WEBVTT - Daybreak Holiday: Oil, Retail, Antitrust

0:00:02.160 --> 0:00:04.560
<v Speaker 1>Thank you so much for joining us for this special

0:00:04.720 --> 0:00:08.119
<v Speaker 1>edition of Bloomberg Daybreak. US markets are close for the

0:00:08.200 --> 0:00:11.680
<v Speaker 1>Juneteenth holiday. I'm Nathan Hager, and coming up this hour,

0:00:11.760 --> 0:00:14.600
<v Speaker 1>we will focus on retail, a close look at the

0:00:14.600 --> 0:00:18.439
<v Speaker 1>health of the country's biggest companies. Bert Flickinger, Managing director

0:00:18.440 --> 0:00:21.560
<v Speaker 1>at Strategic Resource Group, will join us along with Bloomberg

0:00:21.560 --> 0:00:25.400
<v Speaker 1>Intelligence senior retail analyst Punam Gooyle. Plus, the government has

0:00:25.480 --> 0:00:28.800
<v Speaker 1>been very busy filing lawsuits against big tech. We will

0:00:28.800 --> 0:00:31.040
<v Speaker 1>bring you up to date on the latest anti trust

0:00:31.200 --> 0:00:34.600
<v Speaker 1>litigation with the senior analyst who covers just that topic,

0:00:34.760 --> 0:00:38.040
<v Speaker 1>Jennifer Ree of Bloomberg Intelligence. But we want to begin

0:00:38.120 --> 0:00:40.800
<v Speaker 1>with a closer look at the gas and oil market

0:00:40.920 --> 0:00:44.360
<v Speaker 1>as the official start of summer approaches. For that, we

0:00:44.400 --> 0:00:47.839
<v Speaker 1>are pleased to welcome Stephen Shork, the founder and president

0:00:48.159 --> 0:00:52.440
<v Speaker 1>of the energy industry consultancy the Short Group. Steven, great

0:00:52.440 --> 0:00:55.639
<v Speaker 1>to have you with us as always, But we're speaking

0:00:56.280 --> 0:00:58.440
<v Speaker 1>right in the middle of an East Coast heat wave

0:00:58.520 --> 0:01:01.440
<v Speaker 1>and that has got to put high demand on the

0:01:01.600 --> 0:01:05.280
<v Speaker 1>energy grid. Is demand going to keep a lid on prices?

0:01:05.400 --> 0:01:09.759
<v Speaker 2>Do you think it's an interesting situation here with regard

0:01:09.840 --> 0:01:12.480
<v Speaker 2>to the heat wave. Of course, that translates into air

0:01:12.520 --> 0:01:16.520
<v Speaker 2>conditioning demand, so it's also so therefore it's a bullesh

0:01:16.520 --> 0:01:19.560
<v Speaker 2>boom for the natural gas market. Now, the natural gas

0:01:19.600 --> 0:01:22.720
<v Speaker 2>market did have a nice run up up until about

0:01:22.760 --> 0:01:26.200
<v Speaker 2>a week ago, but it looks like that situation is

0:01:26.240 --> 0:01:29.480
<v Speaker 2>over and we're retracing back into a bear market. Why

0:01:30.040 --> 0:01:34.039
<v Speaker 2>even though we have strong demand, we have very strong supplies,

0:01:34.400 --> 0:01:38.759
<v Speaker 2>and that also translates, Nathan into the situation with gasoline.

0:01:39.080 --> 0:01:41.800
<v Speaker 2>We are at the peak season or just beginning with

0:01:42.080 --> 0:01:45.800
<v Speaker 2>the peak season, you know, right from Memorial Day through

0:01:45.880 --> 0:01:48.480
<v Speaker 2>July and August, of course, and when we look at

0:01:48.480 --> 0:01:52.360
<v Speaker 2>the supply situation from either a year over year basis,

0:01:52.640 --> 0:01:56.840
<v Speaker 2>where we're looking at inventories now in and around New

0:01:56.920 --> 0:01:59.440
<v Speaker 2>York Harbor, which is where you take delivery of the

0:01:59.440 --> 0:02:03.120
<v Speaker 2>New York Mark until Exchanges gasoline contract and down in

0:02:03.240 --> 0:02:06.080
<v Speaker 2>Pad three, which is the Gulf Coast refinery at the center.

0:02:06.520 --> 0:02:09.560
<v Speaker 2>So those two market areas are the most important market

0:02:09.600 --> 0:02:13.520
<v Speaker 2>areas as far as East Coast drivers are concerned, because

0:02:13.520 --> 0:02:17.040
<v Speaker 2>you manufacture gasoline in Philadelphia and New York Delaware, and

0:02:17.080 --> 0:02:19.200
<v Speaker 2>then you get the rest of it along the Colonial

0:02:19.200 --> 0:02:22.280
<v Speaker 2>pipeline that gets shipped up from the North coast. So

0:02:22.600 --> 0:02:25.480
<v Speaker 2>when we look at the inventories in those two particular

0:02:25.520 --> 0:02:28.919
<v Speaker 2>market areas, we're looking at a surplus on a year

0:02:29.000 --> 0:02:32.400
<v Speaker 2>over year of three point nine million barrels and a

0:02:32.480 --> 0:02:36.560
<v Speaker 2>one point three million barrel surplus to the seasonal time

0:02:36.680 --> 0:02:39.760
<v Speaker 2>series analysis. So whether we're looking on a year over

0:02:39.880 --> 0:02:44.040
<v Speaker 2>year basis or on a seasonally adjusted basis, supplies as

0:02:44.040 --> 0:02:47.880
<v Speaker 2>we go into the summer driving season are very comfortable

0:02:47.919 --> 0:02:48.640
<v Speaker 2>at this point.

0:02:48.840 --> 0:02:53.000
<v Speaker 1>So do you see that supply demand imbalance coming more

0:02:53.080 --> 0:02:57.080
<v Speaker 1>into balance as we get further into the summer driving season?

0:02:57.200 --> 0:03:00.600
<v Speaker 1>Is demand going to continue even when we we you know,

0:03:00.720 --> 0:03:04.800
<v Speaker 1>have these forecasts of a demand slowdown in global energy.

0:03:04.960 --> 0:03:07.600
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, it will be, and that is contingent on, of course,

0:03:07.840 --> 0:03:11.919
<v Speaker 2>an economics slowdown. So that is certainly a secondary driver

0:03:12.440 --> 0:03:14.760
<v Speaker 2>to prices in the near term. That that is more

0:03:14.840 --> 0:03:17.880
<v Speaker 2>of a long term bearers driver. But as far as

0:03:17.880 --> 0:03:21.880
<v Speaker 2>the summer goes, this is a spot market driven contract

0:03:21.880 --> 0:03:26.200
<v Speaker 2>at this point and therefore the market Nathan is based on.

0:03:26.320 --> 0:03:30.000
<v Speaker 2>Pricing is in balance. That is to say that when

0:03:30.000 --> 0:03:32.560
<v Speaker 2>we look at crude oil prices, for instance, the New

0:03:32.639 --> 0:03:36.440
<v Speaker 2>York WTI market, it's been yo yoing in between the

0:03:36.440 --> 0:03:40.800
<v Speaker 2>middle eighties and the middle seventies, with the mean thus

0:03:40.840 --> 0:03:45.240
<v Speaker 2>far this quarter right around eighty one eighty one dollars

0:03:45.240 --> 0:03:49.480
<v Speaker 2>and twenty cents. Now our modeling coming into the second quarter,

0:03:49.880 --> 0:03:53.200
<v Speaker 2>the central tendency or the median in our model's output

0:03:53.440 --> 0:03:56.960
<v Speaker 2>was eighty one sixty, So we're right there. We're very

0:03:57.000 --> 0:04:00.720
<v Speaker 2>stable market and the stable market Nathan again going into

0:04:01.040 --> 0:04:03.600
<v Speaker 2>I think it's intuitive you have a stable market, that's

0:04:03.640 --> 0:04:07.560
<v Speaker 2>a telltale that the market is in balance. And more importantly, Nathan,

0:04:07.800 --> 0:04:10.680
<v Speaker 2>when we look at the futures market to spread the

0:04:10.800 --> 0:04:15.600
<v Speaker 2>differential and prices between July and August, September, October, this

0:04:15.760 --> 0:04:22.440
<v Speaker 2>gives you the market's view of any potential imbalances coming

0:04:22.560 --> 0:04:25.760
<v Speaker 2>on the horizon. And what we're seeing there is not

0:04:25.800 --> 0:04:28.479
<v Speaker 2>only we're seeing in market that is balanced, but the

0:04:28.520 --> 0:04:31.359
<v Speaker 2>way the spread markets are trading, that is, July is

0:04:31.440 --> 0:04:34.960
<v Speaker 2>losing value to August, August is losing its value relative

0:04:35.000 --> 0:04:37.840
<v Speaker 2>to September. This is a telltale that when we do

0:04:38.000 --> 0:04:40.279
<v Speaker 2>see the imbalance, the market thinks we're going to have

0:04:40.360 --> 0:04:43.559
<v Speaker 2>too much supply not enough enough demand, and of course

0:04:43.600 --> 0:04:49.200
<v Speaker 2>that's going to translate into much more appetizing prices at

0:04:49.240 --> 0:04:50.600
<v Speaker 2>the pump for consumers.

0:04:50.760 --> 0:04:55.240
<v Speaker 1>How appetizing would you say? How accommodating are these gasoline

0:04:55.480 --> 0:04:59.080
<v Speaker 1>retailers going to be to the driving public this summer,

0:04:59.080 --> 0:04:59.440
<v Speaker 1>do you think?

0:04:59.520 --> 0:05:02.480
<v Speaker 2>Well, the great think about gasoline retailers is that there

0:05:02.560 --> 0:05:06.240
<v Speaker 2>are one hundred and forty five thousand retailers in the

0:05:06.279 --> 0:05:10.279
<v Speaker 2>lower forty eight United States. So that's a lot of competition.

