Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to What Goes Up, a Bloomberg Weekly
Speaker 1: Markets podcast. I'm Sarah pon Sec, a market reporter on
Speaker 1: the Cross Asset team, and I'm Mike Reagan, a senior
Speaker 1: editor on the Markets team. It was just last week
Speaker 1: that higher tariffs caught investors by surprise, sending the SMP
Speaker 1: to its worst week of the year. Well, now markets
Speaker 1: are bouncing back. Is this as bad as it will get?
Speaker 1: Will analyze the latest on US China trade. Plus the
Speaker 1: bond market hasn't been any more sure this year that
Speaker 1: the Fed will actually cut rates. And don't worry. We'll
Speaker 1: close out the episode with our tradition, the craziest thing
Speaker 1: I saw in markets this week. Don't worry, Sarah, I've
Speaker 1: got a good one. You've got a good one. I
Speaker 1: I do have a good one. I'm ready, I'm ready.
Speaker 1: Hopefully our guests have a good one. I think our
Speaker 1: first guest is a little worried that his his craziest
Speaker 1: thing isn't that crazy. Joining us this week are pen
Speaker 1: Pal Here at Bloomberg. We talked to this guy a lot.
Speaker 1: Ben Emmons, Managing director for Global macro Strategy at Medley Advisors.
Speaker 1: UM Now, Ben, you were born in the Netherlands, but
Speaker 1: then you spent a long time at Pimco in the
Speaker 1: Bill Gross era. So I kind of think of you
Speaker 1: as a California dude. Is that fair? Is fair? That's fair.
Speaker 1: I think of you as the California I got. I
Speaker 1: got the blond hair, I got the tan, I even
Speaker 1: got the muscles. So so whatever I see you in
Speaker 1: New York, I assume the surf is not up in
Speaker 1: California right now. I got. I got a message from
Speaker 1: my son's school like his rainy day today, you gotta
Speaker 1: come early to pick him up. So I was like, hey, okay, Sunshine,
Speaker 1: I'm a good place. And our other guests this week
Speaker 1: is my pal e She. Now she and I have
Speaker 1: worked together. What's the twelve years? We were actually in
Speaker 1: the same Bloomberg boot camp training class years ago. Yeah,
Speaker 1: definitely a while, Sarah. The reason I love she. I
Speaker 1: don't think listeners realize this, but one of the big
Speaker 1: perks here at Bloomberg is they put out free soup
Speaker 1: at lunch and it's usually pretty good. I'd say they're
Speaker 1: batting at least five on the soups. And she, whenever
Speaker 1: he goes again, when he always picks up a second
Speaker 1: one team player, which I it's very nice because Michael
Speaker 1: used to be my boss and and to paint a
Speaker 1: picture for those of you out there, when you go
Speaker 1: to get a soup at Bloomberg, it is like battle time.
Speaker 1: As nice as that is. That is on She's part.
Speaker 1: That's not why we brought him on as a guest.
Speaker 1: It's actually he's probably the most knowledgeable about Chinese politics
Speaker 1: and markets and economy here. So no pressure, she, but
Speaker 1: we're hoping you can explain everything to us. I need
Speaker 1: to practice with my Mandarin at least I want to
Speaker 1: get right to it. Because you look at the markets
Speaker 1: reaction this week. Put aside Monday, Monday was rough, but
Speaker 1: we really saw a rebound in stocks this week, as
Speaker 1: if they don't really care so much about the goings
Speaker 1: on between US China trade. Ben, I want to come
Speaker 1: to you first, how much does this all actually matter
Speaker 1: to the stock market. So it's interesting, Sarah, because you
Speaker 1: would think that we're going exactly through the same episode
Speaker 1: as last year, right when we had the first time
Speaker 1: the threat of this two and a billion of terrors,
Speaker 1: and at the first followed with this episode in October
Speaker 1: and all this volatility, and we kind of have the
Speaker 1: same thing, right, we had him coming out suddenly hiking
Speaker 1: terrors and then more threats coming and you would think
Speaker 1: the same voltating. Yes, that was just on Monday, but
Speaker 1: I have to say that also at that time in
Speaker 1: septem October, we had bouncers like this, really because the
Speaker 1: market is trying to, I think, to do two things. One,
Speaker 1: it's of course trying to understand what's the world of
Speaker 1: terrors really mean, and so there's a lot of opposing
Speaker 1: views about this, right who pays for the tears? And
Speaker 1: then the second thing is it's like, wow, it's just terrors, right,
Speaker 1: We're not actually dealing with any kind of great hikes.
