WEBVTT - Nippon Steel Takeover of US Steel Blocked 

0:00:02.720 --> 0:00:10.560
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the

0:00:10.560 --> 0:00:14.480
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Intelligence Podcast. Catch us live weekdays at ten am

0:00:14.560 --> 0:00:18.479
<v Speaker 1>Eastern on Applecarplay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App.

0:00:18.600 --> 0:00:21.799
<v Speaker 1>Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch

0:00:21.920 --> 0:00:23.480
<v Speaker 1>us live on YouTube.

0:00:24.680 --> 0:00:27.200
<v Speaker 2>Let's switch gears here, give a little bit more time

0:00:27.280 --> 0:00:30.880
<v Speaker 2>on this US Steel deer a deal. That's the stock

0:00:30.960 --> 0:00:33.800
<v Speaker 2>tickers X, which I thought it would have been Xerox,

0:00:33.840 --> 0:00:36.680
<v Speaker 2>but it's X for US steal. There you go, President

0:00:36.760 --> 0:00:39.160
<v Speaker 2>Biden blocking that deal. The stock is trading down today.

0:00:39.240 --> 0:00:41.919
<v Speaker 2>Let's get some more news on that. Michael Shepherd, Bloomberg

0:00:42.000 --> 0:00:47.120
<v Speaker 2>Senior editor in Washington, DC, DC. Hey, Michael, why is

0:00:47.240 --> 0:00:48.680
<v Speaker 2>President Biden blocking this deal?

0:00:48.800 --> 0:00:51.640
<v Speaker 3>Is this simply a political move here?

0:00:52.720 --> 0:00:57.000
<v Speaker 4>Well, it is certainly political. He is also invoking national

0:00:57.040 --> 0:01:00.560
<v Speaker 4>security concerns and considerations in the world Order that he

0:01:00.640 --> 0:01:03.200
<v Speaker 4>released and signed today. It was also part of the

0:01:03.280 --> 0:01:05.880
<v Speaker 4>statement that he issued to the public saying that he

0:01:06.000 --> 0:01:08.679
<v Speaker 4>thought it was in the US national security interest to

0:01:08.800 --> 0:01:13.800
<v Speaker 4>keep US Steel domestically owned and headquartered. And this was

0:01:13.840 --> 0:01:16.400
<v Speaker 4>one of the key justifications he had been making for

0:01:16.520 --> 0:01:20.600
<v Speaker 4>months since the deal was announced back in December twenty

0:01:20.640 --> 0:01:25.319
<v Speaker 4>twenty three. This is something he had expressed opposition to

0:01:25.400 --> 0:01:28.000
<v Speaker 4>throughout the past year, but he had never come out

0:01:28.040 --> 0:01:31.760
<v Speaker 4>outright saying that I will block this. President ele like

0:01:31.840 --> 0:01:34.360
<v Speaker 4>Donald Trump of course, has done so, and he said

0:01:34.360 --> 0:01:36.840
<v Speaker 4>that if the deal had ended up on his desk

0:01:37.000 --> 0:01:39.440
<v Speaker 4>in some fashion or had not been completed by the

0:01:39.520 --> 0:01:42.720
<v Speaker 4>time he takes office later this month, he also would

0:01:42.720 --> 0:01:46.240
<v Speaker 4>work to block the transaction, of course, as sending the

0:01:46.280 --> 0:01:48.560
<v Speaker 4>companies back to the drawing board. And we're seeing what

0:01:48.760 --> 0:01:51.520
<v Speaker 4>it's doing to shares of US Steel today, which are

0:01:51.520 --> 0:01:52.880
<v Speaker 4>down seven percent at last.

0:01:52.760 --> 0:01:55.720
<v Speaker 5>Check from last night check. Though, wasn't Japan like an

0:01:55.760 --> 0:01:58.880
<v Speaker 5>ally of ours? So why would an ally present national

0:01:58.920 --> 0:01:59.720
<v Speaker 5>security risk?

0:02:00.480 --> 0:02:03.720
<v Speaker 4>Well, that's a great question, Alex because usually the committee

0:02:03.760 --> 0:02:08.680
<v Speaker 4>that oversees reviews of big transactions like this on national

0:02:08.760 --> 0:02:12.000
<v Speaker 4>security grounds, it's called the Committee on Foreign Investment in

0:02:12.000 --> 0:02:12.560
<v Speaker 4>the US.

0:02:12.880 --> 0:02:13.640
<v Speaker 3>It's secretive.

0:02:14.120 --> 0:02:17.519
<v Speaker 4>It also tends to focus on any transaction that could

0:02:17.600 --> 0:02:20.400
<v Speaker 4>deal more with an adversary rather than a very close

0:02:20.480 --> 0:02:21.720
<v Speaker 4>ally like Japan.

0:02:22.280 --> 0:02:23.120
<v Speaker 3>But the US is.

