WEBVTT - Big Tech Earnings to Dominate Markets This Week 0:00:02.920 --> 0:00:10.719 Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio news. This is Bloomberg Business 0:00:10.720 --> 0:00:13.960 Wait inside from the reporters and editors who bring you 0:00:14.000 --> 0:00:18.319 America's most trusted business magazine, plus global business, finance and 0:00:18.400 --> 0:00:22.880 tech news. The Bloomberg Business Week Podcast with Carol Messer 0:00:23.040 --> 0:00:26.160 and Tim Stenebeck from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:27.560 --> 0:00:28.040 Busy week. 0:00:28.080 --> 0:00:30.040 We know when it comes to the treasury trade this 0:00:30.080 --> 0:00:33.080 week all so very busy. When it comes to earnings, 0:00:33.080 --> 0:00:34.960 about one hundred and eighty I think S and P 0:00:35.080 --> 0:00:38.320 five hundred companies, John said, representing around thirty percent, but 0:00:38.360 --> 0:00:40.440 I think it's more than forty percent of the indexes 0:00:40.479 --> 0:00:42.159 market cap. But we have the expert who's going to 0:00:42.200 --> 0:00:44.040 tell I'm not going. 0:00:44.040 --> 0:00:44.920 To argue with either of you. 0:00:45.080 --> 0:00:46.479 Low's that all right? 0:00:46.520 --> 0:00:49.840 So let's get to it because some of who are reporting, 0:00:49.880 --> 0:00:53.040 we know are among the magnificent seven names, a big 0:00:53.080 --> 0:00:55.200 of the some of the big megacap tech companies. 0:00:55.280 --> 0:00:58.560 Yeah, we're talking about Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft and Tesla for more. 0:00:58.640 --> 0:01:01.600 Let's bring in Bloomberg Intelligence is Director of Equity Strategy 0:01:01.600 --> 0:01:04.360 and Chief Equity Strategist, Gina Martin Adams, who's here in 0:01:04.400 --> 0:01:06.760 our studio. Gina, you and the team have a note 0:01:06.760 --> 0:01:09.760 out that talks about so far it's early, but so 0:01:09.800 --> 0:01:12.240 far the earning season is giving us a pretty good 0:01:12.280 --> 0:01:15.679 backdrop for stocks. Bring us up to speed here. 0:01:15.920 --> 0:01:18.039 Yeah, so I think it's a it's been an interesting 0:01:18.080 --> 0:01:21.080 earning season so far because we've had some really big 0:01:21.200 --> 0:01:24.320 charges from healthcare companies Bristol Myers Club and now Gilad, 0:01:24.640 --> 0:01:27.280 who have both taken down estimates for the S and 0:01:27.280 --> 0:01:27.840 P five. 0:01:27.800 --> 0:01:28.679 They're so interesting. 0:01:28.840 --> 0:01:31.440 Yeah, that one tiny. 0:01:31.520 --> 0:01:34.440 Yeah, just those two companies, which really kind of escape 0:01:34.480 --> 0:01:38.520 our under our our notice because we're so captivated by tech, 0:01:38.560 --> 0:01:41.800 have actually made the bigger impact on earnings. Nonetheless, when 0:01:41.840 --> 0:01:44.760 you exclude those two charges, you're tracking about five percent 0:01:44.800 --> 0:01:47.280 earnings growth for the S and P five hundred, including 0:01:47.360 --> 0:01:50.480 analyst estimates for what's to come. That's a bit better 0:01:50.480 --> 0:01:52.840 than the analysts we're forecasting at the start of the season, 0:01:52.840 --> 0:01:56.000 which was just under four percent growth, so better than expected. 0:01:56.040 --> 0:01:58.360 But all the big companies have yet to report. We've 0:01:58.360 --> 0:02:00.760 got thirty seven percent of the market porting this week, 0:02:01.280 --> 0:02:04.760 including the biggest names of Microsoft, Alphabet and Meta. TMT 0:02:05.040 --> 0:02:07.640 is really where all the growth is expected to come from. 0:02:07.680 --> 0:02:09.840 So I'm a little old school. TMT is no longer 0:02:09.880 --> 0:02:12.320 the way we describe it, it's tech and communications, but 0:02:12.440 --> 0:02:16.240 those two sectors are tmt for those of us that 0:02:16.320 --> 0:02:22.720 have lived, you know, through the nineties and beyond. Yeah, exactly. Nonetheless, 0:02:22.760 --> 0:02:25.560 those groups are basically driving all of the growth on 0:02:25.600 --> 0:02:28.120 the index this quarter. So that's where all of the 0:02:28.120 --> 0:02:30.880 optimism lies and certainly where most of the risk lies 0:02:30.919 --> 0:02:31.880 as well. Well. 0:02:31.880 --> 0:02:33.760 It's interesting, and you know, when we get to things 0:02:33.800 --> 0:02:36.160 like margins and different ways of kind of looking at 0:02:36.200 --> 0:02:37.959 the quarter, I mean, is there anything of note that 0:02:38.000 --> 0:02:39.480 you're focusing on on that front? 