WEBVTT - Daybreak Weekend: Fed Meeting, BOE Decision, Tech Earnings

0:00:00.120 --> 0:00:06.760
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.

0:00:09.840 --> 0:00:12.400
<v Speaker 2>This is Bloomberg Daybreak Weekend, our global look at the

0:00:12.400 --> 0:00:15.080
<v Speaker 2>top stories in the coming week from our Daybreak anchors

0:00:15.080 --> 0:00:17.560
<v Speaker 2>all around the world, and straight ahead on the program,

0:00:17.560 --> 0:00:19.759
<v Speaker 2>a look ahead to tech earnings from some of the

0:00:19.800 --> 0:00:23.599
<v Speaker 2>Magnificent Seven. Also a monetary policy decision from the Fed.

0:00:24.239 --> 0:00:25.840
<v Speaker 2>I'm Tom Busby in New York.

0:00:26.040 --> 0:00:28.680
<v Speaker 1>I'm Calline Hecker heavy London, where we're assessing what is

0:00:28.720 --> 0:00:32.000
<v Speaker 1>at stake at the next Bank of England policy meeting.

0:00:32.400 --> 0:00:35.680
<v Speaker 3>I'm dek Prisner looking ahead to earnings from Apple and

0:00:35.800 --> 0:00:39.760
<v Speaker 3>Samsung and what these companies will say about artificial intelligence.

0:00:42.479 --> 0:00:46.440
<v Speaker 4>That's all straight ahead on Bloomberg Daybreak Weekend on Bloomberg

0:00:46.479 --> 0:00:48.960
<v Speaker 4>E Loove Them three own New York, Bloomberg ninety nine

0:00:49.000 --> 0:00:52.400
<v Speaker 4>to one, Washington, DC, Bloomberg one O six one, Boston,

0:00:52.479 --> 0:00:57.280
<v Speaker 4>Bloomberg nine sixty, San Francisco, DAB Digital Radio, London, Sirius

0:00:57.400 --> 0:01:00.680
<v Speaker 4>XM one nineteen and around the world on Blue Bomberg Radio,

0:01:00.760 --> 0:01:03.000
<v Speaker 4>dot com and via the Bloomberg Business app.

0:01:07.000 --> 0:01:08.800
<v Speaker 2>Good day to you. I'm Tom Busby, and we begin

0:01:08.880 --> 0:01:12.120
<v Speaker 2>today's program with the Federal Reserve FED officials holding a

0:01:12.160 --> 0:01:15.720
<v Speaker 2>two day policy meeting this week, issuing a monetary decision

0:01:16.040 --> 0:01:18.880
<v Speaker 2>on Wednesday. Now this coming Friday, we also get the

0:01:18.959 --> 0:01:21.360
<v Speaker 2>job data in the US for the month of July,

0:01:21.440 --> 0:01:24.520
<v Speaker 2>is something that could impact Fed policy moving forward. For

0:01:24.560 --> 0:01:27.000
<v Speaker 2>more on what to expect, we're joined by Michael McKee,

0:01:27.040 --> 0:01:32.400
<v Speaker 2>Bloomberg International Economics and Policy correspondent Michael seven meetings in

0:01:32.440 --> 0:01:35.440
<v Speaker 2>a row the Federal Open Markets Committee, leaving rates unchanged.

0:01:35.720 --> 0:01:38.119
<v Speaker 2>What do you expect to see on Wednesday?

0:01:38.360 --> 0:01:40.840
<v Speaker 5>Well, happy anniversary. By the way, it was July of

0:01:40.880 --> 0:01:45.319
<v Speaker 5>twenty twenty three when the FED finally stopped raising interest rates.

0:01:45.680 --> 0:01:48.840
<v Speaker 5>So we've been higher for longer? Is it for long enough?

0:01:49.400 --> 0:01:52.400
<v Speaker 5>Probably not this week. The Fed has not given us

0:01:52.440 --> 0:01:55.160
<v Speaker 5>an indication that they're going to cut rates this week,

0:01:55.320 --> 0:01:58.360
<v Speaker 5>so there is no reason to think that they will

0:01:58.360 --> 0:02:01.200
<v Speaker 5>because they don't like to surprise them Mark. However, the

0:02:01.240 --> 0:02:05.200
<v Speaker 5>big expectation is for them to signal a September rate

0:02:05.240 --> 0:02:07.880
<v Speaker 5>cut in the statement and then Jay Powell to follow

0:02:07.920 --> 0:02:12.000
<v Speaker 5>it up in his news conference, and that would probably

0:02:12.040 --> 0:02:14.080
<v Speaker 5>produce much the same as a rate cut, in the

0:02:14.120 --> 0:02:17.160
<v Speaker 5>sense that the markets will then start discounting a rate cut,

0:02:17.880 --> 0:02:21.440
<v Speaker 5>Yields will go down, and it's it's sort of the

0:02:21.480 --> 0:02:22.519
<v Speaker 5>same effect.

0:02:23.000 --> 0:02:25.840
<v Speaker 2>Even if they don't cut rates this time, it's like

0:02:26.160 --> 0:02:29.120
<v Speaker 2>a dec in hockey. Now, the hopes, the bets for

0:02:29.240 --> 0:02:32.920
<v Speaker 2>September rate cut obviously being bolstered by some pretty encouraging data.

0:02:33.000 --> 0:02:35.440
<v Speaker 2>Let's talk about that. On Friday, the PCE.

0:02:36.080 --> 0:02:40.160
<v Speaker 5>Yeah, Friday, we got the PCE inflation numbers which showed

0:02:40.320 --> 0:02:44.320
<v Speaker 5>a sort of ongoing decline. The core rate didn't change

0:02:44.360 --> 0:02:46.600
<v Speaker 5>on a year over year basis two point six percent,

0:02:46.960 --> 0:02:49.639
<v Speaker 5>but we just did see the headline number go down

0:02:49.639 --> 0:02:51.960
<v Speaker 5>to two point five percent, and that puts you in

0:02:52.040 --> 0:02:56.800
<v Speaker 5>the within range of the two percent target. And remember

0:02:56.840 --> 0:02:59.280
<v Speaker 5>that j Powell and others on the Fed have said

0:02:59.280 --> 0:03:02.240
<v Speaker 5>they don't want to wait to start cutting rates until

0:03:02.280 --> 0:03:04.640
<v Speaker 5>they get to two percent, and he had sort of

0:03:04.680 --> 0:03:07.920
<v Speaker 5>suggested at his last press conference that it was a

0:03:08.040 --> 0:03:09.520
<v Speaker 5>range of two to two and a half.

0:03:09.600 --> 0:03:11.160
<v Speaker 2>So so we're in that ring.

0:03:11.240 --> 0:03:13.320
<v Speaker 5>We're sort of in that range right now.

0:03:13.760 --> 0:03:16.680
<v Speaker 2>That's good. And earlier this past week, second quarter GDP

0:03:17.080 --> 0:03:19.079
<v Speaker 2>grew by much larger than expected.

0:03:19.440 --> 0:03:22.040
<v Speaker 5>There were a number of people going into the week

0:03:22.680 --> 0:03:25.760
<v Speaker 5>and during the week who were suggesting maybe the Fed

0:03:25.840 --> 0:03:28.520
<v Speaker 5>needed to cut rates in July because otherwise they'd be

0:03:28.560 --> 0:03:31.600
<v Speaker 5>behind the curve, but the stronger that expected GDP numbers

0:03:31.639 --> 0:03:35.560
<v Speaker 5>two point eight percent, a big increase from the first quarter,

0:03:36.160 --> 0:03:40.680
<v Speaker 5>sort of reassure them that they are they don't have

0:03:40.720 --> 0:03:44.080
<v Speaker 5>to rush, that the economy is not on the brink

0:03:44.480 --> 0:03:47.640
<v Speaker 5>or the precipice of recession. That's not to say things

0:03:47.640 --> 0:03:51.760
<v Speaker 5>can't get worse. This coming Friday, after the FED meeting,

0:03:51.760 --> 0:03:53.680
<v Speaker 5>we get the jobs report, which is too bad for

0:03:53.720 --> 0:03:56.480
<v Speaker 5>the Fed. I'm sure they'd like it beforehand. But the

0:03:56.600 --> 0:04:00.600
<v Speaker 5>unemployment rate there is if it's for it's point one percent,

0:04:00.640 --> 0:04:02.320
<v Speaker 5>now it goes up to four point two percent, then

0:04:02.320 --> 0:04:05.200
<v Speaker 5>that triggers the famous Sam rule that suggests that we're

0:04:05.200 --> 0:04:09.680
<v Speaker 5>getting close to a recession, and that will scare the markets.

0:04:09.760 --> 0:04:12.160
<v Speaker 5>That will scare the horses, and we may get a

0:04:12.160 --> 0:04:13.080
<v Speaker 5>reaction in the markets.

0:04:13.200 --> 0:04:14.880
<v Speaker 2>That's the barometer four point two percent.

0:04:15.200 --> 0:04:18.159
<v Speaker 5>Well it's not four point two percent, it's it's a

0:04:18.160 --> 0:04:22.800
<v Speaker 5>bit complicated, but basically the three month moving average. Subtract

0:04:22.839 --> 0:04:27.279
<v Speaker 5>from that the lowest three month moving average of the

0:04:27.279 --> 0:04:30.040
<v Speaker 5>past twelve months, and you get a number, and then

0:04:30.240 --> 0:04:34.680
<v Speaker 5>if it's greater than half a percent, then it has

0:04:34.800 --> 0:04:38.359
<v Speaker 5>always forecast recession in the past. Now and it would

0:04:38.360 --> 0:04:40.919
<v Speaker 5>only take going to four point two percent to get

0:04:40.960 --> 0:04:41.599
<v Speaker 5>that rate.

0:04:42.160 --> 0:04:44.640
<v Speaker 2>Well, let's stay on it on the jobs report this Friday.

0:04:44.680 --> 0:04:48.160
<v Speaker 2>So now in June a little softer but still pretty solid,

0:04:48.200 --> 0:04:50.719
<v Speaker 2>two hundred and six thousand jobs. What do you expect

0:04:50.720 --> 0:04:51.320
<v Speaker 2>to see then in.

