Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to What Goes Up, a Bloomberg Weekly
Speaker 1: Markets podcast. I'm Sarah Ponza, a markets reporter on the
Speaker 1: Cross Asset Team, and i am Mike Creagan, a senior
Speaker 1: editor on the Markets Team. This week on the show,
Speaker 1: from long shot to base Case, Wall Street is growing
Speaker 1: increasingly pestimistic, but a trade deal might not be reached
Speaker 1: over the summer months, and even as the Fed preaches patients,
Speaker 1: bonn yields continue to fall, with the ten year treasury
Speaker 1: yield reaching the lowest level since And of course, Sara,
Speaker 1: we will finish the show with the ever popular the
Speaker 1: Craziest Thing I Ever saw in markets? This week, at
Speaker 1: least this week. I hope you have a good one.
Speaker 1: Do you have a good crazy thing? I will have
Speaker 1: a good one by the end of the podcast. All right,
Speaker 1: I've got a good one. No pressure on our guests
Speaker 1: with the mind's mind's pretty good. I'm just throwing it
Speaker 1: out there. That's it. I'm not trying. Well, that's one
Speaker 1: of our guests there, Emily Barrett, you better have something good. Uh.
Speaker 1: Emily is our correspondent straight fresh from the trade wards
Speaker 1: covering the bonds and FX markets. That's exactly how it feels,
Speaker 1: and also joining us on the show, Gina Martin Adams,
Speaker 1: the chief equity strategist here at Bloomberg. Gina spent many
Speaker 1: years as a strategist, said Wells Fargo Wacoba Corp. Before that.
Speaker 1: But Sarah, I was looking at Gina's bio something I
Speaker 1: did not know about her. She's a Gator really, yes,
Speaker 1: you know that. I am from South Florida as well.
Speaker 1: I'm a Gator by birth. I know that's too Florida
Speaker 1: women on the show. I don't know. Florida women don't
Speaker 1: make the news quite as entertaining as Yeah, but maybe
Speaker 1: we can change that. But don't underestimate that. But this week,
Speaker 1: we've been talking about US China trade for a while now,
Speaker 1: but it seems like we got a bit of a
Speaker 1: step up. We think about what's changed, for one being
Speaker 1: the Huaweb acliss. We've also heard talks that other surveillance
Speaker 1: companies out of China could be blacklisted as well. And
Speaker 1: we even have a fight song out of China and
Speaker 1: for Gators. I went to school at Michigan. You know
Speaker 1: a good fight song can really rile people up. Gina,
Speaker 1: from your perspective is this becoming something that traders investors
Speaker 1: can really no longer ignore. Yeah, I don't necessarily think
Speaker 1: they have ignored it, but it did take a new
Speaker 1: step this week, and it took a step into a
Speaker 1: tech war as opposed to just a trade war. I
Speaker 1: think when you look back over the course of the
Speaker 1: last year, that's been the most dangerous aspect of the U. S.
Speaker 1: China relationship shift. It's not the tariffs. The tariffs are
Speaker 1: a teeny tiny portion of GDP growth, They're a teeny
Speaker 1: tiny portion of earnings growth. You know, you've run through
Speaker 1: the quantification of tariffs and you find out real quick
Speaker 1: how small they are, which is why stocks could sort
Speaker 1: of bounce around in the one to three percent decline
Speaker 1: range up until this week, and we did see an
Speaker 1: elevated level of volatility this week. We've seen a lot
Speaker 1: more angst evident in broad market classes, with the rise
Speaker 1: in gold as a good example. This week. Small caps
Speaker 1: really getting creamed this week, So much bigger risk off
Speaker 1: sentiment this week than last week. And I think the
Speaker 1: reason for that is this week it became about tech,
Speaker 1: not about trade. Gee, I'm curious, in uh your career,
Speaker 1: have you ever thought about politics? As much as as
Speaker 1: we have through these days, it seems like a very
Speaker 1: uncomfortable thing for fundamental technical analysts. Yeah, it's uh. I
Speaker 1: have thought about politics a lot over the course of
Speaker 1: the last several years. I mean, I can distinctly remember
Speaker 1: sixteen as a year in which it was all you know,
Speaker 1: the popular sentiment on Wall Street was if Hillary Clinton,
Speaker 1: when stocks should do fine, if trade, if Trump, when
Speaker 1: stocks are gonna get pummeled, right, and the opposite, The
Speaker 1: exact opposite thing occurred right after the Trump election. Then
Speaker 1: the thing was stocks just climbed this walla wari because
Speaker 1: everyone was really concerned about Trump. I think throughout my
Speaker 1: career I've always had to focus on policy in general,
Speaker 1: but more so on monetary policy than on fiscal policy,
Speaker 1: and certainly never on trade policy. And you know, even
Speaker 1: the smodest trade policy movements in the Bush administration weren't
Speaker 1: so meaningful for the broad market. So it's definitely a
Speaker 1: very different kind of policy that we were now focused on.
