Speaker 1: Strap on your parachute. It's time for What Goes Up
Speaker 1: with Sarah Ponzick and Mike Reagan. Hello and welcome to
Speaker 1: What goes Up, a Bloomberg weekly markets podcast. I'm Sarah
Speaker 1: pons Porter on the Cross Asset Team, and I'm Mike Reagan,
Speaker 1: a senior editor at Bloomberg. This week on the show,
Speaker 1: is the market melt up? Finally? Over stocks came back
Speaker 1: to earth this week after a spectacular surge in the
Speaker 1: SMP five hundred from its lows in March. We'll talk
Speaker 1: with a veteran investment strategist and economist about what an
Speaker 1: unusual summer it was and how, like the changing of
Speaker 1: the seasons, markets maybe in store for some less favorable weather,
Speaker 1: and as always, will close out the episode with our
Speaker 1: tradition the craziest thing I saw in markets this week? Sarah,
Speaker 1: I got a warning. I'm double dipping on the crazy
Speaker 1: things this week. That's good because I really am lacking.
Speaker 1: So maybe I'll have to take one of yours, A
Speaker 1: good good Actually I got one from our collie, Emily Barrett.
Speaker 1: Well maybe you can use hers. But uh, and as
Speaker 1: you said, returning to the show, Uh, really a great
Speaker 1: guest I like this guest because every time we see her,
Speaker 1: she makes me think and makes me laugh about markets
Speaker 1: and just the world in general. Her name is Nila
Speaker 1: Richardson and she works at Edward Jones. Nila, welcome back
Speaker 1: to the show. I think this is your third time,
Speaker 1: is that right? Thank you, Mike. It's so great to
Speaker 1: be here. And I wasn't sure you were talking about me,
Speaker 1: so thanks for confirming that. No, I gotta say, I'm
Speaker 1: also happy to have you this week because I know
Speaker 1: you're a proud resident of the Great Garden state of
Speaker 1: New Jersey. And our friend Sarah here, believe it or not,
Speaker 1: has just discovered the Jersey Shore for the first time
Speaker 1: in my life. I went to the Jersey Shore, and
Speaker 1: I can say I will be going back. Sarah's from Florida,
Speaker 1: and I think the Jersey Shore is basically like Florida
Speaker 1: with with colder water. Yeah, I had a hard time
Speaker 1: getting in the water. Used to like eighty degree water
Speaker 1: in Florida. Wasn't the same up here. So, Dila, the
Speaker 1: first question has to be what's your favorite Jersey short town? Jeez,
Speaker 1: I don't know if I have one. I can't say
Speaker 1: that I have one, but I can say that in
Speaker 1: Florida you probably see a lot of New Jersey people, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, isn't it basically the same people? Right? The
Speaker 1: people are the same, the beaches are different. Do you
Speaker 1: have a favorite? Oh that's a loaded question, you know.
Speaker 1: Sarah asked me that, and I unloaded with about a
Speaker 1: four thousand word in response with footnotes. I like your
Speaker 1: diplomatic answer though. That was a good one. You can.
Speaker 1: It's a touchy subject, the most pressing question of the
Speaker 1: entire podcast. That's right, that's right. But I'm very excited.
Speaker 1: I think Sarah is gonna end up being a Jersey
Speaker 1: woman eventually. I can see it coming. Work on that hair.
Speaker 1: You need to work on getting that hair a little higher,
Speaker 1: work on it, tease it up. But Neila, you know,
Speaker 1: as Sarah said in the introduction, Wow, what a crazy
Speaker 1: summer it was. I mean, you know, this ferocious melt
Speaker 1: up in the stock market. I guess now this week
Speaker 1: we're looking at Thursday, a massive sort of sell off,
Speaker 1: the market coming back to earth. I mean, was that inevitable?
Speaker 1: Do you think? And how much should we worry be
Speaker 1: worried about this latest volatility in the market? In your mind,
Speaker 1: it was inevitable, and we shouldn't worry about it. I'll
Speaker 1: tell you. I mean, this is the early stages of
Speaker 1: what we think is a bear market recovery that could
Speaker 1: turn into the next bowl market. It's an early bowl.