Speaker 1: You know, I've kind of made it that sound like
Speaker 1: the same. It's not really great hikes, and it's not
Speaker 1: really right now killing our economy, right, it will be
Speaker 1: maybe something in the future. So I think that's part
Speaker 1: of the reason why I see this relief bounds. And
Speaker 1: yet in the treasury market it seems very much risk off.
Speaker 1: You know, treasuries are bid this week, fields are coming down. Um,
Speaker 1: stock market it was risk off, but now it's back
Speaker 1: to that rally mode. UM it always begs the question
Speaker 1: is one of them right, one of them wrong, or
Speaker 1: does one market just understand President trump sprinkmanship better? Do
Speaker 1: you think, I mean, what what's your take on all that?
Speaker 1: So I would actually think, Mike that that the bondmark
Speaker 1: has been pretty rational about this trade deal. And for
Speaker 1: a while I wasn't in that game myself, but after
Speaker 1: sort of the analysis of the latest bet that we
Speaker 1: went through. Now, if you take take us back to January,
Speaker 1: when we came in a new year, that Marcus started rebound,
Speaker 1: but there was a lot of chatter out there like
Speaker 1: the trade talks are going well. I mean, things are progressing,
Speaker 1: and you know, rally continues, but the bond market wasn't
Speaker 1: really moving along. But it was a little bit moving rates,
Speaker 1: but not much. Of course data is weak and and
Speaker 1: and so forth. But since that time, we haven't read
Speaker 1: moved substantially higher rates at all. If anything, we're now
Speaker 1: a lot lower. And I think that the markets in
Speaker 1: fixed income has continue to look at this saying this
Speaker 1: deal isn't that really going there? Well, these negotiations are
Speaker 1: maybe that's constructive, and you know there's a risk that
Speaker 1: things do fall apart, and that uncertainty is reflected in
Speaker 1: the U Grove particularly that stayed flat all the way
Speaker 1: through this whole episode of the stock market rebounds generating.
Speaker 1: I think that was a kind of signal the bond
Speaker 1: market had a better sense of where we were in
Speaker 1: these straight negotiations than the stock market. So you mentioned
Speaker 1: that something people are trying to figure out is who
Speaker 1: actually pays for these tariffs? And Walmart came out this
Speaker 1: past week they reported earnings and they said that when
Speaker 1: these higher tariffs do go into play, because a lot
Speaker 1: of the new list of that three billion, if it
Speaker 1: does go into play, it's really a lot on some
Speaker 1: of the goods that Walmart cells clothing as well, and
Speaker 1: they've said they're going to pass it on to the consumer.
Speaker 1: What do these tariffs actually mean for the economy? Then
Speaker 1: the first inclusion would take is that this this would
Speaker 1: change the demands and one people would maybe look at
Speaker 1: those products and by other things when or people would
Speaker 1: just not buy him at all. Right, I mean that
Speaker 1: would be the initial idea. Then I think people would
Speaker 1: start to anticipate like this is gonna stop here or
Speaker 1: going to see more. Now, here's an important difference between
Speaker 1: the episode from last year and this year. This time,
Speaker 1: the next round of terroffs on three billions so is
Speaker 1: now officially in the in the federal registered by the
Speaker 1: U S Trade Representative. That didn't happen the last time, right,
Speaker 1: we had ten percent on two and a billion and
Speaker 1: in the thread of but but there was never anything
Speaker 1: else really formally announced and that that thread was taken back.