0:05:10.800 --> 0:05:15.960
<v Speaker 2>In my hometown in Villanova suburbs of Philadelphia, we have

0:05:16.200 --> 0:05:21.680
<v Speaker 2>virtually a gasoline station on every block. Therefore, that competition

0:05:21.920 --> 0:05:25.960
<v Speaker 2>will certainly keep a lid on prices. Now, of course,

0:05:26.000 --> 0:05:28.680
<v Speaker 2>there will be higher prices in the summer. There are

0:05:28.720 --> 0:05:31.280
<v Speaker 2>always our higher prices in the summer for two very

0:05:31.320 --> 0:05:35.320
<v Speaker 2>obvious reasons. One of course, is demand. We're going to

0:05:35.400 --> 0:05:37.960
<v Speaker 2>hit the pinnacle of our demand in July and August.

0:05:38.160 --> 0:05:40.680
<v Speaker 2>And the second driver is the type of gasoline we

0:05:40.720 --> 0:05:43.000
<v Speaker 2>have to put in our car. It's what's called the

0:05:43.120 --> 0:05:46.159
<v Speaker 2>summer grade gasoline. And when we have to acquire the

0:05:46.240 --> 0:05:50.960
<v Speaker 2>seed stocks that go into making that cocktail of gasoline,

0:05:51.320 --> 0:05:53.920
<v Speaker 2>the seed stocks we use the summer are much more

0:05:53.960 --> 0:05:56.799
<v Speaker 2>expensive than what we can use in the winter. Therefore,

0:05:56.839 --> 0:06:00.640
<v Speaker 2>the manufacturing, the blending of gasoline is more offensive so

0:06:01.000 --> 0:06:05.880
<v Speaker 2>we will see gasoline prices higher, But the retailers. I

0:06:05.920 --> 0:06:09.159
<v Speaker 2>think this is important because I think the retailers they're

0:06:09.200 --> 0:06:11.440
<v Speaker 2>the ones who bear the brunt of it because they're

0:06:11.480 --> 0:06:15.000
<v Speaker 2>on the firing line. But ask yourself, why does a

0:06:15.040 --> 0:06:19.000
<v Speaker 2>gastline station retailer always have a convenience store or an

0:06:19.040 --> 0:06:23.160
<v Speaker 2>auto mechanic garage adjacent to it, Because that's where they

0:06:23.200 --> 0:06:26.599
<v Speaker 2>make their money. They don't make their money on gasoline.

0:06:26.760 --> 0:06:29.599
<v Speaker 2>Their margins are that thin they have to make it

0:06:29.720 --> 0:06:33.560
<v Speaker 2>up elsewhere. So it will be contingent on oil prices,

0:06:33.560 --> 0:06:37.520
<v Speaker 2>which again have been very stable, and the retailers, because

0:06:37.560 --> 0:06:41.560
<v Speaker 2>of this competition, they will not be quote unquote gouging

0:06:41.640 --> 0:06:42.800
<v Speaker 2>the consumer this summer.

0:06:43.000 --> 0:06:45.800
<v Speaker 1>Speaking with Steven Short, the founder and president of the

0:06:45.839 --> 0:06:50.799
<v Speaker 1>Short Group, which consults on the energy industry, and given

0:06:50.880 --> 0:06:54.400
<v Speaker 1>this backdrop, Steven, the stability that you see in the

0:06:54.440 --> 0:06:57.240
<v Speaker 1>gasoline market, I'm curious to get your take as well

0:06:57.680 --> 0:07:02.560
<v Speaker 1>on the decision by OPEC and OPEQ plus to continue

0:07:03.000 --> 0:07:08.080
<v Speaker 1>with supply constraints into next year. What kind of read

0:07:08.160 --> 0:07:11.960
<v Speaker 1>through that potentially could have even longer term as we

0:07:12.000 --> 0:07:13.000
<v Speaker 1>get past the summer.

0:07:13.200 --> 0:07:19.280
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, absolutely, it is certainly a barished telltale because they

0:07:19.360 --> 0:07:22.160
<v Speaker 2>came out with a rather dubbish statement of the last

0:07:22.200 --> 0:07:25.800
<v Speaker 2>meeting that they'll start to curtail these quotas later on

0:07:26.000 --> 0:07:29.840
<v Speaker 2>in the year. And when we look at and it's

0:07:29.840 --> 0:07:33.160
<v Speaker 2>really not surprised because what OPEK, because I've had the

0:07:33.200 --> 0:07:35.320
<v Speaker 2>opportunity to work with OPEC, so I do know this

0:07:35.440 --> 0:07:39.360
<v Speaker 2>firsthand that they will look at the structure of the

0:07:39.400 --> 0:07:43.160
<v Speaker 2>forward market. So there is that curve. There's a price

0:07:43.240 --> 0:07:46.480
<v Speaker 2>for oil every single month going out for the next

0:07:46.520 --> 0:07:49.680
<v Speaker 2>ten years, so they look at the formation of that

0:07:49.800 --> 0:07:53.040
<v Speaker 2>curve and what the curve has been telling us in

0:07:53.080 --> 0:07:55.760
<v Speaker 2>the past six months, whether we're looking at the three

0:07:55.920 --> 0:07:59.000
<v Speaker 2>main oil contracts that trade around the globe of the

0:07:59.080 --> 0:08:02.800
<v Speaker 2>NIMES contract hearing in the US, the Brent contract which

0:08:02.880 --> 0:08:08.640
<v Speaker 2>is a London based contract, and then they do buy contract.

0:08:08.680 --> 0:08:11.880
<v Speaker 2>And when we look at the forward pricing, we're looking

0:08:11.960 --> 0:08:16.040
<v Speaker 2>at a market that is certainly signaling that the barrels

0:08:16.080 --> 0:08:19.320
<v Speaker 2>that are coming closer to delivery are cheaper or are

0:08:19.360 --> 0:08:23.720
<v Speaker 2>losing their value to the longer dated contracts. So what

0:08:23.760 --> 0:08:27.720
<v Speaker 2>this tells you is that the expectation is for weaker

0:08:27.840 --> 0:08:31.240
<v Speaker 2>demand going beyond the summer and through the end of

0:08:31.280 --> 0:08:34.240
<v Speaker 2>this year, and certainly this is the way I think

0:08:34.280 --> 0:08:36.960
<v Speaker 2>OPEC is looking at the market situation.

0:08:37.240 --> 0:08:39.040
<v Speaker 1>Is that something that you agree with that we are

0:08:39.080 --> 0:08:42.840
<v Speaker 1>going to see a continued slow down in global demand

0:08:42.920 --> 0:08:44.600
<v Speaker 1>given where things are this summer?

0:08:44.760 --> 0:08:48.200
<v Speaker 2>Yes, I do. I think for two reasons. One, the

0:08:48.320 --> 0:08:52.600
<v Speaker 2>US consumer is completely tapped out with credit card debt

0:08:52.760 --> 0:08:56.960
<v Speaker 2>these high interest rates. We know that household debt is

0:08:57.000 --> 0:09:00.400
<v Speaker 2>got record highs, now, credit card debt at record highs,

0:09:00.440 --> 0:09:03.000
<v Speaker 2>and so forth, so we do know. And then now

0:09:03.040 --> 0:09:06.400
<v Speaker 2>what Maason, what we're starting to see is a delinquency

0:09:06.520 --> 0:09:09.000
<v Speaker 2>rate on credit card payments that are ninety days in

0:09:09.000 --> 0:09:12.160
<v Speaker 2>the arrears. We're starting to see that now at highs

0:09:12.160 --> 0:09:16.040
<v Speaker 2>we have not seen since before the Great Recession. So

0:09:16.120 --> 0:09:19.480
<v Speaker 2>clearly the consumer is tapped out. Now that doesn't mean

0:09:19.520 --> 0:09:22.640
<v Speaker 2>they won't tap out more on their credit cards, but

0:09:22.720 --> 0:09:27.960
<v Speaker 2>certainly consumer spending will certainly take a hit. And because

0:09:28.600 --> 0:09:31.960
<v Speaker 2>you don't have to drive to the Jersey Shore, you

0:09:32.000 --> 0:09:34.160
<v Speaker 2>can stand in your backyard and run a hose over

0:09:34.200 --> 0:09:38.400
<v Speaker 2>your head, your demand is much greater or much more

0:09:38.440 --> 0:09:42.040
<v Speaker 2>susceptible to these high prices. So yes, the answer that question,

0:09:42.440 --> 0:09:47.280
<v Speaker 2>I do see constraints on demand because even though gasoline

0:09:47.320 --> 0:09:50.520
<v Speaker 2>prices are cheaper than a year ago. The consumer is

0:09:50.520 --> 0:09:52.920
<v Speaker 2>in a much worse place than they were a year ago.

0:09:53.080 --> 0:09:54.959
<v Speaker 2>So it's a little bit of both here.

0:09:55.120 --> 0:09:58.720
<v Speaker 1>To that point, Stephen, we've had predictions many times over

0:09:58.760 --> 0:10:01.240
<v Speaker 1>the past few months about that the consumer is going

0:10:01.280 --> 0:10:03.640
<v Speaker 1>to crack, even if we are starting to see some

0:10:03.720 --> 0:10:06.480
<v Speaker 1>of those signs come through now, I mean, what's the

0:10:06.520 --> 0:10:10.000
<v Speaker 1>possibility that we could continue to see the consumer power

0:10:10.160 --> 0:10:12.679
<v Speaker 1>through like they seem to have done over the last

0:10:12.720 --> 0:10:15.080
<v Speaker 1>few months, defying some of the predictions.

0:10:15.240 --> 0:10:21.880
<v Speaker 2>Yeah. Absolutely, that has been a major surprise, certainly to me.

