WEBVTT - Former Acting CIA Director Devine Is 'Very Concerned' About Korea

0:00:05.800 --> 0:00:08.360
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg p m L Podcast. I'm Pim

0:00:08.400 --> 0:00:11.440
<v Speaker 1>Fox along with my co host Lisa Bramowitz. Each day

0:00:11.480 --> 0:00:15.000
<v Speaker 1>we bring you the most important, noteworthy, and useful interviews

0:00:15.040 --> 0:00:17.520
<v Speaker 1>for you and your money, whether you're at the grocery

0:00:17.560 --> 0:00:20.560
<v Speaker 1>store or the trading floor. Find the Bloomberg p m

0:00:20.680 --> 0:00:32.040
<v Speaker 1>L Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and Bloomberg dot com.

0:00:32.080 --> 0:00:34.960
<v Speaker 1>Over the weekend, we heard from a number of top

0:00:35.080 --> 0:00:38.560
<v Speaker 1>US officials trying to dispel some of the tension around

0:00:38.560 --> 0:00:42.280
<v Speaker 1>North Korea, saying we are not near a nuclear conflict

0:00:42.400 --> 0:00:45.040
<v Speaker 1>with Korea. There's still with North Korea where there's still

0:00:45.080 --> 0:00:47.199
<v Speaker 1>a lot of lovers that we can pull. Uh. You

0:00:47.320 --> 0:00:51.400
<v Speaker 1>had the US is top general reassuring South Korean UH

0:00:51.640 --> 0:00:55.640
<v Speaker 1>President that we are going to try to reach some

0:00:55.720 --> 0:00:58.520
<v Speaker 1>kind of peaceful agreement To get us a better sense

0:00:58.600 --> 0:01:00.520
<v Speaker 1>of where we are in all of this. I want

0:01:00.560 --> 0:01:03.200
<v Speaker 1>to bring in Jack Divine, founding partner and president of

0:01:03.440 --> 0:01:05.839
<v Speaker 1>the ark And Group. He also was a former Acting

0:01:05.880 --> 0:01:10.679
<v Speaker 1>director of the CIA and founding partner of this security group.

0:01:10.720 --> 0:01:14.320
<v Speaker 1>So Jack, I'd love to get your sense how close

0:01:14.360 --> 0:01:17.640
<v Speaker 1>are we to a nuclear conflict with North Korea. I

0:01:17.640 --> 0:01:20.440
<v Speaker 1>don't want to be alarming, But it's been a long

0:01:20.560 --> 0:01:25.000
<v Speaker 1>long time since I thought we were in a situation

0:01:25.120 --> 0:01:31.200
<v Speaker 1>where it's conceivable that we could have a military confrontation

0:01:31.240 --> 0:01:35.839
<v Speaker 1>that could end up in and some sort of nuclear incident. Um.

0:01:35.880 --> 0:01:39.320
<v Speaker 1>I think back to the Cuban missile crisis. Were not there,

0:01:40.319 --> 0:01:42.760
<v Speaker 1>but you know, in Cuba they didn't have missiles on

0:01:42.840 --> 0:01:45.720
<v Speaker 1>the I mean they did, that's not that's an accurate

0:01:45.760 --> 0:01:47.640
<v Speaker 1>we didn't learn about them until a few years later.

0:01:48.360 --> 0:01:52.280
<v Speaker 1>So I think this is a very serious and threatening situation.

0:01:52.400 --> 0:01:54.920
<v Speaker 1>I'm hopeful that we'll be able to walk the dog back,

0:01:55.800 --> 0:01:59.640
<v Speaker 1>but I think it's um. I wouldn't minimize this at all.

0:01:59.680 --> 0:02:02.400
<v Speaker 1>I could do that in all candor. So how do

0:02:02.440 --> 0:02:07.640
<v Speaker 1>we walk the dog back? Well, I think, first of all, uh,

0:02:07.760 --> 0:02:10.679
<v Speaker 1>any rational person would not want to get into any

0:02:10.680 --> 0:02:15.440
<v Speaker 1>sort of military engagement which could then lead to a

0:02:15.520 --> 0:02:17.959
<v Speaker 1>nuclear incident. I mean, there's no way. I mean, we

0:02:18.000 --> 0:02:20.919
<v Speaker 1>have the finest military in the world, finest intelligence people.

0:02:21.600 --> 0:02:23.920
<v Speaker 1>But I've been the business long enough that even with

0:02:24.000 --> 0:02:28.000
<v Speaker 1>all your preparation and the best equipment, things go wrong.

0:02:28.080 --> 0:02:31.440
<v Speaker 1>I mean, even if the very successful been ladding one

0:02:31.480 --> 0:02:35.720
<v Speaker 1>of the helicopters you know, crashed. I mean we had

0:02:35.760 --> 0:02:39.200
<v Speaker 1>an operation to try and get our hostages out of

0:02:39.200 --> 0:02:42.400
<v Speaker 1>Iran and three of them crashed into the desert. So

0:02:42.480 --> 0:02:45.160
<v Speaker 1>there's no way you can have a military operation where

0:02:45.240 --> 0:02:48.600
<v Speaker 1>general can say, I give you a security here that

0:02:48.639 --> 0:02:51.480
<v Speaker 1>we're going to take out all their their missiles. So

0:02:51.560 --> 0:02:55.359
<v Speaker 1>I don't see how the military confrontation can end up

0:02:55.360 --> 0:02:59.200
<v Speaker 1>with anything but a catastrophe. So I think one way

0:02:59.280 --> 0:03:01.400
<v Speaker 1>or the other, we have to go back to the table.

0:03:01.440 --> 0:03:03.919
<v Speaker 1>And as you know, I I've been putting forth the

0:03:03.960 --> 0:03:06.280
<v Speaker 1>idea they try and go back to the Six party talks.

0:03:06.280 --> 0:03:07.960
<v Speaker 1>But one way or the other, if we're not going

0:03:08.000 --> 0:03:09.680
<v Speaker 1>to have a confrontation, we have to get back to

0:03:09.720 --> 0:03:13.000
<v Speaker 1>the table. And while things may be taking place in

0:03:13.120 --> 0:03:16.240
<v Speaker 1>back rooms, and I'm sure they are, I haven't seen

0:03:16.280 --> 0:03:23.680
<v Speaker 1>it other than uh the South Korea proposing direct talks

0:03:23.760 --> 0:03:26.079
<v Speaker 1>with North Korea. So I think we have to get

0:03:26.120 --> 0:03:27.720
<v Speaker 1>back to the table. I think we need to be

0:03:27.760 --> 0:03:31.960
<v Speaker 1>strong demonstrating with our b twos in our military positioning,

0:03:31.960 --> 0:03:35.480
<v Speaker 1>and I think Trump is right to speak tough to them.

0:03:35.600 --> 0:03:38.720
<v Speaker 1>But I think all that aside, there's no way this

0:03:38.800 --> 0:03:42.800
<v Speaker 1>ends without negotiations. So let's talk about who we're negotiating with.