0:02:23.080 --> 0:02:26.640
<v Speaker 4>Looking at this is perhaps more question of will the

0:02:26.680 --> 0:02:32.200
<v Speaker 4>company's priorities it once merged, diverge from the US national

0:02:32.240 --> 0:02:34.760
<v Speaker 4>interest it's a little bit more subtle, but there is

0:02:34.800 --> 0:02:37.360
<v Speaker 4>a more basic question here at hand, and of course

0:02:37.400 --> 0:02:40.120
<v Speaker 4>that is the political one that Paul raised at the top,

0:02:40.440 --> 0:02:43.960
<v Speaker 4>and that is part of the key argument. Biden also

0:02:44.040 --> 0:02:47.280
<v Speaker 4>said that he is concerned about manufacturing jobs in the US,

0:02:47.600 --> 0:02:50.320
<v Speaker 4>and this is part of another step that he wants

0:02:50.440 --> 0:02:53.480
<v Speaker 4>to take to ensure that they are not jeopardized somehow.

0:02:54.080 --> 0:02:56.320
<v Speaker 2>Is there any sense of what happens next? I mean,

0:02:56.320 --> 0:02:59.200
<v Speaker 2>what does US Steel do do we? I mean, I

0:02:59.240 --> 0:03:01.560
<v Speaker 2>guess they just sit around to wait for another buyer.

0:03:01.600 --> 0:03:02.040
<v Speaker 3>Maybe.

0:03:02.639 --> 0:03:04.919
<v Speaker 4>Well, there are a couple of things that are on

0:03:04.960 --> 0:03:07.560
<v Speaker 4>the table for them. One is going to court, you know,

0:03:07.639 --> 0:03:11.799
<v Speaker 4>a time honored tradition now in the US where we

0:03:11.880 --> 0:03:15.800
<v Speaker 4>see companies taking the government and regulators to court to

0:03:15.840 --> 0:03:18.520
<v Speaker 4>see if they can overturn a government action. We are

0:03:18.520 --> 0:03:21.600
<v Speaker 4>seeing TikTok do this right now, trying to get this

0:03:21.960 --> 0:03:26.440
<v Speaker 4>divestor ban law voided before it takes effect on January nineteenth,

0:03:26.480 --> 0:03:30.120
<v Speaker 4>and we see arguments in that case next week. But

0:03:30.280 --> 0:03:32.920
<v Speaker 4>for US Steel and Nippon Steel, they have signaled that

0:03:32.960 --> 0:03:35.440
<v Speaker 4>they may try to go to court. US Steel if

0:03:35.520 --> 0:03:39.920
<v Speaker 4>a court move somehow fails, they will then be forced

0:03:40.000 --> 0:03:41.400
<v Speaker 4>to reconsider their options.

0:03:41.440 --> 0:03:42.760
<v Speaker 3>Will they look for another buyer.

0:03:43.000 --> 0:03:47.280
<v Speaker 4>Will they have to maybe shed some assets, some plants,

0:03:47.280 --> 0:03:50.680
<v Speaker 4>some production someplace. Will it end up costing jobs in

0:03:50.720 --> 0:03:53.400
<v Speaker 4>some locations. Those are all questions that they're going to

0:03:53.440 --> 0:03:54.080
<v Speaker 4>have to consider.

0:03:54.160 --> 0:03:54.400
<v Speaker 3>Now.

0:03:54.520 --> 0:03:57.320
<v Speaker 4>Both Nippon Steele and US Steel had insisted that this

0:03:57.360 --> 0:04:01.800
<v Speaker 4>transaction was necessary to preserve jobs and to maintain production

0:04:01.880 --> 0:04:05.360
<v Speaker 4>capacity here in the US with some investment coming from Japan.

0:04:05.760 --> 0:04:07.920
<v Speaker 5>So and this also raised the question in Cleveland Cliffs

0:04:07.920 --> 0:04:09.960
<v Speaker 5>if you guys remember, actually tried to make.

0:04:09.880 --> 0:04:12.040
<v Speaker 6>A bid for it. They lost out to Nippon Steel.

0:04:12.320 --> 0:04:15.040
<v Speaker 5>For a moment, there might be a merger possibility there,

0:04:15.080 --> 0:04:17.800
<v Speaker 5>but in the meantime Cleveland Cliffs bought a Canadian producer.

0:04:17.880 --> 0:04:20.760
<v Speaker 5>So now they're waffling back on US steal real quick

0:04:20.760 --> 0:04:22.880
<v Speaker 5>before we let you go do this. The union workers

0:04:22.880 --> 0:04:25.240
<v Speaker 5>steel workers want the deal or not the deal.

0:04:26.200 --> 0:04:29.080
<v Speaker 4>You know, the union leadership was very much against this.