0:10:22.480 --> 0:10:27.520
<v Speaker 2>But there are other signs. As we said now a

0:10:27.600 --> 0:10:32.000
<v Speaker 2>year ago people defaulting or not making their credit card payments,

0:10:32.240 --> 0:10:35.640
<v Speaker 2>even minimum payments with half of what it is today

0:10:35.720 --> 0:10:39.439
<v Speaker 2>that are defaulting or delinquent, I should say. So that

0:10:39.960 --> 0:10:46.040
<v Speaker 2>is a clear telltale. Also when we look at the

0:10:46.160 --> 0:10:49.400
<v Speaker 2>jobs numbers. Now we're looking at the jobs numbers and

0:10:49.480 --> 0:10:53.439
<v Speaker 2>the establishment and the households. You have two different surveys,

0:10:53.840 --> 0:10:58.240
<v Speaker 2>and there is a considerable deficit between these two. The

0:10:58.440 --> 0:11:02.360
<v Speaker 2>establishment survey, which is the one that the market trades on,

0:11:02.559 --> 0:11:08.360
<v Speaker 2>which has beaten expectations by the biggest Wall Street banks

0:11:08.360 --> 0:11:11.480
<v Speaker 2>have been wrong on the jobs number month in, month

0:11:11.600 --> 0:11:14.600
<v Speaker 2>out for the past year. So what is going on there?

0:11:14.640 --> 0:11:18.160
<v Speaker 2>These are very good economists. What are they missing? Well,

0:11:18.200 --> 0:11:21.120
<v Speaker 2>part of the missing is the way they calculate, that

0:11:21.320 --> 0:11:23.640
<v Speaker 2>is to say, the way the Bureau of Labor Statistics

0:11:23.679 --> 0:11:29.280
<v Speaker 2>calculates their numbers. They're making some assumptions that that are

0:11:29.360 --> 0:11:32.560
<v Speaker 2>pretty grandy oaks when it comes to the amount of

0:11:32.640 --> 0:11:38.360
<v Speaker 2>new businesses being created, which factors into statistically what they

0:11:38.520 --> 0:11:42.360
<v Speaker 2>think the new jobs being created are. All it is

0:11:42.360 --> 0:11:45.080
<v Speaker 2>is a statistical number that they are guessing at and

0:11:45.120 --> 0:11:47.880
<v Speaker 2>putting in and when you look at this adjustment, it

0:11:47.960 --> 0:11:51.240
<v Speaker 2>is very high relative to what we've seen in the past.

0:11:51.559 --> 0:11:54.440
<v Speaker 2>So where I'm going with this, Nathan, is perhaps the

0:11:54.520 --> 0:11:57.679
<v Speaker 2>jobs market, which continues to beat on the headline numbers.

0:11:57.920 --> 0:12:00.000
<v Speaker 2>If you just dig into the weeds a little bit,

0:12:00.520 --> 0:12:03.120
<v Speaker 2>the job situation in this country is not as rosy

0:12:03.160 --> 0:12:06.360
<v Speaker 2>as the headline number would suggest. So now you marry

0:12:06.520 --> 0:12:11.800
<v Speaker 2>that with tap dot consumers and inflation which is still high.

0:12:11.960 --> 0:12:15.240
<v Speaker 2>Granted that inflation might only be grown at four percent

0:12:15.360 --> 0:12:17.880
<v Speaker 2>this year. That's four percent on top of the twenty

0:12:17.920 --> 0:12:21.080
<v Speaker 2>percent it's grown over the past three years. So we're

0:12:21.120 --> 0:12:24.120
<v Speaker 2>looking at a market. So to answer your question. It's great.

0:12:24.280 --> 0:12:30.040
<v Speaker 2>Who knows ken consumer continue to power on perhaps, but

0:12:30.160 --> 0:12:34.080
<v Speaker 2>we do know that they're facing a considerable wall and

0:12:34.480 --> 0:12:37.160
<v Speaker 2>eventually at one point they're going to have to cry

0:12:37.320 --> 0:12:41.040
<v Speaker 2>uncle when that is. Your guess is as good as mine.

0:12:41.160 --> 0:12:43.560
<v Speaker 1>Thank you for this. Stephen, really great having on with us.

0:12:43.679 --> 0:12:47.000
<v Speaker 1>Matt Stephen Short, founder and president of the Short Group.

0:12:47.240 --> 0:12:49.200
<v Speaker 1>And coming up next we'll take a closer look at

0:12:49.240 --> 0:12:51.640
<v Speaker 1>the health of the country's retailers. Will be speaking with

0:12:51.720 --> 0:12:55.040
<v Speaker 1>Bert Flickinger of Strategic Resource Group and put them Goyle,

0:12:55.160 --> 0:12:59.360
<v Speaker 1>senior retail analysts at Bloomberg Intelligence. It's twenty minutes past

0:12:59.400 --> 0:13:06.960
<v Speaker 1>the hour, Nathan Hager, and this is Bloomberg Welcome back

0:13:07.000 --> 0:13:10.640
<v Speaker 1>to this special edition of Bloomberg Daybreak. US markets are

0:13:10.679 --> 0:13:13.640
<v Speaker 1>closed for the June teen holiday. I'm Nathan Hager. Thanks

0:13:13.720 --> 0:13:16.120
<v Speaker 1>for joining us. We want to turn our attention now

0:13:16.160 --> 0:13:18.720
<v Speaker 1>to the health of the country's retailers, and for that

0:13:18.760 --> 0:13:21.960
<v Speaker 1>we have a special holiday roundtable for you. Joining us

0:13:22.000 --> 0:13:26.800
<v Speaker 1>now Bert Flickinger, Managing director at Strategic Resource Group, along

0:13:26.840 --> 0:13:31.000
<v Speaker 1>with Punham Goyle, senior US retail analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence.

0:13:31.040 --> 0:13:32.719
<v Speaker 1>It's great to have the both of you with us

0:13:33.120 --> 0:13:35.800
<v Speaker 1>on this holiday, and we are doing this as we

0:13:35.840 --> 0:13:39.240
<v Speaker 1>come off the latest read on retail sales, we are

0:13:39.320 --> 0:13:44.080
<v Speaker 1>still seeing signs of slow down in the American consumer. Bert,

0:13:44.120 --> 0:13:47.240
<v Speaker 1>I'll start with you, what does this slowdown mean in

0:13:47.320 --> 0:13:48.880
<v Speaker 1>terms of where we could go for the rest of

0:13:48.960 --> 0:13:49.720
<v Speaker 1>the summer.

0:13:49.559 --> 0:13:52.839
<v Speaker 3>Nathan, As you reference the monthly retail sales reported on

0:13:52.920 --> 0:13:56.880
<v Speaker 3>the Bloomberg terminal yesterday Tuesday, it's stick an ask. It's

0:13:56.960 --> 0:13:59.240
<v Speaker 3>the worst of times for retailers. It's the best of

0:13:59.280 --> 0:14:04.600
<v Speaker 3>times of times for retailers like Kroger and Costco. Costco

0:14:04.679 --> 0:14:09.160
<v Speaker 3>hit a fifty two week high. Kroger's doing a very constructive,

0:14:09.679 --> 0:14:14.000
<v Speaker 3>well intentioned merger with Albertson's the lower prices to consumers

0:14:14.040 --> 0:14:18.079
<v Speaker 3>even more as consumers are fighting record inflation, which you're

0:14:18.080 --> 0:14:20.960
<v Speaker 3>seeing in the rest of retail. Nathan. That the only

0:14:21.000 --> 0:14:24.160
<v Speaker 3>other elements other than food retail that are doing well

0:14:24.240 --> 0:14:28.880
<v Speaker 3>or off price, led by TJX and other off price,

0:14:28.960 --> 0:14:33.920
<v Speaker 3>with a handful of specialty retailers also putting together strong

0:14:34.000 --> 0:14:34.600
<v Speaker 3>results too.

0:14:35.120 --> 0:14:38.840
<v Speaker 1>Speaking of specialty retailers, Punham, I know you cover those,

0:14:38.920 --> 0:14:42.600
<v Speaker 1>particularly in the specialty apparel space. Is it a best

0:14:42.600 --> 0:14:45.320
<v Speaker 1>of time's worst of time situation in your world as well.

0:14:45.400 --> 0:14:47.400
<v Speaker 4>Well, I think there is a confluence of events that

0:14:47.440 --> 0:14:49.720
<v Speaker 4>are happening. So you do have a weaker consumer that's

0:14:49.760 --> 0:14:52.880
<v Speaker 4>spending less undiscretionary, but at the same time, you have

0:14:52.960 --> 0:14:55.920
<v Speaker 4>this fashion cycle where consumers are out and about more

0:14:56.240 --> 0:14:58.720
<v Speaker 4>so they are spending a little more in apparel. They're

0:14:58.760 --> 0:15:01.480
<v Speaker 4>just deciding where to go. So we think in this case,

0:15:01.840 --> 0:15:04.760
<v Speaker 4>the retailers that are benefiting with a play on value

0:15:05.120 --> 0:15:07.880
<v Speaker 4>are some of the ones that we've seen rise very fast.

0:15:07.920 --> 0:15:12.120
<v Speaker 4>Those you know, Chinese based or originated retailers, whether it's

0:15:12.120 --> 0:15:15.960
<v Speaker 4>Shean or Temu, They're they're starting to take share. And

0:15:16.000 --> 0:15:18.920
<v Speaker 4>then the Walmarts of the world, we've seen that they've

0:15:18.920 --> 0:15:22.240
<v Speaker 4>posted strong results and they continue to make their play

0:15:22.320 --> 0:15:26.160
<v Speaker 4>for value, drive consumer interest, whether it's the high end

0:15:26.280 --> 0:15:28.480
<v Speaker 4>now or even you know, continue to keep the mid

0:15:28.520 --> 0:15:29.560
<v Speaker 4>and low tier consumer.