0:03:42.840 --> 0:03:45.680
<v Speaker 1>I mean, China has been pinpointed as the main sort

0:03:45.720 --> 0:03:49.120
<v Speaker 1>of negotiator in this whole business just because they could

0:03:49.120 --> 0:03:53.600
<v Speaker 1>potentially cut off all global economic ties with North Korea.

0:03:53.840 --> 0:03:55.800
<v Speaker 1>They seem to be unwilling to do that. And then

0:03:55.840 --> 0:03:57.800
<v Speaker 1>there's a question which I want to pose to you

0:03:58.040 --> 0:04:00.800
<v Speaker 1>of how effective would that act really be? I mean,

0:04:00.880 --> 0:04:06.720
<v Speaker 1>quit China conceivably, uh stop Kim Jong's efforts to build

0:04:06.720 --> 0:04:12.880
<v Speaker 1>a nuclear arsenal. Remember, our our interests are not directly

0:04:12.920 --> 0:04:16.000
<v Speaker 1>lined up with the Chinese. I mean, there's clearly some overlap.

0:04:16.400 --> 0:04:19.120
<v Speaker 1>Neither of us want to see a nuclear confrontation, certainly

0:04:19.160 --> 0:04:22.200
<v Speaker 1>don't want to see one in their area, but they

0:04:22.240 --> 0:04:24.880
<v Speaker 1>don't want to see United career either. They don't want

0:04:24.880 --> 0:04:28.479
<v Speaker 1>to destabilized career. You have to guarantee after whatever confrontation

0:04:28.560 --> 0:04:30.599
<v Speaker 1>you have that you know what's going to happen the

0:04:30.640 --> 0:04:33.840
<v Speaker 1>next day. So the Chinese are not and sync with

0:04:34.000 --> 0:04:36.880
<v Speaker 1>our interest On the other hand, they have a lot

0:04:36.880 --> 0:04:41.080
<v Speaker 1>of equities with us, and we with them. Historically, I

0:04:41.120 --> 0:04:44.520
<v Speaker 1>think they've under underinvested in trying to be helpful here.

0:04:45.200 --> 0:04:48.000
<v Speaker 1>I think too many people over the past several years,

0:04:48.000 --> 0:04:49.720
<v Speaker 1>and many of the articles that are written today talk

0:04:49.760 --> 0:04:53.000
<v Speaker 1>about how key China is, but they don't talk about

0:04:53.000 --> 0:04:56.760
<v Speaker 1>how you get the Chinese to do something that they're

0:04:56.800 --> 0:04:59.240
<v Speaker 1>not convinced as in their interests. So there has to

0:04:59.320 --> 0:05:01.760
<v Speaker 1>be a great deal pressure put on the Chinese. And

0:05:02.600 --> 0:05:04.360
<v Speaker 1>it's one of the reasons again I think it would

0:05:04.400 --> 0:05:07.440
<v Speaker 1>be important to get a group of people at the table.

0:05:07.560 --> 0:05:10.440
<v Speaker 1>Is easier, it's easier to make concessions when you're in

0:05:10.480 --> 0:05:14.000
<v Speaker 1>a group than one on one in my view. And

0:05:14.080 --> 0:05:15.560
<v Speaker 1>you have to have the world sort of with you.

0:05:15.560 --> 0:05:17.920
<v Speaker 1>If you have the six major countries and for those

0:05:17.960 --> 0:05:21.039
<v Speaker 1>that don't follow to be Russia, South Korea, United States,

0:05:21.120 --> 0:05:24.800
<v Speaker 1>and North Korea South Korea, so you have, you know,

0:05:24.839 --> 0:05:28.400
<v Speaker 1>the world sort of trying to resolve this problem. And uh,

0:05:28.720 --> 0:05:31.640
<v Speaker 1>it's it's harder for everyone just to fold their hands.

0:05:32.440 --> 0:05:34.720
<v Speaker 1>I do think now that the North Koreans have tested

0:05:34.760 --> 0:05:38.599
<v Speaker 1>and they've gone a long way, they may be because

0:05:38.600 --> 0:05:42.080
<v Speaker 1>of the economic pressures on them, might be more willing

0:05:42.200 --> 0:05:44.840
<v Speaker 1>to They're not going to bend in the program. Anyone

0:05:44.880 --> 0:05:48.120
<v Speaker 1>that's hoping for that good luck. Um. I think what

0:05:48.200 --> 0:05:50.239
<v Speaker 1>we could hope for is that we freeze it about

0:05:50.320 --> 0:05:52.920
<v Speaker 1>where it is. And you know, you can't take the

0:05:53.000 --> 0:05:55.680
<v Speaker 1>word for it. You have to have a verifying system

0:05:55.720 --> 0:05:58.440
<v Speaker 1>and you have to have an independent intelligence look at

0:05:58.480 --> 0:06:01.760
<v Speaker 1>to make sure that the sticking with it. They made

0:06:01.920 --> 0:06:04.880
<v Speaker 1>some progress in the last time, in fact, some substantial

0:06:04.920 --> 0:06:08.280
<v Speaker 1>progress of the Six party talks, but the North Koreans violin,

0:06:08.360 --> 0:06:10.560
<v Speaker 1>and that's why I fell apart. They may be in

0:06:10.560 --> 0:06:13.360
<v Speaker 1>a different position there because they now have a much

0:06:13.440 --> 0:06:19.160
<v Speaker 1>more um powerful nuclear capability now than they did when

0:06:19.160 --> 0:06:21.200
<v Speaker 1>they walked away from the table. There may be some

0:06:21.320 --> 0:06:27.000
<v Speaker 1>room here for smart negotiations, but I think we need

0:06:27.080 --> 0:06:29.760
<v Speaker 1>everybody in the game. Well, talking about that, Jack, I

0:06:29.760 --> 0:06:32.800
<v Speaker 1>want to get a sense of Russia, because I don't

0:06:32.839 --> 0:06:34.800
<v Speaker 1>have a clear sense of where they come down on this.

