WEBVTT - Apollo Global Management's Marc Rowan Talks Tariffs and Trade

0:00:02.520 --> 0:00:08.840
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news, and we welcome our

0:00:08.880 --> 0:00:10.320
<v Speaker 1>TV and radio audiences.

0:00:10.360 --> 0:00:13.560
<v Speaker 2>I'm Shinali Bassik at the Milken Institute Global Conference in

0:00:13.640 --> 0:00:17.200
<v Speaker 2>Beverly Hills and joining me now Apollo CEO and co

0:00:17.239 --> 0:00:18.400
<v Speaker 2>founder Mark Rowan.

0:00:18.920 --> 0:00:21.159
<v Speaker 1>And what a time to be speaking with you.

0:00:21.560 --> 0:00:23.959
<v Speaker 3>Just a few things going on, A few.

0:00:23.720 --> 0:00:26.400
<v Speaker 1>Things going on, but a lot today alone.

0:00:26.400 --> 0:00:29.400
<v Speaker 2>We have the Treasury Secretary speaking at eight o'clock here

0:00:29.480 --> 0:00:32.320
<v Speaker 2>Pacific time. We had Elon Musk speaking last night, and

0:00:32.640 --> 0:00:36.480
<v Speaker 2>the President of the United States changing his tune on tariffs.

0:00:36.800 --> 0:00:38.680
<v Speaker 1>Where do you think the endgame is.

0:00:38.600 --> 0:00:41.280
<v Speaker 2>Given that tariff the tariff talk is taking up so

0:00:41.360 --> 0:00:42.440
<v Speaker 2>much of the discussion here.

0:00:42.680 --> 0:00:46.559
<v Speaker 4>Look, what the administration wants to do, in my opinion,

0:00:46.600 --> 0:00:49.360
<v Speaker 4>is not wrong. We are the freest trading country in

0:00:49.400 --> 0:00:51.280
<v Speaker 4>the world and have been since the end of World

0:00:51.320 --> 0:00:51.720
<v Speaker 4>War Two.

0:00:52.240 --> 0:00:56.000
<v Speaker 3>It is not clear to me that we have to be.

0:00:55.520 --> 0:00:59.400
<v Speaker 4>Or that we should allow allies and strategic competitors to

0:01:00.000 --> 0:01:02.960
<v Speaker 4>phibit our access to their markets. We can take issue

0:01:03.000 --> 0:01:05.640
<v Speaker 4>with how it's being done and the uncertainty it's creating,

0:01:05.840 --> 0:01:07.920
<v Speaker 4>but the President and the administration start with a really

0:01:07.959 --> 0:01:12.920
<v Speaker 4>strong hand. Low unemployment, good job growth, massive capital investment

0:01:13.560 --> 0:01:16.080
<v Speaker 4>over the last four years and continuing in the US,

0:01:16.560 --> 0:01:20.399
<v Speaker 4>So now is actually a good time. But we have uncertainty,

0:01:20.480 --> 0:01:22.880
<v Speaker 4>and in the face of uncertainty, people do not make

0:01:22.959 --> 0:01:25.880
<v Speaker 4>new investments, they do not hire, they do not make moves.

0:01:26.319 --> 0:01:30.880
<v Speaker 4>We likely will cause two quarters of negative growth if we,

0:01:30.959 --> 0:01:33.760
<v Speaker 4>in fact don't resolve the uncertainty. So until we have

0:01:33.840 --> 0:01:36.600
<v Speaker 4>resolution of what the rules of the game are, it's

0:01:36.600 --> 0:01:37.600
<v Speaker 4>going to be slow.

0:01:37.640 --> 0:01:40.280
<v Speaker 2>A lot of people talk about the potential for a recession,

0:01:40.400 --> 0:01:45.200
<v Speaker 2>but little are people talking about the severity that could

0:01:45.280 --> 0:01:46.920
<v Speaker 2>exist in the potential for a recession.

0:01:46.959 --> 0:01:51.400
<v Speaker 4>Look now we're talking about forecasts and projections in our firm.