Speaker 1: Though policy is always important, it's just usually monetary rather
Speaker 1: than than trade or fiscal that really matters. And you
Speaker 1: mentioned how and I think everyone's doing this now. You
Speaker 1: take the x percent tariffs on x dollar value of goods,
Speaker 1: and you get why you get a certain effect on
Speaker 1: earnings on revenue, But I wonder is there more to
Speaker 1: it than that? Or there's sort of unquantifiable risks uh
Speaker 1: to confidence, to sentiment, that sort of thing, and and
Speaker 1: how you know, how do you wrap your head around
Speaker 1: that as the type of strategist you are who is
Speaker 1: deep into the numbers. Yeah, it's it's frankly, very very
Speaker 1: difficult because behavioral and nalys this is a huge part
Speaker 1: of markets, and I think the only way to really
Speaker 1: analyze the potential impact to this is through price itself.
Speaker 1: You know, we can all speculate as to what it
Speaker 1: means for GDP growth globally. We can all speculate us
Speaker 1: to how much this is either inflationary or deflationary, but
Speaker 1: the hard truth is nobody knows. We could try to
Speaker 1: quantify it, we could try to pretend we know more
Speaker 1: than anybody else, but the reality is the market itself,
Speaker 1: which is an aggregate of millions and millions of people's opinions,
Speaker 1: is probably smarter than any of us in this room. Right.
Speaker 1: I've made a whole career out of pretending I know
Speaker 1: more than you and so I watch price very very carefully,
Speaker 1: and what price tells me right now is okay. So
Speaker 1: far the risk of this there's somewhat contained five percent
Speaker 1: correction and stocks is nothing. These things come around every
Speaker 1: nine months or so on average. But if we start
Speaker 1: to work our way towards ten percent, we break that
Speaker 1: ten percent line, it becomes very clear that the market's
Speaker 1: impression of this is something much worse. Right now. Something
Speaker 1: I've been hearing as to why markets have been decently resilient.
Speaker 1: We're not too far off the highs, like you said,
Speaker 1: is that you look at the economic data, you look
Speaker 1: at the fundamentals, and they're still largely strong. However, this
Speaker 1: past week we did see some weaker p m I
Speaker 1: numbers in the US, not yet contracting, but pretty close
Speaker 1: on the cusp. What could it take to really push
Speaker 1: us off the edge? Yeah, so historically you're not pushed
Speaker 1: off the edge until manufacturing pm I in the US
Speaker 1: is all the way down at forty three. I think
Speaker 1: the market will absolutely hesitate reach a point of very
Speaker 1: big insecurity if I s M falls below fifty. Uh.
