Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg P and L Podcast. I'm Pim
Speaker 1: Fox along with my co host Lisa Abramowitz. Each day
Speaker 1: we bring you the most important, noteworthy, and useful interviews
Speaker 1: for you and your money, whether at the grocery store
Speaker 1: or the trading floor. Find the Bloomberg P L Podcast
Speaker 1: on iTunes, SoundCloud, and at Bloomberg dot com. It has
Speaker 1: been an eventful past week, and one of the bits
Speaker 1: of news that has come out in recent days is
Speaker 1: that President Trump elevated his chief strategist Steve Bannon to
Speaker 1: the National Security Council. Into Mooded, the Director of National Intelligence,
Speaker 1: off of that committee. I want to bring an Ambassador
Speaker 1: Lincoln Bloomfield. He's the chairman of the Simpson Center and
Speaker 1: he was Assistant Secretary of State from two thousand and
Speaker 1: one to two thousand five under George W. Bush, president
Speaker 1: of the United States at the time. Uh, Ambassador Bloomfield,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining us. First, I just
Speaker 1: want to get a sense before we even start to
Speaker 1: talk about the implications, what does the National Security Council
Speaker 1: really do well? That does vary from president to president,
Speaker 1: but it was set up under a law in nine
Speaker 1: in order to coordinate military and non military activities better.
Speaker 1: And so it's function traditionally has been a place where
Speaker 1: each of the cabinet departments in the national security community
Speaker 1: comes together, gives their recommendations, and usually the National Security
Speaker 1: Advisor is the one at the heading the meetings unless
Speaker 1: the President does it himself in major cases of emergencies,
Speaker 1: um and and to to hear their views and including
Speaker 1: their different views, see if they can resolve them and
Speaker 1: if they can't, and then they take it to the
Speaker 1: President for decision. Can you recall specific meetings which you
Speaker 1: attended in which you learned something about out the operational
Speaker 1: maybe backstory of of the of the you know, small
Speaker 1: circle of people who are included in these meetings. Well,
Speaker 1: I was on the Vice president's staff for one year
Speaker 1: under Dan Quayle, and I would I would go to
Speaker 1: those meetings and sit against the wall. So there are
Speaker 1: people who can come in the room and and watch
Speaker 1: the meetings if they're White House staff. The question is
Speaker 1: who has a formal seat at the table, And that's
Speaker 1: that's what this is about. So President George W. Bush,
Speaker 1: for example, did not allow his political counselor Karl Rove,
Speaker 1: to go to NFC meetings because he didn't I didn't
Speaker 1: want to send a signal that there was any politics involved.
Speaker 1: So if asked Bloomfield, what's your impression from Steve Bannon
Speaker 1: being named to this, well, you know, uh, I testified
Speaker 1: last fall at a hearing that the House Foreign Affairs
Speaker 1: Committee held about the issue of the National Security Council
Speaker 1: and the size and the role. And frankly, the bottom
Speaker 1: line is that presidents get to decide who there eisors are.
Speaker 1: This is the White House staff. So if the President
Speaker 1: Trump wants Steve Bannon to be at the table, uh,
Speaker 1: deliberating with the senior national security agency heads, that is
Speaker 1: his call he can. I mean, I think he's sort
Speaker 1: of deferred to the president whatever serves the president's purpose
Speaker 1: to to make the best decisions. So he has crossed
Speaker 1: a line that was not crossed by previous presidents. President
Speaker 1: Obama had David Axelrod come to some of these meetings,
Speaker 1: but he sat out, you know, he didn't sit at
Speaker 1: the table and participate. But that's just a call that's
Speaker 1: been made. And if President Trump is relying on Steve
Speaker 1: Bannon to be his advisor across the board on these issues,
Speaker 1: then then I think that at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: people will defer to that how it works. But what
Speaker 1: about the on the flip side, President Trump's to Mooting,
Speaker 1: the Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the
Speaker 1: Joint Chiefs of Staff. Those I think are actually the
Speaker 1: more interesting discussion. I mean, obviously people are fascinated by
Speaker 1: Mr Bannon, whom I don't know, and he's he's a
Speaker 1: person who's getting a lot of attention. We will see
Speaker 1: how how that plays out and what he what his
Speaker 1: input is. But the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, by law,
Speaker 1: was given the principal role of military advisor to the
Speaker 1: President under the Goldwater Nichols Law Reform Act of nineteen
Speaker 1: six and so the notion and so what the directive
Speaker 1: said was on those issues where they have business before
Speaker 1: the committee, they can come otherwise, not that I think
Speaker 1: that the impact there is whether you whether you get
Speaker 1: a really solid flow of the team around the president.