Speaker 1: This time we're dealing with actually something that he threatened
Speaker 1: with and actually put it out there for comments. So
Speaker 1: if anything goes wrong, then people know like, okay, this
Speaker 1: has got there's more coming. And I think that will
Speaker 1: really change people's behavior by this kind like Okay, we're
Speaker 1: gonna deal with substantially more terrors and companies will will
Speaker 1: are bare for that. So yeah, it's a big, big
Speaker 1: change now. She obviously China can't match the US tariffs
Speaker 1: dollar for dollar. They simply don't import is uh much
Speaker 1: US goods as they export to the US. So the
Speaker 1: question on everyone's mind is how will they retaliate? But
Speaker 1: will they retaliate? And you know people obviously talking about
Speaker 1: um they own more than a trillion dollars in treasuries.
Speaker 1: They could start selling them off and spike in interest rates.
Speaker 1: Others wonder if they'll let the currency just go into
Speaker 1: free all free fall to make their exports uh more competitive. Um. Now,
Speaker 1: there's problems with both those scenarios, but I'm just curious,
Speaker 1: what do you think where would you expect to see
Speaker 1: any sort of retaliation? Um? Yeah, definitely, Chinese has some
Speaker 1: Trump casts in the hands. You mentioned the treasury, you
Speaker 1: mentioned the You've been waiting to use that one. They
Speaker 1: have a lot of cause that can plain. They own
Speaker 1: one trillion dollars of US treasury, they can sell to
Speaker 1: the market. They have the manage the Chinese you want
Speaker 1: on to offset some of the costs from the tariffs.
Speaker 1: But I think these are like last options. So the
Speaker 1: signals they have been sending is that they're still willing
Speaker 1: to engage. They're still willing to talk. Remember last week
Speaker 1: before the Chinese send the meeting to send the team
Speaker 1: to DC to continue the latest round of negotiation, Trump
Speaker 1: who was threatening to raise the tariff, But the Chinese
Speaker 1: still send that team to the d C, but they
Speaker 1: cut the trip shot. Basically, He's said, they are sending
Speaker 1: the signal that they are willing to engage, but they
Speaker 1: are they're diggetting. They have to make that demand and
Speaker 1: their bottom line clear to the people in the US
Speaker 1: and to the market that they are not going to
Speaker 1: giving to the maximum pressure that Trump is putting on
Speaker 1: the China. Right. I'm glad you mentioned the talks in
Speaker 1: in DC start. Do you realize whenever the Chinese delegation
Speaker 1: comes to talk in d C, we send she down
Speaker 1: there to follow them around hoping for a quote. I
Speaker 1: have to I have to say I I didn't know that,
Speaker 1: and I saw she's name on a byeline last week
Speaker 1: and I realized. I said, oh my gosh, they sent
Speaker 1: him down to d C to try to get I
Speaker 1: think it's not a bad gig because they never talked, right, Yeah, exactly,
Speaker 1: well expectation, except this time. It's very interesting to me
Speaker 1: because I usually mentioned that the Chinese used to be
Speaker 1: very silent, especially when it comes to the trade, because
Speaker 1: they don't want to play the nationalism sentiment at home.