0:02:39.680 --> 0:02:43.519 Yeah, So margins are incredibly important because margins are where 0:02:43.560 --> 0:02:46.560 all of the analyst optimism is going forward. There's a 0:02:46.600 --> 0:02:48.480 couple of ways that earnings can be You can see 0:02:48.480 --> 0:02:51.200 top line beats, which certainly would be very very welcome, 0:02:51.240 --> 0:02:53.639 analysts are not anticipating a whole lot of top line 0:02:53.680 --> 0:02:57.200 growth to emerge this year. Or you can see margins 0:02:57.240 --> 0:03:00.640 beat expectations, where analysts are already into the painting margin 0:03:00.680 --> 0:03:03.600 improvement coming through the year. So I think that there's 0:03:03.639 --> 0:03:05.960 a bigger risk in margins than there is in top 0:03:06.000 --> 0:03:09.000 line growth, just for this reason, given expectations that are 0:03:09.000 --> 0:03:11.320 implied by the market as well as by analysts forecasts. 0:03:11.960 --> 0:03:14.799 Margins so far are coming in pretty strongly. We see 0:03:14.919 --> 0:03:17.400 the vast majority of companies beating on net income margins. 0:03:17.800 --> 0:03:20.840 Operating margin is still a fifty to fifty where there 0:03:20.880 --> 0:03:23.200 is still a decent amount of operating risk, but net 0:03:23.200 --> 0:03:25.639 income margins companies are beating so far. So it's something 0:03:25.680 --> 0:03:27.639 we'll watch, especially with respect to tech. 0:03:27.760 --> 0:03:29.560 Why do you think we've seen a steeper cell off 0:03:29.560 --> 0:03:32.680 for missus so far this quarter? Like, I know, expectations 0:03:32.680 --> 0:03:35.920 are certainly high, and this is earning's driven, but why 0:03:36.040 --> 0:03:38.120 is this quarter it's ptty particularly sensitive. 0:03:38.280 --> 0:03:41.080 It's mostly I think it's a function of we're early 0:03:41.200 --> 0:03:42.960 yet more than anything else. So I don't want to 0:03:43.040 --> 0:03:45.600 draw too much into that, but we have seen companies 0:03:45.680 --> 0:03:49.119 respond pretty negatively to misses. I think it's a couple 0:03:49.200 --> 0:03:52.640 of reasons. The first is financials didn't start us off 0:03:52.640 --> 0:03:56.080 on a great foot, even though companies generally beat expectations. 0:03:56.080 --> 0:03:58.720 In financials, there's a lot of nervousness about what's going 0:03:58.760 --> 0:04:02.840 on in face and it felt weak. Yeah, so that 0:04:03.240 --> 0:04:06.000 was a pretty weak's start. Let's see where we go 0:04:06.080 --> 0:04:09.960 from here with respect to price performance following earnings. The 0:04:10.040 --> 0:04:11.880 other thing just to consider is some of this could 0:04:11.880 --> 0:04:14.480 be spurious, right, It could just be the market at 0:04:14.560 --> 0:04:17.560 largest selling off. And when the market at large is 0:04:17.600 --> 0:04:20.880 selling off, the misses appear to be enormous price responses, 0:04:21.000 --> 0:04:23.839 even when all it really is is everybody's just selling risk. 0:04:24.000 --> 0:04:26.320 I always feel like your tone, and I feel like 0:04:26.360 --> 0:04:28.680 your tone is a little bit more subdued or more cautious. 0:04:28.720 --> 0:04:29.440 Has it gotten that. 0:04:29.400 --> 0:04:32.640 Way of Uh? Yeah, so, not necessarily because of earnings. 