Speaker 1: And this is usually run by the National Security Advisor.
Speaker 1: So General Michael Flynn is the is the national Security Advisor.
Speaker 1: This is his operation. So the question is what will
Speaker 1: be the chemistry if the people at the table keep
Speaker 1: changing Traditionally and I'm talking about decades. The first person
Speaker 1: that the National Security Advisor turned too is the intelligence person.
Speaker 1: Let's start with an intelligence update, what's the latest, what
Speaker 1: do we know? Then the Secretary of State has the
Speaker 1: sort of Uh, the protocol leads, so the Secretary of
Speaker 1: State goes second or their deputies. And that's the way
Speaker 1: this has worked for decades. Uh. If key players like
Speaker 1: the military representative is not there, I think you're going
Speaker 1: to hear and already are hearing from members of Congress
Speaker 1: who say, wait a minute, um, the principal advisor of
Speaker 1: the military needs to be part of this team pretty
Speaker 1: much at all times. It is national security. And you
Speaker 1: will hear from senior military as well, who feels that
Speaker 1: the voice of the professional military is essential and that
Speaker 1: whether the president agrees to it, agrees with the military
Speaker 1: advice or not, it's not the point. It's whether the
Speaker 1: president is hearing that advice. And as for d n
Speaker 1: I Congress created the Directorate of National Intelligence after nine eleven.
Speaker 1: They added a very what turned out to be two
Speaker 1: thousand people, a very big layer on top of the
Speaker 1: other agencies. And know, if they aren't at the table,
Speaker 1: then you know, I'll just give a personal view. General
Speaker 1: Flynn regionally intelligence very closely, so I don't fear that
Speaker 1: President Trump will be uninformed about intelligence, but but not
Speaker 1: having the community's voice there at the table is going
Speaker 1: to raise some questions. So how many how much? So
Speaker 1: the question is how much friction do they want to
Speaker 1: cause and how much? Thanks very much, Ambassador Lincoln Bloomfield,
Speaker 1: Chairman of the Stimpson Center, speaking about changes in the
Speaker 1: Trump administration's National security team. I want to learn more
Speaker 1: about our southern border neighbor, Mexico and potential opportunities there.
Speaker 1: Herrado Rodriguez, Managing director and portfolio manager at black Rock
Speaker 1: Financial Management, UM, thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 1: You were quoted in an article all about a week
Speaker 1: or so ago saying that you think that the Mexican
Speaker 1: PATO could be one of the best bets of We've
Speaker 1: certainly had an eventful a couple of days on the
Speaker 1: political front. Do you still believe that? Absolutely? At LISTA
Speaker 1: and good morning everyone. When you think about the Mexican economy,
Speaker 1: it is an economy that has been run relatively conservatively
Speaker 1: from an economic policy perspective. It is an economy that
Speaker 1: has the fiscal accounts in order, inflation has been uh,
Speaker 1: sort of coming down. There is a big shock that
Speaker 1: the Mexican economy is facing because of a change in
Speaker 1: policy from the US administration, But so far it is
Speaker 1: an economy that has been adjusting very well. Using a
Speaker 1: textbook example, tighten on the fisical, raising interest rates on
Speaker 1: the monitor, letting the currency go. And we're getting to
Speaker 1: a point in which Mexican assets actually look very very cheap.