0:04:51.320 --> 0:04:54.680
<v Speaker 5>July, Well, the forecast is for one hundred and seventy

0:04:54.680 --> 0:04:58.080
<v Speaker 5>five thousand, But the last three four months we have

0:04:58.200 --> 0:05:01.000
<v Speaker 5>had forecasts in that range and they've come in stronger

0:05:01.040 --> 0:05:04.920
<v Speaker 5>than that. So I don't know if you're a trend

0:05:04.960 --> 0:05:08.520
<v Speaker 5>better or not, but you might. You might think that

0:05:09.080 --> 0:05:11.040
<v Speaker 5>it's going to at some point it has to start

0:05:11.080 --> 0:05:13.480
<v Speaker 5>slowing down, but it hasn't yet. The big number, though,

0:05:13.520 --> 0:05:15.480
<v Speaker 5>is they say is going to be unemployment. It's forecast

0:05:15.560 --> 0:05:18.719
<v Speaker 5>to remain unchanged at four point one percent, but of

0:05:18.760 --> 0:05:20.880
<v Speaker 5>course a lot of you get into the three digits

0:05:21.240 --> 0:05:23.680
<v Speaker 5>and you can get rounding and it could go up

0:05:23.680 --> 0:05:25.520
<v Speaker 5>to four point two percent. So there'll be a lot

0:05:25.520 --> 0:05:27.880
<v Speaker 5>of focus on that because of this some rule thing.

0:05:28.320 --> 0:05:31.440
<v Speaker 5>But it does look like at this point that wages

0:05:31.480 --> 0:05:35.200
<v Speaker 5>are slowing down. They slowed down in the PCE numbers,

0:05:35.800 --> 0:05:39.040
<v Speaker 5>and they've been slowing on a month over a month

0:05:39.080 --> 0:05:42.719
<v Speaker 5>basis in the employment numbers. Then we get on Wednesday,

0:05:42.760 --> 0:05:45.520
<v Speaker 5>ahead of the Fed, we get the Employment cost Index.

0:05:45.839 --> 0:05:47.760
<v Speaker 5>That's something they'll be looking at to see what wages

0:05:47.800 --> 0:05:51.960
<v Speaker 5>are doing. But if wages are well behaved and we

0:05:52.040 --> 0:05:55.640
<v Speaker 5>don't get a collapse in jobs or a big rise

0:05:55.680 --> 0:05:58.280
<v Speaker 5>in unemployment, then the FED is going to be satisfied

0:05:58.320 --> 0:06:00.920
<v Speaker 5>with waiting until September.

0:06:00.839 --> 0:06:05.320
<v Speaker 2>And all that. All that, the wages, moderating inflation. It

0:06:05.360 --> 0:06:07.760
<v Speaker 2>appears to show that the Fed's Higher for Longer campaign

0:06:08.480 --> 0:06:11.599
<v Speaker 2>is working. No disastrous impact on the economy.

0:06:11.279 --> 0:06:14.960
<v Speaker 5>No disastrous impact. I hate to use the soft landing analogy.

0:06:16.080 --> 0:06:19.760
<v Speaker 5>It's almost become a cliche by now, but it looks

0:06:19.800 --> 0:06:22.600
<v Speaker 5>like we're kind of there now. They don't want to

0:06:22.600 --> 0:06:24.640
<v Speaker 5>say that because in the minute they do, it's like

0:06:24.720 --> 0:06:28.080
<v Speaker 5>jinxing themselves and something will go wrong. But at some

0:06:28.160 --> 0:06:31.479
<v Speaker 5>point you got to, as the famous senator said about

0:06:31.520 --> 0:06:33.799
<v Speaker 5>the Vietnam War, you got to declare victory and go home.

0:06:35.520 --> 0:06:36.520
<v Speaker 5>So maybe they'll do that.

0:06:36.960 --> 0:06:38.280
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, this week, maybe that's coming.

0:06:38.320 --> 0:06:38.440
<v Speaker 1>Well.

0:06:38.440 --> 0:06:40.520
<v Speaker 2>The FED wraps up it's latest two day policy meeting

0:06:40.640 --> 0:06:44.400
<v Speaker 2>this Wednesday, a decision expected around two pm Wall Street time,

0:06:44.400 --> 0:06:47.680
<v Speaker 2>and our thanks to Michael McKee Bloomberg International Economics and

0:06:47.760 --> 0:06:50.839
<v Speaker 2>policy correspondent. We move now to earnings from some of

0:06:50.880 --> 0:06:53.880
<v Speaker 2>the nation's biggest tech companies, on the heels of kind

0:06:53.880 --> 0:06:57.120
<v Speaker 2>of disappointing reports from Tesla and Alphabet last week. Now,

0:06:57.120 --> 0:06:59.279
<v Speaker 2>in the days ahead, we're going to hear from more

0:06:59.400 --> 0:07:03.720
<v Speaker 2>the so called Magnificent seven like Microsoft, Meta Platforms, Apple,

0:07:03.920 --> 0:07:06.680
<v Speaker 2>and Amazon. And for more on what to expect, we're

0:07:06.760 --> 0:07:12.200
<v Speaker 2>joined by Mandeep Singh Bloomberg Intelligence, senior tech industry analysts. Now,

0:07:12.240 --> 0:07:14.400
<v Speaker 2>Man Deep, let's start with what we saw last week

0:07:14.560 --> 0:07:18.520
<v Speaker 2>Alphabet and Tesla. What was it that rattled the markets

0:07:18.600 --> 0:07:19.880
<v Speaker 2>and investors?

0:07:20.520 --> 0:07:23.720
<v Speaker 6>Sure, Tom So, Look, when it comes to Alphabet, it

0:07:23.960 --> 0:07:27.280
<v Speaker 6>was pretty obvious that the market is focused on what

0:07:27.320 --> 0:07:30.280
<v Speaker 6>they're going to spend on CAPEX this year. And the

0:07:30.360 --> 0:07:34.200
<v Speaker 6>fact that you know, they spend billion dollars above consensus

0:07:34.200 --> 0:07:37.560
<v Speaker 6>expectations for this quarter and said it's going to be

0:07:38.080 --> 0:07:41.800
<v Speaker 6>higher than their two Q numbers for the next two quarters.

0:07:42.120 --> 0:07:45.080
<v Speaker 6>Clearly it suggests that they will keep spending. And the

0:07:45.400 --> 0:07:48.560
<v Speaker 6>CEO mentioned that in his remarks that they would rather

0:07:48.720 --> 0:07:54.200
<v Speaker 6>overspend right now on AI as opposed to underspend. And look,

0:07:54.560 --> 0:07:57.800
<v Speaker 6>I think what they are suggesting is they want to

0:07:57.840 --> 0:08:02.480
<v Speaker 6>build more capacity because they're that reflected in the cloud numbers.

0:08:02.880 --> 0:08:06.840
<v Speaker 6>So in the case of Alphabet, Google Cloud segment actually

0:08:06.880 --> 0:08:10.680
<v Speaker 6>had a sequential acceleration. It grew twenty nine percent. And

0:08:11.360 --> 0:08:14.400
<v Speaker 6>what it tells me about Microsoft is, look, they will

0:08:14.440 --> 0:08:17.640
<v Speaker 6>be reporting next week and last quarter, Azure, which is

0:08:17.680 --> 0:08:21.680
<v Speaker 6>the equivalent of Google Cloud, grew thirty one percent at

0:08:21.720 --> 0:08:25.120
<v Speaker 6>a much higher base. Microsoft Cloud is a seventy six

0:08:25.160 --> 0:08:28.520
<v Speaker 6>billion dollar rundread business. Google Cloud is about forty billion,

0:08:29.080 --> 0:08:32.960
<v Speaker 6>And so if they are able to show AI contributing

0:08:33.600 --> 0:08:37.160
<v Speaker 6>to the growth in Azure segment, then clearly you know

0:08:37.200 --> 0:08:40.240
<v Speaker 6>it's paying off for these hyperscalers. And in the case

0:08:40.240 --> 0:08:44.479
<v Speaker 6>of Microsoft, they're also monetizing it with their office Copilot,

0:08:44.600 --> 0:08:47.880
<v Speaker 6>So you want to see an acceleration in both those

0:08:47.880 --> 0:08:51.760
<v Speaker 6>segments Office Copilot as well as Microsoft Azure the infrastructure

0:08:51.800 --> 0:08:55.760
<v Speaker 6>sign and Look. With Tesla, I think it was more

0:08:55.760 --> 0:09:00.920
<v Speaker 6>idiosyncratic because they set expectations for a robotaxi launch on

0:09:01.000 --> 0:09:06.000
<v Speaker 6>August eighth, then they said they'll move it to October

0:09:06.120 --> 0:09:07.680
<v Speaker 6>tenth now, and.

0:09:08.040 --> 0:09:11.000
<v Speaker 2>It's only a prototype, not even a real vehicle yet.

0:09:11.080 --> 0:09:13.920
<v Speaker 6>Yeah, but I will give them credit to the extent

0:09:13.960 --> 0:09:16.480
<v Speaker 6>that you know, they're still the furthest along when it

0:09:16.520 --> 0:09:19.360
<v Speaker 6>comes to doing something like this. So think about all

0:09:19.440 --> 0:09:23.240
<v Speaker 6>the other carmakers. They're not even in this game, not close.

0:09:23.559 --> 0:09:26.280
<v Speaker 6>So the fact that they are spending those R and

0:09:26.360 --> 0:09:29.680
<v Speaker 6>D dollars on something that could be a big market

0:09:29.720 --> 0:09:33.080
<v Speaker 6>down the line, whether it becomes feasible this year, next year,

0:09:33.720 --> 0:09:36.640
<v Speaker 6>I mean clearly, I think they still have a lead.

0:09:36.840 --> 0:09:40.360
<v Speaker 6>And obviously they're not managing expectations very well, which is

0:09:40.360 --> 0:09:44.600
<v Speaker 6>why you see that sort of stock reaction. But I

0:09:44.679 --> 0:09:48.079
<v Speaker 6>feel with Tesla it's going to be volatile, just because

0:09:48.160 --> 0:09:50.880
<v Speaker 6>you know, it will all depend on how quickly they

0:09:51.600 --> 0:09:52.800
<v Speaker 6>time this to market.