0:04:32.640 --> 0:04:35.000 I think earnings are still a pretty solid backstop. But 0:04:35.200 --> 0:04:37.080 at the end of the first quarter, when we run 0:04:37.120 --> 0:04:39.440 through all of the different models that we use to 0:04:39.600 --> 0:04:42.520 assess the equity market, the technicals actually we're signaling a 0:04:42.520 --> 0:04:45.359 week time to come coming into the second quarter. Not 0:04:45.440 --> 0:04:49.920 necessarily that earnings are problematic, but things are more difficult 0:04:49.960 --> 0:04:52.920 now for a lot of reasons. Technicals, correlations inside the 0:04:52.920 --> 0:04:56.719 market were flagging a great degree of risk. Industry signals, 0:04:57.080 --> 0:04:59.840 all of our leading industry cueues were turning over at 0:04:59.839 --> 0:05:03.520 the end of March, all of them. So yeah, so semiconductors, 0:05:03.600 --> 0:05:06.480 home builders, transports, all the leading indicators of what you 0:05:06.520 --> 0:05:09.479 would anticipate, we're starting to turn over again. This doesn't 0:05:09.520 --> 0:05:13.600 mean a horrible climate. But this type of risk was 0:05:13.600 --> 0:05:16.320 flagged also to us back in July of last year 0:05:16.920 --> 0:05:19.520 when we were, you know, turning over into a ten 0:05:19.560 --> 0:05:22.200 percent correction in stock. So I want to, you know, 0:05:22.320 --> 0:05:24.960 be a little bit conscious of this. The technicals are 0:05:25.040 --> 0:05:28.520 quite weak. We started off on week footing that said, 0:05:29.320 --> 0:05:32.720 the economic strengths and the earning strengths have only improved 0:05:32.880 --> 0:05:35.440 over the last six to nine months, so there should 0:05:35.480 --> 0:05:37.920 be some offset there. But it does imply a choppier 0:05:37.960 --> 0:05:38.760 climate for Q two. 0:05:38.880 --> 0:05:41.960 So what has come at the same time, and perhaps 0:05:42.080 --> 0:05:45.440 the reason is the FED chair actually talking last week 0:05:45.480 --> 0:05:48.839 about dialing back and resetting rate expectations. And we certainly 0:05:48.839 --> 0:05:50.760 saw some selling last week and even this quarter on 0:05:50.760 --> 0:05:52.800 the S and P five hundred, we're down four point 0:05:52.839 --> 0:05:56.800 two percent right today's recovery quote unquote recovery notwithstanding. But 0:05:56.800 --> 0:05:58.280 I'm wondering how you're thinking about that. 0:05:58.520 --> 0:06:01.280 Yeah, I view what happened the FED is an amplifier 0:06:01.320 --> 0:06:05.240 of existing trends, not the spark. Right, we already saw 0:06:05.320 --> 0:06:09.400 markets turning over in anticipation of some greater weakness emerging 0:06:09.640 --> 0:06:11.919 over the second quarter. We saw that with the end 0:06:12.000 --> 0:06:15.280 of first quarter surge into a new high and then 0:06:15.279 --> 0:06:17.760 we started started seeing a turnover. So while the FED 0:06:17.800 --> 0:06:21.599 speech last week was important, it merely amplifies what was 0:06:21.640 --> 0:06:24.080 already happening in the equity market. And I think if 0:06:24.120 --> 0:06:28.520 you read through to the stocks and sectors that performed 0:06:28.600 --> 0:06:31.800 poorly last week, I think what's really happening in the 0:06:31.839 --> 0:06:34.000 market is a lot of fear with respect to the 0:06:34.200 --> 0:06:37.960 Can Tech continue to hold up amidst this environment of 0:06:38.080 --> 0:06:40.600 rotation which really started to go all the way back 0:06:40.600 --> 0:06:43.440 at the beginning of March. We started noting rotation emerging 0:06:43.440 --> 0:06:46.839 in the equity market, this leadership transition. If Tech's not 0:06:46.880 --> 0:06:49.240 the leader, who is the new leader? That creates a 0:06:49.240 --> 0:06:51.599 little moment of anxiety for the equity market at the 0:06:51.760 --> 0:06:54.279 very least, and may certainly stall the advance. 0:06:54.440 --> 0:06:56.719 So the S and P back above five thousand today. 0:06:57.760 --> 0:07:01.200 Last week was what the worst weekend over s and 0:07:01.200 --> 0:07:03.000 P down about five and a half percent from the 0:07:03.000 --> 0:07:05.960 March twenty eighth peak to this past Friday. NDX NAZEK 0:07:05.960 --> 0:07:08.640 one hundred, down about seven percent between that March twenty 0:07:08.680 --> 0:07:12.120 second high and last Friday. That is some of the 0:07:12.160 --> 0:07:15.000 nervousness we're starting to see. But it get worse. Are 0:07:15.040 --> 0:07:17.080 you expecting more downside on these indexes. 