Speaker 1: The val do that they have accumulators quite significant, but
Speaker 1: they uncertainty surrounding the US Mexican relationship. It is something
Speaker 1: that needs to be addressed before asset prices in Mexico
Speaker 1: start to perform. But from evaluation perspective, clearly Mexican assets
Speaker 1: are one of the most attractive trade for the months
Speaker 1: remaining this year. So here Ado. You served for more
Speaker 1: than a decade in the Mexican Ministry of Finance, last
Speaker 1: serving as the under Secretary of Finance and Public Credit.
Speaker 1: I imagine you've had a lot of contact with Mexican
Speaker 1: officials and probably can get a better feel for just
Speaker 1: how elevated the tensions have become. Do you have a
Speaker 1: sense of how much what we're hearing is political rhetoric
Speaker 1: uh and sort of chest beating and how much really
Speaker 1: nearing a sort of tipping point into a very bad
Speaker 1: state of affairs between Mexico and the US. Well, there
Speaker 1: are there are two different dynamics here that we need
Speaker 1: to to understand better. One is just what the US
Speaker 1: wants from Mexico. From a trade perspective. Mexico has been
Speaker 1: a good neighbor. It is a comparative neighbor. It is
Speaker 1: a neighbor that tends to sort of to engage and
Speaker 1: to compromise on different things. It has been a very
Speaker 1: fruitful relationship since NAFTA was signed. It was a very
Speaker 1: fruitful relationship with the Canadians and the US. So it
Speaker 1: would be important to understand exactly what is it that
Speaker 1: the US would like if an institutional table was set
Speaker 1: up to basically modernize NAFTA, and there's a blueprint already
Speaker 1: for that, and it is basically the content in terms
Speaker 1: of um the sort of rules of origin for example
Speaker 1: that has been negotiated in the context of TPP intellectual
Speaker 1: property and an addressing sort of dispute mechanisms. Now, on
Speaker 1: the other hand, you have a domestic political agenda, domestic
Speaker 1: political dynamics that the president of Mexico has a twelve
Speaker 1: percent approval rate all time load. There's a lot of
Speaker 1: pressure and if anything, these contentious issue against the US,
Speaker 1: it is something that is bringing the population together now
Speaker 1: because the two things are a bit uncertain. You're right
Speaker 1: that we could get two different equilibriums here. I think
Speaker 1: that it's still the central scenario is one in which
Speaker 1: sort of reason prevails. Everyone has been benefiting from NAFTA,
Speaker 1: there's potential to improve that, and then an institutional table
Speaker 1: is set up with the Canadians, the US and Mexico,
Speaker 1: and that brings you to a more benign outcome for
Speaker 1: asset prices in Mexico. But given what's been happening over
Speaker 1: the past few days, it is likely that we don't
Speaker 1: get there, and then the tensions actually increase and the
Speaker 1: positions radicalized. So again, it is a great value trade,
Speaker 1: but it is one that you need to be careful
Speaker 1: at this point. Mr Rodriguez honoring the theme of focusing
Speaker 1: on your purchase price of any investment, in other words,
Speaker 1: the purchase prices. The most important function for some investors
Speaker 1: is the purchase price not only of the pace so
Speaker 1: but of certain Mexican assets at a point where you
Speaker 1: believe that long term investors will be significantly rewarded. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: But that is assuming that the reality of a Mexican
Speaker 1: economy continues to be in line of what it has
Speaker 1: been over the past. It's not it's the eleventh largest
Speaker 1: economy in the world exactly. But but but one needs
Speaker 1: to understand that if we go the route over, say,
Speaker 1: radicalization of positions between Mexico and the US, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of value that could be destroyed and actually Mexican
Speaker 1: assets could go even weaker. So again, given the central
Speaker 1: scenario in which countries are able to channel these differences
Speaker 1: and the potential to revamp NAFTA, all of that is
Speaker 1: channel through institutional means. Absolutely, the answer to your question
Speaker 1: is that the value of Mexican assets is significantly attractive. Well,
Speaker 1: so is it just the pace so that looks attractive
Speaker 1: or are there other Mexican opportunities the past will look
Speaker 1: even more so? Perhaps in the corporate sphere, the Mexican
Speaker 1: past with certainly top of mind here, and I would
Speaker 1: point to Mexican interest rates. There's been there's been an
Speaker 1: increase of more than two hundred basis points across the
Speaker 1: curve in Mexican bonds, and certainly when four point four
Speaker 1: point one one for the Mexican tenure. Yeah, and and
Speaker 1: local currency bonds. I mean you can get bonds for
Speaker 1: eight percent, say out to ten fifteen years in the
Speaker 1: case of Mexico. You don't get that type of wheels
Speaker 1: in many places in the world, especially in economies that
Speaker 1: are wrong responsibly like Mexico. Is there anything that you
Speaker 1: would see to diffuse this situation rapidly or will it
Speaker 1: have to escalate before it's diffused? Give you back thirty seconds.