Speaker 1: It's gonna wobble before it walks. And it's been so
Speaker 1: fast this rally that the economic fundamentals haven't had a
Speaker 1: chance to catch up yet. So I would frankly worry
Speaker 1: to see the rally continue in this relentless way. We
Speaker 1: should expect some occasional sell offs, an occasional pullback that
Speaker 1: would not be outside of historical precedent for any year,
Speaker 1: especially a year with so much economic inncer outanty is
Speaker 1: the one we're in now. So like you said, it
Speaker 1: was inevitable. I mean, you look at some measures of
Speaker 1: momentum for the SMP five hundred, for the nasdack reaching
Speaker 1: the highest level since January. I mean, there's no doubt
Speaker 1: that we had seen this unbelievable runs pretty much just
Speaker 1: relentless since the March bottom. Does this open up a
Speaker 1: window for a new regime? Though, I know a lot
Speaker 1: of people have been talking about this rotation, and the
Speaker 1: self we saw on Thursday was very much tech lad
Speaker 1: Can we possibly know that yet? Not yet, But this
Speaker 1: is what we expect, and this is why we're telling
Speaker 1: our clients to maintain a diversification, maintain exposure across asset
Speaker 1: classes and sectors, especially those sectors that are poised for
Speaker 1: an economic recovery. So that's international, small cap and sectors
Speaker 1: like financials and industrials. People say it over and over
Speaker 1: again because it's true, and it's true, and it's true.
Speaker 1: You can't put your eggs in one basket, even a
Speaker 1: kept friendly basket. It's better to be diversified across sector
Speaker 1: so you can actually gain in in sectors that have
Speaker 1: been hurt by the pandemic but poised to rise in
Speaker 1: the recovery. I always wonder about that. I mean, what
Speaker 1: do you have a different basket in each hand when
Speaker 1: you're carrying your legs. It's it's very complicated. I don't
Speaker 1: know how you you actually do that. But no, let's
Speaker 1: get back to that economic data. I mean, it seems
Speaker 1: like there is uh you know, one day there's a
Speaker 1: data point that looks great, whether it be say housing,
Speaker 1: um retail sales, something like that, and then the next
Speaker 1: you know, we're still looking at if you round up
Speaker 1: to something like a million jobless claims a week. What's
Speaker 1: the disconnect there? Can that data continue to improve on
Speaker 1: sort of the rosy end of the economic spectrum as
Speaker 1: this labor market still seems to struggle to get its
Speaker 1: head back above water. Is there sort of a meeting
Speaker 1: in the middle that will have to come or you know,
Speaker 1: some of the better data going to cool off as
Speaker 1: this labor data improves, or you know, what's what's your
Speaker 1: outlook for how to read the upcoming economic reports? You know,
Speaker 1: I think of it as a rally. It's like a
Speaker 1: four legged rally. The first leg of that rally was
Speaker 1: ran by the Fed when they cut interest rates, when
Speaker 1: they dived into the credit markets and promised to buy
Speaker 1: basically everything that had a cupon except for the lowest
Speaker 1: of the junk bonds. Um They were the first leg
Speaker 1: of the rally. And then it was followed very quickly
Speaker 1: by fiscal stimulus, bipartisan fiscal stimulus, almost four trillion dollars.
Speaker 1: That's a lot of stimulus. We're still waiting on the
Speaker 1: completion of that leg. And then the rally. The next
Speaker 1: leg was the stock rally. So quick the fervency of
Speaker 1: that rally from the March twenty three low. So now
Speaker 1: we're waiting for this handoff from the fiscal stimulus from
Speaker 1: the stock market to the economy. We're waiting for the
Speaker 1: economy to take the baton, so to speak. The problem
Speaker 1: is the data we've seen has shown a slowing momentum.
Speaker 1: You can see that in the jobs market, for example,
Speaker 1: the pace of job gains has slowed. And so the question,
Speaker 1: and this is going to be where you're going to
Speaker 1: see the volatility and the disconnect, is can the economy
Speaker 1: keep up enough to grab that baton and keep running.
Speaker 1: I think it's too early to do that without some stimulus,
Speaker 1: without some help, so we're going to need I think
Speaker 1: at that fifth round of stimulus that's stalemate NG sitting
Speaker 1: on the sidelines in Congress to really get the economy
Speaker 1: shirt up for a sustainable recovery. So this handoff that
Speaker 1: you're looking for, that and from the stock market to
Speaker 1: the economy to really take the baton and show that
Speaker 1: this was all worth it. The rally that we have
Speaker 1: seen off the bottom was worth it and made sense
Speaker 1: as well. How much patience should investors have? I mean,
Speaker 1: how long might that take? Especially considering we have not
Speaker 1: yet seen another fiscal pack cage, and like you said,
Speaker 1: the economic data is is a little bit mixed. Well,
Speaker 1: let's be fair, Sarah. Investors have been rewarded by being
Speaker 1: patient and they didn't even have to be that patient.