0:06:34.839 --> 0:06:37.359
<v Speaker 1>Would they be willing and eager to negotiate with the

0:06:37.360 --> 0:06:40.800
<v Speaker 1>other five major parties. I think there's a couple of

0:06:40.839 --> 0:06:44.320
<v Speaker 1>aspects of it, little bit like the Chinese. It's not

0:06:44.400 --> 0:06:48.160
<v Speaker 1>a nearer interest to see a um, you know, an

0:06:48.160 --> 0:06:50.880
<v Speaker 1>improvement of relations between North Korea, South Korean and the

0:06:50.960 --> 0:06:55.400
<v Speaker 1>United States, because if it improves enough, I can actually

0:06:55.400 --> 0:06:57.960
<v Speaker 1>find if there was ever unification to be unification in

0:06:58.000 --> 0:07:01.240
<v Speaker 1>favor of the South. So and the fact that they're

0:07:01.279 --> 0:07:04.680
<v Speaker 1>able that the North Koreans quosed so much commotion it

0:07:04.800 --> 0:07:07.880
<v Speaker 1>keeps US distracted, tied up or military forces. So it's

0:07:07.920 --> 0:07:10.600
<v Speaker 1>not immediately in their interest. However, they are part of

0:07:10.600 --> 0:07:14.320
<v Speaker 1>the human race and nobody can afford to think casually

0:07:14.360 --> 0:07:18.480
<v Speaker 1>about having a nuclear um, a nuclear event anywhere. So

0:07:18.880 --> 0:07:20.760
<v Speaker 1>and they want to be a player. I mean, they

0:07:20.800 --> 0:07:23.520
<v Speaker 1>are a they wouldn't like to hear this, but they're

0:07:23.560 --> 0:07:25.920
<v Speaker 1>not a major economy force in the world. They're not

0:07:25.960 --> 0:07:28.600
<v Speaker 1>even they're not on the ground the force that they

0:07:28.600 --> 0:07:31.960
<v Speaker 1>were years ago. So um, but they want to be

0:07:32.000 --> 0:07:34.920
<v Speaker 1>taken with with more respect at the table, so through

0:07:34.960 --> 0:07:37.840
<v Speaker 1>at the table. If everyone else goes to the the table

0:07:37.840 --> 0:07:39.920
<v Speaker 1>and they don't, I think they'll shrink a little bit

0:07:39.920 --> 0:07:42.760
<v Speaker 1>so that you may get them to the table. Yeah, Jack,

0:07:42.800 --> 0:07:44.600
<v Speaker 1>real quick, how much confidence do you have in the

0:07:44.640 --> 0:07:50.000
<v Speaker 1>current team, the current US team that's negotiating this. Well,

0:07:50.040 --> 0:07:52.680
<v Speaker 1>I think we haven't as well. Again, let me come back.

0:07:52.720 --> 0:07:55.120
<v Speaker 1>I'm not sure what's going on. I mean, I think

0:07:55.120 --> 0:07:59.800
<v Speaker 1>we have very competent diplomats and intelligence people. I just

0:08:00.040 --> 0:08:06.920
<v Speaker 1>haven't seen much discussion about the negotiation aspect of it.

0:08:07.000 --> 0:08:10.880
<v Speaker 1>I haven't seen anybody putting forth, let's meet here, let's

0:08:10.880 --> 0:08:13.760
<v Speaker 1>do this now. Maybe it's going on in the back rooms.

0:08:13.760 --> 0:08:17.800
<v Speaker 1>I'm hoping that it is um, but UM. The emphas

0:08:17.880 --> 0:08:21.960
<v Speaker 1>seems to be more how do you bring the military

0:08:22.040 --> 0:08:24.320
<v Speaker 1>presence and how do you threaten each side and then

0:08:24.400 --> 0:08:27.720
<v Speaker 1>leaning on people. I don't see a format being constructed

0:08:28.680 --> 0:08:32.960
<v Speaker 1>for for discussion, and I said, I'm willing to admit

0:08:32.960 --> 0:08:34.800
<v Speaker 1>there may be something going on, but as sure as

0:08:34.840 --> 0:08:38.719
<v Speaker 1>ILL isn't grabbing headlines. Chack Devine, thank you so much

0:08:38.760 --> 0:08:41.360
<v Speaker 1>for joining us. Jack Devine is former acting director of

0:08:41.559 --> 0:08:44.920
<v Speaker 1>the c i A and founding partner and president of

0:08:45.080 --> 0:08:48.800
<v Speaker 1>the security firm the arcan It Group. Talking about why

0:08:48.960 --> 0:09:04.600
<v Speaker 1>we need to start negotiating with other major powers right now.

0:09:04.640 --> 0:09:06.440
<v Speaker 1>I want to talk about angry birds and just how

0:09:06.520 --> 0:09:08.600
<v Speaker 1>valuable they are. I want to bring in Leonel Laurent.

0:09:08.720 --> 0:09:12.000
<v Speaker 1>He's a calumnist for a Bloomberg gad flag covering finance

0:09:12.040 --> 0:09:15.920
<v Speaker 1>and markets. And Leonel, Uh, do you think that angry

0:09:15.960 --> 0:09:21.200
<v Speaker 1>birds are worth two billion dollars? I saw this today

0:09:21.240 --> 0:09:26.600
<v Speaker 1>and the Angry Birds franchise owner Rovio Entertainment UH planning

0:09:26.600 --> 0:09:31.520
<v Speaker 1>in I p O probably next month two billion dollars.

0:09:31.520 --> 0:09:34.040
<v Speaker 1>They rely entirely on angry birds. What's up with this

0:09:34.760 --> 0:09:37.920
<v Speaker 1>two billion dollars, which would be about ten times revenue,

0:09:37.960 --> 0:09:41.680
<v Speaker 1>which would be substantially above where one of its rivals,

0:09:41.840 --> 0:09:45.880
<v Speaker 1>Zinger trades. Um we shall see. I would just note

0:09:45.920 --> 0:09:50.800
<v Speaker 1>that two billion was what the company reportedly rebuffed about

0:09:50.840 --> 0:09:53.760
<v Speaker 1>five years ago when it was offered that for for

0:09:53.760 --> 0:09:56.520
<v Speaker 1>an acquisition, So it wouldn't exactly be a be a

0:09:56.600 --> 0:09:59.920
<v Speaker 1>huge victory, but it would still be a pretty toppy

0:10:00.080 --> 0:10:03.439
<v Speaker 1>multiple for a company that's you know, they've they've proven

0:10:03.480 --> 0:10:05.640
<v Speaker 1>people wrong. I think they've really milked a lot more

0:10:05.679 --> 0:10:08.680
<v Speaker 1>money out of Angry Birds than anybody thought possible. Well

0:10:08.679 --> 0:10:11.520
<v Speaker 1>this is but have they milked money out of anything else?

0:10:11.640 --> 0:10:14.320
<v Speaker 1>Or is it all angry and all birds? It's it's

0:10:14.559 --> 0:10:17.280
<v Speaker 1>I mean they've they've tried, and they have some of

0:10:17.280 --> 0:10:20.080
<v Speaker 1>the games, but but nothing to match it. And I

0:10:20.120 --> 0:10:22.640
<v Speaker 1>think that you could and they will probably make the

0:10:22.679 --> 0:10:25.520
<v Speaker 1>case that this I p O if it happens, would

0:10:25.559 --> 0:10:29.080
<v Speaker 1>help them fund other things. Right. I mean, they've they've

0:10:29.120 --> 0:10:32.080
<v Speaker 1>had some tough, tough couple of years. The markets change

0:10:32.080 --> 0:10:35.040
<v Speaker 1>a lot. They've adapted to that. They had to cut

0:10:35.040 --> 0:10:37.319
<v Speaker 1>a lot of staff, so they had to sort of

0:10:37.360 --> 0:10:39.160
<v Speaker 1>stand on their own two feet. Hold on a second,

0:10:39.200 --> 0:10:41.439
<v Speaker 1>The markets changed a lot for Angry Birds or for

0:10:41.679 --> 0:10:43.880
<v Speaker 1>entertainment or you know, where are they trying to branch out?