Speaker 1: So what we're looking after the signpost is and has
Speaker 1: to be an announcement that the US, Canada and Mexico
Speaker 1: agree on a set up out of framework to revamp NaSTA,
Speaker 1: and then you get to the technical details and at
Speaker 1: that point it stops being an element of uncertainty. Thank
Speaker 1: you very much. Arado Rodriguez. He is Managing Director Portfolio
Speaker 1: manager for the Emerging Markets Group at black Rock Financial Management.
Speaker 1: I want to call upon Bloomberg Gadfly columnist Shira over
Speaker 1: Day to tell us a little bit about the technology
Speaker 1: industry and its response to the details of the executive
Speaker 1: orders that were signed over the weekend by President Trump
Speaker 1: regarding immigration. Yeah, so obviously the some of the tech
Speaker 1: industry executives and CEOs, and obviously those outside the tech
Speaker 1: industry too, are responding to the calls to restrict UM
Speaker 1: immigration from some of those predominantly Muslim countries. The interesting
Speaker 1: thing to me was Sergey Bryant, is one of the
Speaker 1: co founders of Google and a billionaire, one of the
Speaker 1: richest men in the world, was spotted at protests at
Speaker 1: San Francisco Airport over the weekend, which I don't think
Speaker 1: you would see, you know, Lloyd blankfeind or Jeff m
Speaker 1: melt at immigration protests. Although the week is young. We'll see,
Speaker 1: we shall see. We'll becoming the JFK ranks to see
Speaker 1: whether we see Lloyd blank find But in the meantime,
Speaker 1: shira uh, there was there's an interesting concern that some
Speaker 1: have that the worst for tech companies has yet to come,
Speaker 1: that basically VISA programs for foreign workers UM should be
Speaker 1: administered in a manner that protects the civil rights of
Speaker 1: American workers. Is according to a draft proposal that we
Speaker 1: may be getting from President Trump Trump imminently, with the
Speaker 1: idea being that some of these tech companies couldn't rely
Speaker 1: as much on some of their international recruiting programs they
Speaker 1: have in the past. Right, So basically there's a there's
Speaker 1: a kind of grab bag of skilled worker visa programs
Speaker 1: that are employed not only by tech companies but by
Speaker 1: many US corporations. The most kind of prominent one of
Speaker 1: these h one B visas, again, which are for skilled
Speaker 1: foreign workers in fields like engineering, and there's about eight
Speaker 1: five thousand of them issued every year. Uh, there is
Speaker 1: far more demand than there is supply, and the biggest
Speaker 1: users are the biggest companies. Granted those visas are outsourcing
Speaker 1: companies like Tata Consultancy and Accenture who hire engineers that
Speaker 1: that then work at again, tech companies, but also big
Speaker 1: banks and retailers and other American companies. What's the advantage
Speaker 1: for the tech companies that hire internationally other than just
Speaker 1: having a bigger pool of talent. Is this a play
Speaker 1: to lower the cost of of employing people? I think
Speaker 1: the goal depends on who you ask. So these programs
Speaker 1: have been targeted before, both on the left by people
Speaker 1: like Bernie Sanders and on the right as basically away
Speaker 1: for American companies to hire workers from abroad. They can
Speaker 1: pay less. Now, those companies who employ those uh those
Speaker 1: skilled worker visas say we can't find appropriate workers in
Speaker 1: the United States, that this is a global work force,
Speaker 1: or the the world is a global place and we
Speaker 1: need to be able to tap into the glow will
Speaker 1: workforce not just the people who live inside of the
Speaker 1: United States walls. Is there any hint that the president's
Speaker 1: administration will in some way recognize the deficit that would
Speaker 1: occur in the technology industry if it was more challenging
Speaker 1: to stay in the United States, let's say after your
Speaker 1: term school or study. I think the most honest answer is,
Speaker 1: I have no idea that. Um, everything seems to be
Speaker 1: kind of being done by the seat of the pants,
Speaker 1: and it's a little bit hard to know what impossible.