0:09:52.720 --> 0:09:55.880
<v Speaker 2>When they deliver. Now that was then now this week,

0:09:55.960 --> 0:09:59.040
<v Speaker 2>looking ahead, we're going to hear from you already brought

0:09:59.120 --> 0:10:03.199
<v Speaker 2>up Microsoft as you're it's relationship with open Ai, and

0:10:03.559 --> 0:10:06.000
<v Speaker 2>it's I mean, they're way ahead of the pack on AI,

0:10:06.200 --> 0:10:06.720
<v Speaker 2>aren't they.

0:10:07.200 --> 0:10:12.360
<v Speaker 6>Well, I think what you're finding is other competitors are

0:10:12.440 --> 0:10:15.199
<v Speaker 6>catching up when it comes to the large anglid model.

0:10:15.280 --> 0:10:20.000
<v Speaker 6>So this week Meta actually released their latest large anglid model,

0:10:20.040 --> 0:10:22.840
<v Speaker 6>the three point one version, and they have closed the

0:10:22.880 --> 0:10:28.120
<v Speaker 6>performance gap. I mean, look for consumers like us, we

0:10:28.240 --> 0:10:31.120
<v Speaker 6>read you know about these models and the fact that

0:10:31.160 --> 0:10:35.480
<v Speaker 6>they can reason, they can generate images, they can generate texts,

0:10:35.600 --> 0:10:38.760
<v Speaker 6>do summaries, but it's very hard for us to see

0:10:38.840 --> 0:10:42.920
<v Speaker 6>real time use cases because it's still you know, in

0:10:43.000 --> 0:10:46.280
<v Speaker 6>the development. These companies are in the process of deploying it.

0:10:46.960 --> 0:10:50.880
<v Speaker 6>And to me, the fact that they are kind of

0:10:50.920 --> 0:10:54.760
<v Speaker 6>comparing themselves on benchmarks and saying the performance is almost

0:10:54.800 --> 0:10:59.920
<v Speaker 6>equal doesn't vote very well for open ai because anthropic metal,

0:11:00.800 --> 0:11:03.840
<v Speaker 6>they're all catching up at the same time. With that

0:11:03.880 --> 0:11:07.120
<v Speaker 6>being said, Microsoft still is showing it in the numbers.

0:11:07.160 --> 0:11:10.840
<v Speaker 6>That's why that growth rate of Azure and the copilot

0:11:11.200 --> 0:11:16.200
<v Speaker 6>contribution is very important. If you start to see that moderating,

0:11:16.600 --> 0:11:19.520
<v Speaker 6>then clearly you know the lead is narrowing and that

0:11:19.559 --> 0:11:23.240
<v Speaker 6>will have an impact. Instead of Microsoft being the clear winner,

0:11:23.600 --> 0:11:26.800
<v Speaker 6>you will have others kind of catch up.

0:11:26.720 --> 0:11:27.360
<v Speaker 2>Catching up fast.

0:11:27.440 --> 0:11:27.840
<v Speaker 6>Yeah.

0:11:27.880 --> 0:11:30.439
<v Speaker 2>Well, now that leads me to a point meta platforms.

0:11:31.120 --> 0:11:35.360
<v Speaker 2>You know, it's always been about user numbers for Facebook, WhatsApp,

0:11:35.400 --> 0:11:41.680
<v Speaker 2>Instagram advertising revenue. Is Wall Street now putting that behind

0:11:41.720 --> 0:11:45.040
<v Speaker 2>them and just focusing on AI? And what have you

0:11:45.080 --> 0:11:48.280
<v Speaker 2>done for me lately? How have you monetized AI or

0:11:48.360 --> 0:11:50.200
<v Speaker 2>is that still going to be a big focus? How

0:11:50.200 --> 0:11:52.400
<v Speaker 2>many average daily and monthly users.

0:11:52.760 --> 0:11:55.800
<v Speaker 6>It will absolutely be a focus because guess what, Meta

0:11:55.840 --> 0:11:59.360
<v Speaker 6>will also raise their capex, and we know the capex

0:11:59.400 --> 0:12:03.240
<v Speaker 6>increases right now are not helping these companies when it

0:12:03.240 --> 0:12:06.440
<v Speaker 6>comes to the stock performances. We saw a negative reaction

0:12:06.520 --> 0:12:10.360
<v Speaker 6>with Alphabet. I expect something similar with Meta given the

0:12:10.440 --> 0:12:13.920
<v Speaker 6>valuations these companies are training at. Remember MAC seven stocks

0:12:13.920 --> 0:12:17.800
<v Speaker 6>have done phenomenally well, so the valuations are rich, and

0:12:18.000 --> 0:12:21.840
<v Speaker 6>so any increase in capex is not good for the stocks.

0:12:21.920 --> 0:12:26.000
<v Speaker 6>And so clearly Street cares about monetization. And if Meta

0:12:26.040 --> 0:12:28.760
<v Speaker 6>is saying we are open sourcing our large anglid model

0:12:29.000 --> 0:12:32.280
<v Speaker 6>and we have no kind of roadmap to monetizing it,

0:12:32.400 --> 0:12:34.720
<v Speaker 6>that's not good news. And so they are the only

0:12:34.760 --> 0:12:38.480
<v Speaker 6>ones right now who are open sourcing everything on the

0:12:38.520 --> 0:12:42.000
<v Speaker 6>generative AI side with no plans to monetize. Remember Google

0:12:42.000 --> 0:12:45.560
<v Speaker 6>and Microsoft are monetizing through their cloud through their copilots.

0:12:45.840 --> 0:12:48.560
<v Speaker 6>They're not open sourcing it. Meta is the one that's

0:12:48.600 --> 0:12:50.760
<v Speaker 6>saying we are giving it away for free.

0:12:51.040 --> 0:12:53.199
<v Speaker 2>Well, a full slate of tech earnings in the coming

0:12:53.200 --> 0:12:55.199
<v Speaker 2>week a lot to look forward to. Our thanks to

0:12:55.280 --> 0:13:00.320
<v Speaker 2>Mandeep Sing, Bloomberg Intelligence Senior tech industry analyst up on

0:13:00.320 --> 0:13:02.960
<v Speaker 2>Bloomberg day Break weekend, a look at what's at stake

0:13:03.160 --> 0:13:06.360
<v Speaker 2>at the Bank of England's next policy meeting. I'm Tom

0:13:06.400 --> 0:13:19.640
<v Speaker 2>Busby and this is Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg day Break weekend,

0:13:19.679 --> 0:13:22.079
<v Speaker 2>our global look ahead at the top stories for investors

0:13:22.120 --> 0:13:24.679
<v Speaker 2>in the coming week. I'm Tom Busby in New York.

0:13:25.120 --> 0:13:27.960
<v Speaker 2>Up later in our program a look at more tech earnings,

0:13:28.000 --> 0:13:32.080
<v Speaker 2>including from Samsung. But first, it's approaching ten weeks since

0:13:32.080 --> 0:13:35.120
<v Speaker 2>we last heard from Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey

0:13:35.200 --> 0:13:38.560
<v Speaker 2>and his fellow policymakers. Now, with the Bank of England

0:13:38.600 --> 0:13:41.800
<v Speaker 2>rate decision due in the coming weeks, Bloomberg Daybreak Europe

0:13:41.800 --> 0:13:46.160
<v Speaker 2>banker Caroline Hepger has been gauging the anticipation in London.

0:13:46.160 --> 0:13:49.880
<v Speaker 1>Tom after the UK has seen some volatile economic data

0:13:49.960 --> 0:13:54.480
<v Speaker 1>in recent weeks, including faster than anticipated inflation numbers, so

0:13:54.679 --> 0:13:58.240
<v Speaker 1>the sense of radio silence is all the more consequential

0:13:58.640 --> 0:14:02.280
<v Speaker 1>before a decision on whether to cut UK interest rates,

0:14:02.440 --> 0:14:05.760
<v Speaker 1>that investors are judging to be on a knife edge,

0:14:06.280 --> 0:14:09.440
<v Speaker 1>Unlike peers in the US and the Eurozone. Andrew Bailey

0:14:09.480 --> 0:14:13.200
<v Speaker 1>has played down the importance of spoon feeding signals to

0:14:13.280 --> 0:14:16.880
<v Speaker 1>the markets, but the Bank of England's approach to messaging

0:14:16.920 --> 0:14:20.560
<v Speaker 1>has been criticized by the former US Federal Reserve Chair

0:14:20.640 --> 0:14:24.320
<v Speaker 1>Ben Bananke, and a full start to rate hikes back

0:14:24.360 --> 0:14:27.720
<v Speaker 1>in twenty twenty one has also bred a persistent level

0:14:27.760 --> 0:14:32.400
<v Speaker 1>of scrutiny of the governor's tactics. While four members of

0:14:32.440 --> 0:14:36.680
<v Speaker 1>the nine person Monetary Policy Committee have communicated following the

0:14:36.840 --> 0:14:40.960
<v Speaker 1>fourth of July election, most were already seen as being

0:14:41.080 --> 0:14:45.080
<v Speaker 1>in either the hawkish or the dubvish camps, revealing little

0:14:45.320 --> 0:14:49.640
<v Speaker 1>of what investors did not already know. The upcoming decision

0:14:49.680 --> 0:14:53.280
<v Speaker 1>then could be a pivotal turning point. Andrew Bailey must

0:14:53.360 --> 0:14:57.280
<v Speaker 1>decide whether to support two rate setters already pushing for cuts,

0:14:57.520 --> 0:14:59.960
<v Speaker 1>or continue to side with the hawks, warning the u

0:15:00.280 --> 0:15:04.200
<v Speaker 1>underlying price pressures still pose a danger. It's something that

0:15:04.200 --> 0:15:07.760
<v Speaker 1>BlueBay Television has been discussing with Janet Henry, who is

0:15:07.840 --> 0:15:11.880
<v Speaker 1>Global Chief Economists at HSBC. She says that Bailey's choice

0:15:11.920 --> 0:15:14.760
<v Speaker 1>will have a big impact on her strategy.

0:15:15.200 --> 0:15:18.000
<v Speaker 7>We are looking for some modest rate cuts over the

0:15:18.040 --> 0:15:21.280
<v Speaker 7>course of the next year. We do have a gradual improvement,

0:15:21.320 --> 0:15:24.280
<v Speaker 7>but it's by no means a v shaped recovery, and

0:15:24.320 --> 0:15:26.640
<v Speaker 7>it's certainly still not a recession, as you know, we've

0:15:26.680 --> 0:15:28.600
<v Speaker 7>never been in that camp. Obviously, we have got this

0:15:28.760 --> 0:15:33.600
<v Speaker 7>enormous uncertainty regarding the fiscal backdrop through twenty twenty five.