0:04:29.080 --> 0:04:31.320
<v Speaker 4>This is very off brand for them. And in fact,

0:04:31.560 --> 0:04:34.599
<v Speaker 4>there are clips of Biden from back in April standing

0:04:34.640 --> 0:04:37.640
<v Speaker 4>with steel workers in Pittsburgh saying that he was adamantly

0:04:37.680 --> 0:04:40.600
<v Speaker 4>opposed to the transaction. But some in the rank and

0:04:40.640 --> 0:04:43.800
<v Speaker 4>file actually took a more nuanced view, and that was that, Hey,

0:04:44.279 --> 0:04:47.440
<v Speaker 4>if Nippon Steel buys US steel, maybe this will actually

0:04:47.680 --> 0:04:50.120
<v Speaker 4>help us get the kind of investment that we need

0:04:50.440 --> 0:04:53.040
<v Speaker 4>to add jobs or at least preserve the ones that

0:04:53.080 --> 0:04:53.360
<v Speaker 4>we have.

0:04:54.480 --> 0:04:57.280
<v Speaker 2>All Right, so much for the markets deciding what happens

0:04:57.320 --> 0:05:00.720
<v Speaker 2>out there that the government involved. Michael Shepherd, thanks so

0:05:00.800 --> 0:05:03.520
<v Speaker 2>much for joining us, Senior editor, Bloomberg News, joining us

0:05:03.520 --> 0:05:04.440
<v Speaker 2>from Washington, DC.

0:05:06.400 --> 0:05:10.280
<v Speaker 1>You're listening to the Bloomberg Intelligence Podcast. Catch the program

0:05:10.360 --> 0:05:13.799
<v Speaker 1>live weekdays at ten am Eastern on Applecarplay and Android

0:05:13.800 --> 0:05:16.799
<v Speaker 1>Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. You can also listen

0:05:16.920 --> 0:05:20.159
<v Speaker 1>live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station.

0:05:20.720 --> 0:05:23.359
<v Speaker 1>Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.

0:05:24.320 --> 0:05:25.839
<v Speaker 6>This is Bloomberg Intelligence Radio.

0:05:25.839 --> 0:05:28.680
<v Speaker 5>We are broadcasting to live from our interactive broker studio

0:05:28.720 --> 0:05:30.400
<v Speaker 5>right here in midtown Manhattan.

0:05:30.400 --> 0:05:31.640
<v Speaker 6>I want to go back to that ism.

0:05:31.720 --> 0:05:34.719
<v Speaker 5>So hitting a nine month high new orders the highest

0:05:34.720 --> 0:05:38.719
<v Speaker 5>since January. Employment though did fall, production though jumped, it

0:05:38.720 --> 0:05:40.839
<v Speaker 5>looks all in all to be a relatively solid number.

0:05:40.880 --> 0:05:42.880
<v Speaker 5>So I want to get more on this with Walter Todd, President,

0:05:42.960 --> 0:05:46.599
<v Speaker 5>chief investment officer and managing director at Greenwood Capital. So

0:05:46.640 --> 0:05:48.680
<v Speaker 5>the second I wind up seeing this number. I thought

0:05:48.720 --> 0:05:51.280
<v Speaker 5>back to something that Torres and Slock of Apollo had

0:05:51.320 --> 0:05:54.479
<v Speaker 5>written about, saying that the Fed cuts and the financial

0:05:54.480 --> 0:05:57.520
<v Speaker 5>markets will actually boost GDP over the coming quarters by

0:05:57.560 --> 0:06:01.159
<v Speaker 5>one percentage point and boost inflation by half a percentage point.

0:06:01.240 --> 0:06:02.640
<v Speaker 6>Would you be prepping for that at all?

0:06:04.600 --> 0:06:08.200
<v Speaker 7>Well, Alex, good morning, Happy New year, Thanks for having me. Yeah, so,

0:06:08.240 --> 0:06:10.040
<v Speaker 7>I think this is the dynamic of the market and

0:06:10.360 --> 0:06:12.479
<v Speaker 7>the balancing act here. Going back to that report, you

0:06:12.560 --> 0:06:15.320
<v Speaker 7>just reference the prices paid component of that was higher,

0:06:15.360 --> 0:06:18.400
<v Speaker 7>So we had new orders higher, the top line number higher,

0:06:18.440 --> 0:06:21.000
<v Speaker 7>prices paid higher, but employment lower. That's not a good

0:06:21.040 --> 0:06:25.400
<v Speaker 7>combination of seemingly a slower employment market but yet higher

0:06:25.440 --> 0:06:27.920
<v Speaker 7>inflation and potentially higher GDP. When you look at the

0:06:28.600 --> 0:06:31.520
<v Speaker 7>GDP now forecast for the fourth quarter, it's about two

0:06:31.600 --> 0:06:35.080
<v Speaker 7>and a half to three percent. So the economy seems

0:06:35.200 --> 0:06:38.960
<v Speaker 7>fairly solid on the surface, but the labor market is key,

0:06:39.040 --> 0:06:41.159
<v Speaker 7>and the report we get next Friday is going to

0:06:41.200 --> 0:06:42.680
<v Speaker 7>be a big one for the market.

