:50.360 --> 0:46:52.160
<v Speaker 1>to see what the FED does next and what happens

0:46:52.160 --> 0:46:54.080
<v Speaker 1>with this earning season. But I think there is a

0:46:54.200 --> 0:46:56.960
<v Speaker 1>rotation back towards more long duration assets and growth stock.

0:46:57.040 --> 0:46:58.719
<v Speaker 1>It was pretty remarkable, was it a couple of weeks ago,

0:46:58.760 --> 0:47:00.640
<v Speaker 1>like pulling in a name like microso after something like

0:47:00.719 --> 0:47:04.640
<v Speaker 1>these names have really rallied. So add it all up. Strategy,

0:47:05.000 --> 0:47:07.359
<v Speaker 1>What do we do in this environment? I think right

0:47:07.440 --> 0:47:09.000
<v Speaker 1>now you still have to be you still have to

0:47:09.080 --> 0:47:11.920
<v Speaker 1>be cautious. I do want to get through this earning season.

0:47:12.600 --> 0:47:14.680
<v Speaker 1>I do want to see what the FED does next.

0:47:15.080 --> 0:47:17.000
<v Speaker 1>I do think, however, though, that this is the time

0:47:17.040 --> 0:47:20.120
<v Speaker 1>to start to slowly accumulate growth stocks. I think the

0:47:20.200 --> 0:47:22.560
<v Speaker 1>markets headed towards growth stocks, and I think by the

0:47:22.640 --> 0:47:23.920
<v Speaker 1>end of the year you're gonna be happy on them.

0:47:24.000 --> 0:47:27.000
<v Speaker 1>I have to ask you this, do you trust treasuries?

0:47:27.600 --> 0:47:31.080
<v Speaker 1>Here we thought the ultimate trust investment vehicle and then

0:47:31.120 --> 0:47:33.720
<v Speaker 1>to see the problems and obviously we're in these interesting

0:47:33.800 --> 0:47:36.560
<v Speaker 1>times where you saw a FED that very quickly raised rates.

0:47:36.840 --> 0:47:38.919
<v Speaker 1>It was a big change within the last twelve months.

0:47:39.760 --> 0:47:43.200
<v Speaker 1>Are you comfortable with what happened in the exposure? I

0:47:43.280 --> 0:47:45.560
<v Speaker 1>think when you were buying treasuries when they were yielding

0:47:45.600 --> 0:47:47.520
<v Speaker 1>on the ten year seventy five bases points, you had

0:47:47.520 --> 0:47:49.440
<v Speaker 1>to be asking yourself what you were doing. Now out

0:47:49.440 --> 0:47:52.920
<v Speaker 1>they're yielding three thirty five. I feel much better about them.

0:47:53.160 --> 0:47:56.400
<v Speaker 1>And I do think as the economy slows, diven, end

0:47:56.440 --> 0:47:58.919
<v Speaker 1>paying stocks and higher yielding assets are going to start

0:47:58.960 --> 0:48:01.239
<v Speaker 1>to do better. So I think it's an okay bet

0:48:01.360 --> 0:48:03.480
<v Speaker 1>right now? Okay? And just in terms of what happened

0:48:03.480 --> 0:48:05.640
<v Speaker 1>to the banks, just bad management. I mean you've got

0:48:05.719 --> 0:48:08.160
<v Speaker 1>a head indus rate risk, right, I mean, that's that's

0:48:08.200 --> 0:48:09.880
<v Speaker 1>what happened, and they had a mismatch in their and

0:48:09.920 --> 0:48:11.799
<v Speaker 1>their assets and the reliabilities, and so I don't think

0:48:11.800 --> 0:48:14.080
<v Speaker 1>people can be surprised when you go through the fastest

0:48:14.520 --> 0:48:17.200
<v Speaker 1>bet tightening cycle ever. Let that work backs. All right,

0:48:17.320 --> 0:48:19.120
<v Speaker 1>We unfortunately have to leave it there can thank you

0:48:19.280 --> 0:48:22.680
<v Speaker 1>so much, really appreciate it. We don't leave yet, all right.

0:48:22.680 --> 0:48:25.560
<v Speaker 1>That's Randy Watts, chief investment Strates at O'Neil Global Advisors.

0:48:25.600 --> 0:48:29.600
<v Speaker 1>Here her Bloomberg Interactive Broker Studio. This is the Bloomberg

0:48:29.680 --> 0:48:34.000
<v Speaker 1>Business Week Podcast. Avail Little Apple, Spotify and anywhere else

0:48:34.040 --> 0:48:38.000
<v Speaker 1>you get your podcast. Listen live week afternoons from three

0:48:38.080 --> 0:48:41.799
<v Speaker 1>to six Easttarning on Bloomberg dot Com, the iHeartRadio app,

0:48:41.920 --> 0:48:44.480
<v Speaker 1>tune In, and the Bloomberg Business App. You can also

0:48:44.600 --> 0:48:47.960
<v Speaker 1>watch us live every weekday on YouTube and always on

0:48:48.040 --> 0:48:49.359
<v Speaker 1>the Bloomberg German of Them