0:07:17.240 --> 0:07:20.680 Look, I think if the tech companies cannot satisfy expectations 0:07:20.720 --> 0:07:23.840 and keep raising forecasts going into the rest of the year, yes, 0:07:23.880 --> 0:07:26.640 it could absolutely get worse because tech has been such 0:07:26.680 --> 0:07:31.000 a big part of the market's optimism so far this year. Now, 0:07:31.080 --> 0:07:34.240 one thing is happening in the first quarter that I 0:07:34.240 --> 0:07:37.160 think is pretty notable and maybe is also behind this 0:07:37.280 --> 0:07:40.080 recent rotation in the market, and that is this is 0:07:40.120 --> 0:07:43.960 peak earnings growth for tech. It is peak quarter. Between 0:07:44.040 --> 0:07:46.680 last quarter and this quarter, We're peaking, and we will 0:07:46.720 --> 0:07:49.520 have to see some earnings deceleration, at least according to 0:07:49.560 --> 0:07:52.640 the analyst consensus. Will the tech companies tell us it's 0:07:52.640 --> 0:07:56.160 not decelerating or not could be a key question over 0:07:56.200 --> 0:07:57.280 the course of the next few weeks. 0:07:57.320 --> 0:07:59.040 A lot to keep us busy, all right, Gina, Thank 0:07:59.080 --> 0:08:01.320 you so much, Gina. Mark Adams, chief equity strategis at 0:08:01.320 --> 0:08:02.320 Bloomberg Intelligence. 0:08:02.360 --> 0:08:07.600 Here in studio, you're listening to the Bloomberg Business Week podcast. 0:08:07.760 --> 0:08:10.760 Catch us live weekday afternoons from two to five pm 0:08:10.760 --> 0:08:13.520 Eastern Listen on Apple car Play and then Bright Auto 0:08:13.600 --> 0:08:24.960 with a Bloomberg Business app or wants us live on youtubel. 0:08:25.520 --> 0:08:27.640 All right, everybody, Well, last week, you might remember the 0:08:27.680 --> 0:08:31.160 IMF edging up global growth. Meantime, the Atlanta Fed GDP 0:08:31.280 --> 0:08:34.559 now Model estimate for real GDP growth in the US 0:08:34.559 --> 0:08:36.640 in the first quarter of twenty twenty fourth two point 0:08:36.679 --> 0:08:39.400 nine percent. That was on April sixteenth. It's up from 0:08:39.400 --> 0:08:43.160 two point eight percent before that. We're going to get 0:08:43.200 --> 0:08:46.080 another update from the Atlanta Fed on Wednesday. So we 0:08:46.120 --> 0:08:48.080 have seen the numbers. We've talked about this, they've been 0:08:48.160 --> 0:08:49.800 rotcheting them up higher. 0:08:50.080 --> 0:08:52.920 Meantime, On this Earth Day, Bloomberg's Mark Gonglo reminds us 0:08:52.920 --> 0:08:56.280 that the only thing climate change is cooling is growth. 0:08:56.559 --> 0:08:59.960 Mark is Bloomberg opinion editor and columnist who covers climate change. 0:09:00.160 --> 0:09:04.400 He joins us this afternoon from New Jersey. Mark, the 0:09:04.520 --> 0:09:09.080 climate has gotten hotter, continues to get hotter. But and 0:09:09.400 --> 0:09:11.800 we know this, We knew that. What was surprising to 0:09:11.840 --> 0:09:14.880 me about the study that you cited is that it's 0:09:14.960 --> 0:09:20.600 going to actually make global income nineteen percent lower by 0:09:20.720 --> 0:09:23.880 twenty forty nine. How do we get there? First of all, 0:09:23.960 --> 0:09:25.960 that's all there, and first of all that's also bad news. 0:09:26.760 --> 0:09:30.760 I should yes, global income lower by nineteen percent is 0:09:30.800 --> 0:09:34.280 definitely bad news. That amounts to about thirty eight trillion 0:09:34.320 --> 0:09:38.880 dollars a year by twenty forty nine. Obviously you're ramping 0:09:38.960 --> 0:09:42.120 up to that point, so you're losing trillions and trillions 0:09:42.160 --> 0:09:46.240 of dollars, and that is coming from just heat for 0:09:46.280 --> 0:09:50.839 the most part, extreme heat. Variability in temperatures too, and 0:09:50.960 --> 0:09:55.440 variability in water, so that affects. Heat affects human health 0:09:55.559 --> 0:09:59.440 and productivity. Our brains don't work as well, we're not 0:09:59.440 --> 