Speaker 1: But this time, Um lil Her, the Vice Premier who's
Speaker 1: leading the Chinese side of the negotiation, he's actually gave
Speaker 1: like two interviews to state media. In that interview, he
Speaker 1: made a clear the three major disagreement between the U
Speaker 1: S side and China side, which is for the first
Speaker 1: time they relieved the disagreement from the China side, one
Speaker 1: is that the all the tariffs have to be gone,
Speaker 1: have to be removed for any deal to happen. Secondly,
Speaker 1: the Chinese purchase of the American goods has to be realistic,
Speaker 1: so you as can't demand a lot of the purchase
Speaker 1: from the China side. And so part of is the
Speaker 1: language in the final agreement has to be respectful, has
Speaker 1: show the dignity um and equality, reflect that dignity and
Speaker 1: reflect the equality from the Chinese side. I thought this
Speaker 1: is a very strong signal chineses sending because by making
Speaker 1: this very public, it's very easy to check. So it's
Speaker 1: very unlikely China is going to back down from these
Speaker 1: three uh criteria sent up. So if we demand they
Speaker 1: buy Trump steaks and Trump vodka, yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean those are some pretty strong demands and now
Speaker 1: they are made public now. Ben, something I've been thinking
Speaker 1: a lot about and speaking with investors this week is
Speaker 1: the idea that the logic behind the deal getting done
Speaker 1: is just the fact that it has to get done.
Speaker 1: It would be bad for both sides if it didn't.
Speaker 1: So everyone is holding on to this idea that a
Speaker 1: deal will get done. I mean, if everyone is thinking
Speaker 1: that way, does it just potentially make it worse if
Speaker 1: we keep seeing the can kick down the road, if
Speaker 1: this goes on until the election potentially beyond. That's exactly right, Sarah,
Speaker 1: because normally to kick the can down road a supposed
Speaker 1: to be very positive for markets because of the mental
Speaker 1: was that a difficult decision was put off, say that
Speaker 1: ceiling or shutdown or anything related to that or whatever
Speaker 1: kind of regulation. So markets have to deal with the
Speaker 1: negative outcome from that and therefore you rally. But this
Speaker 1: time this is different. Right, If you kick the cannon
Speaker 1: a road on the straight deal, we now sort of
Speaker 1: have a timeline what could happen. We could see by
Speaker 1: July more tears on a larger number of goods. In addition,
Speaker 1: in the following four months from there we could see
Speaker 1: there's on European cars. Right, there's actually a time and
Speaker 1: laid down there. So yes, this deal is essential to have. Also,
Speaker 1: I think to the European side that then therefore that
Speaker 1: will happen too. So you can't really kick the can
Speaker 1: down the roads without potentially causing major market volatility if
Speaker 1: you disappoint on the outcome. So the G twenty summit,
Speaker 1: it's just like Buenos Aires, like last year, they'll get
Speaker 1: together and it will be really you know, vell televised
Speaker 1: summit and we will watch the language and you may
Speaker 1: may go there. I guess some you know, some sense
Speaker 1: of what they're doing. But then we know, like you know,
Speaker 1: from there, we'll we'll think we'll get pretty contentious if
Speaker 1: nothing happened. So this is indeed a difficult situation. Kick
Speaker 1: the can here is negative for markets. Ben, So say
Speaker 1: we put you back in your old seat as a
Speaker 1: portfolio manager, and we say, Ben, here's ten billion. You
Speaker 1: have discretion to buy anything you want, bitcoin, swybean stocks, bonds, anything.
Speaker 1: What what are you? What are you trading right now?
Speaker 1: Are you just staying in cash? I mean it seems
Speaker 1: almost like a paralyzing decision right now to try to
Speaker 1: figure out how to play this. Yeah, that's there's one
Speaker 1: way you could approach you right as an investor, I
Speaker 1: would not do it that way. You know you're not
Speaker 1: want to sit all in cash? Uh, you know some
Speaker 1: of it that's just to be optimistic. Um, you know,
Speaker 1: I think there's opportunities developing with one good thing about
Speaker 1: this is for investing at least. Is that. Yes, any
Speaker 1: kind of tension creates relative value, creates opportunity. Any tightening
Speaker 1: of financial conditions creates value. It was better in the
Speaker 1: seminar it is now. But look at how the market
Speaker 1: has started to rebound in a would happen on Monday
Speaker 1: because people looked at that, Hey there's a little bit
Speaker 1: too much till in frencial cognitions there's value a step in.