Speaker 1: What was it too bad weeks and then we saw
Speaker 1: this huge rally. I mean, patients hasn't even been required
Speaker 1: the summer for investors. But investors are going to have
Speaker 1: to get used to not flinching by a daily move.
Speaker 1: I think that the market has been actually rather complacent
Speaker 1: given how dire the economic fundamentals are. So this is
Speaker 1: a time for for investors to get real in terms
Speaker 1: of their expectations. If you look back for the last
Speaker 1: three years, Uh, going into this week, stocks had been
Speaker 1: returning the last three years, even before the pandemic. We
Speaker 1: did not expect that level of stock price return for
Speaker 1: so we need to reset our expectations for more reasonable
Speaker 1: growth going forward and occasional pullbacks and volatility and not
Speaker 1: let that shake us from our strategy of a diversified approach. Yeah, Neil,
Speaker 1: I was reading some of the notes you sent over
Speaker 1: before this interview, and one of the things you mentioned was,
Speaker 1: you know, if you're if you have a balanced portfolio,
Speaker 1: say a sixty percent stocks bonds type of portfolio, obviously
Speaker 1: right now is the time to rebalance that your your
Speaker 1: stock portion of the portfolio has gotten way above six
Speaker 1: to you know, whatever it is currently after this melt up.
Speaker 1: But the reason I bring it up is I helped
Speaker 1: edit a story for the magazine last week talking about
Speaker 1: sixty portfolios, and there's been sort of I wouldn't know
Speaker 1: if i'd called it backlash, but a lot of people
Speaker 1: on Wall Street out there saying sixty forty is not
Speaker 1: the way to go going forward, given that treasury yields
Speaker 1: are so low, no one really expects them to go negative,
Speaker 1: and you know, so you could get that sort of
Speaker 1: less leg of capital appreciation, and the stock market valuation
Speaker 1: is so high that both of those are sort of
Speaker 1: foreboding for for future returns. I mean, the obvious question
Speaker 1: then is a tough one. What do you do to
Speaker 1: replace a sixty forty? And I think that could be
Speaker 1: the subject for about a five hour podcast. But I'm
Speaker 1: just curious, from where you're sitting and talking to clients
Speaker 1: of Edward Jones, has it reached the level of sort
Speaker 1: of the individual investor yet that they're worried about the
Speaker 1: classic approach to a stable, balanced portfolio like sixty forty?
Speaker 1: Are they asking about alternatives about sort of you know,
Speaker 1: taking a little more risk besides say an index fund
Speaker 1: or or a real conservative mutual fund. Is there any
Speaker 1: interest from sort of the mom and pop investors and
Speaker 1: institutions even to go beyond sixty to say well, this
Speaker 1: worked great for the last I don't know, forty years,
Speaker 1: but yeah, yeah, however long you measure it. Is this
Speaker 1: a false alarm? I guess to finish off my thirteen
Speaker 1: part question, it's also a false false alarm about this
Speaker 1: sort of the outlook for a sixty type of strategy
Speaker 1: or is it worth considering sort of branching out and
Speaker 1: looking at some alternatives. It is a real placeholder of
Speaker 1: perspective for clients. I will say that, look, we are
Speaker 1: in this current environment that is likely to stay with
Speaker 1: us for a long time of lower for longer interest rates.
Speaker 1: And we thought they couldn't go any lower. They actually
Speaker 1: went lower in and they're likely to stay there longer.