0:10:03.000 as productive of when we're really hot. And the variability 0:10:03.360 --> 0:10:07.400 and water gives you huge droughts, as we're seeing already 0:10:07.440 --> 0:10:11.199 in Africa, and also gives you terrible flooding, which we're 0:10:11.200 --> 0:10:14.760 also seeing in many other parts of the developing world 0:10:15.360 --> 0:10:21.959 this week. So all of these things affect economic growth, productivity, agriculture, industry, 0:10:22.040 --> 0:10:25.920 all of that, shaving up to nineteen percents off of 0:10:26.200 --> 0:10:28.320 global income, which is not the same as GDP, but 0:10:28.360 --> 0:10:31.520 it's just about the same. It's similar by twenty forty nine. 0:10:31.760 --> 0:10:33.840 Yeah, it's going to impact how people you know around 0:10:33.880 --> 0:10:35.920 the globe, whether or not they've got money to spend right, 0:10:35.920 --> 0:10:39.760 which is certainly creates velocity, economic velocity and growth within 0:10:39.800 --> 0:10:42.679 the economy. Having said that this study, as you note, 0:10:42.840 --> 0:10:46.720 Mark and your piece, is that it's a little bit more. 0:10:47.040 --> 0:10:49.960 I mean the cost is more than past research and 0:10:50.000 --> 0:10:52.920 studies have shown. What's the difference. What's why are they 0:10:52.960 --> 0:10:56.080 coming out with this or finding this finding versus maybe 0:10:56.280 --> 0:10:58.240 some more subdued findings of the past. 0:10:59.200 --> 0:11:01.559 Yeah, in fact, it's it's a lot more. There was 0:11:01.600 --> 0:11:05.320 a study, a famous study about five years ago suggested 0:11:05.400 --> 0:11:08.640 it would be more like twenty percent off of global 0:11:08.640 --> 0:11:12.360 GDP by twenty one hundred. This study says, if we 0:11:12.400 --> 0:11:16.200 don't start cooling the planet down, or if we don't 0:11:16.200 --> 0:11:18.880 stop making the problem worse, we could have a sixty 0:11:18.880 --> 0:11:22.120 percent hit to a global income by twenty one hundred. 0:11:22.160 --> 0:11:25.640 So you're talking magnitudes worse. They say that they have 0:11:25.880 --> 0:11:32.040 new models that they're looking at that incorporate the fact 0:11:32.080 --> 0:11:36.520 that some of these impacts on economics last forever. If 0:11:36.520 --> 0:11:40.079 you have a generation of kids who don't learn as 0:11:40.160 --> 0:11:44.600 much and don't have as much economic opportunity, that affects 0:11:44.640 --> 0:11:48.120 future generations. And so they have all these different variables 0:11:48.120 --> 0:11:50.080 they're plugging into their model, and they're spitting out these 0:11:50.160 --> 0:11:53.400 huge numbers. You could argue with the numbers, and some 0:11:53.679 --> 0:11:57.200 climate scientists have kind of taken some issue with a 0:11:57.200 --> 0:12:00.199 few of the numbers here and there, I think said 0:12:00.240 --> 0:12:02.199 the important message to me. There are two important messages 0:12:02.240 --> 0:12:04.200 to me that come out of it, no matter how 0:12:04.240 --> 0:12:07.440 you slice the numbers, which are also very difficult to forecast. 0:12:07.480 --> 0:12:11.800 Of course, One is that we are going to lose 0:12:11.840 --> 0:12:14.600 a lot more by not doing anything about climate change 0:12:14.600 --> 0:12:17.040 than we are going to lose by doing something about it. 0:12:17.800 --> 0:12:20.800 So Bnaf Bloomberg in NEF suggests it could cost two 0:12:20.880 --> 0:12:23.959 hundred trillion dollars by the middle of this century to 0:12:24.240 --> 0:12:27.360 mitigate climate change. Two hundred trillion dollars is kind of 0:12:27.400 --> 0:12:31.280 a lot of money, but it's you spend that at 0:12:31.280 --> 0:12:34.560 about six years if you're losing thirty eight trillion dollars 0:12:34.559 --> 0:12:37.920 a year, So it's an investment to avoid many, many 0:12:38.280 --> 0:12:40.960 more trillions of losses. And the second key thing is 0:12:40.960 --> 0:12:43.880 that much of this economic impact is landing on the 0:12:43.880 --> 0:12:47.280 people who deserve it the least, and so developing Africa, 0:12:48.280 --> 0:12:51.240 South Asia, South America, these places are going to see 0:12:51.280 --> 0:12:54.839 GDP hits of maybe thirty to thirty three percent by 0:12:54.840 --> 0:12:57.600 mid century, again according to this study, but again this 0:12:57.679 --> 0:13:00.800 is consistent with what we know that these impacts fall 0:13:00.880 --> 0:13:03.520 most heavily on places that probably deserve. 