Speaker 1: That's what I would do. Now, now to your question
Speaker 1: what looks interesting, I still think there's really value local
Speaker 1: emerging markets. I think that if the China situation gets
Speaker 1: real pressure, that's where valuable will appear. I would be
Speaker 1: willing to put money there Asian extrono Asian extent. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think so. I think that that that would be
Speaker 1: potentially an opportunity, the risk reward there, and I think
Speaker 1: you know on the commodity side, you know, yeah, the
Speaker 1: soybean market, well, actually that looks really under values, right
Speaker 1: you think about historically, Um, but where I would not
Speaker 1: put my money And even though I've been in that situation,
Speaker 1: I would not my money in bounds because I do
Speaker 1: think that yields are thinking in US are they're kind
Speaker 1: of overvalue, they're kind of the fair value maybe maybe
Speaker 1: too low. The economy is stronger, right if we're not
Speaker 1: the starting death fast yet, so I would not put
Speaker 1: my money. So going off of that, we heard the
Speaker 1: likes of Goldman Sacks Mount this week tell Bloomberg Television
Speaker 1: that yields should not be where they are in the tenure.
Speaker 1: It's gone way too far away, too fast. Maybe two
Speaker 1: point seven percent is more fair value. Does it seem
Speaker 1: like this has just gotten ahead of itself a bit?
Speaker 1: I think the there's there's value in the bonds in
Speaker 1: the sense that if you are like a invest the
Speaker 1: boat holding boats of stocks and bonds bounds as a
Speaker 1: natural hatch for your stock portfolio. If you're bullish on
Speaker 1: the stock market, why not buying some bonds in case
Speaker 1: past things happen. So there's natural demand on that. And secondly,
Speaker 1: in terms of the fast expectations, the risk for the
Speaker 1: fair that is asymmetric. The bar for the fair to
Speaker 1: raise rates is very high. For them to courage if
Speaker 1: a recession do come, they have to cut all the
Speaker 1: way down to zero. So we're talking about fifty basis
Speaker 1: points in terms of distributes. The distribution of the polability.
Speaker 1: Then you come down to like twenty five basis points
Speaker 1: pricing into the future fair pone futures market is not
Speaker 1: that ridiculous. Um uh strange. Now, everybody loves to talk
Speaker 1: about Donald Trump in the Art of the Deal, Right,
Speaker 1: we're lucky enough to get Ben's notes, and uh, he
Speaker 1: tried to look at it from the other side. The
Speaker 1: art of war by sun Zoo. It's the art of
Speaker 1: the deal versus the art of war. And I want
Speaker 1: to quote a couple uh sun Zoo quotes from from
Speaker 1: one of your notes. Quote, if your opponent is temperamental,
Speaker 1: seek to irritate him. Check, pretend to be weak, that
Speaker 1: they may grow arrogant Jack. And then you're right. That
Speaker 1: sun Zoos principle is that all warfare is based on deception.
Speaker 1: So engage people with what they expect because it settles
Speaker 1: them into predictable patterns of response, occupying their minds while
Speaker 1: you wait for the extraordinary moment in the midst of chaos.
Speaker 1: There's also opportunity has been just pointed out. Now, Yuh,
Speaker 1: I want to ask you, you know, I feel like
Speaker 1: everyone in the US tries to get into the head
Speaker 1: of the Chinese side of these negotiations, and whether you're
Speaker 1: quoting Sun Zoo or Confucius or Yeoman, I don't know who.
Speaker 1: How much validity is is there to this? I I
Speaker 1: you yourself on the blog of quoted some ancient Chinese proverbs.
Speaker 1: So it walk us through the mindset on on the
Speaker 1: other side, Should we be reading Confucius and sun Zoo
Speaker 1: or is it is that silly? There's another person you
Speaker 1: should read. Kea Mao. He wrote a famous speech during
Speaker 1: the World War Two when Chinese finding against the Japanese invaders.