Speaker 1: That's one of the big keys that we watch. Initial
Speaker 1: claims is another one. Incredibly important to the direction of
Speaker 1: equities long term initial claims. If initial claims start rising,
Speaker 1: and especially if they rise more than fifty thousand, start
Speaker 1: to move towards seventy in a rise, you're pretty much
Speaker 1: assured that you're falling into recession. Uh. The other thing
Speaker 1: to watch is, of course the bond markets. We you
Speaker 1: still haven't had that inversion of the two stents at
Speaker 1: least ust I checked, and that's a big key trigger
Speaker 1: for the equity market sentiment as well. So there are
Speaker 1: a lot of different things that I think you want
Speaker 1: to watch for the economic data. You know, frankly, consumer confidence,
Speaker 1: which is still near a fifteen year high, is still
Speaker 1: pretty supportive, So you need to see a big deterioration
Speaker 1: and consumer confidence as well. That's a good segue into
Speaker 1: our next guest on the Bonds team, Emily. You had
Speaker 1: a story out UM this week talking about the market
Speaker 1: expectations for inflation. I just want to read one line
Speaker 1: because I think it's it's pretty important. Uh. You write
Speaker 1: that since consumer price gains have been lagging the FEDS
Speaker 1: two percent target for much of the past decade, it's
Speaker 1: a little wonder that inflation isn't a hot topic in
Speaker 1: the market yet don't don't done, but it may be
Speaker 1: warming up, with the Fed actively debating how it can
Speaker 1: meet its inflation goals, including a June fourth the Fifth
Speaker 1: Conference to discuss different approaches. I feel like the trade
Speaker 1: tensions are uh causing a lot of confusion about what
Speaker 1: we should expect for inflation. Obviously, the market is pricing
Speaker 1: in lower inflation going forward, um, but a lot of
Speaker 1: people are talking about the pure inflationary effects of the
Speaker 1: tariffs on the consumer. What is sort of the consensus
Speaker 1: out there or what's the smartest take you've heard about
Speaker 1: what we should expect as far as inflation in the
Speaker 1: trade trade war? Right? Yeah, I mean this is the
Speaker 1: interesting thing. I think people trying to seggregate what's the
Speaker 1: shorter term issue in terms of the inflation impact, and
Speaker 1: directly I've seen some golden Sax golden Sax analysis saying,
Speaker 1: you know, this is the boost that we might see
Speaker 1: two c p I and the mean in sort of
Speaker 1: the medium term. But people are really focusing on that
Speaker 1: longer term potential drag on growth, and as they're looking
Speaker 1: to that, they're sort of seeing if growth starts to slow,
Speaker 1: then you have more and more headwinds to that inflationary impulse,
Speaker 1: and so really that's where we're seeing this decline and
Speaker 1: break evens, which is the inflation premium that it built
Speaker 1: into treasuries. Um, we're seeing that just coming down and down.
Speaker 1: And that's despite the fact that you know, we've had
Speaker 1: tariffs put on their other things that's been oil ice
Speaker 1: gains sort of uh in the year to date hasn't
Speaker 1: been reflected at all, and normally breaking evans would follow
Speaker 1: that pretty closely. So we're seeing this kind of really
Speaker 1: sort of counterintuitive moving inflation markets. And it's because you know,
Speaker 1: people talk for ages about secular stactation. You've got bored
Speaker 1: of hearing about this, But it seems that the forces
Speaker 1: that are pressuring inflation lower and it's not just in
Speaker 1: the US, it's globally and so much stronger else where.
Speaker 1: People would argue, really our top of mind for most investors,
Speaker 1: and so that's going to be hard to fight. And
Speaker 1: this is this is where it comes down to people's
Speaker 1: expectations for rate cuts. I mean, there's a sense in
Speaker 1: the market that the FED, if it's going to be
Speaker 1: serious about hitting its two percent inflation target, is really
Speaker 1: going to need to take some action on rates to
Speaker 1: lower them. Um. And people have gone so far as
Speaker 1: to say, a couple of people I spoke to, you know,
Speaker 1: it's not just one KUD. It's probably two or three
Speaker 1: if you want to hit UM. The thing that's interesting
Speaker 1: about where CPI is at the moment is relative to
Speaker 1: the fed's target. The FED prefers consumption expenditure, so they'll
Speaker 1: look at a PC rate which is actually forty basis
Speaker 1: points below where CPI is. So um. So that's it's
Speaker 1: even worse really if you look at their fads preferred measure.
Speaker 1: I know a lot of people are looking at the
Speaker 1: FED minutes that came out this week and calling it
Speaker 1: old news. UM. But I ran a little control fine
Speaker 1: just to see where the word transitory comes up, and
Speaker 1: transitory appeared twice as it relates to inflation, whereas the
Speaker 1: last time around we saw the word transitory once, but
Speaker 1: it was related to GDP and first quarter slower growth
Speaker 1: being transitory. What else did we possibly learn from the minutes,
Speaker 1: if it's possible to clean anything more from what we've
Speaker 1: heard from Fed officials, I think what people wanted to see.