0:01:52.000 --> 0:01:54.760
<v Speaker 4>When we were raising rates three to four hundred basis points,

0:01:55.080 --> 0:01:58.200
<v Speaker 4>we talked about a non recession recession, which is a

0:01:58.360 --> 0:02:01.840
<v Speaker 4>correction and asset prices, but not necessarily in labor. We

0:02:01.960 --> 0:02:04.480
<v Speaker 4>kind of see the same thing happening again. It's not

0:02:04.480 --> 0:02:07.200
<v Speaker 4>to say we won't have some fallout in some adjustment,

0:02:07.520 --> 0:02:10.639
<v Speaker 4>but we're starting from a place of four percent unemployment,

0:02:11.200 --> 0:02:15.280
<v Speaker 4>good job growth. We are building infrastructure, we're building semiconductor plants.

0:02:15.520 --> 0:02:18.920
<v Speaker 4>We're absorbing massive amounts of foreign direct investment. Like it

0:02:19.000 --> 0:02:22.919
<v Speaker 4>or not, We're building Inflation Reduction Act factories, and now

0:02:23.000 --> 0:02:26.440
<v Speaker 4>the president is channeling capital from around the world to

0:02:26.480 --> 0:02:27.040
<v Speaker 4>come back here.

0:02:27.680 --> 0:02:29.960
<v Speaker 3>Some days I wake up and worry about capital.

0:02:30.280 --> 0:02:32.120
<v Speaker 4>Most days I wake up and worry about where will

0:02:32.160 --> 0:02:34.080
<v Speaker 4>we get all the people to do this?

0:02:34.600 --> 0:02:36.800
<v Speaker 2>Now, you mentioned that you agree with what he's doing,

0:02:36.840 --> 0:02:39.200
<v Speaker 2>but maybe not how in all the ways. To the

0:02:39.240 --> 0:02:41.280
<v Speaker 2>extent that you think that this should be done differently

0:02:41.480 --> 0:02:45.160
<v Speaker 2>to the extent that you don't like the method of

0:02:45.280 --> 0:02:46.640
<v Speaker 2>the change.

0:02:47.360 --> 0:02:48.440
<v Speaker 1>What needs to change.

0:02:48.639 --> 0:02:51.320
<v Speaker 4>Look, this is now the toughest job in the world,

0:02:51.400 --> 0:02:54.720
<v Speaker 4>or is now? Scott besant As I said, we want

0:02:54.720 --> 0:02:58.079
<v Speaker 4>this administration to succeed. Every American should want this administration

0:02:58.200 --> 0:03:00.680
<v Speaker 4>to succeed. So how I would do it is not

0:03:00.720 --> 0:03:04.160
<v Speaker 4>really relevant. I will point out the following. US and

0:03:04.200 --> 0:03:07.760
<v Speaker 4>Mexico together should be the driving economic force in the

0:03:07.800 --> 0:03:10.400
<v Speaker 4>world for the next fifty years. We have not been

0:03:10.440 --> 0:03:13.880
<v Speaker 4>able to get there, despite two or three rounds of

0:03:13.960 --> 0:03:17.040
<v Speaker 4>massive free trade agreements. The issues that separate US from

0:03:17.080 --> 0:03:22.040
<v Speaker 4>Mexico are not existential to Mexico. As one leading Mexican

0:03:22.080 --> 0:03:24.320
<v Speaker 4>industrialists said to me, if it takes tariffs to make

0:03:24.320 --> 0:03:25.720
<v Speaker 4>Mexico great again, so be it.

0:03:26.440 --> 0:03:28.560
<v Speaker 3>Inside of Mexico, there's a need for change.

0:03:28.880 --> 0:03:32.880
<v Speaker 4>Imagine coming to the world with Mexico and Canada resolve

0:03:32.960 --> 0:03:36.680
<v Speaker 4>first and then taking people piece by piece or country

0:03:36.720 --> 0:03:38.840
<v Speaker 4>by country. We would just be in a much stronger

0:03:38.880 --> 0:03:41.200
<v Speaker 4>position to do what we need to do to reset

0:03:41.240 --> 0:03:42.280
<v Speaker 4>the terms of trade.