0:06:43.279 --> 0:06:45.680
<v Speaker 2>So, Walter, how are you guys thinking about this federal

0:06:45.720 --> 0:06:48.080
<v Speaker 2>reserve here in twenty twenty five, It looks like the

0:06:48.080 --> 0:06:50.120
<v Speaker 2>market's kind of discounting maybe two rate hikes.

0:06:51.040 --> 0:06:53.480
<v Speaker 3>Does that seem reasonable to you? What are you guys

0:06:53.480 --> 0:06:54.000
<v Speaker 3>thinking about?

0:06:55.760 --> 0:06:59.880
<v Speaker 7>Yeah, So that's in the fourth quarter of twenty twenty four.

0:06:59.880 --> 0:07:03.480
<v Speaker 7>The biggest shift, obviously was the FED expectations September when

0:07:03.520 --> 0:07:05.480
<v Speaker 7>they cut half a point. We had seven to eight

0:07:05.520 --> 0:07:08.359
<v Speaker 7>cuts baked into twenty twenty five. Now we have, you know,

0:07:08.440 --> 0:07:12.559
<v Speaker 7>less than two baked in, the first one coming in June. Again,

0:07:12.920 --> 0:07:16.120
<v Speaker 7>it goes back to the labor market. If inflation can

0:07:16.280 --> 0:07:18.200
<v Speaker 7>kind of stay where it is to moderate and the

0:07:18.240 --> 0:07:20.720
<v Speaker 7>labor markets stay solid, I think two is probably the

0:07:20.800 --> 0:07:24.200
<v Speaker 7>right number. My guess is that the labor market continues

0:07:24.280 --> 0:07:27.000
<v Speaker 7>to weaken a bit as we move through the course

0:07:27.000 --> 0:07:28.880
<v Speaker 7>of twenty twenty five, and that's going to force the

0:07:28.880 --> 0:07:32.720
<v Speaker 7>FED to maybe shift again their narrative as they did

0:07:32.800 --> 0:07:35.720
<v Speaker 7>in December, and we saw that pretty violent market reaction

0:07:35.800 --> 0:07:37.960
<v Speaker 7>over a twenty four hour period with the S and

0:07:37.960 --> 0:07:40.760
<v Speaker 7>P down four percent. So I think that's one of

0:07:40.760 --> 0:07:43.360
<v Speaker 7>the many unknowns for twenty twenty five is you can

0:07:43.400 --> 0:07:45.920
<v Speaker 7>the FED stick with that that two cut outlook or

0:07:45.920 --> 0:07:47.600
<v Speaker 7>a they going to have to shift again if the

0:07:47.640 --> 0:07:50.520
<v Speaker 7>labor market and the economy weekends as they moved.

0:07:50.360 --> 0:07:52.880
<v Speaker 5>Through in some ways that feels really binary. So how

0:07:52.880 --> 0:07:53.960
<v Speaker 5>do you position for that?

0:07:55.480 --> 0:07:59.120
<v Speaker 7>Well, I think it goes back to a couple of things. Diversification,

0:07:59.200 --> 0:08:01.880
<v Speaker 7>which has been a dirty word for the past two years.

0:08:01.920 --> 0:08:04.480
<v Speaker 7>You wanted to be concentrated in five to ten names

0:08:04.840 --> 0:08:08.160
<v Speaker 7>to outperform the market, but I think having diversification among

0:08:08.600 --> 0:08:12.880
<v Speaker 7>different sectors, different industries, even different geographies again x US

0:08:13.040 --> 0:08:16.640
<v Speaker 7>another dirty word for the past number of years, looking

0:08:16.680 --> 0:08:19.440
<v Speaker 7>outside the US where evaluations are much cheaper as the

0:08:19.440 --> 0:08:25.720
<v Speaker 7>potential opportunity there. I think also rebalancing, being disciplined with

0:08:25.800 --> 0:08:29.760
<v Speaker 7>acid allocation. If you've been fortunate enough to be overweight

0:08:29.800 --> 0:08:31.880
<v Speaker 7>stocks for the past two years, you're more overweight than

0:08:31.920 --> 0:08:35.640
<v Speaker 7>you were two years ago significantly, So using this opportunity

0:08:35.800 --> 0:08:38.760
<v Speaker 7>and strength to rebalance a portfolio and pick up some

0:08:38.960 --> 0:08:42.439
<v Speaker 7>still very attractive fixed income yields, whether you look at

0:08:42.480 --> 0:08:44.080
<v Speaker 7>treasuries or corporate bonds.

0:08:44.160 --> 0:08:46.199
<v Speaker 3>All right, let's go there, Walter.

0:08:46.200 --> 0:08:47.800
<v Speaker 2>I love to get your thoughts on kind of the

0:08:47.800 --> 0:08:50.160
<v Speaker 2>fixed income opportunities again, because an investor can buy a

0:08:50.160 --> 0:08:52.080
<v Speaker 2>two year treasure and get four and a quarter percent,

0:08:52.520 --> 0:08:54.240
<v Speaker 2>it seems like an honest way to make a living.