Speaker 1: I mean, this must be the shortest lived transitory impact
Speaker 1: on markets, ever, because after you know, when Fed, the
Speaker 1: Fed's Powell was really pushing that transitory message, you know,
Speaker 1: what's weighing on inflation is going to be very short lived.
Speaker 1: You did see a market correction that started to sell
Speaker 1: off a little. Oh right, Okay, we might come back
Speaker 1: if the Fed believes this is going to happen. But
Speaker 1: that just got crushed. And what the it's gave us
Speaker 1: was this sense that at least among the f O
Speaker 1: m C, that the FEDS Committee, there is a broad
Speaker 1: agreement that these or at least they're on message, that
Speaker 1: people seem to think that, yes, this could be a
Speaker 1: transitory impact. But from the people I've spoken to, they're
Speaker 1: listening at the fact to the fact that the transitory
Speaker 1: effects don't quite make up for the short form inflation,
Speaker 1: and they really do believe that there are stronger forces
Speaker 1: at work here. So what we learned from the minutes,
Speaker 1: it's a really good question. I mean, I'm not even
Speaker 1: sure that uh, you know, the trade impact wasn't factored
Speaker 1: in because obviously most of the trade fallout really happened
Speaker 1: after the minutes were released. Um, so the bump that
Speaker 1: we should have got, well, we've got no much more
Speaker 1: hope of getting it back really at this point. Now
Speaker 1: you know, if the break evens are right and we're
Speaker 1: due for some weaker inflation going forward, what does that
Speaker 1: make certain sectors, certain factors look more attractive to you?
Speaker 1: How would how would you recommend playing sort of the
Speaker 1: low inflation in Well, it depends on if we are
Speaker 1: indeed in for a transitory or a longer term sort
Speaker 1: of disinflationary deflationary in trend first start. But if we
Speaker 1: assume that it's very very short term, more than likely,
Speaker 1: it pushes you into more defensive sort of sectors. And
Speaker 1: I think we've seen that over the course of the
Speaker 1: last couple of months. Our sector strategy model even pushed
Speaker 1: us into defensive sectors as early as the end of April,
Speaker 1: and that largely reflects what's happening in rates. And rates
Speaker 1: are rallying so much, indicating that this inflation pressure is
Speaker 1: somewhat nil, at least in the short run, suggesting that
Speaker 1: the downside risk to growth is still pretty evident. And
Speaker 1: at a time after stocks had already rallied tremendously in
Speaker 1: the first quarter, the valuation multiple started to shift as well.
Speaker 1: On the cyclicals versus defensives. Call I could tell you
Speaker 1: one sector it absolutely suggests you want to stay away from,
Speaker 1: and this is manifestings price performance as well as energy.
Speaker 1: There's one sector that is just constantly the inflation play
Speaker 1: in the equity market. It's energy and then, to a
Speaker 1: lesser extent, materials. As much as this last month of
Speaker 1: weakness in the equity market seems to have been about tech,
Speaker 1: the energy sector is down four bases points more than
Speaker 1: tech stocks. I mean, it's just getting crushed. It's making
Speaker 1: new relative price lows in comparison to the SMP five hundred,
Speaker 1: and has been persistently for the last several years. So
Speaker 1: the equity signal is actually very deflationary. If not deflationary,
Speaker 1: then at least disinflationary, and has persisted through a long
Speaker 1: period of time. At the beginning of the year, I
Speaker 1: heard the case being made a lot that we needed
Speaker 1: to see energy prices close the gap with oil prices
Speaker 1: because we had seen oil rally so much. Well, now
Speaker 1: clearly we're seeing oil prices roll over, we're seeing energy
Speaker 1: stocks roll over. Is the case for that for energy
Speaker 1: prices to move up to oil prices and close the
Speaker 1: gap kind of disintegrating. Yeah, you know, that gap has
Speaker 1: been existing for the last three years, so you could
Speaker 1: even take it all the way back ton when the
Speaker 1: gaps started to widen. You know, I think that the
Speaker 1: terrible fate for energy stocks is unfortunately, every time oil
Speaker 1: prices rise, it's met with a new wave of supply,
Speaker 1: which constrains profitability and constrains the inevitent and constrains the
Speaker 1: oil price from continuing to rise. And that's very well
Speaker 1: played out in energy stocks and energy investors. Investors just
Speaker 1: don't want to touch the sector on that premise alone.