Speaker 1: If you are looking to make the system better to
Speaker 1: address the needs of technology companies, what would be one
Speaker 1: thing that you would suggest. I think that if you
Speaker 1: ask the tech executives, they would say, we want we
Speaker 1: want to be able to bring in more workers, and
Speaker 1: we want to be able to keep the large numbers
Speaker 1: of highly skilled, highly highly educated UM university graduates who
Speaker 1: are graduated from Harvard and Stanford every year, and our
Speaker 1: citizens of China, in India and other places. I think
Speaker 1: there's a big desire to keep those people in the
Speaker 1: United States and starting companies and working for companies. So
Speaker 1: I think that's the number one fix or potential fix
Speaker 1: with this visa provision that is included in a draft
Speaker 1: of an order that President Trump was expected to sign. Correct,
Speaker 1: Can can the President enact something like this without any
Speaker 1: congressional sign off? Again, the honest answer is it's not
Speaker 1: clear that. Obviously, UM Congress has been trying to work
Speaker 1: on various UM worker visa programs for a while, and
Speaker 1: I believe they're at least one kind of piece of
Speaker 1: legislation working its way through Congress. UM. Obviously, we've seen
Speaker 1: this White House already issue sweeping executive orders without input
Speaker 1: from Congress or without waiting for Congress, So this may
Speaker 1: be the same, and it's unclear exactly how it would
Speaker 1: work in practice. I believe it's worth noting that this
Speaker 1: was at least described as a security measure. This is
Speaker 1: not aimed at the business community. We're looking at the
Speaker 1: potential ramifications for the business community. Because the suspension of
Speaker 1: immigration is from uh IS, because they describe it as
Speaker 1: countries with ties to terror including Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, Iraq, Iran,
Speaker 1: and Libya for a period of ninety days. It also
Speaker 1: calls for the complete suspension of Syrian refugees for an
Speaker 1: indefinite period. And I just wanted to make that clear
Speaker 1: because the issue that perhaps the technology industry or any
Speaker 1: industry is focused on now is different, but maybe uh
Speaker 1: certainly come under the same heading. Correct, Is that? Yeah?
Speaker 1: I think that's fair. I mean there's two issues one right,
Speaker 1: there's the executive order issue of the weekend affecting people
Speaker 1: from those particular kind of Muslim dominated countries and Syrian refugees,
Speaker 1: and and there's this issue of this draft order that
Speaker 1: maybe coming down the pike that our colleagues wrote about
Speaker 1: affecting worker visas. And those are obviously separate issues, but
Speaker 1: both deal with immigrants to the United States. Do the
Speaker 1: sense of which technology companies executives are have to have
Speaker 1: the biggest voice into the White House? I don't know yet.