0:08:54.520 --> 0:08:56.640
<v Speaker 2>Do we take some credit risk above and beyond that,

0:08:56.679 --> 0:08:57.920
<v Speaker 2>how do you think about credit risk?

0:08:59.559 --> 0:09:02.920
<v Speaker 7>Yeah, it's an interesting question because spreads on the surface

0:09:02.960 --> 0:09:05.800
<v Speaker 7>are extremely tight, and the tightest they've almost historically been,

0:09:05.960 --> 0:09:08.760
<v Speaker 7>whether you look at high yield or investment grade bonds.

0:09:09.120 --> 0:09:11.679
<v Speaker 7>At the same time, the argument could be made that

0:09:11.720 --> 0:09:15.000
<v Speaker 7>the balance sheet of Apple or Johnson and Johnson might

0:09:15.040 --> 0:09:17.040
<v Speaker 7>be better than the balanchiet of the US government. So

0:09:17.360 --> 0:09:20.760
<v Speaker 7>I think having a blend, having a blend of high

0:09:20.760 --> 0:09:23.640
<v Speaker 7>grade corporate bonds as well as some treasuries. But I

0:09:23.640 --> 0:09:26.560
<v Speaker 7>think the temptation to stay on that front end, particularly

0:09:26.559 --> 0:09:29.679
<v Speaker 7>with the shift and the Fed narrative, is a big one.

0:09:29.760 --> 0:09:32.280
<v Speaker 7>But we would use the opportunity of the backup in

0:09:32.400 --> 0:09:35.320
<v Speaker 7>rates to extend duration a little bit, and I go crazy,

0:09:35.440 --> 0:09:38.679
<v Speaker 7>not go certainly nothing beyond ten years, but look at

0:09:38.679 --> 0:09:41.160
<v Speaker 7>that three, five and seven year part of the curve

0:09:41.559 --> 0:09:44.000
<v Speaker 7>as an opportunity to lock in some of these yields

0:09:44.480 --> 0:09:47.240
<v Speaker 7>as they backed up almost one hundred basis points since

0:09:47.240 --> 0:09:48.400
<v Speaker 7>the low's in September.

0:09:48.720 --> 0:09:50.280
<v Speaker 5>I'm going to ask the question that I stole from

0:09:50.280 --> 0:09:51.800
<v Speaker 5>Paul yesterday because it was a good one.

0:09:52.000 --> 0:09:54.200
<v Speaker 6>Do you stick with what got you here?

0:09:54.640 --> 0:09:54.760
<v Speaker 2>So?

0:09:55.080 --> 0:09:56.800
<v Speaker 5>Is this going to be another year that you got

0:09:56.800 --> 0:09:57.600
<v Speaker 5>to own big tech.

0:10:00.240 --> 0:10:04.560
<v Speaker 7>Yeah, So I think for us, our opinion is we

0:10:04.600 --> 0:10:07.400
<v Speaker 7>think it's a balance. Right, we will think you abandoned.

0:10:07.440 --> 0:10:09.000
<v Speaker 7>We don't think it's binary. You don't think We don't

0:10:09.040 --> 0:10:11.280
<v Speaker 7>think you abandoned big tech. But at the same time,

0:10:11.880 --> 0:10:15.160
<v Speaker 7>if you've been really concentrated in that area, fortunately for

0:10:15.200 --> 0:10:18.160
<v Speaker 7>the for the past two years, take this opportunity to

0:10:18.280 --> 0:10:22.760
<v Speaker 7>rebalance a bit and look for opportunities outside of those areas.

0:10:22.840 --> 0:10:26.079
<v Speaker 7>Very expensive valuations in those in that part of the market.

0:10:26.280 --> 0:10:29.960
<v Speaker 7>When you go look at energy or healthcare again, nobody

0:10:29.960 --> 0:10:34.480
<v Speaker 7>wanted those in twenty twenty four, very inexpensive valuations. You

0:10:34.520 --> 0:10:38.120
<v Speaker 7>could find good quality companies with good growth prospects that

0:10:38.320 --> 0:10:41.280
<v Speaker 7>are much cheaper than some of those big names. So

0:10:41.320 --> 0:10:45.760
<v Speaker 7>we would advocate for diversifying beyond the top of five

0:10:45.800 --> 0:10:46.679
<v Speaker 7>to ten names.

0:10:47.120 --> 0:10:49.920
<v Speaker 3>Do you what's kind of a model portfolio for you guys?

0:10:49.960 --> 0:10:51.560
<v Speaker 2>I don't know if you have a model portfolio, but

0:10:51.640 --> 0:10:54.560
<v Speaker 2>like stocks, bonds, alternatives, where do you kind of start

0:10:54.600 --> 0:10:55.560
<v Speaker 2>from as ground.

0:10:55.440 --> 0:10:57.800
<v Speaker 3>Zero for maybe your accounts?