Speaker 1: From a sentiment perspective, you gotta love energy for a
Speaker 1: long term sort of sentiment call. You're looking at a
Speaker 1: sector that's now less as a share of market cap
Speaker 1: of the SMP five than it was in oil prices
Speaker 1: were ten dollars of barrel. So nobody wants to touch
Speaker 1: this stuff. But how do you jump in in the
Speaker 1: face of clear signals from the rates market generally sort
Speaker 1: of depressed economic signals relative to where we were at
Speaker 1: least a year ago, stock price signals that are still
Speaker 1: very very negative, and frankly, the dynamics of oil supply
Speaker 1: and demand are different today than they were ten years ago.
Speaker 1: So it's a tough space, and there's just not a
Speaker 1: lot to suggest that that gap necessarily needs to close,
Speaker 1: because frankly, oil prices keep closing back toward energy stocks
Speaker 1: every time they try to rally, and that's just a
Speaker 1: the fracking boom. I take it just to supply. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, if you think about sort of how things
Speaker 1: have changed over the last decade or so, go back
Speaker 1: to two thousand seven, two thousand and eight, when oil
Speaker 1: prices were moving towards a hundred and fifty dollars and
Speaker 1: the sentiment was we're never going to find supply again.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's just just not enough oil in the world.
Speaker 1: And so yeah, over the course of the next several years,
Speaker 1: we found out, oh lo and behold, there is actually
Speaker 1: plenty of supply. We just needed to use new technologies
Speaker 1: to get to it. That's created this massive downtrend and
Speaker 1: oil prices really since they peaked in twenty two seven
Speaker 1: and then again in and the result of that is
Speaker 1: just this this persistence of supply, or even the perceived
Speaker 1: persistence of supply, con strange your upward potential for price growth,
Speaker 1: and it's feeding through the energy stocks. Emily to get
Speaker 1: back to the Fed minutes. There's this weird situation that
Speaker 1: happens where, Okay, the trade war escalates a couple of
Speaker 1: weeks ago with President Trump's tweets, and then he follows
Speaker 1: through and raises the tariffs. Then along come the minutes,
Speaker 1: which are reflecting a meeting that occurred before that. So
Speaker 1: yet people still seem to react to them. I mean,
Speaker 1: assuming this is the last best evidence we've gotten from
Speaker 1: the Federal Reserve on their thinking, but at some point
Speaker 1: that people just to ignore them. You've talked to a
Speaker 1: lot of investors after the minutes. Presumably they're still reading
Speaker 1: these minutes even though so much has changed since then,
Speaker 1: or did they discount them to some degree. I think
Speaker 1: this is the weird thing, And this is the thing
Speaker 1: that always makes me just sigh and kind of a
Speaker 1: scream sometimes when you look at the minutes, because like
Speaker 1: this is essentially stale news, right, and particularly at this point,
Speaker 1: because it's prior to all of the trade stuff that happened.
Speaker 1: So I was actually really interested myself to see what
Speaker 1: the market was going to do to this, And it
Speaker 1: just it's funny because I don't know if people actually
Speaker 1: forget they're still they're so busy reading the Fed's ruins
Speaker 1: sometimes that any signal like this sort of smoke signal
Speaker 1: is is going to tell them what to do. But
Speaker 1: I think the interesting thing that most people are trying
Speaker 1: to pause out of that document is how much consensus
Speaker 1: is there, how firmly held a belief is this in
Speaker 1: the ft and how difficult might it be to dislodge,
Speaker 1: Like how much they're looking at the data really and
Speaker 1: what what is their interpretation of the data, so people
Speaker 1: are astant. The thing that I find most amusing is
Speaker 1: looking at how people understand the word few versus several
Speaker 1: versus a number of versus some, you know, as a
Speaker 1: measure of how many people on the committee actually hold
Speaker 1: a certain view. So that's that's one of the things
Speaker 1: you talk about stale news. If you looked at the
Speaker 1: staff economic projections in the minute, they actually talked about
Speaker 1: how trade the U. S and China coming together was
Speaker 1: positive relaptimistic. So that's changed since ad minutes were actually written.