0:03:42.600 --> 0:03:44.560
<v Speaker 2>But in the meantime you had mentioned it as well

0:03:44.600 --> 0:03:47.280
<v Speaker 2>that people are on hold, businesses are on hold. A

0:03:47.320 --> 0:03:50.600
<v Speaker 2>lot of businesses are at risk of layoffs if this continues.

0:03:50.680 --> 0:03:54.640
<v Speaker 2>How long can this uncertainty continue without causing much greater damage.

0:03:54.800 --> 0:03:57.720
<v Speaker 4>Look, we're going to have uncertainty. We have uncertainty already.

0:03:58.320 --> 0:04:03.000
<v Speaker 4>Until we see critical mass of trading partners agree to

0:04:03.480 --> 0:04:06.880
<v Speaker 4>ongoing new economic relationships, we're going to have uncertainty.

0:04:06.920 --> 0:04:08.880
<v Speaker 1>But if that could take years, couldn't it?

0:04:09.280 --> 0:04:10.480
<v Speaker 3>That could take years.

0:04:10.520 --> 0:04:13.920
<v Speaker 4>I don't think the administration will allow it to take years. Clearly,

0:04:14.000 --> 0:04:17.200
<v Speaker 4>what they are trying to do is to create positive

0:04:17.200 --> 0:04:20.560
<v Speaker 4>momentum by getting country after country to agree to new

0:04:20.640 --> 0:04:22.400
<v Speaker 4>terms of trade.

0:04:22.480 --> 0:04:24.960
<v Speaker 3>If that happens, this could be very short lived.

0:04:25.200 --> 0:04:28.200
<v Speaker 4>If it doesn't happen, uncertainty could continue for a period

0:04:28.240 --> 0:04:30.720
<v Speaker 4>of time. But we also have to take into account

0:04:30.839 --> 0:04:34.320
<v Speaker 4>short term and long term uncertainty will eventually resolve itself

0:04:35.120 --> 0:04:38.039
<v Speaker 4>longer term. The way we've done this, we have done

0:04:38.120 --> 0:04:43.520
<v Speaker 4>damage to the US brand, the brand for stability, for predictability,

0:04:43.800 --> 0:04:47.680
<v Speaker 4>for regularity, that will eventually have some cost to us.

0:04:48.320 --> 0:04:49.200
<v Speaker 3>Right now, it does not.

0:04:49.760 --> 0:04:52.279
<v Speaker 4>What I've said is I've see US moving from what

0:04:52.520 --> 0:04:56.960
<v Speaker 4>was hyper exceptionalism to merely exceptional because I don't think

0:04:57.000 --> 0:04:59.080
<v Speaker 4>there are good alternatives to the US today.

0:04:59.279 --> 0:05:00.599
<v Speaker 3>But that can change overtime.

0:05:01.040 --> 0:05:03.000
<v Speaker 2>Let's talk more about the US brand for a moment,

0:05:03.040 --> 0:05:06.359
<v Speaker 2>because you have businesses across the globe, from Europe to Japan.

0:05:06.560 --> 0:05:07.880
<v Speaker 1>Now, what are they saying?

0:05:07.880 --> 0:05:10.600
<v Speaker 2>What are your investors in different regents saying about their

0:05:10.600 --> 0:05:14.560
<v Speaker 2>willingness to put money into US capital markets. Your deputy

0:05:14.680 --> 0:05:17.440
<v Speaker 2>John Zido had written a letter to investors talking about

0:05:17.440 --> 0:05:20.560
<v Speaker 2>the risks to the US brand as well, the risk

0:05:20.600 --> 0:05:23.520
<v Speaker 2>to US capital markets. Right are you seeing any of that?

0:05:24.200 --> 0:05:26.480
<v Speaker 4>We will see it, but we're not seeing it yet.

0:05:26.560 --> 0:05:28.799
<v Speaker 4>But think about that, the US is still sixty plus

0:05:28.800 --> 0:05:31.320
<v Speaker 4>percent of all the capital raised in the world. We

0:05:31.360 --> 0:05:34.920
<v Speaker 4>are in the absolute best position from a capital.

0:05:34.560 --> 0:05:36.840
<v Speaker 3>Formation point of view. No one has what we have.