0:10:58.200 --> 0:11:02.800
<v Speaker 7>Yeah, So to say, obvious, every investors unique in terms

0:11:02.840 --> 0:11:04.720
<v Speaker 7>of what they're looking for in their allocation. But we

0:11:04.760 --> 0:11:08.400
<v Speaker 7>do like to have a blend of stocks, both large

0:11:08.400 --> 0:11:12.160
<v Speaker 7>cap as well as maybe MidCap and xus allocations there.

0:11:12.920 --> 0:11:17.960
<v Speaker 7>Fixed income, both intermediate and shorter duration fixed income, and

0:11:18.040 --> 0:11:21.760
<v Speaker 7>also alternatives. We're starting to blend alternatives into that. We've

0:11:21.760 --> 0:11:23.880
<v Speaker 7>got two opportunities to do that. We partner with a

0:11:23.880 --> 0:11:26.560
<v Speaker 7>company called First Trust as an alternative suite, but we

0:11:26.600 --> 0:11:30.160
<v Speaker 7>also have ETF based portfolios that we have built that

0:11:30.360 --> 0:11:34.680
<v Speaker 7>utilize alternative asset classes to structure that and incorporate that

0:11:34.760 --> 0:11:37.760
<v Speaker 7>in portfolios. And I think that's another opportunity as we

0:11:37.800 --> 0:11:40.760
<v Speaker 7>look forward again, not looking back at what's worked over

0:11:40.760 --> 0:11:43.479
<v Speaker 7>the past two years, but looking forward, there's an opportunity

0:11:43.480 --> 0:11:45.480
<v Speaker 7>there to incorporate those in two portfolios.

0:11:45.640 --> 0:11:47.400
<v Speaker 2>All Right, Walter, thank you so much for joining us.

0:11:47.559 --> 0:11:50.840
<v Speaker 2>Appreciate getting a few minutes of your time. As Walter Todd, President,

0:11:51.200 --> 0:11:54.920
<v Speaker 2>chief investment Officer, and managing director of Greenwood Capital based

0:11:54.960 --> 0:11:57.280
<v Speaker 2>in Greenwood, South Carolina, which is kind of like great

0:11:57.320 --> 0:12:00.040
<v Speaker 2>smacking in the middle of the state. Looks like a

0:12:00.120 --> 0:12:02.400
<v Speaker 2>nice town there.

0:12:03.120 --> 0:12:06.800
<v Speaker 1>You're listening to the Bloomberg Intelligence Podcast. Catch us live

0:12:06.880 --> 0:12:10.000
<v Speaker 1>weekdays at ten am Eastern on Apple Coarclay, and Android

0:12:10.000 --> 0:12:13.280
<v Speaker 1>Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever

0:12:13.360 --> 0:12:16.880
<v Speaker 1>you get your podcasts or watch US live on YouTube.

0:12:17.640 --> 0:12:20.280
<v Speaker 5>So again, US seargeon general calling for cancer warnings on

0:12:20.320 --> 0:12:25.360
<v Speaker 5>an alcohol label. Duncan Fox's Bloomberg Intelligence senior consumer staples analyst.

0:12:25.679 --> 0:12:30.199
<v Speaker 5>We're clearly seeing alcohol stocks, Brown Foreman, molten Core's consolation

0:12:30.280 --> 0:12:33.520
<v Speaker 5>brands get hit. What would be the real impact here

0:12:33.880 --> 0:12:34.920
<v Speaker 5>if a label came.

0:12:34.760 --> 0:12:39.280
<v Speaker 8>On, Well, if it came on, I maschreming, it would

0:12:39.280 --> 0:12:42.200
<v Speaker 8>become't similar to what happened in tobacco, where you'd just

0:12:42.240 --> 0:12:45.559
<v Speaker 8>see volume come under a little bit of pressure in

0:12:45.600 --> 0:12:48.679
<v Speaker 8>the short term. Tobacco volume generally is to have about

0:12:49.080 --> 0:12:51.600
<v Speaker 8>sort of three to four percent. It's been a bit

0:12:51.679 --> 0:12:55.800
<v Speaker 8>worse in the US recently, but I would assume that's

0:12:55.840 --> 0:12:57.680
<v Speaker 8>the sort of thing that you would go to if

0:12:57.880 --> 0:13:01.240
<v Speaker 8>it was done globally. At the moment, this seems to

0:13:01.280 --> 0:13:03.520
<v Speaker 8>be something coming out of the US, and I'm assuming

0:13:03.559 --> 0:13:06.400
<v Speaker 8>it would probably just stay in the US at this moment,

0:13:06.440 --> 0:13:08.959
<v Speaker 8>but who knows. I have no idea how long it

0:13:08.960 --> 0:13:10.640
<v Speaker 8>will take to get any regulation through.

0:13:11.600 --> 0:13:14.760
<v Speaker 2>Do I'm going to have the companies talked about this

0:13:14.840 --> 0:13:17.000
<v Speaker 2>at all, or this risk highlighted it? What do the

0:13:17.040 --> 0:13:18.440
<v Speaker 2>companies say about something like this?