Speaker 1: I want to ask you, though, how far off does
Speaker 1: it seem like the bond market is from where the
Speaker 1: FED actually stands at this point in time. This is
Speaker 1: starting to feel as if that disconnect is actually widening again.
Speaker 1: I mean, we saw earlier this year there was you know,
Speaker 1: the market was really doubling down to say even as
Speaker 1: many as you know, sort of too high starting to
Speaker 1: get pricing. We're getting closer to that now. I think
Speaker 1: that the interesting point from what the market is pricing
Speaker 1: in is there is actually now still more than one
Speaker 1: hike pricing by the end of the year, just a
Speaker 1: little more. The Fed, I think that after giving that
Speaker 1: message of transient, they're just sitting there with that for
Speaker 1: the time being, and it seems as if that that
Speaker 1: conviction among policymakers is really at odds with the markets
Speaker 1: movements lately. Um, but it's hard to see. I mean,
Speaker 1: as as you Jina, you were discussing before, you know,
Speaker 1: the data are still reasonably strong. There's there's actually looking
Speaker 1: at it objectively from a dispassionate viewpoint, it's hard to
Speaker 1: see whether the FED would find a decent case to
Speaker 1: cut rates at this point. And now that they're starting
Speaker 1: up their inflation review, this is going to become a
Speaker 1: really interesting topic to follow over the next couple of
Speaker 1: months because they're really going to have to look at
Speaker 1: what other kinds of strategies they might take to try
Speaker 1: and meet their mandate. Now, Gina, you have a lot
Speaker 1: of letters after your name, C F, A, c MT.
Speaker 1: I also have three names. I'm just trying to extend
Speaker 1: their business parts has continued on the part of the game.
Speaker 1: So I was I was curious to see your technicals,
Speaker 1: putting your CMT had on Chartered Market technician and and
Speaker 1: looking at the technicals. Um so walk us through two things.
Speaker 1: I'm curious a sort of what levels you're looking at,
Speaker 1: but also is it the time right now where technicals
Speaker 1: kind of take a backseat to the fact that everyone's
Speaker 1: waiting for the next head line, waiting for the next tweet?
Speaker 1: You know, are there times when you sort of uh
Speaker 1: discount technicals to some degree and don't give them as
Speaker 1: much weight as you normally would and and are we
Speaker 1: in a period like that now? I never discount technicals.
Speaker 1: I am a technician. I think they're actually always valuable
Speaker 1: at every market stage, and they're valuable in different ways.
Speaker 1: They give you different signals, either they're confirming or not
Speaker 1: confirming your fundamental case. That gives you a reason to
Speaker 1: go back and look at the fundamental case. Nonetheless, I
Speaker 1: think you know right now what the technicals are saying
Speaker 1: is near term, there's just not a lot of reason
Speaker 1: for optimism. It's still markets, you know, maybe testing the
Speaker 1: early maylow's, which were support levels created by resistance points
Speaker 1: that we had matched on the SMP five hundred back
Speaker 1: in the October attempt at an advance, in November attempt
Speaker 1: at advance, and then during the rise earlier this year
Speaker 1: we sort of got stuck in this level in the
Speaker 1: SMP five dred. We're back there again. If we can
Speaker 1: hold these levels, fantastic stocks are probably in pretty good shape.
Speaker 1: But it's really questionable because you're getting breakdown, some small capture,
Speaker 1: getting breakdown some semiconductors, you're getting breakdowns and transportation stocks.
Speaker 1: Just the near term weakness is evident. Longer term, is
Speaker 1: there any evidence of the bull market is over? No? Right,
Speaker 1: I mean, even the line last year only confirmed that
Speaker 1: the bolt trend is still intact because it bottomed right
Speaker 1: at major support lines that have existed since two thousand nine.