0:15:30.080 --> 0:15:34.000
<v Speaker 1>Well, if we do bert continue to see pile into

0:15:34.360 --> 0:15:39.080
<v Speaker 1>sort of lower priced retail names and sectors, what could

0:15:39.160 --> 0:15:42.440
<v Speaker 1>that mean for some of the higher price point companies.

0:15:42.480 --> 0:15:44.880
<v Speaker 1>Are they going to have to start bringing in sales

0:15:44.920 --> 0:15:45.440
<v Speaker 1>this summer.

0:15:45.720 --> 0:15:49.160
<v Speaker 3>Yes, the higher price companies will have to bring in sales,

0:15:49.240 --> 0:15:52.000
<v Speaker 3>and it's going to be tough. In a presidential year

0:15:52.080 --> 0:15:56.120
<v Speaker 3>with record ad spending and costs to bring in that consumer.

0:15:56.160 --> 0:15:59.760
<v Speaker 3>And also what's interesting is in our strategic Resource group

0:16:00.480 --> 0:16:04.480
<v Speaker 3>analyzes chain drug, which is normally a safe harbor and

0:16:04.760 --> 0:16:09.840
<v Speaker 3>typically good and affordability, is struggling. Walgreens down seventy five

0:16:10.440 --> 0:16:14.800
<v Speaker 3>five years, write a down ninety nine point seven CBS

0:16:14.920 --> 0:16:18.840
<v Speaker 3>down fifteen percent. Walmart wins. As Poonam said, and you said,

0:16:18.920 --> 0:16:23.640
<v Speaker 3>Nathan and Kroger Elbertson's with over four thousand pharmacy went.

0:16:23.920 --> 0:16:29.120
<v Speaker 3>Pharmacies win and consumers win. But unless it's everyday low

0:16:29.200 --> 0:16:35.680
<v Speaker 3>price or price impact like Costco, like Winco, like TJX, Ross,

0:16:35.760 --> 0:16:40.120
<v Speaker 3>Dress for Last, et cetera, promotional will still be a

0:16:40.120 --> 0:16:43.160
<v Speaker 3>big part of the playbook for Macy's and others, but

0:16:43.200 --> 0:16:47.760
<v Speaker 3>it'll be tougher to track customers. As Punham reference that

0:16:47.960 --> 0:16:51.560
<v Speaker 3>shoppers are spending for want, not for need.

0:16:51.880 --> 0:16:55.440
<v Speaker 1>So in terms of the retail names that you cover, Poonam,

0:16:55.720 --> 0:16:59.800
<v Speaker 1>how could that play out for names like some of

0:16:59.800 --> 0:17:03.240
<v Speaker 1>those apparel companies that you look at, are they going

0:17:03.320 --> 0:17:05.160
<v Speaker 1>to start discounting as well?

0:17:05.760 --> 0:17:08.480
<v Speaker 4>They will start discounting. I mean, discounts will definitely come

0:17:08.520 --> 0:17:10.800
<v Speaker 4>into play. And sometimes it's not a function of the

0:17:10.800 --> 0:17:13.760
<v Speaker 4>inventory that they have at hand. But it's the neighbors, right,

0:17:13.800 --> 0:17:16.400
<v Speaker 4>So if the stores around you are discounting, you need

0:17:16.440 --> 0:17:18.760
<v Speaker 4>to show the value proposition too. But there is a

0:17:18.760 --> 0:17:21.320
<v Speaker 4>group that I cover that I think benefits in this environment,

0:17:21.320 --> 0:17:24.280
<v Speaker 4>and that's the resale companies like Rent the Runway, like

0:17:24.359 --> 0:17:28.399
<v Speaker 4>thread Up, Poshmark. These companies have a resale element to

0:17:28.480 --> 0:17:32.320
<v Speaker 4>them and eBay and they drive the value message across

0:17:32.359 --> 0:17:34.880
<v Speaker 4>pretty nicely. So we think that they're going to benefit

0:17:34.880 --> 0:17:35.320
<v Speaker 4>in all of this.

0:17:36.080 --> 0:17:40.639
<v Speaker 1>And Bert, what about the interplay between brick and mortar

0:17:40.680 --> 0:17:44.359
<v Speaker 1>stores and e commerce? How do you see that playing

0:17:44.359 --> 0:17:45.320
<v Speaker 1>out into the summertime.

0:17:45.480 --> 0:17:50.560
<v Speaker 3>We're seeing Internet sales trailing twelve month growth rate below

0:17:50.640 --> 0:17:53.920
<v Speaker 3>seven percent for a long time, so still strong, still

0:17:53.960 --> 0:17:56.840
<v Speaker 3>stronger than the rest of retail. But people are going

0:17:56.840 --> 0:18:00.160
<v Speaker 3>to bricks and mortar because, as Punam said, they're own

0:18:00.200 --> 0:18:03.680
<v Speaker 3>to Walmart, they're going to Target, they're going to Costco,

0:18:03.840 --> 0:18:06.760
<v Speaker 3>aldi in Kroger, and they want to see the produce

0:18:06.800 --> 0:18:10.760
<v Speaker 3>and see the meat, especially with meat prices soaring because

0:18:10.760 --> 0:18:14.480
<v Speaker 3>of a b and bird flow affecting first the poultry

0:18:15.440 --> 0:18:21.639
<v Speaker 3>flocks but now transferring over to livestock, so egg prices,

0:18:21.760 --> 0:18:26.840
<v Speaker 3>especially for meat pork poultry are the highest in years,

0:18:26.880 --> 0:18:30.160
<v Speaker 3>with poultry still a value, but maybe not for long.

0:18:30.240 --> 0:18:32.600
<v Speaker 1>Of course, a lot of those names that Bert just

0:18:32.720 --> 0:18:36.560
<v Speaker 1>referenced have some e commerce business of their own Punham,

0:18:37.960 --> 0:18:42.560
<v Speaker 1>Do you see any interplay there, some divergence between foot

0:18:42.640 --> 0:18:44.800
<v Speaker 1>traffic and clicks.

0:18:45.480 --> 0:18:48.160
<v Speaker 4>Yeah. Look, I think you know, for grocery, it's still

0:18:48.200 --> 0:18:50.879
<v Speaker 4>a largely brick and mortar business, so I think consumers

0:18:50.920 --> 0:18:54.560
<v Speaker 4>will prefer that channel for the foreseeable future as the

0:18:54.560 --> 0:18:57.560
<v Speaker 4>way they shop for their produce, especially, But when you

0:18:57.560 --> 0:18:59.879
<v Speaker 4>talk about the off price retailers that were just mentioned

0:19:00.080 --> 0:19:03.159
<v Speaker 4>don't have a clicks business. Teach X is a very

0:19:03.200 --> 0:19:06.440
<v Speaker 4>small online presence, so for those stores, if you want

0:19:06.440 --> 0:19:08.679
<v Speaker 4>the value, you have to go into them. But on

0:19:08.760 --> 0:19:11.880
<v Speaker 4>the same front, retailers like Amazon, which you know you're

0:19:11.920 --> 0:19:15.040
<v Speaker 4>shopping online. The reason to go to Amazon is because

0:19:15.080 --> 0:19:16.840
<v Speaker 4>you can get the breadth of offering and you can

0:19:16.880 --> 0:19:20.400
<v Speaker 4>get the convenience and the items same day, next day.

0:19:20.440 --> 0:19:23.280
<v Speaker 4>So I think that's still a medium that people will

0:19:23.320 --> 0:19:26.040
<v Speaker 4>want to shop at because they want their things quickly,

0:19:26.119 --> 0:19:28.919
<v Speaker 4>and some people still don't like going to stores for

0:19:29.240 --> 0:19:31.439
<v Speaker 4>some of the stuff that can be replenished automatically, and

0:19:31.440 --> 0:19:32.840
<v Speaker 4>they don't need to feel in touch.

0:19:33.640 --> 0:19:37.919
<v Speaker 1>Speaking with Punam Goyle, senior US retail analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence,

0:19:37.960 --> 0:19:43.320
<v Speaker 1>along with Bert Flickinger, the Managing director of Strategic Resource Group, Bert,

0:19:43.359 --> 0:19:46.440
<v Speaker 1>I know something you follow in particular is the impact

0:19:46.440 --> 0:19:50.480
<v Speaker 1>of movie attendance on brick and mortar mall traffic. It

0:19:50.480 --> 0:19:52.280
<v Speaker 1>seems like it's been kind of hit or miss. I mean,

0:19:52.280 --> 0:19:55.920
<v Speaker 1>we just had a record weekend for the new Pixar sequel.

0:19:56.000 --> 0:20:00.600
<v Speaker 1>Some other movies haven't done as well. What could this

0:20:00.760 --> 0:20:06.240
<v Speaker 1>mean for malls in terms of this cinema traffic that

0:20:06.480 --> 0:20:08.080
<v Speaker 1>in a lot of ways they've had to come to

0:20:08.119 --> 0:20:09.880
<v Speaker 1>rely on in recent years.

0:20:09.800 --> 0:20:12.520
<v Speaker 3>Nathan, you synthesize it very well, hit or missed with

0:20:13.040 --> 0:20:17.960
<v Speaker 3>fewer theatrical releases as a carryover from the understandable artists

0:20:18.000 --> 0:20:23.840
<v Speaker 3>and writers strike, so fewer properties from Disney, Marvel, etc.