Speaker 1: It's called paronged prolonged wall, basically saying that the Chinese
Speaker 1: need to digging and to fight the fight. The whole
Speaker 1: anti Chinese, anti Japanese a wall last eight years. UM.
Speaker 1: So I think the Chinese. The timing is on the
Speaker 1: China side, because if you're comparing the U s E
Speaker 1: commy and the Chinese E comedy, Chinese had a bad
Speaker 1: year last year. Now they seem to hit the bottom
Speaker 1: in the process of stabilizing and probably in your recovery.
Speaker 1: The US, the fiscal stimulus is fading. Um. A lot
Speaker 1: of people are expecting of slowing down this year or
Speaker 1: next year, particularly and also the Chinese don't have the
Speaker 1: election cycles the US does. Yeah, so the chump needs
Speaker 1: something to show to his voters or to his base too,
Speaker 1: that he getting a China deal is a lot of
Speaker 1: people wanted, and this is the one thing he can
Speaker 1: show to his voters, Right. I wonder what sold more, Sara,
Speaker 1: the art of the deal or the art of war
Speaker 1: that I'd probably in the piece. So what do you
Speaker 1: think is is President Trump gonna have to blink eventually
Speaker 1: because of the upcoming election. I mean, it's very difficult
Speaker 1: to sort of predict what he's gonna do. But where
Speaker 1: do you see it's sort of happened, what's going to happen. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So this is interesting might because if you watch Steve
Speaker 1: Bennon on a competing network, Sorry but it was on
Speaker 1: a competing network. But that was a really important interview.
Speaker 1: I actually recommended to listen to it because he says
Speaker 1: two things. One, he makes it really clear that Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: no matter what, he's just not gonna absolutely not going
Speaker 1: to back down, right, He's actually gonna keep the terrorists on.
Speaker 1: And I thought that was very convincing because he sat
Speaker 1: with Trump in the same colnicolled War room, and you
Speaker 1: called it that way the White House, the war room there.
Speaker 1: And then the other part is about the long term
Speaker 1: picture behind this. In the view of Trump, China's waging
Speaker 1: an economic war against us and the rest of the world.
Speaker 1: And it's been going on for not just now, but
Speaker 1: like twenty twenty years or so longer. So they have
Speaker 1: built up during the twenty years a significant competitive vantage
Speaker 1: in technology, believe or not. And so this is a
Speaker 1: real concern on the part not just here, actually in Europe.
Speaker 1: So there's this hardlining in within the Trump administration that's
Speaker 1: not just driven by just campaign rhetoric. It's driven by
Speaker 1: a long term view. I think, as much as you
Speaker 1: may I agree with Bannon's auto ideas from an investing
Speaker 1: point of view, I took a Siers note of his
Speaker 1: what he was saying the subject. So he's going to
Speaker 1: keep it on to to to the elections, and if
Speaker 1: it does damage the economy, he's not necessarily going to
Speaker 1: back down. That's I think what we can read from it.
Speaker 1: I want to ask, I know, people moaning grown sometimes
Speaker 1: when people in the finance world starts saying that good
Speaker 1: news is bad news and bad news is good news,
Speaker 1: but bear with me for a second, because on Wednesday
Speaker 1: we got some pretty rough data out of China. Then
Speaker 1: US well right before US markets open, we got weak
Speaker 1: retail sales, we got weak industrial production data. And what
Speaker 1: I've been hearing is that people are looking at this
Speaker 1: week data from both sides saying, one, it will force
Speaker 1: an urgency out of the U S And China to
Speaker 1: potentially come to a deal if we are actually seeing softer,
Speaker 1: weak a Reeker economic data, and then also that that
Speaker 1: could also potentially encourage a FED rate cut, and we
Speaker 1: did see the Fed funds futures market start to price
Speaker 1: in further rate cuts. I mean, is this a real possibility?
Speaker 1: Is it true that bad news right now is good news?