Speaker 1: I use a fifty week a lot, but that really
Speaker 1: defines sort of shorter term bull trends and bear trends.
Speaker 1: The fifty week moving average on the SMP five hundreds
Speaker 1: right around twenty seven, seventy seven, seventy six right now,
Speaker 1: Uh that if we crossed through the fifty week, then
Speaker 1: you're most likely going to continue to go lower and
Speaker 1: see a fifteen correction again. But you have to go
Speaker 1: all the way down into the twenty three hundreds to
Speaker 1: really eliminate the long term bultr And so just thinking
Speaker 1: perspective wise, you could easily have another recession with the
Speaker 1: correction and stocks and you're still in a long term
Speaker 1: secular bowl market right short term, you're absolutely in another
Speaker 1: barish condition like we were in. But you've got to
Speaker 1: have a significant dismantling of trend in order to eliminate
Speaker 1: the overall bowl trend that's been in place for now
Speaker 1: more than ten years. How about my personal favorite shampoo,
Speaker 1: head and shoulders. A lot of people are talking about
Speaker 1: a head and shoulders. People are talking about the size
Speaker 1: of the neckline. I know, I am. But the other
Speaker 1: the really strong, fundamentally like tenant of technical analysis is
Speaker 1: you never call a pattern before it actually occurs. And
Speaker 1: that's what people are at risk of doing. Um I
Speaker 1: think you know, to call this a head and shoulders,
Speaker 1: you have to have a significant breakdown beneath the neckline.
Speaker 1: I haven't had that yet. To call it a triple top,
Speaker 1: you've got to have a similar breakdown, So I, you know,
Speaker 1: just I like to follow the rules, despite the fact
Speaker 1: that I'm from Florida or Florida. The rules of technical
Speaker 1: analysis say, don't get hasty to call a pattern before
Speaker 1: it actually occurs. All right, Well, there's one role in
Speaker 1: this podcast, and it's a few shop. You have to
Speaker 1: have a crazy thing, the craziest thing you've seen in
Speaker 1: markets this week. So Emily is looking nervous. I don't
Speaker 1: think I don't think she prepared. Let her go, hang on,
Speaker 1: hang on, you have little faith. I actually I tried here.
Speaker 1: I don't want to go to last because then you're
Speaker 1: going to give you a great ones and then I'm
Speaker 1: going to kind of limp in with. So yeah, I'll
Speaker 1: go first. Okay, this is this is a royalties thing,
Speaker 1: so it's not actually a markets thing to say, but
Speaker 1: it's about money, so it's tradable asset all out. But
Speaker 1: I was a fan of the Verve back in the nineties.
Speaker 1: So there's this song Bitter Sweet Symphony. If anyone knows
Speaker 1: that I was very fond of it has this lovely
Speaker 1: string sort of intro to it. And it turns out
Speaker 1: that Richard Ashcroft, the lead singer of the Verve, lost
Speaker 1: the royalties to that song because he sam put a
Speaker 1: little too much of a Stone song to do it,
Speaker 1: and so the Stones ended up getting all the royaltists.
Speaker 1: At that time, it was huge, That album was huge,
Speaker 1: um and they just recently gave him back. So so
Speaker 1: they petitioned for Mick Jagger to handback the royalties. Mate
Speaker 1: without hesitation apparently said there just out of their good nature. Well,
Speaker 1: I'm suspecting they may not have needed it. I thought
Speaker 1: you're gonna go Rick Astley there. I thought I was
Speaker 1: getting Rick rolled for a minute that I'm trying to
Speaker 1: think of the fact that about him next, alright, Gina
Speaker 1: Martin Adams. Yeah, So I'm afraid I'm going to disappoint
Speaker 1: everyone because mine is incredibly obvious. But it just has
Speaker 1: to be noted that we had a video go viral
Speaker 1: out of China with a giant gold fist and a
Speaker 1: nationalist populist message that suggests like the Soviet Union is
Speaker 1: rising again, except for its in China. I see that
Speaker 1: video and I'm just blown away. If you haven't seen it,
Speaker 1: you need to go out and search the Chinese trade
Speaker 1: war fight song. It's it's just amazing and really, you know,
Speaker 1: and then you have all the just the amp up
Speaker 1: in uh sort of this nationalistic sort of message coming
Speaker 1: out of China this week has been extraordinarily aggressively. They're
Speaker 1: not backing down. You know. It also tells me this
Speaker 1: is a lot about tech. This is not And then
Speaker 1: I go back to what I said at the beginning.