0:20:24.200 --> 0:20:27.359
<v Speaker 3>From the major studios, so new releases don't come to

0:20:27.400 --> 0:20:32.200
<v Speaker 3>the rescue Nathan until after the December holidays. In the meantime,

0:20:32.240 --> 0:20:35.159
<v Speaker 3>to your point, customer counsel are down thirty percent, and

0:20:35.200 --> 0:20:38.119
<v Speaker 3>a lot to the movies at the malls, and a

0:20:38.160 --> 0:20:41.239
<v Speaker 3>lot of those customers cross over and shop after they

0:20:41.280 --> 0:20:45.399
<v Speaker 3>go to the movies, especially families with large presence of

0:20:45.480 --> 0:20:50.040
<v Speaker 3>children or caregivers going with children. So at a time

0:20:50.080 --> 0:20:54.480
<v Speaker 3>that the malls are suffering and Walmart's abandoning tens of

0:20:54.520 --> 0:20:59.600
<v Speaker 3>millions of square feet of real estate that reached their

0:20:59.640 --> 0:21:03.640
<v Speaker 3>plan absolescence, some of the co anchors are either going

0:21:03.680 --> 0:21:07.080
<v Speaker 3>bankrupt or where they're just segueing out as Walmart and

0:21:07.119 --> 0:21:12.600
<v Speaker 3>Amazon do. And so it's very concerning crossroads for retail

0:21:12.640 --> 0:21:15.199
<v Speaker 3>this summer, especially with the movie drop off for the

0:21:15.240 --> 0:21:16.320
<v Speaker 3>first time in a decade.

0:21:16.560 --> 0:21:19.720
<v Speaker 1>Curious to get your view on the mall outlook as well, Punam.

0:21:19.760 --> 0:21:22.679
<v Speaker 1>I know you spent a fair amount of time in

0:21:22.720 --> 0:21:23.800
<v Speaker 1>the outlets as well.

0:21:24.080 --> 0:21:26.679
<v Speaker 4>Yeah. I think Look, mall traffic has been challenged for

0:21:26.760 --> 0:21:29.400
<v Speaker 4>over a decade now and I don't see that changing

0:21:29.920 --> 0:21:32.520
<v Speaker 4>regardless of where we go in the future. I see

0:21:32.560 --> 0:21:35.840
<v Speaker 4>that there is a shift more growing to digital, which

0:21:35.880 --> 0:21:39.680
<v Speaker 4>is going to continue to really deter especially the lower

0:21:39.760 --> 0:21:42.359
<v Speaker 4>quality malls. Right. I think the A malls like the

0:21:42.359 --> 0:21:45.760
<v Speaker 4>Short Hills Mall in New Jersey, they'll have traffic. But

0:21:45.800 --> 0:21:48.120
<v Speaker 4>when you go to some of these other malls when

0:21:48.160 --> 0:21:50.840
<v Speaker 4>they lose the anchors, as brit just said, that the

0:21:50.920 --> 0:21:54.359
<v Speaker 4>traffic really falls off, and that's going to continue to

0:21:54.440 --> 0:21:57.400
<v Speaker 4>hurt the mall cycle in the stores within those malls.

0:21:57.320 --> 0:22:01.640
<v Speaker 1>Anything else besides movie theater, they can keep them all

0:22:01.920 --> 0:22:02.760
<v Speaker 1>business going.

0:22:02.800 --> 0:22:09.040
<v Speaker 3>Bird BJS and Costco are constructively converting former Macy's, former Seers,

0:22:09.119 --> 0:22:13.080
<v Speaker 3>former j C. Pennies to wholesale clubs as his wind

0:22:13.160 --> 0:22:16.840
<v Speaker 3>Co a Esop, which is the highest volume food retailer

0:22:16.840 --> 0:22:19.960
<v Speaker 3>in America and also the lowest price, even lower than Walmart.

0:22:20.320 --> 0:22:24.199
<v Speaker 3>So there is repurposing in the space. But to Punam's

0:22:24.440 --> 0:22:28.919
<v Speaker 3>present point, we're seeing America go from four hundred percent

0:22:28.960 --> 0:22:32.000
<v Speaker 3>over stored a decade ago in terms of retail mall

0:22:32.080 --> 0:22:34.760
<v Speaker 3>space to between one hundred and twenty to one hundred

0:22:34.800 --> 0:22:39.399
<v Speaker 3>and thirty percent over stored, which will be back in

0:22:39.560 --> 0:22:43.000
<v Speaker 3>balance probably a few to no more than five years

0:22:43.000 --> 0:22:45.520
<v Speaker 3>from now. And there's going to be quite a commercial

0:22:45.600 --> 0:22:51.240
<v Speaker 3>quote unquote casualty count with a even viable change closing

0:22:51.840 --> 0:22:55.520
<v Speaker 3>brick and mortar flagship stores and undercapitalized chains going out

0:22:55.520 --> 0:22:55.959
<v Speaker 3>of business.

0:22:56.000 --> 0:22:59.159
<v Speaker 1>We're also going to see America go to Paris in

0:22:59.200 --> 0:23:01.720
<v Speaker 1>the next few weeks for the Summer Olympics. Just to

0:23:01.760 --> 0:23:05.960
<v Speaker 1>think about summer in general. Punam, in your world when

0:23:05.960 --> 0:23:08.840
<v Speaker 1>it comes to apparel sales. Can we see something of

0:23:08.880 --> 0:23:10.560
<v Speaker 1>a Team USA gear bump?

0:23:10.680 --> 0:23:13.480
<v Speaker 4>Yeah. Absolutely. Look, these sporting events are back in full

0:23:13.520 --> 0:23:15.679
<v Speaker 4>motion to how they were a pre pandemic. It's the

0:23:15.720 --> 0:23:18.960
<v Speaker 4>first year, you know, we're really back the way we

0:23:19.080 --> 0:23:21.719
<v Speaker 4>used to watch sports and attend sporting events. We not

0:23:21.760 --> 0:23:23.679
<v Speaker 4>only have the Paris Olympics, though, we also have the

0:23:23.680 --> 0:23:27.800
<v Speaker 4>euro Championships going on, and there's a lot of momentum,

0:23:28.000 --> 0:23:30.640
<v Speaker 4>and there are new launches, whether it's by Nike, Aditas

0:23:30.640 --> 0:23:33.160
<v Speaker 4>whom or the other names that are going to drive

0:23:33.240 --> 0:23:36.639
<v Speaker 4>brand heat, and the teams that win and the endorsers

0:23:36.720 --> 0:23:40.960
<v Speaker 4>behind them are going to gain momentum. And that momentum

0:23:41.040 --> 0:23:43.840
<v Speaker 4>really lasts right. It's brand heat that's driven today that

0:23:43.880 --> 0:23:46.440
<v Speaker 4>will continue for the next six to twelve months because

0:23:46.480 --> 0:23:48.840
<v Speaker 4>those product launches carry on their momentum.

0:23:48.920 --> 0:23:50.919
<v Speaker 1>What do you see as a potential bigger catalyst this

0:23:50.960 --> 0:23:53.440
<v Speaker 1>summer in terms of retail shopping, Bert, is it the

0:23:54.000 --> 0:23:56.760
<v Speaker 1>summer sports or could it be back to school later

0:23:56.800 --> 0:23:57.399
<v Speaker 1>on the summer.

0:23:57.560 --> 0:24:00.439
<v Speaker 3>It's a combination that to Nathan, and also the wild

0:24:00.480 --> 0:24:02.720
<v Speaker 3>card is our family used to be one of the

0:24:02.800 --> 0:24:07.919
<v Speaker 3>largest restaurant suppliers, everything from fast food defined dining, and

0:24:07.960 --> 0:24:11.080
<v Speaker 3>we know the math of McDonald's and BK and everybody else.

0:24:11.480 --> 0:24:14.159
<v Speaker 3>They've raised prices thirty percent over the last two and

0:24:14.200 --> 0:24:18.439
<v Speaker 3>a half years, so we're seeing menu inflation and fast food,

0:24:18.480 --> 0:24:22.320
<v Speaker 3>which means the customer that ten years ago eight eleven

0:24:22.359 --> 0:24:25.720
<v Speaker 3>meals a week away from home and only ten at home,

0:24:26.040 --> 0:24:28.840
<v Speaker 3>that customer is now eating about twenty meals a week

0:24:29.119 --> 0:24:34.320
<v Speaker 3>at home. So they're shifting. They're spending from fast food

0:24:34.359 --> 0:24:39.639
<v Speaker 3>and casual dining in home, where the basic markup for

0:24:39.920 --> 0:24:43.080
<v Speaker 3>McDonald's on food is about seven hundred to nine hundred

0:24:43.080 --> 0:24:46.800
<v Speaker 3>percent over one thousand percent on beverages. So for the

0:24:46.800 --> 0:24:50.639
<v Speaker 3>Bloomberg terminal math and for the consumer at home, you

0:24:50.680 --> 0:24:53.320
<v Speaker 3>can see each person in the family for a dollar

0:24:53.359 --> 0:24:55.520
<v Speaker 3>or to a meal for something you're going to be

0:24:56.160 --> 0:24:59.400
<v Speaker 3>paying half one hundred to sixty five dollars a meal

0:24:59.480 --> 0:25:02.320
<v Speaker 3>for a family five going through the fast food window.

0:25:02.720 --> 0:25:06.520
<v Speaker 3>So I think to the key reference points you've made

0:25:06.960 --> 0:25:11.879
<v Speaker 3>back to school or BTS and sports, and the first

0:25:12.280 --> 0:25:16.200
<v Speaker 3>major transformational shift from food away from home to food

0:25:16.240 --> 0:25:19.920
<v Speaker 3>at home for the first time in nearly forty years.

0:25:19.760 --> 0:25:23.600
<v Speaker 1>Speaks to the challenges to come for the consumer. As

0:25:23.600 --> 0:25:25.920
<v Speaker 1>you've been seeing just in the data this week. Thank

0:25:25.960 --> 0:25:28.960
<v Speaker 1>you Bert, thank you Poonham for all of this. That's

0:25:29.000 --> 0:25:33.840
<v Speaker 1>Bert Flickinger, Strategic Resource Group and Punham Goyle, senior US

0:25:33.920 --> 0:25:37.439
<v Speaker 1>retail analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence. Now, next we're going to

0:25:37.440 --> 0:25:40.720
<v Speaker 1>get you caught up on the government's latest anti trust cases.