0:15:33.760 --> 0:15:38.400
<v Speaker 7>You know, even last year the fiscal deficit widening, added

0:15:38.400 --> 0:15:41.800
<v Speaker 7>to inflation, added to GDP growth. And should we find

0:15:41.840 --> 0:15:45.040
<v Speaker 7>ourselves in a similar situation in twenty twenty five, and

0:15:45.120 --> 0:15:47.000
<v Speaker 7>that would probably mean a lot less in the way

0:15:47.000 --> 0:15:47.640
<v Speaker 7>of rate cuts.

0:15:47.880 --> 0:15:50.120
<v Speaker 5>How much visibility do we really have on twenty twenty five.

0:15:50.720 --> 0:15:53.080
<v Speaker 7>Well, we don't have a lot of visibility on twenty

0:15:53.120 --> 0:15:55.200
<v Speaker 7>twenty five. And of course it's not just the domestic

0:15:55.280 --> 0:15:59.880
<v Speaker 7>politics and the domestic fiscal there is this geopolitical overlay

0:16:00.080 --> 0:16:02.040
<v Speaker 7>in that. You know, one of the remarkable things you

0:16:02.120 --> 0:16:05.320
<v Speaker 7>might say through the first half of twenty twenty four

0:16:05.480 --> 0:16:08.760
<v Speaker 7>is that despite all of this uncertainty in terms of

0:16:08.840 --> 0:16:12.240
<v Speaker 7>conflict underway in the world, tariffs that are still coming

0:16:12.240 --> 0:16:14.960
<v Speaker 7>through not just from the US, but some from Europe

0:16:15.000 --> 0:16:19.160
<v Speaker 7>and even parts of Latin America. Despite all of this uncertainty,

0:16:19.280 --> 0:16:23.240
<v Speaker 7>the global economy generally has muddled through. It's just that

0:16:23.280 --> 0:16:26.359
<v Speaker 7>it's still really the US and from an emerging market perspective,

0:16:26.640 --> 0:16:30.440
<v Speaker 7>India that have been the stellar performers. But you're right,

0:16:30.480 --> 0:16:33.200
<v Speaker 7>twenty twenty five is the key area of uncertainty and

0:16:33.280 --> 0:16:37.000
<v Speaker 7>central banks. You know, the age of medium term forward

0:16:37.000 --> 0:16:39.000
<v Speaker 7>guidance is way behind us now.

0:16:39.520 --> 0:16:43.240
<v Speaker 1>That was Janet Henry, Global Chief Economists at HSBC. Well,

0:16:43.280 --> 0:16:46.320
<v Speaker 1>I've also been discussing the stakes of Andrew Bailey's big

0:16:46.320 --> 0:16:49.920
<v Speaker 1>decision with Bloomberg's chief economist Dan Hanson. He says the

0:16:50.040 --> 0:16:52.760
<v Speaker 1>choice will have far reaching consequences.

0:16:53.160 --> 0:16:54.360
<v Speaker 8>Well, I wish I could say this was a lot

0:16:54.400 --> 0:16:57.320
<v Speaker 8>of confidence. I'm not sure you can. I think we're

0:16:58.160 --> 0:17:01.080
<v Speaker 8>we're on the side of the the case for cutting,

0:17:01.640 --> 0:17:05.199
<v Speaker 8>that's our view, but it's really easy to make the

0:17:05.240 --> 0:17:08.560
<v Speaker 8>case for a hold as well. It's not a clear

0:17:08.600 --> 0:17:14.080
<v Speaker 8>cut decision. Markets are at about forty five percent chance

0:17:14.280 --> 0:17:17.600
<v Speaker 8>of a cut, so slightly less than a coin toss.

0:17:17.640 --> 0:17:20.600
<v Speaker 8>They're not convinced, you know, I think on balance, if

0:17:20.600 --> 0:17:24.199
<v Speaker 8>you look back to at least the June meeting, it

0:17:24.320 --> 0:17:27.560
<v Speaker 8>felt like the bank was quite keen to cut. If

0:17:27.640 --> 0:17:31.120
<v Speaker 8>you read the minutes, you know, you could potentially read

0:17:31.119 --> 0:17:33.720
<v Speaker 8>between the lines and try and make an argument that

0:17:33.760 --> 0:17:35.520
<v Speaker 8>the elections sort of they just didn't want to get

0:17:35.520 --> 0:17:38.760
<v Speaker 8>involved during the election campaign. Since then, the data's been

0:17:39.119 --> 0:17:42.280
<v Speaker 8>a bit choppy, but I think, you know, for us,

0:17:42.359 --> 0:17:45.320
<v Speaker 8>the case is still there. But as I said, at

0:17:45.320 --> 0:17:47.080
<v Speaker 8>the there's a lot of uncertainy. We've also got quite

0:17:47.080 --> 0:17:49.560
<v Speaker 8>a few changes of personnel or at least one change,

0:17:49.600 --> 0:17:51.800
<v Speaker 8>I should say, of personnel on the NPC. That makes

0:17:51.840 --> 0:17:54.840
<v Speaker 8>it just just add that element of uncertainty and the

0:17:54.920 --> 0:17:56.080
<v Speaker 8>vote split that will come out.

0:17:56.400 --> 0:17:56.600
<v Speaker 9>Yeah.

0:17:56.720 --> 0:17:59.679
<v Speaker 1>I mean you talked about the election. Of course that

0:17:59.800 --> 0:18:01.600
<v Speaker 1>meant that there was a black up and actually it's

0:18:01.600 --> 0:18:04.800
<v Speaker 1>been a really long time since we've heard from Andrew Bailey,

0:18:04.800 --> 0:18:08.359
<v Speaker 1>maybe as long as period without communicating as Bank of

0:18:08.400 --> 0:18:10.840
<v Speaker 1>England governor in the kind of four years that he's

0:18:10.920 --> 0:18:15.520
<v Speaker 1>been there. And since then fellow NPC members have also

0:18:15.560 --> 0:18:18.199
<v Speaker 1>been quite quite I mean, how significant is that to

0:18:18.240 --> 0:18:20.639
<v Speaker 1>have so little guidance from policymakers.

0:18:21.080 --> 0:18:23.720
<v Speaker 8>Yeah, I mean it's an interesting one. I was I've

0:18:23.720 --> 0:18:26.199
<v Speaker 8>been quite surprised, if I'm honest, I thought coming out

0:18:26.240 --> 0:18:29.239
<v Speaker 8>of the election blackout periods. You know, as I say,

0:18:29.280 --> 0:18:31.600
<v Speaker 8>we had the June meeting, we had the minutes from that,

0:18:31.760 --> 0:18:35.720
<v Speaker 8>but I thought Bailey and others would would come out

0:18:35.760 --> 0:18:38.800
<v Speaker 8>and sort of say set the record straight. That's not

0:18:38.880 --> 0:18:40.520
<v Speaker 8>quite right, but just give an update on where they

0:18:40.520 --> 0:18:42.320
<v Speaker 8>think things are. You know, we'd had a lot of

0:18:42.400 --> 0:18:44.960
<v Speaker 8>data and we know that the June meeting for we

0:18:45.000 --> 0:18:47.639
<v Speaker 8>don't know who they were, but for some members of

0:18:47.640 --> 0:18:51.480
<v Speaker 8>the NPC, the decision was finally balanced, and I think

0:18:51.480 --> 0:18:53.679
<v Speaker 8>it would have been I think there's sort of a

0:18:53.720 --> 0:18:56.520
<v Speaker 8>belief in amongst sort of economists and in the market

0:18:56.600 --> 0:18:59.280
<v Speaker 8>that you know, Bailey was amongst that group. It would

0:18:59.280 --> 0:19:01.000
<v Speaker 8>have been interesting, I think, to hear from him and

0:19:01.040 --> 0:19:03.560
<v Speaker 8>where things are. I don't necessarily think he would have

0:19:03.560 --> 0:19:05.639
<v Speaker 8>made it one hundred percent clear about what they were

0:19:05.640 --> 0:19:08.560
<v Speaker 8>going to do at this meeting, but I think something

0:19:08.640 --> 0:19:12.280
<v Speaker 8>around the data and you know, the weight they were

0:19:12.280 --> 0:19:15.879
<v Speaker 8>placing on upside surprises and how worried they were about that,

0:19:16.000 --> 0:19:18.720
<v Speaker 8>I think would have been a sort of useful guide.

0:19:18.840 --> 0:19:21.240
<v Speaker 8>Because there's been a lot of volatility, as I say,

0:19:21.240 --> 0:19:23.720
<v Speaker 8>in the data, and that's injective volatility into market pricing

0:19:23.760 --> 0:19:25.680
<v Speaker 8>as well, which I don't think is particularly helpful.

0:19:26.000 --> 0:19:29.800
<v Speaker 1>Okay, there does seem to be though, after the election

0:19:30.240 --> 0:19:33.679
<v Speaker 1>and the turbunce that we've seen in politics, perhaps a

0:19:33.920 --> 0:19:40.080
<v Speaker 1>window where maybe UK politics is calming down and there's

0:19:40.080 --> 0:19:42.200
<v Speaker 1>been a lot of announcements on this new government about

0:19:42.240 --> 0:19:44.200
<v Speaker 1>the things that they're going to do. Obviously it's all

0:19:44.280 --> 0:19:47.919
<v Speaker 1>untested yet, but certainly a feeling that there's maybe an

0:19:48.000 --> 0:19:51.840
<v Speaker 1>opportunity for more calm now in the UK. How useful

0:19:51.840 --> 0:19:55.480
<v Speaker 1>would a rake up be to the new chancellor? Rachel reeves.

0:19:55.720 --> 0:19:57.919
<v Speaker 1>There does seem to be more optimism, and you've written

0:19:57.960 --> 0:20:02.119
<v Speaker 1>about it about economic growth maybe being a bit better

0:20:02.160 --> 0:20:03.119
<v Speaker 1>in the UK now.