0:13:20.360 --> 0:13:22.320
<v Speaker 8>I think there are shocked, as I was when I

0:13:22.320 --> 0:13:24.960
<v Speaker 8>saw it at the screen. I don't think anybody had

0:13:25.000 --> 0:13:28.200
<v Speaker 8>any clue this is going to come from anywhere. Frankly,

0:13:29.880 --> 0:13:35.040
<v Speaker 8>I think I heard your previous person on the radio

0:13:35.040 --> 0:13:37.480
<v Speaker 8>there and they're saying, we all know alcohol is bad

0:13:37.559 --> 0:13:40.280
<v Speaker 8>for you. That God all sorts of warnings already on there,

0:13:40.280 --> 0:13:43.360
<v Speaker 8>but obviously not the one that would say cancer, which

0:13:43.360 --> 0:13:47.840
<v Speaker 8>would be certainly worries on people. So they have drink

0:13:47.920 --> 0:13:49.920
<v Speaker 8>responsibly on there and all those sort of things. So

0:13:50.360 --> 0:13:52.560
<v Speaker 8>this one's come out of nowhere, and I think, to

0:13:52.600 --> 0:13:55.320
<v Speaker 8>be fair, the industry has been trying to do sensible

0:13:55.320 --> 0:13:59.000
<v Speaker 8>things for years, essentially trying to get us to drink

0:13:59.080 --> 0:14:03.200
<v Speaker 8>better quality product and drink less of it. So yeah,

0:14:03.200 --> 0:14:04.240
<v Speaker 8>this one's a bit of a surprise.

0:14:04.800 --> 0:14:07.400
<v Speaker 5>It's also interesting because I wonder what the direct impact

0:14:07.400 --> 0:14:10.360
<v Speaker 5>would be in terms of timelines. Like I mean, clearly,

0:14:10.440 --> 0:14:12.800
<v Speaker 5>there was a world where women drank when they were pregnant,

0:14:12.800 --> 0:14:14.600
<v Speaker 5>and then everyone figured out that wasn't good for them,

0:14:14.679 --> 0:14:16.560
<v Speaker 5>and then it would harm the fetus, and then therefore

0:14:16.600 --> 0:14:19.760
<v Speaker 5>then there was a warning label now on the alcohol bottle,

0:14:19.800 --> 0:14:22.680
<v Speaker 5>which then prevented eventually women from not drinking mostly when

0:14:22.680 --> 0:14:25.600
<v Speaker 5>they're pregnant. So what's like a time lag for stuff

0:14:25.640 --> 0:14:27.600
<v Speaker 5>like this, Like if a label gets slapped on today,

0:14:28.200 --> 0:14:29.560
<v Speaker 5>when do people start paying attention.

0:14:31.680 --> 0:14:35.600
<v Speaker 8>Well, the only thing I can talk about here is

0:14:35.640 --> 0:14:38.040
<v Speaker 8>what happened on tobacco and they started saying it was

0:14:38.080 --> 0:14:42.040
<v Speaker 8>cans in nineteen fifty six, I think somewhere around then

0:14:42.080 --> 0:14:44.320
<v Speaker 8>that it was nineteen sixty four when the US Surgeon

0:14:44.400 --> 0:14:48.360
<v Speaker 8>General put in the saying it actually does cause can

0:14:48.480 --> 0:14:50.760
<v Speaker 8>So then it was nineteen sixty six before you actually

0:14:50.800 --> 0:14:55.440
<v Speaker 8>got the label onto the tobacco packet. It was even

0:14:55.560 --> 0:14:58.320
<v Speaker 8>later in Europe. It was about nineteen seventy one in

0:14:58.360 --> 0:15:00.960
<v Speaker 8>the UK. I think it was two thousand sixteen in Europe,

0:15:01.000 --> 0:15:05.840
<v Speaker 8>so it could take some time. Now people stopped smoking,

0:15:06.160 --> 0:15:09.240
<v Speaker 8>or certainly smoking incident fell from about fifty percent around

0:15:09.240 --> 0:15:13.640
<v Speaker 8>about nineteen sixty and has come down sort of consistently

0:15:13.680 --> 0:15:17.480
<v Speaker 8>ever since. So I guess the talker that would mean

0:15:17.560 --> 0:15:20.760
<v Speaker 8>people would consider switching to soft drinks or to lower

0:15:20.800 --> 0:15:24.360
<v Speaker 8>alcohol stuff, although I'm assuring lower alcohol stuff maybe have

0:15:24.480 --> 0:15:29.000
<v Speaker 8>a similar block on it because it's got some alcohol

0:15:29.040 --> 0:15:31.200
<v Speaker 8>in there, and I couldn't tell you whether the amount

0:15:31.240 --> 0:15:34.080
<v Speaker 8>and whether spirits are worse than beer or not. I

0:15:34.080 --> 0:15:38.320
<v Speaker 8>have absolutely no idea I'm not seeing. The medical data on.