0:25:40.760 --> 0:25:44.000
<v Speaker 1>We're going to speak with Jennifer Ree of Bloomberg Intelligence

0:25:44.320 --> 0:25:48.400
<v Speaker 1>as a special Juneteenth edition of Bloomberg Daybreak continues. It's

0:25:48.440 --> 0:25:51.320
<v Speaker 1>thirty seven minutes past the hour. I'm Nathan Hager, and

0:25:51.400 --> 0:25:58.000
<v Speaker 1>this is Bloomberg. Thanks again for joining us on the

0:25:58.040 --> 0:26:01.320
<v Speaker 1>special edition of Bloomberg Daybreak. West markets are closed for

0:26:01.359 --> 0:26:05.200
<v Speaker 1>the Juneteenth holiday. I'm Nathan Hager. Big Tech has been

0:26:05.200 --> 0:26:08.840
<v Speaker 1>in the crosshairs of US anti trust along with some

0:26:08.880 --> 0:26:11.600
<v Speaker 1>other major sectors. So let's get an update on where

0:26:11.640 --> 0:26:14.159
<v Speaker 1>some of these cases stand. There are quite a few

0:26:14.160 --> 0:26:17.440
<v Speaker 1>to get through. Let's bring in Jennifer Ree, senior litigation

0:26:17.520 --> 0:26:22.000
<v Speaker 1>analyst for Antitrust with Bloomberg Intelligence. Really appreciate the time

0:26:22.080 --> 0:26:25.960
<v Speaker 1>considering how heavy the caseload has become in your world. Jen,

0:26:26.080 --> 0:26:29.840
<v Speaker 1>Thank you for this, especially when it comes to Google.

0:26:30.760 --> 0:26:34.680
<v Speaker 1>Amazon's search giant is facing scrutiny on a number of fronts,

0:26:34.760 --> 0:26:35.040
<v Speaker 1>isn't it?

0:26:35.640 --> 0:26:38.840
<v Speaker 5>Oh so many? That company has a lot of trials

0:26:38.880 --> 0:26:42.240
<v Speaker 5>coming up, because I really don't expect settlements in any

0:26:42.280 --> 0:26:45.720
<v Speaker 5>of them. They're a waiting a verdict in one and

0:26:45.800 --> 0:26:48.320
<v Speaker 5>have several coming up, one in September and then one

0:26:48.320 --> 0:26:48.919
<v Speaker 5>in the spring.

0:26:50.240 --> 0:26:52.159
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, so let's start with the one that's coming up.

0:26:52.280 --> 0:26:55.800
<v Speaker 1>This is having to do with the search business, right, Well.

0:26:55.640 --> 0:26:57.960
<v Speaker 5>The decision that's going to come out anytime now, I

0:26:57.960 --> 0:27:00.239
<v Speaker 5>think has to do with the search business, right That

0:27:00.320 --> 0:27:02.879
<v Speaker 5>trial ended at the end of last year and then

0:27:02.960 --> 0:27:06.720
<v Speaker 5>closing arguments were in early May, and I believe it

0:27:06.720 --> 0:27:08.720
<v Speaker 5>could come out at any time, although my gut tells

0:27:08.760 --> 0:27:10.840
<v Speaker 5>me that Judge is going to be very careful about this,

0:27:10.880 --> 0:27:13.680
<v Speaker 5>and it's probably still a couple months before he decides

0:27:13.720 --> 0:27:17.080
<v Speaker 5>and issues a decision just on liability, by the way,

0:27:17.160 --> 0:27:20.000
<v Speaker 5>not on remedy. So if he decides for the DOJ

0:27:20.200 --> 0:27:22.600
<v Speaker 5>in that case, at that point, after that there will

0:27:22.600 --> 0:27:26.640
<v Speaker 5>be a hearing on remedy and what the proper injunction

0:27:26.720 --> 0:27:29.719
<v Speaker 5>would be for Google on this one. I think this

0:27:29.760 --> 0:27:31.919
<v Speaker 5>is on Google Search right, just to be clear, and

0:27:31.960 --> 0:27:35.040
<v Speaker 5>it's about whether or not it's default its agreements to

0:27:35.080 --> 0:27:37.200
<v Speaker 5>be the default search engine in a lot of different

0:27:37.240 --> 0:27:40.280
<v Speaker 5>places where people have to access the Internet and don't

0:27:40.280 --> 0:27:42.480
<v Speaker 5>even really know they're using a search engine like set

0:27:42.520 --> 0:27:46.560
<v Speaker 5>behind Safari in the Apple devices. Whether or not, those

0:27:46.680 --> 0:27:50.679
<v Speaker 5>four closed other competitors and really led to maintaining the

0:27:50.720 --> 0:27:53.320
<v Speaker 5>dominance that Google Search has obtained over the years.

0:27:53.960 --> 0:27:58.399
<v Speaker 1>So what could a potential ruling mean in terms of damages,

0:27:58.440 --> 0:28:01.560
<v Speaker 1>in terms of the kinds of changes Google might potentially

0:28:01.640 --> 0:28:04.800
<v Speaker 1>need to make to satisfy the Justice Department?

0:28:05.000 --> 0:28:08.000
<v Speaker 5>You know, that is a really big question, and so

0:28:08.119 --> 0:28:10.560
<v Speaker 5>many have said the DFJ didn't really think through what

0:28:10.600 --> 0:28:13.240
<v Speaker 5>the proper injunction would be if they did win. There

0:28:13.280 --> 0:28:16.280
<v Speaker 5>are no damages at play here. This is not about money.

0:28:16.280 --> 0:28:19.080
<v Speaker 5>This is about changing the conduct of the company. And

0:28:19.119 --> 0:28:21.400
<v Speaker 5>I think there are a few options, and the judge

0:28:21.440 --> 0:28:24.000
<v Speaker 5>might actually impose several of them rather than just one.

0:28:24.320 --> 0:28:26.800
<v Speaker 5>But I think the most obvious one would be to

0:28:26.840 --> 0:28:30.719
<v Speaker 5>prohibit them from entering into these default search agreements. I mean,

0:28:30.720 --> 0:28:34.080
<v Speaker 5>they're paying something like twenty five or twenty six billion

0:28:34.160 --> 0:28:37.880
<v Speaker 5>dollars a year to various companies to have that default position.

0:28:38.160 --> 0:28:40.560
<v Speaker 5>I think twenty or twenty two something like that alone,

0:28:40.680 --> 0:28:42.959
<v Speaker 5>just to Apple and the judge could say you simply

0:28:43.000 --> 0:28:46.400
<v Speaker 5>can't do that anymore. But the weird thing about that, Nathan,

0:28:46.480 --> 0:28:48.840
<v Speaker 5>is that who does that really hurt? It hurts companies

0:28:48.880 --> 0:28:51.880
<v Speaker 5>like Apple and Mozilla because the chances are still great

0:28:51.920 --> 0:28:54.240
<v Speaker 5>that they set Google searches the default. They think it's

0:28:54.280 --> 0:28:57.160
<v Speaker 5>the better option for their users, but now Google doesn't

0:28:57.200 --> 0:29:00.320
<v Speaker 5>have to pay them. Another option would be something like

0:29:00.520 --> 0:29:02.480
<v Speaker 5>what's happening in Europe, where there have to be at

0:29:02.560 --> 0:29:05.240
<v Speaker 5>least in Android devices and in Chrome these are the

0:29:05.280 --> 0:29:07.920
<v Speaker 5>properties owned by Google. There would be a choice screen.

0:29:08.240 --> 0:29:10.280
<v Speaker 5>So if somebody buys a new Android phone and they're

0:29:10.320 --> 0:29:12.600
<v Speaker 5>setting it up, they'd be given a choice as to

0:29:12.680 --> 0:29:15.680
<v Speaker 5>what search browser they want a search engine I'm sorry

0:29:15.800 --> 0:29:18.560
<v Speaker 5>to be as their default. That's another option. The judge

0:29:18.600 --> 0:29:20.840
<v Speaker 5>can't force Apple to do that, but can have Google

0:29:20.880 --> 0:29:23.400
<v Speaker 5>do that in the Google owned properties. And I think

0:29:23.640 --> 0:29:26.120
<v Speaker 5>one other option would be forcing Google to share some

0:29:26.240 --> 0:29:29.520
<v Speaker 5>of the data and maybe even algorithms that it uses

0:29:30.080 --> 0:29:32.360
<v Speaker 5>for all the searches that have been done over the years,

0:29:32.400 --> 0:29:35.240
<v Speaker 5>because there was a lot of evidence in trial that

0:29:35.360 --> 0:29:39.320
<v Speaker 5>every single search that's done allows that search engine to improve,

0:29:39.720 --> 0:29:42.640
<v Speaker 5>and the more searches you have, the better the search engine. Becomes.

0:29:42.680 --> 0:29:44.720
<v Speaker 5>And part of the reason that some of the rivals

0:29:45.000 --> 0:29:47.880
<v Speaker 5>haven't really been able to become as good as Google

0:29:47.880 --> 0:29:50.360
<v Speaker 5>Search is because they just simply haven't had that scale.

0:29:50.520 --> 0:29:53.240
<v Speaker 1>I mean, if we saw some kind of remedy like that,

0:29:53.360 --> 0:29:56.440
<v Speaker 1>I mean, that could be a major change, a major

0:29:56.520 --> 0:30:00.200
<v Speaker 1>issue for Google. I mean, that kind of data is

0:30:00.200 --> 0:30:03.800
<v Speaker 1>something that big tech companies really hold close, is it?

0:30:03.960 --> 0:30:04.160
<v Speaker 2>You know?