Speaker 1: If you really think about what the Federal Reserve has
Speaker 1: done cutting rates near zero. Yes, okay, that's the first thing,
Speaker 1: But then introducing a whole new concept, a whole new
Speaker 1: level of flex ability in terms of saying, we are
Speaker 1: not going to start raising interest rates as soon as
Speaker 1: we see inflation creep up to two. We're actually gonna
Speaker 1: let it creep up, and we're gonna let it creep
Speaker 1: up for some unspecified amount of time. What that basically did,
Speaker 1: um when the FED announced that last week average inflation
Speaker 1: targeting policy, said we're going to keep interest rates, short
Speaker 1: term rates very low for a very long time past
Speaker 1: and perhaps even longer. And so what that says to
Speaker 1: clients is, WHOA how am I going to get income
Speaker 1: on my bonds that are paying me nothing? And so
Speaker 1: bonds have really two purposes, right, One is for income
Speaker 1: and the second is to cushion against volatility, and both
Speaker 1: of them are. The income one is for sure lower
Speaker 1: when you have lower yields, but also the volatility cushion
Speaker 1: isn't as strong as if you can't see the interest
Speaker 1: rate decline a thousand basis points like like we've seen
Speaker 1: under certain economic environments, there's not a lot of room
Speaker 1: to move for interest rates to go lower. So the
Speaker 1: question is how do I get that kind of growth?
Speaker 1: How do I get that kind of yield, and this
Speaker 1: is why diversification matters. When you see a move like
Speaker 1: you have seen recently with a text sell off, it's
Speaker 1: important not to abandon that growth strategy because you're going
Speaker 1: to need it in your portfolio. This is an environment
Speaker 1: where you have to play both offense and defense because
Speaker 1: you're going to see volatility, So you need to have
Speaker 1: some defensiveness in your portfolio. That's fixed income, that's utilities,
Speaker 1: that's consumer staples, which you're going to have to play offense.
Speaker 1: And the last thing I'll say is people who get
Speaker 1: close to retirement think, oh wow, I'm going into retirement
Speaker 1: my distribution stage of life. I need to really pay
Speaker 1: attention to markets now. And I think what gets lost
Speaker 1: in that thought process is that you could spend twenty
Speaker 1: five years in retirement. Uh. If you think that there
Speaker 1: was a bear market every three to four years, you
Speaker 1: could see eight bear markets in retirement. So so to
Speaker 1: give up on growth too early could be a mistake
Speaker 1: for your long term enjoyment of your retirement. Eight bear
Speaker 1: markets sure, and retirement is not by that that you're
Speaker 1: going into retirement. No, I'm never going to retire. That's
Speaker 1: the only solution retire. You know, Mike, I think Nila
Speaker 1: needed more patients though for that question you asked than
Speaker 1: stock investors maybe needed all year that it was the
Speaker 1: long one. She answered, that's not bad. That's that I'd
Speaker 1: give it an a plus. Nila, I do want to
Speaker 1: ask you a hypothetical though, and kind of put you
Speaker 1: on the spot. Oh, that wasn't putting me on the
Speaker 1: spot just now with Mike, Okay, the entire time, Nila
Speaker 1: lives on the spot. Right. So it's very early on.
Speaker 1: We don't know if this volatility that we have seen
Speaker 1: is going to continue to the extent that we have
Speaker 1: seen what we saw towards the end of this past week.
Speaker 1: If we were to see this continue, is it possible
Speaker 1: old that we could see the Fed at its meeting
Speaker 1: this month do something more or say something more to
Speaker 1: try to ease the situation. And if they do, what
Speaker 1: would that mean from a portfolio perspective? You know, there's
Speaker 1: a variety of ways to answer that question. I'm going
Speaker 1: to answer it this way. I would like to think,
Speaker 1: and I do believe this, that the Fed will not
Speaker 1: be swayed by market moves. They know that they have
Speaker 1: done what they intended to do by their action, which
Speaker 1: is to add liquidity to the market and to improve
Speaker 1: credit market functioning, so we could continue to see the
Speaker 1: flow of credit to hard hit consumers and businesses. Beyond that,
Speaker 1: to change policy to make sure that markets keep climbing
Speaker 1: is not part of the two pronged mandate that the
Speaker 1: FAN has. That mandate is to price stability and and
Speaker 1: full employment. And so what I hope you see is
Speaker 1: what's in that input function for the FED is the
Speaker 1: unemployment rate, which is still very high, and we know
Speaker 1: it's higher for our minority groups. And so I think
Speaker 1: what the FETE is doing actually is really taking a
Speaker 1: deep look into its practices of full employment and making
Speaker 1: sure that that is as broad based and reaches as
Speaker 1: many communities as possible. What you might see, though, the
Speaker 1: volatility do in terms of actors is to nudge Congress,
Speaker 1: which is sitting on a fifth round of stimulus that
Speaker 1: you know, we're gonna quibble over these numbers. But if
Speaker 1: the Republicans initial bid was a trillion dollars in new
Speaker 1: stimulus and the Democrats was three trillion, look, it's still
Speaker 1: a trillion dollars in stimulus. That's a lot of stimulus
Speaker 1: and Act five of the bipartisan legislation would do so. Um,
Speaker 1: I think that's what vulnerable households are waiting for. But
Speaker 1: you might need a market nudge, unfortunately, to get policy
Speaker 1: makers to that point. Yeah, that's a big bid esk
Speaker 1: spread there between a trillion and three trillion, But you're right,
Speaker 1: it's you know, starting with a high base. You know, Neila,
Speaker 1: they say not to talk about religion and politics. I'm
Speaker 1: not gonna ask you about religion, but you you did
Speaker 1: bring up the politics, and I think we can't help
Speaker 1: but have to talk about it these days. Uh, the
Speaker 1: election coming up in November. Um, we've had a few
Speaker 1: stories out at Bloomberg talking about the way people are
Speaker 1: sort of trying to hedge the event risk of the election.