0:10:44.200 --> 0:10:47.280
<v Speaker 1>So so I think mobile games, that's that's what's really

0:10:47.320 --> 0:10:50.679
<v Speaker 1>changed these This is almost a decade old, right, so

0:10:50.720 --> 0:10:52.319
<v Speaker 1>you have to put yourself back to what it was

0:10:52.360 --> 0:10:54.600
<v Speaker 1>like when it first burst onto the scene. You sold

0:10:54.640 --> 0:10:58.160
<v Speaker 1>your app for a price and that was it. Quickly

0:10:58.240 --> 0:11:01.240
<v Speaker 1>with with other big hit it's like Handy crushed. The

0:11:01.280 --> 0:11:05.760
<v Speaker 1>whole market moved towards micro transactions, free to play, the

0:11:05.800 --> 0:11:08.040
<v Speaker 1>kind of situation where your kid grabs your credit card

0:11:08.400 --> 0:11:12.480
<v Speaker 1>and essentially spends your your hard land salary on on

0:11:12.480 --> 0:11:15.600
<v Speaker 1>on a little game. These these became billion dollar companies

0:11:15.880 --> 0:11:20.040
<v Speaker 1>in dollar games, billion dollar companies, and Rothio never got

0:11:20.040 --> 0:11:24.239
<v Speaker 1>to that stage. And it's it's definitely adapted and it survived,

0:11:24.720 --> 0:11:27.040
<v Speaker 1>but I just wonder what it can show that's new

0:11:27.080 --> 0:11:29.920
<v Speaker 1>in terms of the future outlook. So do you play

0:11:29.960 --> 0:11:34.559
<v Speaker 1>Angry Birds? I used to? You know, I did. It

0:11:34.720 --> 0:11:37.520
<v Speaker 1>came out. My whole vision of view is changed, really

0:11:37.840 --> 0:11:39.920
<v Speaker 1>thousand and nine, two tho nine. I mean, you know,

0:11:39.960 --> 0:11:42.120
<v Speaker 1>you can't read Proust all day long, right, You've got

0:11:42.160 --> 0:11:44.400
<v Speaker 1>to unwind, I guess. So, I mean, do they have

0:11:44.440 --> 0:11:46.679
<v Speaker 1>other games in the works or are they just basically

0:11:46.720 --> 0:11:49.760
<v Speaker 1>trying to make more Birds that are that are varying

0:11:49.800 --> 0:11:53.040
<v Speaker 1>stages of anger. They have other games. They put out

0:11:53.040 --> 0:11:55.160
<v Speaker 1>a new game I think called Battle Bay earlier this year,

0:11:55.200 --> 0:11:57.880
<v Speaker 1>and they have a new studio in London whose whole

0:11:57.880 --> 0:12:01.080
<v Speaker 1>mission is to make new title that are not Angry Birds.

0:12:01.080 --> 0:12:03.320
<v Speaker 1>But they're not expected to produce a new game till

0:12:04.520 --> 0:12:06.520
<v Speaker 1>which is the year, as I'm sure you know that

0:12:06.600 --> 0:12:09.280
<v Speaker 1>the new Angry Birds movie comes out Angry Birds too.

0:12:09.800 --> 0:12:13.000
<v Speaker 1>We are still on this weird limbo where we are

0:12:13.040 --> 0:12:17.079
<v Speaker 1>still waiting for this kind of new Rovio two to hatch, right,

0:12:17.160 --> 0:12:20.040
<v Speaker 1>and it hasn't happened two billion dollars and the timing

0:12:20.080 --> 0:12:22.280
<v Speaker 1>is sort of odd to me. So I'm wondering, you know,

0:12:23.040 --> 0:12:26.679
<v Speaker 1>would this I p O be derailed if we see

0:12:26.720 --> 0:12:29.800
<v Speaker 1>the weakness that we saw last week or the people

0:12:29.800 --> 0:12:31.360
<v Speaker 1>you're talking to, I mean, is it is there are

0:12:31.360 --> 0:12:33.040
<v Speaker 1>sense they're going to go ahead with this? They need

0:12:33.080 --> 0:12:37.520
<v Speaker 1>to do something. I don't know. I think that that

0:12:37.720 --> 0:12:40.480
<v Speaker 1>there there have been reports right of everything from ten

0:12:40.559 --> 0:12:44.320
<v Speaker 1>Cent potentially buying the company to the company floating a

0:12:44.400 --> 0:12:47.760
<v Speaker 1>small part of itself. You know, I think as usual

0:12:47.800 --> 0:12:50.800
<v Speaker 1>with this kind of industry. I mean, people aren't dumb.

0:12:50.840 --> 0:12:52.480
<v Speaker 1>They can look at the market and see that the

0:12:52.520 --> 0:12:56.760
<v Speaker 1>stock prices of mobile game companies have underperformed post i

0:12:56.840 --> 0:13:00.880
<v Speaker 1>p O. This is a volatile, tough hit of an industry.

0:13:01.280 --> 0:13:03.320
<v Speaker 1>On the other hand, as we've seen from tech i

0:13:03.400 --> 0:13:05.240
<v Speaker 1>p o s, that just seems to be demand even

0:13:05.280 --> 0:13:09.800
<v Speaker 1>for crazy evaluations right like like Snap um and even

0:13:09.800 --> 0:13:12.440
<v Speaker 1>with blue Aprons troubles. Who knows, there might just be

0:13:12.559 --> 0:13:15.000
<v Speaker 1>enough happit site for this. There just might be. Of course,

0:13:15.080 --> 0:13:18.960
<v Speaker 1>Snap is bouncing back after the earlier plunge, talking about

0:13:19.320 --> 0:13:22.360
<v Speaker 1>uh Snap and one hit wonders. It seems like this

0:13:22.400 --> 0:13:25.200
<v Speaker 1>one hit wonder is going to continue for longer, and

0:13:25.200 --> 0:13:27.640
<v Speaker 1>now it shares her up more than seven percent. My god.