0:30:04.280 --> 0:30:07.560
<v Speaker 5>Absolutely? But I will say Google's argument was, look, we're

0:30:07.640 --> 0:30:10.000
<v Speaker 5>just better. We've put a lot of money into improving

0:30:10.040 --> 0:30:12.200
<v Speaker 5>this search engine. We have the best people, the best

0:30:12.280 --> 0:30:14.360
<v Speaker 5>R and D, We've spent a lot of time on it,

0:30:14.400 --> 0:30:17.520
<v Speaker 5>and we're really good. And if that's true, if that's

0:30:17.560 --> 0:30:19.720
<v Speaker 5>their argument, well then the companies will have to prove

0:30:19.800 --> 0:30:21.800
<v Speaker 5>they can do that too, once they have the data.

0:30:22.040 --> 0:30:23.680
<v Speaker 5>And that's not necessarily a given.

0:30:24.440 --> 0:30:24.680
<v Speaker 4>Now.

0:30:24.840 --> 0:30:28.880
<v Speaker 1>In terms of the other cases that the Google is

0:30:28.920 --> 0:30:32.160
<v Speaker 1>waiting for, we're also looking for some remedies in the

0:30:32.200 --> 0:30:35.600
<v Speaker 1>Epic Games lawsuit against the Google App Store, how are

0:30:35.600 --> 0:30:36.840
<v Speaker 1>we expecting that to go down?

0:30:37.280 --> 0:30:39.480
<v Speaker 5>Well, you know, I would say that the first hearing

0:30:39.520 --> 0:30:42.600
<v Speaker 5>on that surprised me a little bit because the judge

0:30:42.640 --> 0:30:46.520
<v Speaker 5>is really really intent on a remedy that covers every

0:30:46.520 --> 0:30:50.200
<v Speaker 5>single thing that the jury found the Google had done unlawfully.

0:30:50.560 --> 0:30:52.520
<v Speaker 5>So this is there was a verdict already and a

0:30:52.600 --> 0:30:56.000
<v Speaker 5>jury found that Google was unlawfully maintaining a monopoly both

0:30:56.320 --> 0:30:59.240
<v Speaker 5>for the distribution of apps on Android devices but also

0:30:59.280 --> 0:31:01.600
<v Speaker 5>for the payment of apps or the in app payments

0:31:01.920 --> 0:31:05.000
<v Speaker 5>within the Playstore. So the judge talked about what we

0:31:05.040 --> 0:31:07.440
<v Speaker 5>would expect. He said, Google's going to have to let

0:31:07.520 --> 0:31:11.480
<v Speaker 5>other companies distribute apps on Android devices, so in other words,

0:31:11.520 --> 0:31:13.760
<v Speaker 5>there'd be other app stores on the device outside of

0:31:13.760 --> 0:31:17.720
<v Speaker 5>the Playstore, and also let other payment services companies exist

0:31:17.760 --> 0:31:20.400
<v Speaker 5>on the Playstore and in these other apps, so that

0:31:20.480 --> 0:31:23.400
<v Speaker 5>the developers could process the payments through those companies and

0:31:23.440 --> 0:31:26.120
<v Speaker 5>not through Google. The thing the judge did that was

0:31:26.480 --> 0:31:28.600
<v Speaker 5>surprised me a little bit is he said, look, these

0:31:28.600 --> 0:31:30.800
<v Speaker 5>companies need a bit of a leg up because Google

0:31:30.800 --> 0:31:33.400
<v Speaker 5>has suppressed them for so long. They need to get

0:31:33.440 --> 0:31:36.320
<v Speaker 5>at foothold and get some developers that are willing to

0:31:36.360 --> 0:31:39.440
<v Speaker 5>develop apps just for their store. So Google, maybe what

0:31:39.520 --> 0:31:42.520
<v Speaker 5>you're going to have to do is provide your entire catalog,

0:31:42.960 --> 0:31:46.040
<v Speaker 5>your entire Playstore catalog to these other distributors for some

0:31:46.160 --> 0:31:49.200
<v Speaker 5>matter of years, maybe two, and allow them to sell

0:31:49.240 --> 0:31:51.760
<v Speaker 5>your apps. Now Google would take the profit from that,

0:31:51.800 --> 0:31:54.120
<v Speaker 5>would get the revenue from those sales, But what it

0:31:54.160 --> 0:31:56.920
<v Speaker 5>would do was it would get a foothold in there

0:31:56.960 --> 0:31:58.840
<v Speaker 5>for these other app stores, so they could get to

0:31:58.880 --> 0:32:02.880
<v Speaker 5>know developers. They could get some customers and start to

0:32:02.920 --> 0:32:04.880
<v Speaker 5>develop their own apps and make money that way.

0:32:05.240 --> 0:32:05.520
<v Speaker 2>Wow.

0:32:06.000 --> 0:32:08.320
<v Speaker 1>Really fascinating to think about some of the sea changes

0:32:08.360 --> 0:32:10.880
<v Speaker 1>that could keep coming in the tech sector. We're speaking

0:32:10.920 --> 0:32:15.520
<v Speaker 1>with Jennifer Ree, the senior litigation analyst for Antitrust with

0:32:15.680 --> 0:32:19.920
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Intelligence. Now, outside of big tech, there's a lot

0:32:19.960 --> 0:32:22.640
<v Speaker 1>to talk about. We just had this major case filed

0:32:23.360 --> 0:32:26.680
<v Speaker 1>over the Live Nation Ticketmaster tie up. I know this

0:32:26.720 --> 0:32:29.120
<v Speaker 1>is early days, but what's the thinking about where this

0:32:29.200 --> 0:32:29.800
<v Speaker 1>could go down?

0:32:30.400 --> 0:32:32.560
<v Speaker 5>You know, it's an interesting case because I think they're

0:32:32.720 --> 0:32:35.640
<v Speaker 5>really after reading the complaint, which is all we have,

0:32:36.080 --> 0:32:39.000
<v Speaker 5>and it was not an unexpected complaint. I think people

0:32:39.360 --> 0:32:41.600
<v Speaker 5>really differ on how what they think about the strength

0:32:41.600 --> 0:32:43.440
<v Speaker 5>of the complaint. I happen to think it's a pretty

0:32:43.480 --> 0:32:45.640
<v Speaker 5>good one. They are aspects of the complaint that are

0:32:45.680 --> 0:32:48.400
<v Speaker 5>weaker in aspects that are stronger, but I tend to

0:32:48.400 --> 0:32:52.200
<v Speaker 5>think it's a pretty good one, particularly where they allege

0:32:52.240 --> 0:32:55.960
<v Speaker 5>that the companies engaged in unlawful exclusive dealing. In the

0:32:56.000 --> 0:32:58.800
<v Speaker 5>antitrust world, if a company that has a monopoly in

0:32:58.840 --> 0:33:03.080
<v Speaker 5>a market tied up with exclusive deals, long term exclusive deals,

0:33:03.080 --> 0:33:06.360
<v Speaker 5>I should say, more than about forty or fifty percent

0:33:06.400 --> 0:33:09.440
<v Speaker 5>of the outlets for whatever that product is, which it's

0:33:09.760 --> 0:33:12.160
<v Speaker 5>apparently according to what the DOJ says, the facts are

0:33:12.200 --> 0:33:15.560
<v Speaker 5>at this company is done. That means it forecloses its rivals.

0:33:15.560 --> 0:33:18.040
<v Speaker 5>Its rivals can't get in there and enter those contracts.

0:33:18.240 --> 0:33:22.120
<v Speaker 5>What I'm talking about is Ticketmaster and the agreements that

0:33:22.160 --> 0:33:25.120
<v Speaker 5>the company enters with venues for Ticketmaster to be the

0:33:25.160 --> 0:33:27.840
<v Speaker 5>exclusive ticketing agent for anything that takes place at that

0:33:27.960 --> 0:33:30.960
<v Speaker 5>venue for like ten years or fourteen years, it means

0:33:31.000 --> 0:33:33.240
<v Speaker 5>seat Geek or some other company can't come in there

0:33:33.280 --> 0:33:38.000
<v Speaker 5>and sell tickets. And it's pretty straightforward in antitrust law,

0:33:38.160 --> 0:33:41.240
<v Speaker 5>that kind of an agreement can violate the law. I mean,

0:33:41.280 --> 0:33:43.640
<v Speaker 5>all of the facts are taken into accounts, so you

0:33:43.680 --> 0:33:46.120
<v Speaker 5>have to look at whether it's terminable, whether it's terminable

0:33:46.160 --> 0:33:49.200
<v Speaker 5>by will, as I said, the term of the agreement,

0:33:49.240 --> 0:33:51.960
<v Speaker 5>and many other issues related to that agreement, but just

0:33:52.040 --> 0:33:55.040
<v Speaker 5>on its face, if the facts are as the DOJ says,

0:33:55.160 --> 0:33:57.640
<v Speaker 5>it looks like there's a possibility they could at least

0:33:57.640 --> 0:34:01.600
<v Speaker 5>get some traction on that claim. We also claim that

0:34:01.640 --> 0:34:04.840
<v Speaker 5>there's tying going on. And what tying is is Live

0:34:04.960 --> 0:34:07.280
<v Speaker 5>Nation saying to the artist it promotes, and it promotes

0:34:07.320 --> 0:34:10.080
<v Speaker 5>a lot of artists or artists that want to use

0:34:10.080 --> 0:34:12.240
<v Speaker 5>its venues, I should say, and it owns and operates

0:34:12.280 --> 0:34:14.880
<v Speaker 5>and manages a lot of venues. We have to promote

0:34:14.920 --> 0:34:17.239
<v Speaker 5>you too. You can't perform in that venue, and that

0:34:17.360 --> 0:34:20.840
<v Speaker 5>might be some big, great venue, particularly amphitheaters where the

0:34:20.920 --> 0:34:24.000
<v Speaker 5>artist wants to perform unless you also hire us for promotion.