Speaker 1: Really almost unprecedented hedging taking place across all asset classes.
Speaker 1: But you know, how do you communicate to clients about
Speaker 1: the risks and opportunities ahead of the election. Um? Does
Speaker 1: it make sense to sort of take some risk off
Speaker 1: the table to to try to sort of, you know,
Speaker 1: book some profits ahead of the election or is is
Speaker 1: that a fool's errand to try to do that given
Speaker 1: how how this market has just been melting up anyway.
Speaker 1: You know, we've had one and very consistent message about
Speaker 1: elections and election years, even elections in UH don't play
Speaker 1: politics with your portfolio. I'm gonna grant a number of things.
Speaker 1: I'm going to grant that we've seen an unprecedented prize
Speaker 1: this year in terms of the pandemic. I'm also going
Speaker 1: to grant that this is a very divisive election where
Speaker 1: because exacerbated by the pandemic, you're seeing social upheaval. You're
Speaker 1: seeing racial injustices being protested in the streets. You're seeing
Speaker 1: higher than ever before, jobless numbers g d P declining
Speaker 1: by the most since the Great Depression. So there's a
Speaker 1: lot going in to a vote in November this time around.
Speaker 1: But if you look historically, it really doesn't matter over
Speaker 1: the long term who controls Congress, who controls the White House.
Speaker 1: UH stocks have performed on average ten percent regardless of
Speaker 1: who controlled what in Washington. And I know I lived
Speaker 1: in Washington for fifteen years. It's full of very important
Speaker 1: and very self important people. So I know that this
Speaker 1: is going to be heart wrenching to know that they
Speaker 1: don't control everything in the economy. But it's really economic
Speaker 1: and corporate fundamentals that matter the most for a rally,
Speaker 1: so any reaction we see, and I do think we'll
Speaker 1: see a reaction to the November when it's likely to
Speaker 1: be short lived. It's likely to be a knee jerk
Speaker 1: reaction to what's going on, and it's likely to wash
Speaker 1: out over the longer term. I do always wonder what
Speaker 1: that said, with the amount of research notes that landed
Speaker 1: my email in box this time of year, how much
Speaker 1: are people just almost forced to comment on election volatility
Speaker 1: because it's coming up, because it's a talking point, and
Speaker 1: you just have to have something to say. If you're
Speaker 1: a strategist or if you're a financial adviser. Well, I'm
Speaker 1: always warried of being prompted to say something I don't
Speaker 1: have anything to say about. That's not a good But
Speaker 1: I think there is also a difference between policy and politics,
Speaker 1: and we conflate the two all the time. But you
Speaker 1: can talk about policy. Policy has an effect on companies.
Speaker 1: It has a disproportionate effect, and so the nuance is
Speaker 1: actually really interesting. But it's not a headline, it's not
Speaker 1: a talking point that's easily given. It's so much easier
Speaker 1: to just make this bipartisan reference to Republicans, Democrats, Biden,
Speaker 1: Trump instead of digging into the policy details, because that's
Speaker 1: where the devil lies, and the devil is what controls
Speaker 1: the outcomes, Uh unfortunately in some of this policy legislation.
Speaker 1: So it's really digging into those details and seeing how
Speaker 1: that affects particular sectors and who benefits and wins. And
Speaker 1: that's hard work. I think we got the headline there,
Speaker 1: Sarah Nili says, the devil's in charge. You know, as
Speaker 1: much as I try, I can't get the headline right.