0:13:03.320 --> 0:13:04.239 It the least. 0:13:04.760 --> 0:13:06.840 Explain because there's something you go into in the story 0:13:06.880 --> 0:13:10.200 about this isn't degrowth, And I don't know that it's 0:13:10.240 --> 0:13:12.360 a term that I feel like I've been using much 0:13:12.520 --> 0:13:14.079 when it comes to climate change, which is why we 0:13:14.080 --> 0:13:16.840 always love reading your columns. But you note that what 0:13:16.960 --> 0:13:19.600 fossil fuels are doing to the world isn't quite degrowth. 0:13:19.679 --> 0:13:21.800 So de growth is what when you kind of slow 0:13:21.920 --> 0:13:26.160 down output to reduce the impact on environment. This isn't 0:13:26.160 --> 0:13:27.439 what you're talking about. 0:13:28.280 --> 0:13:30.640 No, not exactly. At first blush, it kind of seems 0:13:30.679 --> 0:13:33.199 like that. And so there are climate activists who say, 0:13:33.240 --> 0:13:35.680 you know, we need to stop growing the economy so much, 0:13:35.720 --> 0:13:38.360 and so that would involve cutting growth. And I guess 0:13:38.400 --> 0:13:41.000 an example of this could be when COVID hit in 0:13:41.000 --> 0:13:44.199 twenty twenty. You saw growth just fall off the table 0:13:44.520 --> 0:13:48.079 and all of a sudden, nature was healing and emissions 0:13:48.080 --> 0:13:50.240 weren't as bad. And people said, hey, if we just 0:13:50.280 --> 0:13:52.000 did this all the time, we'd save the planet. Well, 0:13:52.080 --> 0:13:54.560 the problem is you can't really do that all the time, 0:13:54.559 --> 0:13:58.880 because not having any economic growth it creates its own problems, 0:13:58.960 --> 0:14:01.719 especially again for developed in countries who haven't had the 0:14:01.760 --> 0:14:04.200 chance to develop and don't have the standards of living 0:14:04.240 --> 0:14:07.760 that we do. So what this is doing is not 0:14:07.920 --> 0:14:11.720 that even with climate change there the scientists are saying 0:14:12.520 --> 0:14:15.199 the economy will keep growing, it will just be stunted, 0:14:15.240 --> 0:14:16.920 sort of the way. You know, my mom used to 0:14:16.920 --> 0:14:19.360 tell me if I smoke cigarettes, my growth would be stunted. 0:14:20.000 --> 0:14:22.320 So that's it would stunt our growth. We would still grow, 0:14:22.360 --> 0:14:25.160 but it would be stunted, and over time it would 0:14:25.160 --> 0:14:28.040 get much worse, which is the other key message to 0:14:28.040 --> 0:14:29.720 come out of this, which is that there is still 0:14:29.760 --> 0:14:32.600 time to avoid far worse outcomes. 0:14:33.000 --> 0:14:34.920 I wonder Mark, how a message like this resonates in 0:14:34.960 --> 0:14:37.360 your opinion, because Carol and I talk about this all 0:14:37.360 --> 0:14:40.920 the time walking into work, when the skies are full 0:14:40.960 --> 0:14:44.760 of smoke from wildfires, you know, thousands of miles away. 0:14:45.920 --> 0:14:48.440 That is something there's something visceral about that. You know, 0:14:48.480 --> 0:14:51.480 your basement because of it becoming unusable because three or 0:14:51.480 --> 0:14:53.720 four times a year the weather is so extreme that 0:14:53.800 --> 0:14:56.800 it floods. You know, there's something that really hits you 0:14:56.840 --> 0:15:00.000 about that. But I'm wondering if this type of story, 0:15:00.280 --> 0:15:03.160 this type of data hits people the way that those 0:15:03.200 --> 0:15:04.280 actual other things do. 0:15:05.760 --> 0:15:09.600 It's really difficult because you're talking about future generations, and 0:15:09.640 --> 0:15:14.200 we seem to have a real hard time thinking about, well, 0:15:14.240 --> 0:15:16.000 you know, my grandchildren are going to suffer from this. 0:15:16.880 --> 0:15:19.320 And then also we have a really hard time putting 0:15:19.520 --> 0:15:22.560 numbers like thirty eight trillion dollars a year into context. 