0:20:03.240 --> 0:20:04.960
<v Speaker 8>Yeah, So I think, I mean, I think on the

0:20:05.040 --> 0:20:07.680
<v Speaker 8>rate cut point, obviously, I think there's there's a really

0:20:07.720 --> 0:20:10.840
<v Speaker 8>positive narrative around that that the government can spin. Does

0:20:10.840 --> 0:20:12.879
<v Speaker 8>it does you know, if it's a twenty five basis

0:20:12.920 --> 0:20:15.159
<v Speaker 8>point rate cut, does that change the economic outlook? No,

0:20:15.359 --> 0:20:19.600
<v Speaker 8>But if it's a series of rate cuts, you know,

0:20:19.640 --> 0:20:22.440
<v Speaker 8>it does begin to sort of feed into economic activity.

0:20:22.480 --> 0:20:27.080
<v Speaker 8>But remember the sort of mortgages and the like are

0:20:27.119 --> 0:20:30.080
<v Speaker 8>already being priced off the expectations that rates will be cut,

0:20:30.280 --> 0:20:32.800
<v Speaker 8>So you know, the bigger risk is they don't get

0:20:32.800 --> 0:20:34.200
<v Speaker 8>cut and then we sort of have this sort of

0:20:34.280 --> 0:20:37.879
<v Speaker 8>knee jerk in the other direction. I mean, thinking fiscally,

0:20:38.000 --> 0:20:41.159
<v Speaker 8>if you go back to the obr's forecast in March,

0:20:41.880 --> 0:20:43.760
<v Speaker 8>there was actually a lot more easing priced into the

0:20:43.760 --> 0:20:45.560
<v Speaker 8>curve at that point sort of there was sort of

0:20:45.560 --> 0:20:48.160
<v Speaker 8>this exuberance around the number of rate cuts that come

0:20:48.240 --> 0:20:51.560
<v Speaker 8>this year. So actually, in terms of the fiscal the

0:20:51.800 --> 0:20:53.960
<v Speaker 8>sort of in their interest spending and the like is

0:20:54.160 --> 0:20:55.399
<v Speaker 8>probably going to be a little bit higher in the

0:20:55.440 --> 0:20:59.280
<v Speaker 8>obr's forecast because we've got higher guilt yields and also

0:20:59.359 --> 0:21:02.800
<v Speaker 8>higher exp dictations for bank rate and relative to March.

0:21:03.560 --> 0:21:06.000
<v Speaker 8>But you know, Ruth's will want to see rates start

0:21:06.040 --> 0:21:07.919
<v Speaker 8>to come down. That sort of narrative, I think is

0:21:08.200 --> 0:21:11.639
<v Speaker 8>one much more probably political than it is economic. As

0:21:11.680 --> 0:21:13.359
<v Speaker 8>I say, on the economic side, a lot of this

0:21:13.440 --> 0:21:15.239
<v Speaker 8>is already baked in. You know, the idea of two

0:21:15.359 --> 0:21:17.480
<v Speaker 8>rate cuts this year has been the sort of consensus

0:21:17.520 --> 0:21:20.199
<v Speaker 8>for quite a while now, and it's just a case of,

0:21:21.119 --> 0:21:23.720
<v Speaker 8>you know, from her perspective, hoping that the Bank ends

0:21:23.800 --> 0:21:24.399
<v Speaker 8>up delivering that.

0:21:26.200 --> 0:21:28.120
<v Speaker 1>How much influence will the Fed have on the Bank

0:21:28.160 --> 0:21:29.080
<v Speaker 1>of England, now.

0:21:29.600 --> 0:21:31.920
<v Speaker 8>Yeah, that's a good question, I think. You know, the

0:21:32.200 --> 0:21:34.800
<v Speaker 8>argument for one of the arguments for waiting September is

0:21:34.840 --> 0:21:37.120
<v Speaker 8>it looks like the Fed's going to go in September now,

0:21:37.160 --> 0:21:40.399
<v Speaker 8>though there are some voices saying that July is you

0:21:40.400 --> 0:21:41.919
<v Speaker 8>know we had build do on the terminal in his

0:21:42.000 --> 0:21:45.320
<v Speaker 8>opinion piece saying that July would be the right time

0:21:45.359 --> 0:21:47.800
<v Speaker 8>for them to go. I think, you know, one of

0:21:47.800 --> 0:21:50.600
<v Speaker 8>the arguments is that the US is ahead of the

0:21:50.720 --> 0:21:53.800
<v Speaker 8>UK and the rest of the world in its inflation process.

0:21:53.880 --> 0:21:56.560
<v Speaker 8>If the FED goes, it gives other central banks confidence.

0:21:57.520 --> 0:22:02.120
<v Speaker 8>That said, you know, the SMB Bank of Canada, they're

0:22:02.119 --> 0:22:04.000
<v Speaker 8>all going ahead and cutting rates. They're not waiting for

0:22:04.040 --> 0:22:06.800
<v Speaker 8>the FED. So I think the bank doesn't need the

0:22:06.840 --> 0:22:10.119
<v Speaker 8>FED to go. I just think, you know, you'd look

0:22:09.280 --> 0:22:11.600
<v Speaker 8>across the Atlantic and it would just give you a

0:22:11.600 --> 0:22:14.600
<v Speaker 8>little bit more confidence that you're sort of moving in

0:22:14.640 --> 0:22:17.240
<v Speaker 8>the right direction. So it's something they keep an eye on,

0:22:17.280 --> 0:22:20.000
<v Speaker 8>but I don't think it stops them from cutting in August.

0:22:21.320 --> 0:22:24.800
<v Speaker 1>Returning to the UK story then around mortgages, I mean,

0:22:25.800 --> 0:22:29.720
<v Speaker 1>the Institute for Fiscal Studies, interestingly in recent days has

0:22:29.760 --> 0:22:33.720
<v Speaker 1>come out with this view that the interest rate increases

0:22:33.760 --> 0:22:35.959
<v Speaker 1>from the Bank of England have pushed three and twenty

0:22:36.000 --> 0:22:40.600
<v Speaker 1>thousand more people into poverty, which I think is quite interesting.

0:22:40.640 --> 0:22:43.399
<v Speaker 1>I mean, the IFS always does hold the Government of

0:22:43.400 --> 0:22:46.199
<v Speaker 1>the day's feet to the fire or the Bank of

0:22:46.200 --> 0:22:49.040
<v Speaker 1>England or whoever that is their job. But I think

0:22:49.119 --> 0:22:51.119
<v Speaker 1>that is quite interesting, isn't it in terms of the

0:22:51.119 --> 0:22:54.720
<v Speaker 1>pressure as we look at the positive, the more positive

0:22:54.720 --> 0:22:58.080
<v Speaker 1>economic story versus the pressure that there is on UK consumer.

0:22:58.280 --> 0:23:00.840
<v Speaker 8>Yeah, definitely. I mean at an aggregate level. You know,

0:23:00.880 --> 0:23:03.560
<v Speaker 8>we've spoken for a long time about the resilience of

0:23:03.560 --> 0:23:05.600
<v Speaker 8>the UK economy. You've mentioned there the sort of pick

0:23:05.680 --> 0:23:08.560
<v Speaker 8>up in growth, but the distributional effect of all of

0:23:08.600 --> 0:23:12.840
<v Speaker 8>these things is significant and that's sort of what the

0:23:12.840 --> 0:23:17.240
<v Speaker 8>IFS is citing there. The fundamental point is that interest

0:23:17.320 --> 0:23:19.840
<v Speaker 8>rates are the Bank of England's main tool, but it's

0:23:19.840 --> 0:23:24.800
<v Speaker 8>an extremely bluntle and it does have these negative effects.

0:23:24.800 --> 0:23:28.400
<v Speaker 8>I mean, I think what's interesting is that that those

0:23:28.400 --> 0:23:31.760
<v Speaker 8>sort of numbers and you've seen insolvencies. They've come back down,

0:23:31.800 --> 0:23:34.199
<v Speaker 8>but insolvencies picked up as well on the back of

0:23:34.280 --> 0:23:38.199
<v Speaker 8>rising interest rates. And actually it's surprising, I think, against

0:23:38.280 --> 0:23:40.960
<v Speaker 8>that backdrop that the economy has at an aggregate level

0:23:41.480 --> 0:23:44.360
<v Speaker 8>performed as it has. You know, there is a lot

0:23:44.359 --> 0:23:49.440
<v Speaker 8>of stress out there. And look, I think, as I say,

0:23:49.680 --> 0:23:52.560
<v Speaker 8>interest rates are very blunt all and I think at

0:23:52.680 --> 0:23:55.800
<v Speaker 8>least if you're thinking about the distributional impact of these things.

0:23:55.640 --> 0:23:58.040
<v Speaker 8>It's really a fiscal policy question and that's I guess

0:23:58.040 --> 0:24:00.320
<v Speaker 8>it is something that the Rachel Ruves might might end

0:24:00.400 --> 0:24:01.040
<v Speaker 8>up thinking about.

0:24:01.560 --> 0:24:04.359
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, I mean her last thought on Reeves, you know,

0:24:04.520 --> 0:24:07.600
<v Speaker 1>going out making the pitch again and again in recent weeks,

0:24:07.800 --> 0:24:10.560
<v Speaker 1>now that she and Kirstarma are in power, that the

0:24:10.680 --> 0:24:12.919
<v Speaker 1>UK is open for business, open for business, that's the

0:24:12.920 --> 0:24:16.600
<v Speaker 1>mantra she's really got to deliver, doesn't she Are more

0:24:16.640 --> 0:24:20.000
<v Speaker 1>investment coming into the UK sort of longer term that's

0:24:20.119 --> 0:24:22.160
<v Speaker 1>the underlying pressure for Britain.

0:24:22.520 --> 0:24:22.720
<v Speaker 4>Yeah.