Speaker 1: You you are very good at at uncovering the best headlines.
Speaker 1: That's that's our job. But I guess from a sector standpoint,
Speaker 1: maybe it makes sense to pay closer to the election, right.
Speaker 1: I mean, you got Biden is a clean energy guy.
Speaker 1: Trump's a dirty energy guy, and you know you could
Speaker 1: you could go down the list. Um is even that
Speaker 1: fullist you think to try to game that too much? Mike,
Speaker 1: I would never say anything you said was foolish. But
Speaker 1: but I I know because I was a gut I
Speaker 1: was a government economist. I worked on the Dodd Frank legislation,
Speaker 1: and I know firsthand that what is promised on the
Speaker 1: campaign trail looks a lot different by the time it
Speaker 1: makes its way through Congress and into the government agencies
Speaker 1: which actually right and enact law. So again, then first response,
Speaker 1: the knee jerk response, it's it's too early, it's short lived.
Speaker 1: Seeing how these policies play out as they moved through
Speaker 1: the democratic process is what's really important. This is why
Speaker 1: we're so lucky to have someone like you on the show. Alright, Mike,
Speaker 1: I I think it's that time, though, Is it time? Okay? Nearly?
Speaker 1: I know you're a veteran of the show, and you
Speaker 1: know it's time for the craziest thing. Stand clear of
Speaker 1: the craziest things we saw in markets this week? All right, well,
Speaker 1: I'll give you Emily Barrett's oar calliguet. Emily Barrett gave
Speaker 1: us this one via Marty Frisden. So the year to
Speaker 1: date return on high yield debt turned positive in August,
Speaker 1: and the distress ratio, that is the percentage of bonds
Speaker 1: yielding greater than one thousand basis points over treasuries hit
Speaker 1: an all time low for recession. That's kind of a mouthful,
Speaker 1: but I guess that is a that is a pretty
Speaker 1: crazy thing. I guess not that surprising giving the purchases
Speaker 1: the Feds making in the in the corporate bond market. Um.
Speaker 1: But now, how do you pay close attention to the
Speaker 1: credit markets? Uh? You know, as far as trying to
Speaker 1: suss out the prospects for the stock market. You know,
Speaker 1: I I did. But the credit the fixed income markets
Speaker 1: have been so appeased by the Fed. I mean, there's
Speaker 1: been a remarkable level of stability. So if they're telling
Speaker 1: us anything, they're telling us the same thing over and
Speaker 1: over and over and over over again right now. Um,
Speaker 1: So it's really a disconnect from what we're seeing in
Speaker 1: terms of Riley. The fixed income markets are staying high.
Speaker 1: I mean, we might see some courage stepening, but they
Speaker 1: are at high levels and their price for the economy
Speaker 1: that we're in, whereas stock markets continue to drive towards
Speaker 1: the economy we hope to be in a year or
Speaker 1: two from now. All Right, Neil, Well, Sarah dropped the
Speaker 1: ball on the craziest thing. I'm really sorry, guys. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that means I'm the winner again, I guess, unless Nila
Speaker 1: you can come through with with something. Uh for us here,
Speaker 1: you have you seen anything crazy this week? I've seen
Speaker 1: a lot of things crazy this week. Uh, schools just
Speaker 1: reopened in Jersey, enough said, but nothing market related, that's
Speaker 1: popping popping to mind. Sorry, Mike, you know what, I
Speaker 1: actually know, you know what. I do have one. I
Speaker 1: do have one. I'm sorry. So there was a lot
Speaker 1: of focus on the spread in implied volatility markets this week.
Speaker 1: If you look at implied volatility for the NAZAC one
Speaker 1: d compared to implied volatility for the smp SO, VX
Speaker 1: and minus vix at the highest spread in sixteen years. Um.
Speaker 1: And this was happening leading up to the trading day
Speaker 1: on Thursday, which is kind of when we saw this
Speaker 1: complete unraveled, the NASDAC down more than five per cent.
Speaker 1: And there are a lot of theories kind of tussling
Speaker 1: around about why this is was implied vall for the
Speaker 1: NAZAC so high because people were hedging against something like this,
Speaker 1: or does it have to do with some serious out
Speaker 1: of the money call options that were being placed forcing
Speaker 1: to there's a hedge. Um, so pretty crazy. And it's
Speaker 1: also it's it's gotten a lot of focus this week.