Speaker 1: I think if if you look at it that way,
Speaker 1: then I would analyze it first from what happened in
Speaker 1: the fourth quarter is lingering through that data, and then
Speaker 1: what we now went through the last the first day,
Speaker 1: last ten days since that infamous street from trumpon May five,
Speaker 1: and a condition financial markets if tightened, that's impacting data
Speaker 1: right now and we'll see this coming out in June.
Speaker 1: So the market is definitely again bone market is definitely
Speaker 1: rational about that. The underlying data trends is weak and
Speaker 1: has a risk to become a lot weaker, and that
Speaker 1: would justify ray cut. Here's a difference over the fet
Speaker 1: thinking I think is that and this what has to Georgia.
Speaker 1: Actually they coverage now they may face finance and stability
Speaker 1: and it could cause a bubble, and the other hands,
Speaker 1: they faced the potential rishk of the economy sliding down.
Speaker 1: So it's a real difficult trade off. I think the
Speaker 1: Federals stay on the track of saying that leaves us
Speaker 1: unchanged and the market discounts of ray cut, which maybe
Speaker 1: becomes eventually stimulative. And the housing data today showed them
Speaker 1: it was actually some effect on the housing now from
Speaker 1: lower rates, from lower rance. My favorite part about the
Speaker 1: tweets that restarted the the trade war sent the whole
Speaker 1: world scrambling to try to figure out what it meant.
Speaker 1: They came right after Trump's complain about the Kentucky Derby winner.
Speaker 1: Did you notice that it was? It was? It was
Speaker 1: pretty upsetic. So those stewards down in uh the Kentucky
Speaker 1: Derby must have been breathing us big side relief that
Speaker 1: they that took the heat off of them a little bit.
Speaker 1: But Sarah before we go. You know what we have
Speaker 1: to do. I know what we have to do. It
Speaker 1: is time for your favorite segment. The craziest thing I
Speaker 1: ever saw ad markets this week. We really need a
Speaker 1: sound effect. I'm gonna work on that. I'm gonna get
Speaker 1: us a sound effect for this, Sara, Let's start with you.
Speaker 1: What do you got? All right? So I was going
Speaker 1: to go with beyond Meat, just because I mean, the
Speaker 1: company is up more than two a I p O.
Speaker 1: And it's up a crazy amount again this week. But
Speaker 1: beyond meat, they're the veggie burger company, right, yes, vegan
Speaker 1: burger company, meet lists, meat company, however you think of it. Um,
Speaker 1: But basically they're off to a great start in the
Speaker 1: public markets. However, hint, hint, Mike actually sent me a
Speaker 1: little bit of a hint I have. I have to
Speaker 1: give him credit because it's so great. Actually, Bob manution, Yes,
Speaker 1: that is Stephen Minuan's father one out on a bid
Speaker 1: over at Christie's for a stainless steel bunny rabbit. And
Speaker 1: when I when I saw this thing, Okay, he did bid.
Speaker 1: He says that it was on the behalf of a client.
Speaker 1: But when you look at this bunny rabbit, it looks
Speaker 1: like an inflated blue and I have to say, and
Speaker 1: it actually is inflatable. Supposedly it's inflatable. Over it sold
Speaker 1: for nine one million dollars for a silver bunny. Well,
Speaker 1: what's the spot price of silver? Maybe if you back
Speaker 1: out the ounces of silver price mathematical, its leased to
Speaker 1: be a couple hundred dollars right there? Are you? She?
Speaker 1: What do you got? What's the craziest thing you saw
Speaker 1: on markets? Could come on minutions, father beating on the thing.
Speaker 1: It's interesting that there's three passed in the Trump and administration.
Speaker 1: Wine is a minution which would plan the Wall Street
Speaker 1: and you have Laiheiser, which we depend on the Hawks
Speaker 1: on the trade side. Trump is in the middle, so
Speaker 1: it's makes more complicated to read the strategy of the U.