0:24:22.760 --> 0:24:24.919
<v Speaker 8>I mean they've really up the ante actually on the

0:24:25.000 --> 0:24:28.840
<v Speaker 8>narrative and some of the goals that they've set are

0:24:28.920 --> 0:24:33.399
<v Speaker 8>very challenging I think. And you know, if you remember

0:24:33.400 --> 0:24:36.840
<v Speaker 8>back to the previous government, Rishi Sunak had his five

0:24:36.880 --> 0:24:39.840
<v Speaker 8>targets and there was a lot of you know, holding

0:24:39.880 --> 0:24:42.640
<v Speaker 8>him to account about you know, whether he was achieving

0:24:42.680 --> 0:24:45.280
<v Speaker 8>these things on the economic front, but also obviously on

0:24:45.440 --> 0:24:49.560
<v Speaker 8>NHS waiting lists on the boats as well. So you know,

0:24:49.600 --> 0:24:52.840
<v Speaker 8>there if it doesn't all come to pass, they're going

0:24:52.920 --> 0:24:54.600
<v Speaker 8>to you know, they're going to feel that feel the

0:24:54.640 --> 0:24:56.479
<v Speaker 8>heat again, I think, And as I say, they are

0:24:56.520 --> 0:24:59.800
<v Speaker 8>extremely stretching targets that they've set particularly on growth, and

0:25:00.000 --> 0:25:03.600
<v Speaker 8>obviously we will hope that it comes to pass. Like

0:25:03.760 --> 0:25:06.040
<v Speaker 8>everyone wants living stands to rise. That is sort of

0:25:06.080 --> 0:25:09.760
<v Speaker 8>the best possible outcome. But as I say that, if

0:25:09.840 --> 0:25:12.800
<v Speaker 8>you look at recent history, it would suggest that we're

0:25:12.800 --> 0:25:15.919
<v Speaker 8>going to go through a quite significant step change in

0:25:16.240 --> 0:25:19.480
<v Speaker 8>economic performance to deliver it. And you sort of me

0:25:19.600 --> 0:25:23.080
<v Speaker 8>being a skeptical economist, I'm a little bit skeptical about

0:25:23.080 --> 0:25:26.040
<v Speaker 8>whether it will come to pass, but we'll see how

0:25:26.080 --> 0:25:27.960
<v Speaker 8>it goes. As you say, it's a lot of rhetoric,

0:25:28.080 --> 0:25:29.880
<v Speaker 8>but they need to put the policies in place and

0:25:29.960 --> 0:25:30.920
<v Speaker 8>see whether it delivers.

0:25:30.920 --> 0:25:34.520
<v Speaker 1>Now, that was Dan Hanson, Bloomberg's chief economist, on the

0:25:34.560 --> 0:25:37.920
<v Speaker 1>Bank of England's rate decision, which we'll hear about, of course,

0:25:37.960 --> 0:25:41.480
<v Speaker 1>on Thursday, the first of August. I'm Caroline Hepge here

0:25:41.520 --> 0:25:44.000
<v Speaker 1>in London. You can catch us every weekday morning for

0:25:44.040 --> 0:25:46.800
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Daybreak. You're at beginning at six am in London.

0:25:47.080 --> 0:25:48.760
<v Speaker 1>That's one am on Wall Street.

0:25:49.040 --> 0:25:52.600
<v Speaker 2>Tom, Thanks Caroline, and coming up on Bloomberg Daybreak weekend

0:25:52.600 --> 0:25:55.360
<v Speaker 2>to look at earnings from both Apple and Samsung and

0:25:55.440 --> 0:25:59.240
<v Speaker 2>what these companies will say about artificial intelligence. I'm Tom

0:25:59.280 --> 0:26:13.439
<v Speaker 2>Busby and this is Bloomberg. I'm Tom Busby in New

0:26:13.520 --> 0:26:15.439
<v Speaker 2>York with your global look ahead at the top stories

0:26:15.480 --> 0:26:18.240
<v Speaker 2>for investors in the coming week. A big week ahead

0:26:18.240 --> 0:26:21.680
<v Speaker 2>for tech earnings with some of the biggest manufacturers in Asia,

0:26:21.760 --> 0:26:25.199
<v Speaker 2>companies like Apple and Samsung reporting for more. Let's get

0:26:25.200 --> 0:26:29.200
<v Speaker 2>to Bloomberg Daybreak Asia hosts Doug Krisner and Brian Curtis Tom.

0:26:29.359 --> 0:26:33.280
<v Speaker 3>Both Samsung and Apple are putting emphasis on AI features

0:26:33.280 --> 0:26:36.240
<v Speaker 3>in their latest smartphones. The aim here, obviously, is to

0:26:36.320 --> 0:26:38.600
<v Speaker 3>create a lot more buzz when it comes to AI

0:26:38.760 --> 0:26:41.240
<v Speaker 3>technology where consumers are concerned.

0:26:41.880 --> 0:26:45.000
<v Speaker 9>Apple has been doing so after falling behind the likes

0:26:45.000 --> 0:26:48.480
<v Speaker 9>of Open Ai and Alphabet's Google, but he's playing catch

0:26:48.560 --> 0:26:50.800
<v Speaker 9>up now on the AI front with the introduction of

0:26:50.880 --> 0:26:54.680
<v Speaker 9>Apple Intelligence. It also aims to ship ten percent more

0:26:54.760 --> 0:26:58.640
<v Speaker 9>new iPhones. Meantime, Samsung had earlier announced that he would

0:26:58.720 --> 0:27:01.639
<v Speaker 9>hike prices on its latest models. With the addition of

0:27:01.720 --> 0:27:05.000
<v Speaker 9>AI features, it aims to reclaim its title as the

0:27:05.040 --> 0:27:06.880
<v Speaker 9>world's leading maker of foldables.

0:27:07.040 --> 0:27:09.680
<v Speaker 3>Earlier, Brian and I spoke to Dan Ives. He is

0:27:09.760 --> 0:27:14.240
<v Speaker 3>managing director and senior equity analyst at Webbush Securities. He

0:27:14.359 --> 0:27:17.960
<v Speaker 3>thinks Apple is the core player in AI.

0:27:18.119 --> 0:27:20.480
<v Speaker 10>Especially when you look at Apple Intelligence and what's happened

0:27:20.520 --> 0:27:23.399
<v Speaker 10>with iPhone sixteen. You know, we think that's how you

0:27:23.440 --> 0:27:26.679
<v Speaker 10>get to a four trillion dollar evaluation in Apple with

0:27:26.800 --> 0:27:31.240
<v Speaker 10>an unparalled in stallby. The reality is that consumers when

0:27:31.240 --> 0:27:34.160
<v Speaker 10>they go through AI, they're going to go through the

0:27:34.240 --> 0:27:38.040
<v Speaker 10>Coopertino essentially an Apple device that's up twenty five percent

0:27:38.119 --> 0:27:41.720
<v Speaker 10>of the world's going to access AI. You talk about

0:27:41.800 --> 0:27:46.040
<v Speaker 10>other names that benefit here. I think there's names like

0:27:46.280 --> 0:27:51.000
<v Speaker 10>an Oracle service. Now I look at names like Palenteer

0:27:51.119 --> 0:27:54.800
<v Speaker 10>that's really a pure play name in terms of use cases.

0:27:55.200 --> 0:27:58.280
<v Speaker 10>So there's a lot of You talk about narrow. It

0:27:58.320 --> 0:28:01.720
<v Speaker 10>is narrow now, but over the next one to two

0:28:01.800 --> 0:28:03.280
<v Speaker 10>years it's going to be a lot broader.

0:28:03.520 --> 0:28:05.800
<v Speaker 3>So it's nine pm, the party's going to four in

0:28:05.840 --> 0:28:10.040
<v Speaker 3>the morning. Do we need to talk about regulatory risk?

0:28:10.440 --> 0:28:12.320
<v Speaker 3>Is there at some point a move on the part

0:28:12.359 --> 0:28:16.840
<v Speaker 3>of government officials to get involved in how artificial intelligence

0:28:17.240 --> 0:28:19.439
<v Speaker 3>is regulated? Is that a concern that you have.

0:28:19.920 --> 0:28:22.600
<v Speaker 10>I mean, that's at four thirty five am, when you're

0:28:22.600 --> 0:28:24.760
<v Speaker 10>at the diner after, when you're at when you're at

0:28:24.760 --> 0:28:28.240
<v Speaker 10>the diner after the party. So the point is like, yeah,

0:28:28.359 --> 0:28:30.680
<v Speaker 10>regular toy will be there, but for now it's not.

0:28:30.840 --> 0:28:33.600
<v Speaker 10>I mean it's self regulation. We spent a lot of

0:28:33.600 --> 0:28:37.239
<v Speaker 10>time in the belt. Regulatory is going thirty miles an

0:28:37.280 --> 0:28:39.960
<v Speaker 10>hour in a minivan the right lane. The technology is

0:28:40.000 --> 0:28:42.400
<v Speaker 10>in Bugatti going one hundred miles an hour in the

0:28:42.480 --> 0:28:45.120
<v Speaker 10>left lane. So I don't think regular tour is going

0:28:45.200 --> 0:28:48.600
<v Speaker 10>to be an issue. And I think regardless with presidential

0:28:49.240 --> 0:28:52.320
<v Speaker 10>pandy wins, I also think we're gonna see less regulatory

0:28:52.560 --> 0:28:54.960
<v Speaker 10>and which ultimately I think is bullish or big tech.

0:28:55.320 --> 0:28:58.840
<v Speaker 9>Well, let's get a broader question answered here from you, Dan.

0:28:59.520 --> 0:29:01.640
<v Speaker 9>Do we need to worry about a slow down in

0:29:01.680 --> 0:29:04.280
<v Speaker 9>the economy as kind of spoiling the party or no?

0:29:04.680 --> 0:29:06.880
<v Speaker 10>I mean I think right now, unless you have a

0:29:07.000 --> 0:29:10.760
<v Speaker 10>Talis group or binocurate, you don't see your recession right.

0:29:10.840 --> 0:29:15.800
<v Speaker 10>So I think we're in this Goldilocks soft landing. I'm

0:29:15.840 --> 0:29:19.280
<v Speaker 10>not saying it's it's a Rosen Champagne. There's clearly choppiness.

0:29:19.280 --> 0:29:22.840
<v Speaker 10>But if you could overall tech earnings, it's bullsh who

0:29:22.840 --> 0:29:26.000
<v Speaker 10>could overall bank broader to I mean eighty five percent

0:29:26.480 --> 0:29:29.880
<v Speaker 10>are hit or at being earnings, So I think that

0:29:30.520 --> 0:29:34.000
<v Speaker 10>will be in the background, but it's not going to

0:29:34.080 --> 0:29:35.640
<v Speaker 10>stop this AI freight train.