Speaker 1: It's been interesting to see, you know, Tim Cook, who's
Speaker 1: the CEO of Apple, isn't making the rounds in Washington
Speaker 1: in the last few days. The head of IBM is
Speaker 1: also influential the right. The CEOs of Oracle are also
Speaker 1: very influential. Um, but it's a little bit hard to
Speaker 1: know at this point who has real influence. Because the
Speaker 1: reason why I ask is because we've heard a lot
Speaker 1: about the auto companies and the Detroit CEOs that have
Speaker 1: met extensively with President Trump, and you don't hear it
Speaker 1: as much with the technology companies. Yes, there was that
Speaker 1: one meeting, but beyond that, we don't have a clear sense.
Speaker 1: I think that's true. All this is a pretty young administration.
Speaker 1: Did not feel that way, but well it could be.
Speaker 1: You could say it's it's been Peter til Yes, good point.
Speaker 1: I neglected to mention. Peter Tiald obviously has been a
Speaker 1: close advisor and advisor to Trump, co founder of PayPal.
Speaker 1: He like an Australian citizen. When citizen yes, and he's
Speaker 1: also an immigrant, distribute said the Teal's originally emigrated from Germany. Well, Sarah,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining us, Sirah Overday, who
Speaker 1: covers the technology sector for it. Let's move forward though,
Speaker 1: with Justin st Justin is our Bloomberg government reporter and
Speaker 1: he joins us. Now, Justin, let's get the sort of agenda.
Speaker 1: What is scheduled for today as far as the cabinet nominees. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so we are inspecting, but but aren't positive that we're
Speaker 1: going to see Rex tellers in the Secretary of State
Speaker 1: Um have his sort of final vote in in the Senate.
Speaker 1: That it's expected that he's going to fly through and
Speaker 1: likely fly through today, especially after winning the sport of
Speaker 1: some key Republicans, including Mark Rubio. But Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Um,
Speaker 1: the top Democrat in the Senate, UH said Monday that
Speaker 1: he's hoping to ask for delay on the confirmation vote,
Speaker 1: citing the sort of chaos stemming from from the Muslim
Speaker 1: ban um or the extreme betting band, depending on who
Speaker 1: you're talking to. U that the unrolled over the weekend
Speaker 1: and obviously caused some chaos at airports and across the country.
Speaker 1: You know, one thing that was a little bit played
Speaker 1: down as a result of getting overshadowed by the Executive
Speaker 1: Order on Immigration that President Trump signed was the decision
Speaker 1: to elevate Steve Bannon to National Security Council and to
Speaker 1: remove some other national security officials from that post. Do
Speaker 1: you have any color on what was behind that or
Speaker 1: what the implications are. Sure? Yeah, I mean, I think
Speaker 1: it is interesting to just show a bit of the
Speaker 1: consolidation of power that Steve Bannon, who's the former chairman
Speaker 1: of Right bart Um now at a top aid both
Speaker 1: in the campaign and the White House to Donald Trump
Speaker 1: some of his power. It does make sense in the
Speaker 1: context that when Bannon was introduced he was UM sort
Speaker 1: of referred to with as a co chief of staff
Speaker 1: with with Ryn's previous that they'd have similar roles. The
Speaker 1: chief of staff typically serves on on the NFC, but
Speaker 1: it is UM somewhat unprecedented to have a purely political
Speaker 1: figure on the staff. George W. Bush Passilly excluded people
Speaker 1: under Obama. David X rod Will sit in on a
Speaker 1: couple of those meetings, but wasn't there regularly, and so
Speaker 1: UM this is a change. The other sort of aspect
Speaker 1: of this is that UM one of the people who
Speaker 1: had their roles a little reduced was the Director National Intelligence,
Speaker 1: Mike Flynn, who's UM the National Security Advisor, has said
Speaker 1: that he wants d n I, which is the body
Speaker 1: that kind of coordinates all the different intelligence agencies together,
Speaker 1: to have a reduced role. And and that's interesting because
Speaker 1: Mike Flynn was actually fired by President Obama's Director of
Speaker 1: National Intelligence a couple of years ago, and so he
Speaker 1: has I think some residual animosity towards that body and
Speaker 1: is looking to reform um the way that intelligence works
Speaker 1: in the Trump administration so that people like him UH
Speaker 1: can succeed in the way that they didn't or he
Speaker 1: didn't in the Obama administration. One other thing that we've
Speaker 1: heard out of President Trump's camp this morning was that
Speaker 1: he intends to revamp Dodd Frank in a very big way.