0:05:37.400 --> 0:05:39.760
<v Speaker 3>That does not mean they will not want it over time.

0:05:39.920 --> 0:05:43.080
<v Speaker 4>Everything that we want to do here, build infrastructure, next

0:05:43.080 --> 0:05:47.640
<v Speaker 4>generation manufacturing, add energy, defense, next generation data and power.

0:05:48.000 --> 0:05:51.080
<v Speaker 4>Europe wants to do exactly the same thing, but lacks

0:05:51.160 --> 0:05:55.000
<v Speaker 4>any real source of long term capital. In the Drahi Report,

0:05:55.040 --> 0:05:58.200
<v Speaker 4>Mario Drahi lays out what Europe needs to do to

0:05:58.240 --> 0:06:01.000
<v Speaker 4>be competitive, and most of the board is focused on

0:06:01.240 --> 0:06:02.640
<v Speaker 4>revisions to capital formation.

0:06:03.120 --> 0:06:05.000
<v Speaker 3>Will euro up do that? I don't know.

0:06:05.080 --> 0:06:07.080
<v Speaker 4>I think what John Zieto points out in his letter

0:06:07.480 --> 0:06:10.680
<v Speaker 4>that they have the best chance relative to the US

0:06:11.240 --> 0:06:14.200
<v Speaker 4>to create this kind of positive momentum.

0:06:14.440 --> 0:06:17.960
<v Speaker 2>So then there's a question of what you do in

0:06:18.000 --> 0:06:22.480
<v Speaker 2>this uncertainty. Now, recently, you told investors just last week

0:06:22.520 --> 0:06:24.479
<v Speaker 2>that you're willing to sit things out, You're willing to

0:06:24.520 --> 0:06:25.560
<v Speaker 2>reduce leverage.

0:06:25.720 --> 0:06:27.359
<v Speaker 1>However, you believe that you were one of.

0:06:27.400 --> 0:06:31.080
<v Speaker 2>The largest active buyers of assets post Liberation Day, that

0:06:31.200 --> 0:06:34.800
<v Speaker 2>is twenty five billion in April alone alone.

0:06:34.960 --> 0:06:35.640
<v Speaker 1>What are you buying?

0:06:35.960 --> 0:06:38.800
<v Speaker 3>So let's start. Let I talked to investors and I

0:06:38.839 --> 0:06:39.679
<v Speaker 3>asked three questions.

0:06:40.120 --> 0:06:43.200
<v Speaker 4>Our price is low. No, I do not believe prices

0:06:43.240 --> 0:06:45.960
<v Speaker 4>are low. They are lower, But we're still talking about

0:06:45.960 --> 0:06:48.640
<v Speaker 4>an average Pe as a reference in the mid twenties

0:06:48.920 --> 0:06:54.080
<v Speaker 4>versus sixteen over time. Are rates likely to plummet. I

0:06:54.080 --> 0:06:55.760
<v Speaker 4>don't think so. On our firm does not think so.

0:06:55.920 --> 0:07:01.159
<v Speaker 4>Most of what we're doing is inflationary. Third, do we

0:07:01.240 --> 0:07:05.719
<v Speaker 4>have heightened geopolitical risk? Listen to our conversation. There's heightened

0:07:05.760 --> 0:07:07.920
<v Speaker 4>geopolitical risk. What do you want to do if those

0:07:07.960 --> 0:07:10.800
<v Speaker 4>three things are true? I think you want to reduce risk.

0:07:11.640 --> 0:07:15.120
<v Speaker 4>In credit, we're going up the capital structure senior secured,

0:07:15.200 --> 0:07:18.760
<v Speaker 4>investment grade, trying to reduce risk. We're not trying to

0:07:18.760 --> 0:07:21.360
<v Speaker 4>make money by being a good credit selector in a

0:07:21.440 --> 0:07:25.680
<v Speaker 4>volatle market. And in the equity market, moving from things

0:07:25.720 --> 0:07:28.200
<v Speaker 4>that are growthy and things that are venturing to things

0:07:28.240 --> 0:07:30.840
<v Speaker 4>that are cash flow based and more hybrid in their outcome.