0:29:35.920 --> 0:29:38.960
<v Speaker 3>He is Dan Ives of wet Bush Securities and joining

0:29:39.040 --> 0:29:41.560
<v Speaker 3>us now from our studios in Hong Kong is a

0:29:41.640 --> 0:29:45.320
<v Speaker 3>vlad Savov, Bloomberg Tech editor. Lad, thanks so much for

0:29:45.360 --> 0:29:48.080
<v Speaker 3>being with us. In the last week, the equity market

0:29:48.120 --> 0:29:51.400
<v Speaker 3>clearly was expressing concern over the issue of valuation when

0:29:51.400 --> 0:29:54.920
<v Speaker 3>it comes to a number of these artificial intelligence names,

0:29:54.960 --> 0:29:59.320
<v Speaker 3>particularly the chip makers. I don't sense that the thesis

0:29:59.360 --> 0:30:03.960
<v Speaker 3>has really fundamentally. Most people still agree on the transformative

0:30:04.040 --> 0:30:07.440
<v Speaker 3>nature of AI. Yeah, there may be some debate over

0:30:07.440 --> 0:30:10.920
<v Speaker 3>the use case when we point to what AI can

0:30:11.000 --> 0:30:15.080
<v Speaker 3>ultimately provide. Currently, the issue also seems to be on

0:30:15.200 --> 0:30:18.120
<v Speaker 3>the return of investment. I was reading a note from

0:30:18.200 --> 0:30:22.160
<v Speaker 3>Barclays saying that analysts are expecting big tech companies to

0:30:22.200 --> 0:30:26.160
<v Speaker 3>spend around sixty billion dollars a year on developing AI

0:30:26.280 --> 0:30:29.480
<v Speaker 3>models by twenty twenty six. Here's the thing. Those companies

0:30:29.520 --> 0:30:33.280
<v Speaker 3>will only reap around twenty billion a year in revenue

0:30:33.320 --> 0:30:36.040
<v Speaker 3>from AI. So it seems like the market is right

0:30:36.120 --> 0:30:38.680
<v Speaker 3>at this moment in time to be a little concerned

0:30:38.680 --> 0:30:41.200
<v Speaker 3>about how quickly we've arrived at this point.

0:30:41.280 --> 0:30:43.840
<v Speaker 11>Is that fair yes, I think naturally that is fair

0:30:43.880 --> 0:30:46.320
<v Speaker 11>to say. It's also worth bearing in mind that when

0:30:46.360 --> 0:30:48.640
<v Speaker 11>you say sixty billion for all of big tech spending

0:30:48.680 --> 0:30:50.840
<v Speaker 11>on AI, I mean a good chunk of that forty

0:30:50.880 --> 0:30:53.960
<v Speaker 11>billion is going to be just meta. They've already pledged

0:30:53.960 --> 0:30:57.280
<v Speaker 11>to spend like I say, double digit billions of dollars

0:30:57.360 --> 0:31:01.520
<v Speaker 11>just on AI, just in acquiring those to get Nvidio chips.

0:31:01.640 --> 0:31:04.440
<v Speaker 11>It's worth also thinking about the fact that this level

0:31:04.440 --> 0:31:07.200
<v Speaker 11>of investment, which is going to come this year, next year,

0:31:07.240 --> 0:31:09.440
<v Speaker 11>in the year after that, is probably not going to

0:31:09.480 --> 0:31:12.280
<v Speaker 11>be sustained, and they're probably planning for that as well.

0:31:12.640 --> 0:31:15.200
<v Speaker 11>You get those in Vidio chips, you get that hardware

0:31:15.240 --> 0:31:17.800
<v Speaker 11>infrastructure in place to train your AI models, and you

0:31:17.880 --> 0:31:20.680
<v Speaker 11>do that. But then those models are trained and they

0:31:20.720 --> 0:31:22.959
<v Speaker 11>just start being deployed, and then people start figuring out

0:31:22.960 --> 0:31:25.440
<v Speaker 11>how to use them. It's still very early days. We're

0:31:25.440 --> 0:31:27.960
<v Speaker 11>still trying to find the actual application. We're trying to

0:31:28.000 --> 0:31:31.120
<v Speaker 11>find the monetization methods, whether it's going to be through

0:31:31.120 --> 0:31:35.320
<v Speaker 11>subscription services online, whether it's going to be additions to hardware.

0:31:35.360 --> 0:31:37.320
<v Speaker 11>This is the big trend that we're seeing with the

0:31:37.480 --> 0:31:41.600
<v Speaker 11>vice makers setting their devices as effectively AI vessels. It's

0:31:41.840 --> 0:31:44.200
<v Speaker 11>by our laptop. No, it's not the same old laptop.

0:31:44.240 --> 0:31:46.760
<v Speaker 11>It's an AI laptop today. Same thing with smartphones.

0:31:47.280 --> 0:31:50.400
<v Speaker 9>We started off with Dan Eyes asking him about comment

0:31:50.480 --> 0:31:53.480
<v Speaker 9>that we'd heard on Bloomberg, which was that Apple was

0:31:53.560 --> 0:31:56.800
<v Speaker 9>the key. Apple was the company that has the smarts

0:31:56.840 --> 0:32:00.760
<v Speaker 9>through the years to convert something into a friend device

0:32:01.120 --> 0:32:04.120
<v Speaker 9>for consumers. Do you agree with that? And to what

0:32:04.200 --> 0:32:06.680
<v Speaker 9>extent is Samsung also in that category?

0:32:06.760 --> 0:32:09.719
<v Speaker 11>I agree, but only to an extent because Apple strength

0:32:09.720 --> 0:32:13.240
<v Speaker 11>has always been to integrate hardware and software and a

0:32:13.320 --> 0:32:16.040
<v Speaker 11>service that it can eventually charge for. We know that,

0:32:16.080 --> 0:32:17.920
<v Speaker 11>we know that's been the case in the track record,

0:32:18.240 --> 0:32:20.240
<v Speaker 11>but it's so much more wide open than it has

0:32:20.280 --> 0:32:21.120
<v Speaker 11>been in the past.

0:32:22.200 --> 0:32:23.800
<v Speaker 2>It really is such a wide open.

0:32:23.640 --> 0:32:26.120
<v Speaker 11>Question for how you're going to take an AI service

0:32:26.160 --> 0:32:29.760
<v Speaker 11>like an image generator or chat GBT and its ability

0:32:29.800 --> 0:32:33.320
<v Speaker 11>to translate and to generate texts for you in all

0:32:33.360 --> 0:32:35.680
<v Speaker 11>sorts of ways, how are you going to turn that

0:32:35.760 --> 0:32:38.680
<v Speaker 11>into actual revenue at the end of the day. So absolutely,

0:32:38.720 --> 0:32:42.880
<v Speaker 11>Apple has the pedigree for us to invest confidence in it,

0:32:43.320 --> 0:32:46.040
<v Speaker 11>whereas on the flip side with Samsung, it actually doesn't.

0:32:46.160 --> 0:32:49.800
<v Speaker 11>For all of his strengths and accomplishments. Samsung has never

0:32:49.880 --> 0:32:52.920
<v Speaker 11>been great at software. It's never been great coming up

0:32:53.000 --> 0:32:55.760
<v Speaker 11>with the applications that run on top of its devices.

0:32:56.000 --> 0:32:59.240
<v Speaker 11>It sells laptops those run Windows, it sells smartphones those

0:32:59.280 --> 0:32:59.800
<v Speaker 11>run Googles.

0:32:59.840 --> 0:33:02.000
<v Speaker 3>And I think it's fair to say that the weakness

0:33:02.040 --> 0:33:04.480
<v Speaker 3>that we saw in AI related stocks in the last

0:33:04.480 --> 0:33:07.120
<v Speaker 3>week was touched off by the comments that we heard

0:33:07.120 --> 0:33:10.800
<v Speaker 3>from Sundhar Pachai, the CEO of Alphabet, who said, Hey,

0:33:10.800 --> 0:33:12.920
<v Speaker 3>it's going to take some time for AI products to

0:33:12.960 --> 0:33:16.560
<v Speaker 3>mature and become more useful, but can we talk about

0:33:16.560 --> 0:33:20.640
<v Speaker 3>how quickly things are evolving. The rate of change seems

0:33:20.680 --> 0:33:25.280
<v Speaker 3>to be very clear. It's almost parabolic, right, And if

0:33:25.320 --> 0:33:28.160
<v Speaker 3>that trend line continues, I don't think the market's going

0:33:28.200 --> 0:33:29.960
<v Speaker 3>to have to wait too much longer. Am I right

0:33:30.000 --> 0:33:31.080
<v Speaker 3>on that or am I wrong?

0:33:31.400 --> 0:33:33.080
<v Speaker 11>I still think it's still going to take a good

0:33:33.120 --> 0:33:36.000
<v Speaker 11>chunk of time. But give an illustrative example for this.

0:33:36.600 --> 0:33:38.880
<v Speaker 11>When you look at image generation. One of the earliest

0:33:38.880 --> 0:33:41.240
<v Speaker 11>issues it had was with fingers. You would ask it

0:33:41.280 --> 0:33:43.880
<v Speaker 11>to generate like a Renaissance painting for you, and you

0:33:43.880 --> 0:33:46.320
<v Speaker 11>can always generated it because you can never get the

0:33:46.360 --> 0:33:49.040
<v Speaker 11>right number, the right shape, of fingers on people in on.

0:33:49.120 --> 0:33:52.000
<v Speaker 11>It took a few months and those things are large

0:33:52.120 --> 0:33:56.080
<v Speaker 11>resolve now. It really is impressive, especially with image generation,

0:33:56.160 --> 0:33:59.200
<v Speaker 11>because it becomes so obvious to see the rate of progress.

0:33:59.200 --> 0:34:01.400
<v Speaker 11>So I fully agree with you that the progress is there.

0:34:01.680 --> 0:34:04.000
<v Speaker 11>The question really is and especially the trend this year

0:34:04.120 --> 0:34:06.920
<v Speaker 11>is with Microsoft and its Copilot PCs, Apple with Apple

0:34:06.920 --> 0:34:11.520
<v Speaker 11>Intelligence and Samsung making every Galaxy smartphone an aiphone, is

0:34:11.640 --> 0:34:14.440
<v Speaker 11>they're trying to sell us, like I say, hardware as

0:34:14.800 --> 0:34:17.520
<v Speaker 11>carriers of AI. So will that prove to be the

0:34:17.520 --> 0:34:20.120
<v Speaker 11>successful tactic or will it prove to be something along

0:34:20.160 --> 0:34:23.080
<v Speaker 11>the lines of open AI setting you an only one

0:34:23.480 --> 0:34:24.360
<v Speaker 11>AI subscription.