0:13:27.760 --> 0:13:31.440
<v Speaker 1>They were down almost five percent earlier today after it

0:13:31.520 --> 0:13:37.040
<v Speaker 1>was revealed that Tamasak of Singapore had offloaded it's holdings

0:13:37.200 --> 0:13:40.440
<v Speaker 1>of this particular company. Leone Lauron, thank you so much

0:13:40.440 --> 0:13:44.360
<v Speaker 1>for joining us, truly, I guess you know. Look Angry Birds,

0:13:44.559 --> 0:13:47.840
<v Speaker 1>it is an appealing franchise. My kids loved Angry Birds,

0:13:48.400 --> 0:13:52.079
<v Speaker 1>but still two billion dollars. Leone Laurent Columnists covering finance

0:13:52.120 --> 0:14:08.840
<v Speaker 1>and markets for Bloomberg gad fly coming to us from London. Well,

0:14:08.840 --> 0:14:11.760
<v Speaker 1>it isn't a day in up markets if there isn't

0:14:11.800 --> 0:14:14.800
<v Speaker 1>a fear about a bubble in exchange traded funds. And

0:14:14.840 --> 0:14:17.320
<v Speaker 1>I want to bring in Eric Beltunez, who spent his

0:14:17.440 --> 0:14:20.480
<v Speaker 1>life basically at least for the past few years, defending

0:14:20.520 --> 0:14:23.520
<v Speaker 1>e t f s against the bubble fears. Eric Valtunez

0:14:23.760 --> 0:14:26.640
<v Speaker 1>is a senior e t F analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence

0:14:26.640 --> 0:14:30.560
<v Speaker 1>and he joins us. Now, Eric, yet again we get

0:14:30.600 --> 0:14:35.400
<v Speaker 1>another story about record e t F inflows fueling price

0:14:35.600 --> 0:14:39.080
<v Speaker 1>bubble fears. That headline was published in the Financial Times

0:14:39.400 --> 0:14:42.160
<v Speaker 1>and it stemmed from a statistic that investors have already

0:14:42.200 --> 0:14:45.600
<v Speaker 1>funneled three hundred and nine billion dollars into e t

0:14:45.760 --> 0:14:49.600
<v Speaker 1>f s in the first seven ones of already eclipsing

0:14:49.760 --> 0:14:53.600
<v Speaker 1>the full year record that was set last year. So, Eric,

0:14:54.080 --> 0:14:58.240
<v Speaker 1>does this acceleration of inflows suggest to you that perhaps

0:14:58.320 --> 0:15:00.920
<v Speaker 1>people are getting over their skis and putting too much

0:15:00.960 --> 0:15:06.080
<v Speaker 1>faith in these vehicles? Uh? Well, no, I mean, and

0:15:06.200 --> 0:15:09.360
<v Speaker 1>when you say definite ets, I don't necessarily like to

0:15:09.360 --> 0:15:13.720
<v Speaker 1>be the apologist, but there's definitely more people taking shots

0:15:13.760 --> 0:15:16.680
<v Speaker 1>and just throwing out these things without using much context.

0:15:17.120 --> 0:15:20.080
<v Speaker 1>I thought two better headlines for that FT article would

0:15:20.080 --> 0:15:25.840
<v Speaker 1>have been investors demanding stocks fuels fears of a of

0:15:25.840 --> 0:15:29.960
<v Speaker 1>a stock market bubble, or e t F record inflows

0:15:30.040 --> 0:15:34.160
<v Speaker 1>fuels fears of asset managers lost revenues. I think those

0:15:34.200 --> 0:15:36.920
<v Speaker 1>are two better headlines than what they did. They kind

0:15:36.920 --> 0:15:39.520
<v Speaker 1>of take, Okay, all this money is going into e

0:15:39.600 --> 0:15:42.200
<v Speaker 1>t s, But all this money is going into the

0:15:42.240 --> 0:15:45.520
<v Speaker 1>market anyway, like if ets didn't exist, it would buy

0:15:46.120 --> 0:15:49.160
<v Speaker 1>index funds, or it would buy active mutual funds, and

0:15:49.240 --> 0:15:52.000
<v Speaker 1>ultimately you would own the same stocks. So I think

0:15:52.080 --> 0:15:54.960
<v Speaker 1>that's what I get getting gets annoying with me is

0:15:55.000 --> 0:16:00.160
<v Speaker 1>that sometimes there's some laziness and some conflating of just

0:16:00.240 --> 0:16:02.560
<v Speaker 1>because money is going into e t s means that, oh,

0:16:02.640 --> 0:16:05.040
<v Speaker 1>there's a bubble. I think all you're seeing is that

0:16:05.160 --> 0:16:09.720
<v Speaker 1>money is basically transferring from closet indexing to actual indexing.

0:16:09.800 --> 0:16:12.800
<v Speaker 1>So but it's ultimately owning the same stocks. But the

0:16:12.840 --> 0:16:16.520
<v Speaker 1>investors deciding to buy equities and faith in Trump and

0:16:16.560 --> 0:16:19.520
<v Speaker 1>all in the FED in the past, that's ultimately what

0:16:19.680 --> 0:16:22.720
<v Speaker 1>is driving out valuations. Well, I guess that one fear

0:16:23.000 --> 0:16:26.240
<v Speaker 1>is that right now and you have so much money

0:16:26.360 --> 0:16:29.440
<v Speaker 1>going into the stock market through index funds, and you

0:16:29.480 --> 0:16:33.040
<v Speaker 1>talked about closet indexing, in other words, active managers who

0:16:33.240 --> 0:16:37.119
<v Speaker 1>essentially just followed the indexes, so are essentially we're indexers

0:16:37.120 --> 0:16:40.880
<v Speaker 1>but charging larger fees. And that's been a fear and

0:16:40.920 --> 0:16:44.080
<v Speaker 1>an accusation for a long time. But there's a concern

0:16:44.160 --> 0:16:47.000
<v Speaker 1>that with so much money going into funds that all

0:16:47.080 --> 0:16:51.320
<v Speaker 1>track the same indexes, that companies that are unworthy of

0:16:51.360 --> 0:16:55.960
<v Speaker 1>their money will get them regardless of what their financial

0:16:56.000 --> 0:16:59.040
<v Speaker 1>health is, but just by virtue of their being big

0:16:59.080 --> 0:17:02.120
<v Speaker 1>and in the index right now. And then we've got

0:17:02.120 --> 0:17:04.119
<v Speaker 1>to use context on the fact that if you go

0:17:04.200 --> 0:17:07.560
<v Speaker 1>back and you look at, uh, the amount of money

0:17:08.320 --> 0:17:11.160
<v Speaker 1>or the amount of ownership of the stock market made

0:17:11.200 --> 0:17:13.480
<v Speaker 1>up by mutual funds, it's about half a little less

0:17:13.480 --> 0:17:16.679
<v Speaker 1>than half. So there's still again plenty of people picking

0:17:16.680 --> 0:17:20.320
<v Speaker 1>stocks based on valuations. UM. I also think that, look,

0:17:20.720 --> 0:17:23.159
<v Speaker 1>active managers are now out saying that like e t

0:17:23.440 --> 0:17:26.439
<v Speaker 1>s and index funds are bad for capitalism. UM. And

0:17:26.560 --> 0:17:28.880
<v Speaker 1>you know, look, I mean there's some case who made

0:17:28.880 --> 0:17:31.800
<v Speaker 1>that an active manager can evaluate a stock better. UM.