Speaker 1: That's pretty good. Is it? Is it those guys on
Speaker 1: Reddit again doing maybe if one of them listens they're
Speaker 1: gonna maybe if one of them listens, you can give
Speaker 1: us a call at our podcast outline and leave us
Speaker 1: a message and let us know to you those characters
Speaker 1: are acted up again. All right. I know Neil has
Speaker 1: got to leave us soon, so I'm gonna go through
Speaker 1: mine quickly. So I thought this was gonna be the
Speaker 1: first time where I would take both gold and silver
Speaker 1: in uh craziest things. But you came through there. You
Speaker 1: came through at the last minute. But let me give
Speaker 1: you mine once again in the alternative assets space. And sorry,
Speaker 1: you're a millennial, so I often go to you to
Speaker 1: make sense of of millennial stuff for me. Is it
Speaker 1: true you guys are all crazy about house plants? Um,
Speaker 1: I can tell you that I have a fake six
Speaker 1: foot fight histry sitting in the corner of my apartment
Speaker 1: right now. It's not a real house plant, but it
Speaker 1: does look like one. So yes, we do love house plants.
Speaker 1: All right. Let me tell you about this house plant
Speaker 1: in New Zealand. I'll left the New York Post headline,
Speaker 1: Uh really explains it all. Headline is some sucker in
Speaker 1: New Zealand just spent five thousand dollars on a house plant.
Speaker 1: And apparently there's something called a mini Monstera which is
Speaker 1: a very fancy house plant that they've seen all sorts
Speaker 1: of interest in some auction site. House plant. Auction site
Speaker 1: has had more than thirty three thousand searches for this
Speaker 1: five thousand dollar house plant, and the post did the
Speaker 1: math for us um it doesn't have many leaves on it,
Speaker 1: so they said, if anyone counting that breaks down to
Speaker 1: about per leaf, I can't say that I would spend
Speaker 1: that much on a house plant. Mine was about sixty
Speaker 1: dollars off of Amazon um. But people have different tastes, right,
Speaker 1: Maybe he should start making the fake Monstera plants that
Speaker 1: that could be uh A little side. Okay, one other
Speaker 1: alternative asset class In California, with all the wildfires, private
Speaker 1: citizens are now buying fire trucks again, according to a
Speaker 1: New York Post with you know, the paper of record
Speaker 1: for crazy things, but they say, concerned over destructive wildfires,
Speaker 1: California residents are going to Kreigslist, the ultimate over the
Speaker 1: counter market, to buy fire trucks from a Sacramento company
Speaker 1: called Vans from Japan, including a sixty nine thousand dollar
Speaker 1: peer built water truck. What's become of the world when
Speaker 1: private citizens have to buy their own fire trucks. This
Speaker 1: is distressing idea that what's going on in California is
Speaker 1: so sad. But we can always kind on Mike to
Speaker 1: come to us with the alternative investment strategies. Next thing
Speaker 1: you know, Nila, someone asks you about sixty, you're gonna say, O,
Speaker 1: why don't you go buy him on Sarah plant or
Speaker 1: maybe and a fire truck the ultimate and diversified assets.
Speaker 1: That's that's a free one for you, Nila. You can
Speaker 1: use that you well. I mentioned our podcast hotline. Remember
Speaker 1: if you give us a call, when may play a
Speaker 1: message on the show. If you leave one, it's six
Speaker 1: or six three to four three for nine zero And
Speaker 1: unfortunately we are going to have to leave it there.
Speaker 1: Soney La Richardson, thank you so much for coming on
Speaker 1: the show today. Thanks for having me. It's always great
Speaker 1: to talk with you too. What goes up. We'll be
Speaker 1: back next week. Until then, you can find us on
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Terminal website and app or wherever you get
Speaker 1: your podcasts. We love it if you took the time
Speaker 1: to rate and review the show on Apple Podcasts so
Speaker 1: more listeners can find us and You can find us
Speaker 1: on Twitter, follow me at at Sarah pont Seck, Mike
Speaker 1: is that Reaganonymous, and you can also follow Bloomberg Podcasts
Speaker 1: at podcasts. Of course, thank you to Charlie Pellett of
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Radio and the voice of the New York City
Speaker 1: Subway System. What Goes Up is produced by Jordan Gospore.
Speaker 1: The head of Bloomberg podcast is brincesco Levie. Thanks for listening,
Speaker 1: See you next time.