Speaker 1: S time US team. Um. But for my the strangest
Speaker 1: thing in the markets this week, UM, I got a
Speaker 1: strategist making a song for the ball market, which I
Speaker 1: saw was very cool. Is it his own tune or
Speaker 1: is it to the tune of a song? Listen to
Speaker 1: this Ian Lincoln from BMO Capital Markets. Here we go,
Speaker 1: Hello rarely, my old friend Bounds have come to his
Speaker 1: again because Trump vision soft creeping left fist sees while
Speaker 1: she was sleeping, and the vision that was planning in
Speaker 1: Beijing still remains winding the bomb of trading very well.
Speaker 1: I can do better in my mandream when I think
Speaker 1: karaoke after three shots, alright, let's do it next. That's
Speaker 1: a good, good idea for the next podcast. Say you
Speaker 1: were in the lead there, but I didn't. I didn't
Speaker 1: realize he was going to break in this song. That
Speaker 1: was pretty good, and that's a hard act to follow.
Speaker 1: I if you want to pass, that's understandable. But what
Speaker 1: did you say? Anything crazy in markets this week? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Maybe the rebounds? Right? The rebounded markets? Is that crazy?
Speaker 1: We come in and it is like really risk off
Speaker 1: and people are like getting pretty like concerned and were rebound.
Speaker 1: How crazy he said? And on what right we is?
Speaker 1: Really it's just just a little bit chatter again by
Speaker 1: idam Mi Nuchin through the World set Journal or indeed
Speaker 1: unconfirmed by Trump by the way, on the six extension
Speaker 1: of Auditation Europe, or just if some sort of other chatter.
Speaker 1: So I think that is a little crazy words crazy times.
Speaker 1: We're living in crazy times. It's pretty easy to pack
Speaker 1: the craziest thing yes, all right, I'll give you mine quickly. Now, uh,
Speaker 1: President Trump's companies famously went bankrupt. His casino companies. They
Speaker 1: both had public stocks for a while. And now, Penn,
Speaker 1: you would assume those stocks are worthless, but you would
Speaker 1: be wrong. There's a robust market for paper stock certificates
Speaker 1: from old companies, and I went looking on one of
Speaker 1: the websites where they saw guess how much a paper
Speaker 1: stock certificate for Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts is going for? Now, reminder,
Speaker 1: this company went bankrupt in two thousand four How much
Speaker 1: would you pay for Trump Hotel Casino resort paper stocks
Speaker 1: certificate to dollars two dollars? Sara? Can you outpid that?
Speaker 1: I don't know if I would personally outbid it, but
Speaker 1: I would say that it's much higher than that. Forty nine.
Speaker 1: You can get Trump Entertainment Resources, which was the following
Speaker 1: company when they merchant bankruptcy. Then that company went bankrupt
Speaker 1: in two thousand and fourteen, so that's only two nine.
Speaker 1: You know, this validates my instinct as a quarter never
Speaker 1: throw anything out. You know, I can imagine after this
Speaker 1: bankruptcy you're ripping up your son of those days, Mike,
Speaker 1: I mean, some random paper in your house is going
Speaker 1: to be worth absolutely That's all the time we have
Speaker 1: today though, yes she Ben Emmons, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for doing What Goes Out. Will be back next week.
Speaker 1: Until then, you can find us on the Bloomberg Terminal,
Speaker 1: website and app, or wherever you get your podcasts. We'd
Speaker 1: love it if you took the time to rate and
Speaker 1: review the show so more listeners can find us. And
Speaker 1: you can find us on Twitter. Follow me at at
Speaker 1: Sara pant Sack, Mike is at Reaganonymous. Our guest, Ben
Speaker 1: Emmons is at Chief Economists six, and ye she is
Speaker 1: she e Bloomberg. What Goes Up is produced by topur Foreheads.
Speaker 1: The head of Bloomberg podcast is Francesco Levie. Thanks for listening,
Speaker 1: See you next time.