0:17:31.840 --> 0:17:34.199
<v Speaker 1>And if that's the case, an investor should pick an

0:17:34.200 --> 0:17:37.080
<v Speaker 1>active manager. I think part of the problem with this

0:17:37.119 --> 0:17:40.359
<v Speaker 1>whole thing is that investors are just voting with their feet.

0:17:40.400 --> 0:17:42.440
<v Speaker 1>I mean, I think what really has caused a lot

0:17:42.480 --> 0:17:46.680
<v Speaker 1>of the movement is low cost one but to disappointment

0:17:46.680 --> 0:17:48.679
<v Speaker 1>in two thousand and eight. I think a lot of

0:17:48.720 --> 0:17:51.200
<v Speaker 1>people thought that their active fund would have saved them

0:17:51.280 --> 0:17:55.320
<v Speaker 1>some of that uh thirty five percent loss, but it didn't.

0:17:55.320 --> 0:17:58.080
<v Speaker 1>In fact, two thirds of active managers underperformed in two

0:17:58.119 --> 0:18:01.720
<v Speaker 1>thousand and eight, and I think that's partially the investor's fault.

0:18:02.080 --> 0:18:05.000
<v Speaker 1>Active managers know that investors can't tolerate a lot of

0:18:05.040 --> 0:18:07.720
<v Speaker 1>tracking error and they have to buy these stocks, so

0:18:07.840 --> 0:18:10.960
<v Speaker 1>ultimately their hands are tied. In the end, investors really

0:18:11.000 --> 0:18:14.200
<v Speaker 1>want the index anyway, um, and so they're driving all

0:18:14.200 --> 0:18:19.040
<v Speaker 1>of this. So you put out research recently looking at

0:18:19.160 --> 0:18:21.399
<v Speaker 1>where these flows have been going, and you showed how

0:18:21.440 --> 0:18:24.920
<v Speaker 1>they're going to Van Garden black Rock overwhelmingly. And does

0:18:24.960 --> 0:18:27.080
<v Speaker 1>this mean that you expect to see some of the

0:18:27.119 --> 0:18:30.359
<v Speaker 1>smaller et F providers close up shop or get absorbed

0:18:30.400 --> 0:18:33.639
<v Speaker 1>by the bigger by the bigger players, Yeah, you know,

0:18:33.720 --> 0:18:36.280
<v Speaker 1>I have this thing I use where, like you know,

0:18:36.440 --> 0:18:40.040
<v Speaker 1>the old news is active passes the new news is

0:18:40.760 --> 0:18:44.119
<v Speaker 1>um high cost to low cost. The future news is

0:18:44.680 --> 0:18:48.840
<v Speaker 1>three companies manage the assets UM. So yes, you're going

0:18:48.840 --> 0:18:52.359
<v Speaker 1>to see a massive consolidation. We just saw power Shares

0:18:52.440 --> 0:18:55.480
<v Speaker 1>is on the verge of buying Guggenheim, which took a good,

0:18:55.600 --> 0:18:58.560
<v Speaker 1>juicy smart data issue off the table for active shops

0:18:58.560 --> 0:19:00.960
<v Speaker 1>who need a passive game. By the way, but ultimately, yes,

0:19:00.960 --> 0:19:03.320
<v Speaker 1>you're gonna see a ton of consolidation. I think what's

0:19:03.320 --> 0:19:06.000
<v Speaker 1>going to happen is the next sell off. There's gonna

0:19:06.040 --> 0:19:08.040
<v Speaker 1>be a whole Uh. This is where a lot of

0:19:08.040 --> 0:19:09.600
<v Speaker 1>this is going to come to light and a lot

0:19:09.600 --> 0:19:11.840
<v Speaker 1>of managers are can be forced to team up in

0:19:11.920 --> 0:19:14.720
<v Speaker 1>order to compete with the vanguarden black rocks of the world.

0:19:14.760 --> 0:19:18.560
<v Speaker 1>And with those low fees you need scale. Eric BLUs,

0:19:18.600 --> 0:19:20.960
<v Speaker 1>thank you so much. And you know, honestly, when I

0:19:21.000 --> 0:19:23.240
<v Speaker 1>say an E T F defender, I find that a

0:19:23.280 --> 0:19:26.399
<v Speaker 1>lot of our conversations end up being Eric, you calling

0:19:26.440 --> 0:19:29.000
<v Speaker 1>me and saying, you know, actually, let's reframe this. Let's

0:19:29.000 --> 0:19:30.880
<v Speaker 1>look at what the where the money is actually going.

0:19:30.920 --> 0:19:33.560
<v Speaker 1>This is just a vehicle, uh, that people can sort

0:19:33.560 --> 0:19:36.560
<v Speaker 1>of invest in the underlying assets. So it's always enlightening

0:19:37.080 --> 0:19:39.960
<v Speaker 1>to speak with you and you're looking at the technical

0:19:40.080 --> 0:19:43.840
<v Speaker 1>is not just blindly defending Eric beltunas, senior et F

0:19:43.840 --> 0:19:47.920
<v Speaker 1>analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence. Uh. And again, those bubble fears

0:19:47.920 --> 0:19:50.919
<v Speaker 1>will be ongoing, I'm sure, especially if we do not

0:19:50.960 --> 0:19:54.359
<v Speaker 1>get another major downturn, you'll have people saying, well, they're untested.

0:20:06.840 --> 0:20:08.800
<v Speaker 1>With all of the news that's coming out of North

0:20:08.880 --> 0:20:12.640
<v Speaker 1>Korea and Virginia, there has been less talked about one

0:20:12.640 --> 0:20:16.000
<v Speaker 1>of the most important things that will happen probably this month,

0:20:16.000 --> 0:20:18.880
<v Speaker 1>which is the beginning of the renegotiation of the North

0:20:18.920 --> 0:20:22.399
<v Speaker 1>American Free Trade Agreement known as NAFTA. And here to

0:20:22.520 --> 0:20:25.280
<v Speaker 1>give us a sense of exactly what's at stake, and

0:20:25.280 --> 0:20:27.879
<v Speaker 1>it potentially is quite a bit, is Mike McDonough. He

0:20:28.000 --> 0:20:31.000
<v Speaker 1>is a global director of Economic Research and chief economist

0:20:31.160 --> 0:20:33.480
<v Speaker 1>for Bloomberg Intelligence, and he joins us in our eleven

0:20:33.520 --> 0:20:37.200
<v Speaker 1>three oh studios. Mike, just can you lay out what

0:20:37.600 --> 0:20:39.399
<v Speaker 1>the main issues will be because we've heard a lot

0:20:39.400 --> 0:20:43.400
<v Speaker 1>about agriculture, We've heard a lot about dairy. Yeah, you know, well,

0:20:43.440 --> 0:20:45.480
<v Speaker 1>it depends on who you ask. I think a little

0:20:45.480 --> 0:20:48.280
<v Speaker 1>bit right if you if you look at the trade representative,

0:20:48.640 --> 0:20:51.679
<v Speaker 1>they actually put out a kind of preliminary report a