0:15:22.560 --> 0:15:25.600 It's like, okay, thirty eight trillion dollars a year, or 0:15:25.640 --> 0:15:28.840 you read the headlines about well, all the Arctic ice 0:15:28.920 --> 0:15:31.720 is melting and oceans are hotter than they've ever been. 0:15:31.760 --> 0:15:34.400 I mean, some of this stuff can be so doomy, 0:15:34.480 --> 0:15:36.480 gloomy and doomy that you just say, all right, well 0:15:36.520 --> 0:15:39.359 we're doomed anyway. I might as well eat a cheeseburger 0:15:39.440 --> 0:15:42.920 and roll coal out in the parking lot. But it 0:15:43.160 --> 0:15:46.560 really is true that we still can make a difference, 0:15:46.600 --> 0:15:51.600 that we're not doomed by any stretch yet. And so 0:15:52.760 --> 0:15:55.480 I think sometimes numbers like this, we are already suffering 0:15:55.520 --> 0:15:57.480 hits to our pocketbook. Right now. We talk about thirty 0:15:57.520 --> 0:15:59.800 eight trillion by twenty fifty, people say, I don't even 0:15:59.800 --> 0:16:02.200 know what means. I don't care, but people are losing 0:16:02.280 --> 0:16:05.960 money in Florida as we speak, and in California because 0:16:05.960 --> 0:16:09.640 they can't get their homes insured. And the next wildfire season, 0:16:09.680 --> 0:16:12.640 the next hurricane season, the next floods that come, there 0:16:12.680 --> 0:16:13.720 are going to be a lot of people who are 0:16:13.760 --> 0:16:16.160 going to be surprised to find that they're under insured 0:16:16.200 --> 0:16:19.520 and so and they're they're going to take a huge 0:16:19.640 --> 0:16:23.000 financial and economic hit. So these economic hits are happening 0:16:23.280 --> 0:16:25.600 right now, and I think maybe that's a way to 0:16:25.640 --> 0:16:28.080 help contextualize it for people, to make it real, like 0:16:28.120 --> 0:16:29.240 wildfire smoke. 0:16:29.640 --> 0:16:32.320 Mark to that point. There's another story on the Bloomberg 0:16:32.640 --> 0:16:35.760 and it talks about the economic impact of climate change, 0:16:35.760 --> 0:16:38.560 specifically on global tourism, broken down by some of the 0:16:38.560 --> 0:16:40.600 top countries that rely on tourism for growth. And we 0:16:40.600 --> 0:16:42.160 have a great chart for those who are watching on 0:16:42.200 --> 0:16:45.720 YouTube and are Bloomberg originals. But the whole idea is 0:16:46.000 --> 0:16:47.800 in this story. It says by the end of the century, 0:16:47.840 --> 0:16:51.400 residents of northern countries will generally see sunny spring like 0:16:51.440 --> 0:16:54.920 bomb a pair appear excuse me earlier in the winter. Conversely, 0:16:54.960 --> 0:16:59.000 those in the south, including equatorial regions and extending into 0:16:59.000 --> 0:17:00.840 southern Europe and the US well for the most part 0:17:00.920 --> 0:17:03.840 enjoy fewer days of temperate weather year round. I mean, 0:17:04.240 --> 0:17:06.480 this is something we talk about, tourism so important to 0:17:06.520 --> 0:17:10.600 so many different either cities or countries, like this is 0:17:10.640 --> 0:17:13.359 again another economic impact. Just got forgive me about twenty 0:17:13.359 --> 0:17:14.879 five seconds. I mean this place to what you are 0:17:14.920 --> 0:17:16.480 talking about. 0:17:16.600 --> 0:17:18.760 For sure, and even in those place so even in 0:17:18.800 --> 0:17:21.040 the places that will bear less of the brund, there 0:17:21.119 --> 0:17:23.720 still is an impact. There's an economic impact. And in 0:17:23.760 --> 0:17:25.919 some of those countries you're talking about where there will 0:17:25.960 --> 0:17:29.879 be sunnier days, but maybe your skiing industry doesn't get 0:17:29.920 --> 0:17:31.639 as much snow, and so you lose a lot of 0:17:31.720 --> 0:17:34.400 tourism that way. And then you have climate refugees leaving 0:17:34.440 --> 0:17:36.879 the places that are hit a lot to try to 0:17:36.880 --> 0:17:38.440 go to the nicer places. And then you have a 0:17:38.480 --> 0:17:39.919 whole political issue. 