0:34:24.440 --> 0:34:26.120
<v Speaker 5>Oh and by the way, we're going to use ticket

0:34:26.120 --> 0:34:30.239
<v Speaker 5>Master too to sell the tickets to your events. This

0:34:30.360 --> 0:34:32.879
<v Speaker 5>can also violate the antitrust laws. So I thought those

0:34:32.920 --> 0:34:35.719
<v Speaker 5>two claims were actually pretty good, and I think they

0:34:35.800 --> 0:34:39.280
<v Speaker 5>go beyond what's in the consent orders that have already

0:34:39.280 --> 0:34:42.040
<v Speaker 5>been entered by this company related to when the two

0:34:42.040 --> 0:34:45.759
<v Speaker 5>companies merged. Some people say, look, this is just about

0:34:45.800 --> 0:34:48.560
<v Speaker 5>violating that consent order. But this is beyond just violating

0:34:48.560 --> 0:34:49.359
<v Speaker 5>that consent order.

0:34:49.840 --> 0:34:53.919
<v Speaker 1>You know, it's interesting to think about why this action

0:34:54.120 --> 0:34:57.520
<v Speaker 1>was brought against Live Nation and ticket Master. Now when

0:34:58.040 --> 0:35:01.399
<v Speaker 1>you know, the merger has been fairly contra almost from

0:35:01.400 --> 0:35:03.600
<v Speaker 1>the time it was entered into more than a decade ago.

0:35:03.640 --> 0:35:06.479
<v Speaker 1>I mean, why go after them now? You know it.

0:35:06.400 --> 0:35:09.600
<v Speaker 5>Really And this is why some people think the case

0:35:09.640 --> 0:35:11.880
<v Speaker 5>is weak. They're saying, well, this is just political because

0:35:11.920 --> 0:35:14.080
<v Speaker 5>why now? But I think you have to look at

0:35:14.120 --> 0:35:17.399
<v Speaker 5>sort of the pattern of the history in twenty ten

0:35:17.480 --> 0:35:19.759
<v Speaker 5>when they first merged and the deal was cleared, but

0:35:19.880 --> 0:35:22.480
<v Speaker 5>cleared with a consent order. So a consent order is

0:35:22.520 --> 0:35:25.480
<v Speaker 5>a settlement, meaning that the DOJ found the deal to

0:35:25.480 --> 0:35:28.239
<v Speaker 5>be illegal, but the company was willing to enter a

0:35:28.280 --> 0:35:30.640
<v Speaker 5>remedy that fixed at least what they thought would be

0:35:30.640 --> 0:35:32.919
<v Speaker 5>illegal about the deal. And you know what, they're looking

0:35:33.000 --> 0:35:35.520
<v Speaker 5>into a crystal ball. They're not always right. These things

0:35:35.560 --> 0:35:38.759
<v Speaker 5>don't always work, but they're trying their best, and it

0:35:38.800 --> 0:35:41.840
<v Speaker 5>didn't really work. I mean, that's what history has shown.

0:35:42.040 --> 0:35:44.399
<v Speaker 5>But they entered that consent order, so at that point

0:35:44.480 --> 0:35:46.719
<v Speaker 5>they were allowed to go forward with the deal. Now,

0:35:46.760 --> 0:35:49.360
<v Speaker 5>back in twenty nineteen, there were a lot of complaints

0:35:49.400 --> 0:35:53.160
<v Speaker 5>from industry participants that they weren't abiding by the terms

0:35:53.160 --> 0:35:56.120
<v Speaker 5>of that order. At that time, Trump's DOJ did look

0:35:56.160 --> 0:35:59.000
<v Speaker 5>at it open an investigation, I think just as to

0:35:59.040 --> 0:36:02.239
<v Speaker 5>whether they're violating order, and found that they were. And

0:36:02.280 --> 0:36:05.799
<v Speaker 5>what Ticketmaster said was, look, the terms are vague and ambiguous,

0:36:05.840 --> 0:36:09.160
<v Speaker 5>we're not really violating it. But if you read the

0:36:09.239 --> 0:36:11.719
<v Speaker 5>terms the way we are, but you need to clarify

0:36:11.760 --> 0:36:14.120
<v Speaker 5>the terms. So the dj did that. They were much

0:36:14.160 --> 0:36:16.400
<v Speaker 5>more explicit about the terms. They laid out that the

0:36:16.440 --> 0:36:20.480
<v Speaker 5>companies cannot retaliate against venues that don't use Ticketmaster and

0:36:20.560 --> 0:36:24.360
<v Speaker 5>use arrival, cannot retaliate against artists or you know, anybody

0:36:24.360 --> 0:36:27.000
<v Speaker 5>for not using any part of the supply chain for

0:36:27.080 --> 0:36:30.640
<v Speaker 5>not using Ticketmaster, and they extended it by about five years.

0:36:31.280 --> 0:36:33.520
<v Speaker 5>So I think we have a couple things happening. First,

0:36:33.520 --> 0:36:36.680
<v Speaker 5>we're getting complaints that they're violating that order again now,

0:36:37.680 --> 0:36:40.719
<v Speaker 5>and then you also had that the tailor Taylor Swift

0:36:40.760 --> 0:36:43.880
<v Speaker 5>fiasco that everybody knows about now. I should say that

0:36:43.920 --> 0:36:47.680
<v Speaker 5>the investigation of the company was already ongoing before that happened.

0:36:48.160 --> 0:36:51.640
<v Speaker 5>But what that did is provide an example of why

0:36:51.719 --> 0:36:54.319
<v Speaker 5>more competition is needed in my mind and in the

0:36:54.320 --> 0:36:57.759
<v Speaker 5>mind of many people, because it shows that without competition,

0:36:57.800 --> 0:36:59.600
<v Speaker 5>the company doesn't really have to put a lot of

0:36:59.640 --> 0:37:01.600
<v Speaker 5>money in R and D and innovation into their it,

0:37:02.480 --> 0:37:04.960
<v Speaker 5>and maybe that's part of the reason for the failure.

0:37:05.120 --> 0:37:07.439
<v Speaker 5>Certainly the high demand might have been part of it too,

0:37:07.680 --> 0:37:10.160
<v Speaker 5>but the it also possibly could have been better had

0:37:10.160 --> 0:37:13.200
<v Speaker 5>they faced more competition to be better. So I think

0:37:13.520 --> 0:37:15.480
<v Speaker 5>when you put all that together and you look at

0:37:15.520 --> 0:37:17.880
<v Speaker 5>that history and you think, well, we settled once for

0:37:17.960 --> 0:37:21.520
<v Speaker 5>violating the consent order, we can't just settle again because

0:37:21.560 --> 0:37:26.640
<v Speaker 5>we'll look foolish. Now there's public attention. It's a politically

0:37:27.200 --> 0:37:29.839
<v Speaker 5>you know, it's a politically good case to bring. There's

0:37:29.880 --> 0:37:32.839
<v Speaker 5>nobody that's going to be upset about us suing Live Nation.

0:37:32.960 --> 0:37:34.759
<v Speaker 5>No one who's ever gone to a concert and paid

0:37:34.800 --> 0:37:36.839
<v Speaker 5>for all those fees and paid for the ticket price.

0:37:37.239 --> 0:37:39.200
<v Speaker 5>So why not just go for it now?

0:37:39.560 --> 0:37:42.040
<v Speaker 1>Now, apart from the Live Nation ticket master dispute, we

0:37:42.040 --> 0:37:44.880
<v Speaker 1>do have some other anti trust cases coming up related

0:37:44.920 --> 0:37:48.560
<v Speaker 1>to mergers that are pending. We also have an election

0:37:48.840 --> 0:37:54.200
<v Speaker 1>coming up. How do you expect antitrust to potentially differ

0:37:54.600 --> 0:37:57.600
<v Speaker 1>between a Biden administration and a Trump administration in our

0:37:57.680 --> 0:37:58.400
<v Speaker 1>last minute?

0:37:58.520 --> 0:38:00.480
<v Speaker 5>You know, I think it's going to be uncertain because

0:38:00.520 --> 0:38:04.279
<v Speaker 5>first it depends on who Trump nominates for DOJ and

0:38:04.320 --> 0:38:06.680
<v Speaker 5>at FDC to be the decision makers, and you know,

0:38:06.719 --> 0:38:09.120
<v Speaker 5>it's kind of a split in the Republican Party, some

0:38:09.200 --> 0:38:11.200
<v Speaker 5>that are very business friendly and some that sort of

0:38:11.360 --> 0:38:13.880
<v Speaker 5>like what the current FDC and DJ are doing. So

0:38:13.920 --> 0:38:15.960
<v Speaker 5>it depends on that, but I also think it'll be

0:38:16.000 --> 0:38:17.000
<v Speaker 5>a little bit erratic.

0:38:17.760 --> 0:38:19.440
<v Speaker 1>Thank you for this, Jen, really great to have you

0:38:19.480 --> 0:38:19.960
<v Speaker 1>on with us.

0:38:20.480 --> 0:38:20.880
<v Speaker 5>Thank you.

0:38:21.280 --> 0:38:25.440
<v Speaker 1>That's Jennifer Ree, senior anti trust litigation analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence.

0:38:25.719 --> 0:38:28.400
<v Speaker 1>Our thanks as well to Stephen Shork of the Short Group,

0:38:28.480 --> 0:38:33.040
<v Speaker 1>Strategic Resource Groups, Bert Flickinger, and Punam Goyle of Bloomberg Intelligence.

0:38:33.040 --> 0:38:35.560
<v Speaker 1>And thanks to you as well for listening on this

0:38:35.719 --> 0:38:39.479
<v Speaker 1>Juneteenth holiday. I'm Nathan Hager. Stay with us. Today's top

0:38:39.520 --> 0:38:43.440
<v Speaker 1>stories and global business headlines are coming up right now.