0:20:51.720 --> 0:20:54.720
<v Speaker 1>month or two ago on what their expectations were, and

0:20:54.760 --> 0:20:58.000
<v Speaker 1>the key things were that they expected to maintain the

0:20:58.119 --> 0:21:01.760
<v Speaker 1>trade free terrorists for agricultural and industrial goods. Uh and

0:21:01.800 --> 0:21:07.040
<v Speaker 1>instead focusing on things like I T financial sector integration,

0:21:07.720 --> 0:21:09.680
<v Speaker 1>things like this, which which all makes sense, it would

0:21:09.720 --> 0:21:11.359
<v Speaker 1>be a good thing to add to the deal. But

0:21:11.440 --> 0:21:14.200
<v Speaker 1>when you listen to the Trump administration's rhetoric, it has

0:21:14.240 --> 0:21:17.600
<v Speaker 1>mostly been trade deficit, trade deficit, trade deficit, be it

0:21:17.680 --> 0:21:20.879
<v Speaker 1>with China, be it with Mexico, Germany, whoever. Uh. And

0:21:20.920 --> 0:21:25.000
<v Speaker 1>what's interesting when you actually look at Mexico and you say, well, where,

0:21:25.040 --> 0:21:27.440
<v Speaker 1>how why are we running this trade deficit with Mexico.

0:21:27.880 --> 0:21:30.399
<v Speaker 1>If you actually break it down by product and you

0:21:30.440 --> 0:21:34.920
<v Speaker 1>look at transportation equipment, the deficit in transportation equipment between

0:21:34.920 --> 0:21:37.800
<v Speaker 1>the US and Mexico is actually larger than the entire

0:21:37.960 --> 0:21:41.160
<v Speaker 1>US trade deficit, So meaning if you strip that component

0:21:41.200 --> 0:21:43.840
<v Speaker 1>out there, we would actually be running a trade surplus

0:21:43.840 --> 0:21:47.320
<v Speaker 1>of Mexican. So is this basically the flip side of

0:21:47.680 --> 0:21:52.399
<v Speaker 1>Ford and GM manufacturing their cars in Mexico or car parts?

0:21:52.520 --> 0:21:55.720
<v Speaker 1>It's two things. It's uh, exactly what you just said.

0:21:56.000 --> 0:21:58.720
<v Speaker 1>Car companies building their cars in Mexico and bringing them back.

0:21:58.800 --> 0:22:01.520
<v Speaker 1>And it's also all the parts being produced in Mexico

0:22:01.640 --> 0:22:04.159
<v Speaker 1>that are being used in cars that are assembled in

0:22:04.240 --> 0:22:06.800
<v Speaker 1>the US. When you when you break it out by state,

0:22:06.880 --> 0:22:09.200
<v Speaker 1>the two largest states with the deficits that are Michigan

0:22:09.240 --> 0:22:12.480
<v Speaker 1>and obviously cars in California, which is cars is number one,

0:22:12.760 --> 0:22:15.680
<v Speaker 1>but then computer parts is number two. But why why

0:22:15.800 --> 0:22:18.080
<v Speaker 1>I went into all this is if your President Trump

0:22:18.119 --> 0:22:20.680
<v Speaker 1>and your biggest concern is the trade deficit, and you're

0:22:20.680 --> 0:22:24.159
<v Speaker 1>renegotiating renegotiating NAFTA with that in mind, it's hard to

0:22:24.200 --> 0:22:26.760
<v Speaker 1>see how you're going to ignore this sector. But that's

0:22:26.800 --> 0:22:29.439
<v Speaker 1>kind of what was indicated by the to me at

0:22:29.480 --> 0:22:32.720
<v Speaker 1>least when I read the summary that the trade representatives

0:22:32.760 --> 0:22:35.639
<v Speaker 1>had put out. So I'm just trying to wrap my

0:22:35.640 --> 0:22:37.840
<v Speaker 1>head around this, because we were talking before the segment

0:22:38.119 --> 0:22:42.199
<v Speaker 1>that these negotiations have a pretty accelerated time frame, that

0:22:42.280 --> 0:22:45.399
<v Speaker 1>there is some expectation of a renegotiated deal by the

0:22:45.480 --> 0:22:48.800
<v Speaker 1>end of the year, which seems actually pretty ambitious given

0:22:48.840 --> 0:22:50.760
<v Speaker 1>the fact that there are so many moving parts and

0:22:50.800 --> 0:22:53.440
<v Speaker 1>there is so much political capital that President Trump has

0:22:54.080 --> 0:22:56.480
<v Speaker 1>tied up in this. Can you give us a sense

0:22:56.680 --> 0:23:00.959
<v Speaker 1>of what the competing factions will be, whether you know

0:23:01.240 --> 0:23:03.040
<v Speaker 1>how many people are going to be involved with this,

0:23:03.160 --> 0:23:06.159
<v Speaker 1>where these negotiations are going to be held, well, I

0:23:06.160 --> 0:23:08.719
<v Speaker 1>think I think there's a round being held in each country,

0:23:08.720 --> 0:23:11.040
<v Speaker 1>but I think they have this end of year deadline.

0:23:11.040 --> 0:23:13.760
<v Speaker 1>But I think even Lightheiser himself has said he's not

0:23:13.840 --> 0:23:17.680
<v Speaker 1>holding any commitments to necessarily meeting that deadline. So I think,

0:23:18.000 --> 0:23:20.560
<v Speaker 1>you know the baseline what most people think is this

0:23:20.640 --> 0:23:23.560
<v Speaker 1>is going to be some very minimal changes that actually

0:23:23.600 --> 0:23:25.600
<v Speaker 1>occurred in AFT. And if you look at how strongly

0:23:25.640 --> 0:23:29.560
<v Speaker 1>the Mexican pesos rallied, it's had been the strongest performing

0:23:29.600 --> 0:23:32.160
<v Speaker 1>currency year to day. It may still be, and this

0:23:32.200 --> 0:23:34.560
<v Speaker 1>is because a lot of the fears that people had

0:23:35.000 --> 0:23:39.359
<v Speaker 1>have alleviated a bit. Well. But this idea of the

0:23:39.400 --> 0:23:42.560
<v Speaker 1>auto sector and the auto parts sector, though, raises the

0:23:42.600 --> 0:23:45.720
<v Speaker 1>specter of some more damage to Mexico's economy because you

0:23:45.720 --> 0:23:49.119
<v Speaker 1>were saying that this accounts for what three they're total

0:23:49.160 --> 0:23:52.000
<v Speaker 1>GDP long term pending. How this if if if they

0:23:52.040 --> 0:23:55.760
<v Speaker 1>were to go after that sector, you could have the

0:23:55.880 --> 0:23:58.520
<v Speaker 1>Mexico's long term growth potential could come down a bit.