0:17:40.119 --> 0:17:46.719 Yeah, changing after days though, like changing interesting, tough, but 0:17:46.880 --> 0:17:49.399 as you always say, maybe not too late. That always 0:17:49.400 --> 0:17:52.200 gives me hope. Mark Gungloff, thank you so much, editor 0:17:52.200 --> 0:17:54.920 at Bloomberg Opinion, joining us there in New York City. 0:17:54.960 --> 0:17:56.679 Check out his column. You can find it on the 0:17:56.680 --> 0:17:59.720 Bloomberg also at Bloomberg dot com Slash Opinion. 0:18:01.320 --> 0:18:05.160 You're listening to the Bloomberg Business Week Podcast. Listen live 0:18:05.280 --> 0:18:08.200 each weekday starting at two pm Eastern on Apple car 0:18:08.200 --> 0:18:11.159 Play and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business Ad. You 0:18:11.200 --> 0:18:14.480 can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship 0:18:14.520 --> 0:18:18.320 New York station, Just Say Alexa Play Bloomberg eleven thirty. 0:18:20.040 --> 0:18:22.159 Today, Is there a day? And an important thing to 0:18:22.200 --> 0:18:24.920 think about is where on Earth all of our food 0:18:24.960 --> 0:18:25.440 comes from? 0:18:25.520 --> 0:18:25.680 Yeah? 0:18:25.760 --> 0:18:27.520 And when it comes to farming in the US, well, 0:18:27.600 --> 0:18:30.879 farms are becoming fewer and farther between the number of 0:18:30.920 --> 0:18:33.480 farms in the US following by more than one hundred 0:18:33.480 --> 0:18:36.240 and forty thousand between twenty seventeen and twenty twenty two, 0:18:36.600 --> 0:18:39.879 and the number of farm acres fell by twenty million 0:18:39.960 --> 0:18:42.159 over that same period of time. This is according to 0:18:42.320 --> 0:18:45.520 USDA data cited by the American Farm Bureau of Federation 0:18:45.840 --> 0:18:48.600 as an advocacy group that represents farmers and ranchers but 0:18:48.920 --> 0:18:50.160 generally on the decline. 0:18:50.200 --> 0:18:51.760 Well, Yeah, and the group argues Carol that there are 0:18:51.760 --> 0:18:54.280 too many challenges that just make it unsustainable for family 0:18:54.320 --> 0:18:57.520 farms to stay in business these days. That's where Elmer 0:18:57.600 --> 0:18:59.760 Mayer comes in. He's the co founder and CEO of 0:19:00.160 --> 0:19:03.000 If It's working on technology that uses sensors, AI and 0:19:03.080 --> 0:19:07.040 robotics to give farmers a granular view of their cultivation environment. 0:19:07.080 --> 0:19:11.240 The idea is that increasing copy yields and reducing costs, 0:19:11.560 --> 0:19:15.320 of course, helps with the growing environment. Alma joins us 0:19:15.320 --> 0:19:18.040 from Santa Cruz, California. Good to have you back on 0:19:18.080 --> 0:19:19.360 the program, Almar, how are you. 0:19:20.880 --> 0:19:22.879 Good? Thank you so much for having me. Yeah, excite, 0:19:22.920 --> 0:19:23.360 we'll be back. 0:19:23.400 --> 0:19:25.200 Yeah, thanks for joining us again. Give us an update 0:19:25.240 --> 0:19:28.399 on where exactly you are with this spider technology and 0:19:28.680 --> 0:19:33.080 explain once again for audience exactly how it helps farmers. 0:19:34.600 --> 0:19:35.560 Yeah, happy to do so. 0:19:36.119 --> 0:19:39.760 So. It's basically a football stadium camera for greenhouses or 0:19:39.800 --> 0:19:43.320 indoor growing environments. It's like a cable based system which 0:19:44.000 --> 0:19:47.040 like a football stadium camera, basically moves around they cannot 0:19:47.040 --> 0:19:52.120 be and flows up off the crop and monitors the crop. 0:19:52.200 --> 0:19:54.879 It collects a lot of different data like temperature. Hu 0:19:54.920 --> 0:19:58.280 made it these two. It takes images to understand what's 0:19:58.280 --> 0:20:01.560 going on with each plant and analyzes it. 0:20:01.640 --> 0:20:03.919 So it's basically alleviates. 0:20:03.359 --> 0:20:06.840 That burn for cultivators to walk the crop every day 0:20:06.880 --> 0:20:10.040