0:07:31.400 --> 0:07:33.640
<v Speaker 3>So what did we do in April? We bought mostly

0:07:33.760 --> 0:07:34.840
<v Speaker 3>investment grade.

0:07:34.920 --> 0:07:38.600
<v Speaker 4>Ironically, mostly in the public markets, I think we will

0:07:38.640 --> 0:07:43.600
<v Speaker 4>see this interesting dynamic take place. We have a perception

0:07:43.680 --> 0:07:46.760
<v Speaker 4>that what's public is safe and what's private is risky.

0:07:46.920 --> 0:07:47.880
<v Speaker 3>But what if we're wrong?

0:07:48.120 --> 0:07:50.600
<v Speaker 4>What if public is safe and risky and private is

0:07:50.600 --> 0:07:54.360
<v Speaker 4>safe and risky. In private, most people are set up

0:07:54.360 --> 0:07:57.320
<v Speaker 4>to hold things for the long term. In public, we

0:07:57.400 --> 0:07:59.680
<v Speaker 4>have this belief that we can sell something every day.

0:08:00.120 --> 0:08:03.120
<v Speaker 4>In equities that is true in fixed income, It is

0:08:03.160 --> 0:08:05.480
<v Speaker 4>not true in the best of times. It is certainly

0:08:05.520 --> 0:08:08.640
<v Speaker 4>not true under stress. Takes five days today to sell

0:08:08.680 --> 0:08:12.000
<v Speaker 4>an investment grade corporate bond. We should expect in every

0:08:12.120 --> 0:08:17.240
<v Speaker 4>risk off moment public credit to trade poorly.

0:08:17.880 --> 0:08:19.920
<v Speaker 1>So what about the future.

0:08:19.920 --> 0:08:24.080
<v Speaker 2>If you think that we saw some moments of market let's.

0:08:23.840 --> 0:08:27.240
<v Speaker 1>Say seizure, right, you did see full moments where there

0:08:27.240 --> 0:08:28.040
<v Speaker 1>were weeks at a.

0:08:28.000 --> 0:08:31.440
<v Speaker 2>Time where the new issuance market was closed. Do you

0:08:31.480 --> 0:08:34.800
<v Speaker 2>worry about liquidity into the year given the way things

0:08:34.840 --> 0:08:36.640
<v Speaker 2>are going, and do you think that the FED would

0:08:36.640 --> 0:08:37.319
<v Speaker 2>need to step in?

0:08:37.920 --> 0:08:40.120
<v Speaker 4>So I worry about liquidity, but in a different way

0:08:40.120 --> 0:08:42.840
<v Speaker 4>than you're asking asking. I think there's plenty of money

0:08:42.880 --> 0:08:45.720
<v Speaker 4>in the world. If we use that as a proxy

0:08:45.720 --> 0:08:49.880
<v Speaker 4>for liquidity, could we have tough treasury auctions around political events? Absolutely,

0:08:50.360 --> 0:08:53.720
<v Speaker 4>I don't think that is actually fundamental. What I worry about,

0:08:53.760 --> 0:08:55.680
<v Speaker 4>and the biggest build up of risk I see in

0:08:55.720 --> 0:08:58.960
<v Speaker 4>the world is we are brought up with an expectation

0:08:59.160 --> 0:09:01.160
<v Speaker 4>of being able to trade everything every day. Everything is

0:09:01.240 --> 0:09:04.320
<v Speaker 4>daily liquid, your ETFs, you're open ended mutual funds, and

0:09:04.360 --> 0:09:07.199
<v Speaker 4>so on and so on. In the equity markets, it's

0:09:07.240 --> 0:09:09.440
<v Speaker 4>actually liquid in the credit markets.

0:09:09.880 --> 0:09:12.840
<v Speaker 3>It's not actually liquid. We just don't know that yet.

0:09:13.480 --> 0:09:16.280
<v Speaker 4>We've seen it in the UK and something called LDI,

0:09:16.760 --> 0:09:19.560
<v Speaker 4>where people thought they could sell something and it turned

0:09:19.559 --> 0:09:20.200
<v Speaker 4>out they couldn't.