Speaker 1: I want to bring in Nathan Dean of Bloomberg Intelligence
Speaker 1: to give us more of a sense of what this
Speaker 1: potential rollback might look like, especially in light of Treasury
Speaker 1: Secretary nominee Steve Manusian's comments last week while he was
Speaker 1: being UH when he while he was testifying in front
Speaker 1: of Senate saying that he did not intend to completely
Speaker 1: eradicate the vocal rule. So I think what this means
Speaker 1: is that they're going to be studying the existing regulations. UH.
Speaker 1: They're going to spend a couple of months, three or
Speaker 1: six months looking at the REGs UH and trying to
Speaker 1: look at ways that they can increase liquidity. UH, they
Speaker 1: can actually maybe make it cheaper to lend money. But
Speaker 1: I think you're going to see a targeted look at regulations.
Speaker 1: SEC Chair nominee J. Clayton, for example, He's going to
Speaker 1: have carte blanche to look at this. But if you
Speaker 1: look at regulations that are governed by the FED or
Speaker 1: the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Uh, those are still led
Speaker 1: by Obama era appointees. And so Janet Janet Yellen at
Speaker 1: the FED, for example, you know she's going to remain
Speaker 1: in office still two thousand and eighteen. She may not abide.
Speaker 1: But what by what President Trump wants to do in
Speaker 1: terms of regulation or rolling back dot Frank, Hey and Nathan,
Speaker 1: can you just elaborate on on who Clayton is, what
Speaker 1: his background indicates about what he's likely to be like
Speaker 1: as uh as the head yep. So, Jay Clayton uh
Speaker 1: from Sullivan and Cromo has done a lot of work
Speaker 1: with Wall Street, Uh, not so much on financial regulation
Speaker 1: more I P O M and A activity. Our take
Speaker 1: on that is that he speaks the bank's language, but
Speaker 1: he's not a Dodd Frank Uh. Uh not a lot
Speaker 1: of experience in terms of Dodd Frank. So what we
Speaker 1: expect from the nominee when he comes in and we
Speaker 1: expect him to be confirmed. UH, is that they're going
Speaker 1: to spend some time three to six months not putting
Speaker 1: any new regulations out that we expect the a sec
Speaker 1: to follow uh Donald Trump's executive order on that. So
Speaker 1: we don't expect any new rags, but we expect to
Speaker 1: see him talking to the industry, talking to a lot
Speaker 1: of bankers about what they see as ways that they
Speaker 1: can roll back legs uh, and then eventually pushing the
Speaker 1: agency to um move forward on that. Yeah, Nathan Dean,
Speaker 1: thank you so much. Bloomberg Intelligence government analyst there on
Speaker 1: Dodd Frank and Justin Sank before I say goodbye, just
Speaker 1: in a couple of seconds. It's the mood like right
Speaker 1: now in Washington. I think it's a little chaotic. Everybody
Speaker 1: is trying to figure out what the priorities of the
Speaker 1: Trump administration are and how they're implementing some of these
Speaker 1: executive actions because obviously it's not being communicated extremely well
Speaker 1: right now. Thank you so much. Justin Sink, Bloomberg government
Speaker 1: reporter in Washington, d C. Thanks for listening to the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg P and L podcast. You can subscribe and listen
Speaker 1: to interviews at iTunes, SoundCloud, or whatever podcast platform you prefer.
Speaker 1: I'm pim Fox. I'm out there on Twitter at pim Fox.
Speaker 1: I'm out there on Twitter at Lisa Abramo. It's one
Speaker 1: before the podcast. You can always catch us worldwide on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Radio