0:15:38.320 --> 0:15:41.120
<v Speaker 2>That alcohol links to cancer have been known since the

0:15:41.200 --> 0:15:45.320
<v Speaker 2>nineteen eighties in clings to Bloomberg's reporting, and the substances

0:15:45.400 --> 0:15:47.960
<v Speaker 2>ranked US a third leading preventable cause of the disease.

0:15:48.200 --> 0:15:51.320
<v Speaker 2>So alcohol causes about one hundred thousand cases of cancer

0:15:51.360 --> 0:15:52.840
<v Speaker 2>in twenty thousand related deaths.

0:15:52.680 --> 0:15:53.640
<v Speaker 3>Each year in the US.

0:15:54.320 --> 0:15:58.200
<v Speaker 2>And that's according to the f the Surgeon General, far

0:15:58.240 --> 0:16:01.640
<v Speaker 2>more than the thirteenty five hundred alcohol related fatalities from

0:16:01.640 --> 0:16:04.200
<v Speaker 2>traffic rashes, just to give you some numbers here. So

0:16:04.720 --> 0:16:06.280
<v Speaker 2>we're seeing a little bit of a sell off in

0:16:06.640 --> 0:16:09.080
<v Speaker 2>the stocks here. Is this kind of in line with

0:16:09.280 --> 0:16:11.440
<v Speaker 2>what you would expect because it doesn't seem like it's

0:16:12.160 --> 0:16:14.200
<v Speaker 2>too traumatic to the stocks at this point.

0:16:16.160 --> 0:16:18.200
<v Speaker 8>Well, I mean the moment it's shock, I think that

0:16:18.400 --> 0:16:20.480
<v Speaker 8>that's sending them down because we just don't know all

0:16:20.520 --> 0:16:23.520
<v Speaker 8>this will get carried on through the rest of the world.

0:16:24.120 --> 0:16:26.240
<v Speaker 8>We have no idea when it will be put on

0:16:26.360 --> 0:16:28.800
<v Speaker 8>or if it will be put on in the US.

0:16:30.480 --> 0:16:35.440
<v Speaker 8>The data, no doubt, the alcohol companies will say some

0:16:35.600 --> 0:16:38.000
<v Speaker 8>of that data may be skewed because there can be

0:16:38.080 --> 0:16:40.680
<v Speaker 8>other things that will be related, you know, showing a

0:16:40.680 --> 0:16:43.240
<v Speaker 8>bad diet and obesity as number two. I think in

0:16:43.960 --> 0:16:47.680
<v Speaker 8>certain generals less hind Tobacca in terms of giving counsel.

0:16:47.720 --> 0:16:50.600
<v Speaker 8>But I'm not hearing anything about them putting counters from

0:16:50.640 --> 0:16:53.400
<v Speaker 8>food packaging, So I mean, I think there could be

0:16:53.400 --> 0:16:55.480
<v Speaker 8>a long way to go before we see anything actually

0:16:55.560 --> 0:16:59.560
<v Speaker 8>happen on the label. But you're right the discussions now,

0:17:00.400 --> 0:17:03.120
<v Speaker 8>so people will start talking about it. I'm sure it'll

0:17:03.440 --> 0:17:08.160
<v Speaker 8>get into the into newspapers and online, and it may

0:17:08.200 --> 0:17:12.320
<v Speaker 8>affect people's consumption habits. I have absolutely no idea. I've

0:17:12.320 --> 0:17:14.280
<v Speaker 8>got nothing to basis on at the moment, so I'm

0:17:14.320 --> 0:17:17.280
<v Speaker 8>just sort of assuming the volume will probably come under

0:17:17.320 --> 0:17:19.639
<v Speaker 8>a little bit of pressure. But my guess is for

0:17:19.960 --> 0:17:22.480
<v Speaker 8>the company's the beverage will probably push prices up a

0:17:22.520 --> 0:17:25.080
<v Speaker 8>little bit more to like tobacco, cop this hat and

0:17:25.160 --> 0:17:26.880
<v Speaker 8>try and not set some of that that.

0:17:26.920 --> 0:17:29.600
<v Speaker 6>Hit well, Duncan, We appreciate the insight.

0:17:29.640 --> 0:17:32.640
<v Speaker 5>Thank you very much, Duncan Fox, Bloomberg Intelligence, Senior Consumer

0:17:33.000 --> 0:17:34.119
<v Speaker 5>Staples Analysts.

0:17:34.720 --> 0:17:39.399
<v Speaker 1>This is the Bloomberg Intelligence podcast, available on Apple, Spotify

0:17:39.600 --> 0:17:43.040
<v Speaker 1>and anywhere else you get your podcasts. Listen live each

0:17:43.119 --> 0:17:46.840
<v Speaker 1>weekday ten am to noon Eastern on Bloomberg dot com,

0:17:46.960 --> 0:17:50.520
<v Speaker 1>the iHeartRadio app tune In, and the Bloomberg Business app.

0:17:50.920 --> 0:17:53.880
<v Speaker 1>You can also watch us live every weekday on YouTube

0:17:54.240 --> 0:17:56.480
<v Speaker 1>and always on the Bloomberg terminal