0:09:21.040 --> 0:09:23.079
<v Speaker 3>We're going to see that. We saw it in the

0:09:23.160 --> 0:09:24.000
<v Speaker 3>run up to COVID.

0:09:24.400 --> 0:09:27.199
<v Speaker 4>We saw a little blip in the market over the

0:09:27.280 --> 0:09:29.720
<v Speaker 4>past few weeks, which is why we ended up buying.

0:09:30.240 --> 0:09:34.720
<v Speaker 4>But again, this notion that everything that's daily liquid is

0:09:34.760 --> 0:09:38.040
<v Speaker 4>somehow safe is just a notion. It's just not true.

0:09:38.520 --> 0:09:40.320
<v Speaker 2>So I want to go back to something you were

0:09:40.360 --> 0:09:42.679
<v Speaker 2>saying before that this environment that we're facing could be

0:09:42.800 --> 0:09:43.679
<v Speaker 2>very inflationary.

0:09:44.040 --> 0:09:44.160
<v Speaker 4>Right.

0:09:44.600 --> 0:09:47.080
<v Speaker 2>If you believe that we are facing an inflationary environment,

0:09:47.160 --> 0:09:50.560
<v Speaker 2>what do you make of President Trump's bid to try

0:09:50.559 --> 0:09:51.960
<v Speaker 2>to get the Fed to lower.

0:09:51.679 --> 0:09:54.200
<v Speaker 1>Interest rates at this juncture? Do you think it's possible?

0:09:55.920 --> 0:09:57.720
<v Speaker 3>Good news. I don't have that job.

0:09:57.800 --> 0:10:00.400
<v Speaker 4>It's not not even in the realm of possible ability

0:10:00.400 --> 0:10:03.520
<v Speaker 4>for me to do. Look, we are moving things from

0:10:03.559 --> 0:10:07.559
<v Speaker 4>low cost labor countries to higher cost labor countries, particularly

0:10:07.600 --> 0:10:08.160
<v Speaker 4>to the US.

0:10:08.440 --> 0:10:10.000
<v Speaker 3>There are strategic reasons.

0:10:09.720 --> 0:10:11.959
<v Speaker 4>To want to do that, but we can't deny that

0:10:11.960 --> 0:10:15.520
<v Speaker 4>that is an inflationary In some ways, we are not

0:10:15.679 --> 0:10:18.000
<v Speaker 4>relying on a global trading system to the extent we

0:10:18.040 --> 0:10:20.479
<v Speaker 4>have previously that is inflationary.

0:10:20.559 --> 0:10:21.200
<v Speaker 3>In some ways.

0:10:22.280 --> 0:10:24.880
<v Speaker 4>We are a tight labor supply, four percent unemployment, We

0:10:24.920 --> 0:10:25.840
<v Speaker 4>have good job numbers.

0:10:26.080 --> 0:10:28.040
<v Speaker 3>We have no legal or legal immigration.

0:10:28.679 --> 0:10:32.760
<v Speaker 4>That is inflationary in some ways, Yes, are there countervailing measures.

0:10:33.040 --> 0:10:36.240
<v Speaker 4>Energy prices are lower at the moment. Technology will eventually

0:10:36.320 --> 0:10:40.840
<v Speaker 4>introduce savings, the keyword being eventually. At the moment, the

0:10:40.920 --> 0:10:44.760
<v Speaker 4>policies we're following have a risk of being more inflationary

0:10:44.800 --> 0:10:48.120
<v Speaker 4>than otherwise, which generally will lead to higher long term

0:10:48.200 --> 0:10:50.040
<v Speaker 4>rates even if short term rates come down.

0:10:50.800 --> 0:10:51.920
<v Speaker 1>Mark get macro.

0:10:52.520 --> 0:10:54.440
<v Speaker 2>I know it's the macro world that we're living in,

0:10:54.440 --> 0:10:56.200
<v Speaker 2>and we will be watching you closely because we are

0:10:56.200 --> 0:10:59.800
<v Speaker 2>waiting for that that pitch investment. Mark Growan of a

0:11:00.640 --> 0:11:03.239
<v Speaker 2>of course, joining us here at the Milken Institute,