0:23:58.600 --> 0:24:01.960
<v Speaker 1>Given how the magnetus out of this to Mexico's GDP,

0:24:02.040 --> 0:24:04.040
<v Speaker 1>and it's been growing every year. It's becoming a more

0:24:04.080 --> 0:24:07.520
<v Speaker 1>important part of Mexico's economy. It just surprises me that

0:24:07.560 --> 0:24:10.520
<v Speaker 1>there isn't more of an outcry from GM and Ford

0:24:10.640 --> 0:24:14.320
<v Speaker 1>because you know, in in back office rooms are saying, look,

0:24:14.359 --> 0:24:17.960
<v Speaker 1>we want to provide cheaper cars, we provide labor to Mexico.

0:24:18.119 --> 0:24:20.960
<v Speaker 1>Mexico's economy grows, it helps us because then we could

0:24:20.960 --> 0:24:24.359
<v Speaker 1>sell our cars. If we make everything in the US,

0:24:24.560 --> 0:24:27.480
<v Speaker 1>it would cost us a lot more. So far, so far,

0:24:27.720 --> 0:24:30.399
<v Speaker 1>there's no reason to be necessarily right. All signs are

0:24:30.400 --> 0:24:32.520
<v Speaker 1>pointing to that that there's going to be relatively minor

0:24:32.600 --> 0:24:35.600
<v Speaker 1>changes to this agreement. I think the trade representatives had

0:24:35.600 --> 0:24:37.520
<v Speaker 1>gone in and said the process is going to be

0:24:37.600 --> 0:24:40.920
<v Speaker 1>do no harm. Uh. So you know, President Trump hasn't

0:24:40.960 --> 0:24:44.720
<v Speaker 1>been that outspoken about and after renegotiations recently, so I

0:24:44.720 --> 0:24:47.520
<v Speaker 1>don't He's been more centered around China. So I think

0:24:47.560 --> 0:24:49.679
<v Speaker 1>that that's why you haven't heard as much about this.

0:24:49.800 --> 0:24:51.720
<v Speaker 1>The baseline view is right now that this is going

0:24:51.760 --> 0:24:55.879
<v Speaker 1>to go over relatively minimal changes again and pains free,

0:24:55.920 --> 0:24:59.320
<v Speaker 1>pain free talking about China. Last night, I saw the

0:24:59.359 --> 0:25:05.320
<v Speaker 1>headlines have about China underperforming in July with respect expectations

0:25:06.000 --> 0:25:08.920
<v Speaker 1>about how much their economy grew and how much their

0:25:08.960 --> 0:25:14.960
<v Speaker 1>industrial output grew. People seem to not care at all today. Yeah,

0:25:14.960 --> 0:25:17.359
<v Speaker 1>and I think that's the right thing. Actually wrote about

0:25:17.400 --> 0:25:20.560
<v Speaker 1>this in my my macro musings today. And the fact

0:25:20.640 --> 0:25:23.160
<v Speaker 1>is China had a much better than expected first half

0:25:23.160 --> 0:25:25.920
<v Speaker 1>of the year, uh and ending that they had a

0:25:26.040 --> 0:25:29.160
<v Speaker 1>much much much better than expected June. So you saw

0:25:29.200 --> 0:25:30.840
<v Speaker 1>a little bit that you saw the data come back

0:25:30.880 --> 0:25:32.439
<v Speaker 1>a little bit in July. When you look at what

0:25:32.520 --> 0:25:34.840
<v Speaker 1>happened in June and what happened in July, what it

0:25:34.880 --> 0:25:36.879
<v Speaker 1>really is pointing to is a bit of a return

0:25:36.920 --> 0:25:40.000
<v Speaker 1>to normalcy or or a moderate slowdown in growth. So

0:25:40.119 --> 0:25:43.000
<v Speaker 1>you know, everyone expects China's GDP growth is going to

0:25:43.200 --> 0:25:45.080
<v Speaker 1>decelerate for the remainder of the year. The thing is

0:25:45.080 --> 0:25:47.719
<v Speaker 1>it hadn't actually done that yet, So now it's finally

0:25:47.720 --> 0:25:50.520
<v Speaker 1>showing signs that it will start to decelerate a bit.

0:25:50.640 --> 0:25:53.480
<v Speaker 1>Although you had the Statistic Statistics Bureau coming out and

0:25:53.520 --> 0:25:58.400
<v Speaker 1>saying they're hidden risks and their problems out there. So

0:25:58.400 --> 0:26:01.600
<v Speaker 1>so the Statistical Bureau basically said what we've been talking

0:26:01.600 --> 0:26:03.320
<v Speaker 1>about on the show for I don't know how many

0:26:03.400 --> 0:26:06.919
<v Speaker 1>years everybody everybody, everybody knows there's hidden risks, right, you

0:26:06.920 --> 0:26:08.919
<v Speaker 1>have you do have a You're you're gonna have a

0:26:08.960 --> 0:26:12.360
<v Speaker 1>moderate slowdown in economic growth in China. And another important

0:26:12.359 --> 0:26:14.119
<v Speaker 1>thing to keep in mind is you have twice a

0:26:14.119 --> 0:26:18.639
<v Speaker 1>decade leadership transition occurring later this year. They're going to

0:26:18.680 --> 0:26:21.159
<v Speaker 1>do whatever they need to do to maintain stability around that.

0:26:21.160 --> 0:26:23.320
<v Speaker 1>They're going to let growth decelerate a bit, because that's

0:26:23.320 --> 0:26:25.919
<v Speaker 1>what everyone expects. It's still even above the six and

0:26:25.920 --> 0:26:28.119
<v Speaker 1>a half percent target, but there if it looks like

0:26:28.160 --> 0:26:29.879
<v Speaker 1>it's going a bit slower than that, then you know,

0:26:29.920 --> 0:26:33.240
<v Speaker 1>you could see reverse reversal of some tightening that had

0:26:33.280 --> 0:26:35.679
<v Speaker 1>taken place earlier this year. Who doesn't know about the

0:26:35.720 --> 0:26:38.199
<v Speaker 1>hidden risks? Mike mcduonda, thank you so much for joining us.

0:26:38.200 --> 0:26:41.040
<v Speaker 1>A pleasure as always. Mike mcdonna is Global director of

0:26:41.080 --> 0:26:45.960
<v Speaker 1>Economic Research and Chief Economist for Bloomberg Intelligence based in

0:26:46.000 --> 0:26:50.280
<v Speaker 1>New York. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg P and

0:26:50.359 --> 0:26:53.400
<v Speaker 1>L podcast. You can subscribe and listen to interviews at

0:26:53.440 --> 0:26:57.880
<v Speaker 1>Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whatever podcast platform you prefer. I'm

0:26:57.920 --> 0:27:01.359
<v Speaker 1>Pim Fox. I'm on Twitter at Pam Fox. I'm on

0:27:01.400 --> 0:27:04.680
<v Speaker 1>Twitter at Lisa Abramo. It's one before the podcast. You

0:27:04.720 --> 0:27:07.240
<v Speaker 1>can always catch us worldwide on Bloomberg Radio