Speaker 1: Everybody's focused on trade. It is not about trade. It's
Speaker 1: about tech and who's going to be the global leader
Speaker 1: in technology development and advancement and dissemination around the world
Speaker 1: over the next several decades. So China is not backing
Speaker 1: down because they're taking this really seriously. We have to
Speaker 1: bring back onto singing for US translator. He's sang the
Speaker 1: US bond Markets theme song last week, so pretty impressive.
Speaker 1: Also last week I have to bring us an update
Speaker 1: just because last week, for those of you who didn't
Speaker 1: tune in, we talked about how Steve Minusian's dad Um
Speaker 1: actually bought a ninety over ninety million dollar bunny rabbit.
Speaker 1: It was an art piece um on the behalf of
Speaker 1: someone and now we know that it was on behalf
Speaker 1: of point seventy two is Steve Colin Um so he
Speaker 1: is now I think I can't believe we didn't guess that. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: he is now the owner of a beloved over ninety
Speaker 1: million dollars silver inflatable bunny rabbit. Pretty amazing. Um. But
Speaker 1: another one that I'll bring forwards this week that I
Speaker 1: guess two is kind of obvious Tesla. I mean, we
Speaker 1: have analysts coming out one after another going as far
Speaker 1: as saying that the worst case scenario, we could see
Speaker 1: Tesla stock fall down to ten dollars to share, and
Speaker 1: we did see Tesla fall below two d dollars a share,
Speaker 1: which we haven't seen in quite a while. So pretty amazing.
Speaker 1: I've got to say it is that is a soap
Speaker 1: opera for the ages. I think, yes, all right, I'll
Speaker 1: give you mine. Uh Now, Sarah, it was a pretty
Speaker 1: ugly day in the stock market on Thursday. You wouldn't
Speaker 1: expect to see a lot of companies rising. What if
Speaker 1: I told you there was a stock that rose thousand
Speaker 1: and nine percent on Thursday? It's this is why I
Speaker 1: love the penny stocks. There. Uh So, Rhino International Corp.
Speaker 1: It's a Chinese company. Sounds legit right, designs, manufacturers, installs
Speaker 1: and services, proprietary and patented wastewater treatment, desultur ization equipment
Speaker 1: and YadA, YadA, YadA. Anyway, Yes, it rose to one
Speaker 1: penny a true penny stock from one one of a penny.
Speaker 1: Um by by my math, it required about seven hundred
Speaker 1: bucks to do this. The funny thing is the market
Speaker 1: cap of the company yesterday. It was only like two
Speaker 1: hundred and sixty eight dollars period, not millions. So um.
Speaker 1: Congratulations to all the shareholders of Rhino International Core about there. Uh.
Speaker 1: I try to find out more about the company, but
Speaker 1: when you click on their website are web secure software
Speaker 1: prevented me from seeing I think you know? Yeah yeah.
Speaker 1: But with that said, Gina, Martin Adams, Emily Barrett, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for coming on the show today. We
Speaker 1: really enjoyed it. Thank you, Thank you. What goes up.
Speaker 1: We'll be back next week. Until then, you can find
Speaker 1: us on the Bloomberg Terminal website and app or wherever
Speaker 1: you get your podcasts. We'd love it if you took
Speaker 1: the time to rate interview the show. Some more listeners
Speaker 1: can find us and you can find us on Twitter,
Speaker 1: follow me at at, Sarah ponzat, Mike Is at Rea Anonymous.
Speaker 1: Our guest, Gina Martin Adams is at Gina Martin Adams,
Speaker 1: and Emily Barrett is at Not That ECB. What Goes
Speaker 1: Up is produced by tofor Foreheads. The head of Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Podcast is Francesca Levi. See you next time. The f