0:34:24.840 --> 0:34:28.280
<v Speaker 9>I think the thinking on the device makers, particularly Apple,

0:34:28.520 --> 0:34:31.960
<v Speaker 9>is that you need inference on this because of privacy.

0:34:32.480 --> 0:34:35.640
<v Speaker 9>You need the intelligence the AI to be on that

0:34:35.760 --> 0:34:39.560
<v Speaker 9>phone that's in your pocket. It's not drawing from the

0:34:39.600 --> 0:34:45.839
<v Speaker 9>cloud because that's susceptible to interference and to security consideration.

0:34:46.680 --> 0:34:50.080
<v Speaker 9>And that's why I think the comment goes to Apple

0:34:50.560 --> 0:34:53.319
<v Speaker 9>knows how to ministurize these things and get it into

0:34:53.440 --> 0:34:54.560
<v Speaker 9>a very small phone.

0:34:54.719 --> 0:34:55.359
<v Speaker 2>That's right, Brian.

0:34:55.440 --> 0:34:57.040
<v Speaker 11>And one of the things to bear in mind is

0:34:57.040 --> 0:35:00.799
<v Speaker 11>that when Apple says trust us use only our proprietary

0:35:00.840 --> 0:35:04.479
<v Speaker 11>software and proprietary holdware. You kind of can because again

0:35:04.520 --> 0:35:07.520
<v Speaker 11>it has that petigree. When Samsung says trust us only

0:35:07.600 --> 0:35:10.600
<v Speaker 11>use Samsung software, it's a big question mark flat.

0:35:10.640 --> 0:35:12.560
<v Speaker 3>I think we have to talk about China. It was

0:35:12.680 --> 0:35:15.240
<v Speaker 3>interesting in the last week we heard from Texas Instruments

0:35:15.239 --> 0:35:18.520
<v Speaker 3>and the company made two points. One is that the

0:35:18.560 --> 0:35:22.160
<v Speaker 3>market for the chips that TI is involved in, in

0:35:22.280 --> 0:35:25.879
<v Speaker 3>terms of China it's return to growth. The second thing

0:35:25.920 --> 0:35:28.520
<v Speaker 3>that I thought was very interesting was the company saying

0:35:28.520 --> 0:35:31.360
<v Speaker 3>it's a mistake to assume that China is only doing

0:35:31.880 --> 0:35:36.520
<v Speaker 3>simple semiconductor manufacturing. Do we have to talk about the

0:35:36.560 --> 0:35:39.520
<v Speaker 3>degree to which China will try to play catch up

0:35:39.640 --> 0:35:42.239
<v Speaker 3>in AI or is the industry in China so far

0:35:42.360 --> 0:35:44.560
<v Speaker 3>in the dust at this point it's not likely that

0:35:44.680 --> 0:35:46.239
<v Speaker 3>China will catch up anytime soon.

0:35:46.480 --> 0:35:48.120
<v Speaker 11>It might be possible to say yes to both of

0:35:48.160 --> 0:35:51.359
<v Speaker 11>your questions, because absolutely China is trying to catch up.

0:35:51.360 --> 0:35:55.160
<v Speaker 11>There is no amount of giving up. Everyone sees AI

0:35:55.400 --> 0:35:58.319
<v Speaker 11>as essential in the same way that they see technology

0:35:58.440 --> 0:36:01.840
<v Speaker 11>and being connected in the Internet is essential to building

0:36:02.120 --> 0:36:05.280
<v Speaker 11>economic and industrial growth in the future. At the same time,

0:36:05.480 --> 0:36:08.080
<v Speaker 11>there is this big gap. This is why we're seeing.

0:36:08.640 --> 0:36:11.120
<v Speaker 11>One of the examples that I like to recall is Nicon.

0:36:11.200 --> 0:36:13.920
<v Speaker 11>We interviewed the president not too long ago, and they

0:36:13.920 --> 0:36:17.600
<v Speaker 11>are renewing a machine who's designed that haven't changed for

0:36:17.800 --> 0:36:21.319
<v Speaker 11>over a decade. And that's because China is buying up

0:36:21.360 --> 0:36:24.640
<v Speaker 11>so many of these mature chips, older technology chips. So

0:36:24.640 --> 0:36:27.440
<v Speaker 11>as much as possible, China is trying to get the

0:36:27.480 --> 0:36:30.440
<v Speaker 11>chips and the semiconductors and technology that it can subject

0:36:30.480 --> 0:36:33.560
<v Speaker 11>to the US sanctions, which means older technology, and then

0:36:33.600 --> 0:36:36.920
<v Speaker 11>maybe with some amount of creativity and technical innovation and

0:36:36.920 --> 0:36:40.799
<v Speaker 11>breakthrough to make its AI models lighter and easier to

0:36:40.840 --> 0:36:44.319
<v Speaker 11>handle with older generation hardware, it can catch up. We

0:36:44.320 --> 0:36:47.440
<v Speaker 11>should never be complacent about China's capabilities in this field.

0:36:47.960 --> 0:36:50.600
<v Speaker 9>In the broader picture of lad it seems that now

0:36:50.680 --> 0:36:54.560
<v Speaker 9>the market is giving two thumbs down to this rapid

0:36:54.560 --> 0:36:58.239
<v Speaker 9>spending on AI features. And so I want to ask

0:36:58.239 --> 0:37:02.000
<v Speaker 9>you questions kind of parallel to doug ast earlier about campex.

0:37:02.000 --> 0:37:05.520
<v Speaker 9>So for a while companies were rewarded for their campex

0:37:05.960 --> 0:37:08.759
<v Speaker 9>on AI. It showed massive commitment to what is a

0:37:08.800 --> 0:37:11.880
<v Speaker 9>mega trend. Now it seems like they're being castigated. So

0:37:12.160 --> 0:37:15.360
<v Speaker 9>the reason this is parallels from the market point of view. Okay,

0:37:15.880 --> 0:37:19.759
<v Speaker 9>is this theme about not rewarding companies for investing in

0:37:19.800 --> 0:37:23.240
<v Speaker 9>AI a passing notion or is it something that will

0:37:23.360 --> 0:37:24.320
<v Speaker 9>we'll hold for a while.

0:37:24.920 --> 0:37:27.680
<v Speaker 11>It's a very interesting one brand because Meta is kind

0:37:27.680 --> 0:37:30.719
<v Speaker 11>of the perfect example for this. They really went wrong

0:37:30.760 --> 0:37:33.640
<v Speaker 11>with technology. They went down this metaverse path, which is

0:37:33.680 --> 0:37:36.640
<v Speaker 11>now over forgotten within the company. They renamed the company

0:37:36.719 --> 0:37:39.400
<v Speaker 11>that's about the only left over from We're going to

0:37:39.400 --> 0:37:42.400
<v Speaker 11>build a metaverse for the entire world, And they invested

0:37:42.440 --> 0:37:45.080
<v Speaker 11>super heavily into AI, and the market rewarded them. Nothing

0:37:45.440 --> 0:37:49.320
<v Speaker 11>really changed. There wasn't anything special as far as metas

0:37:49.360 --> 0:37:52.800
<v Speaker 11>prospects of making money. At the end of all that investment,

0:37:53.000 --> 0:37:56.120
<v Speaker 11>people just had faith and confidence in Meta, pouring billions

0:37:56.120 --> 0:37:59.400
<v Speaker 11>into the AI thing. Apple likewise, it has really struggled

0:37:59.440 --> 0:38:01.759
<v Speaker 11>with the iPhone sales over the past year, especially in China,

0:38:01.800 --> 0:38:04.640
<v Speaker 11>the world's bigau smable market. And then everybody heard about

0:38:04.640 --> 0:38:07.359
<v Speaker 11>Apple Intelligents and they said, Okay, let's reward that. Now

0:38:07.400 --> 0:38:09.760
<v Speaker 11>the trend is shifting in the opposite direction, as everyone

0:38:09.880 --> 0:38:12.040
<v Speaker 11>is sobering up about the length of time the oldest

0:38:12.040 --> 0:38:13.920
<v Speaker 11>investment is going to take to repay.

0:38:14.160 --> 0:38:15.759
<v Speaker 2>And maybe things are just normalizing.

0:38:15.880 --> 0:38:17.439
<v Speaker 11>I don't know that we're going to see the same

0:38:17.560 --> 0:38:20.840
<v Speaker 11>levels of enthusiasm as we saw with METSA and Apple's examples.

0:38:21.080 --> 0:38:22.800
<v Speaker 11>But I also don't know that anybody's going to be

0:38:22.880 --> 0:38:24.000
<v Speaker 11>punished for investing in air.

0:38:24.120 --> 0:38:24.920
<v Speaker 2>We're not close to that.

0:38:25.360 --> 0:38:27.360
<v Speaker 3>Flat, thank you so much for spending the time to

0:38:27.480 --> 0:38:31.440
<v Speaker 3>talk about artificial intelligence with us. As we look forward

0:38:31.520 --> 0:38:33.920
<v Speaker 3>to the earnings in the coming week from both Apple

0:38:34.480 --> 0:38:37.640
<v Speaker 3>and Samsung, and we'll have those reports broken down for

0:38:37.719 --> 0:38:41.080
<v Speaker 3>you here on a Daybreak Asia. Flat Savov is a

0:38:41.120 --> 0:38:44.000
<v Speaker 3>Bloomberg Tech editor. I'm Doug Krisner, and you can join

0:38:44.200 --> 0:38:47.560
<v Speaker 3>Brian Curtis and myself weekdays here for Bloomberg day Break

0:38:47.600 --> 0:38:51.240
<v Speaker 3>Asia beginning at eight am in Hong Kong eight pm

0:38:51.480 --> 0:38:52.839
<v Speaker 3>on Wall Street. Tom.

0:38:53.400 --> 0:38:55.960
<v Speaker 2>Thank you, Doug, and thank you Brian. And that does

0:38:56.040 --> 0:38:58.680
<v Speaker 2>it for this edition of Bloomberg day Break Weekend. Join

0:38:58.800 --> 0:39:01.120
<v Speaker 2>us again Monday morning at five am Wall Street time

0:39:01.160 --> 0:39:03.680
<v Speaker 2>for the latest on markets overseas and the news you

0:39:03.840 --> 0:39:07.000
<v Speaker 2>need to start your day. I'm Tom Buzby. Stay with us.

0:39:07.320 --> 0:39:10.440
<v Speaker 2>Top stories and global business headlines are coming up right now.