WEBVTT - Jay Powell and Meta

0:00:00.800 --> 0:00:04.040
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Markets Podcast. I'm Paul Sweeney alongside

0:00:04.040 --> 0:00:06.920
<v Speaker 1>my co host Matt Miller. Every business day we bring

0:00:06.920 --> 0:00:11.520
<v Speaker 1>you interviews from CEOs, market pros, and Bloomberg experts, along

0:00:11.520 --> 0:00:15.520
<v Speaker 1>with essential market moving news. Find a Bloomberg Markets podcast

0:00:15.560 --> 0:00:18.439
<v Speaker 1>called Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to podcasts, and

0:00:18.480 --> 0:00:21.960
<v Speaker 1>at Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. So, Curtty, we had

0:00:22.200 --> 0:00:26.800
<v Speaker 1>pretty I think, pretty consistent, you know comments from FED

0:00:26.880 --> 0:00:29.600
<v Speaker 1>Chairman Powell. He's going higher for longer, he has going

0:00:29.680 --> 0:00:32.879
<v Speaker 1>high for longer, you know, as expected. He kind of

0:00:32.880 --> 0:00:34.839
<v Speaker 1>had the burden of proof going in the idea that

0:00:34.880 --> 0:00:37.040
<v Speaker 1>he needed to make that case. He made it pretty

0:00:37.040 --> 0:00:39.680
<v Speaker 1>well and I thought it was interesting. I think my

0:00:39.680 --> 0:00:41.960
<v Speaker 1>favorite part of the testimony had to be the Elizabeth Warren.

0:00:42.040 --> 0:00:44.760
<v Speaker 1>Oh yeah, back, that was brutal. We knew, we knew,

0:00:44.800 --> 0:00:46.320
<v Speaker 1>we knew that was going to happen. We knew. There's

0:00:46.360 --> 0:00:49.839
<v Speaker 1>many a conversation about recession and jobs, but Chairman Powell

0:00:50.240 --> 0:00:52.320
<v Speaker 1>handled it beautifully. He said, look, would it be better

0:00:53.400 --> 0:00:56.279
<v Speaker 1>to not have a recession but then have a lot

0:00:56.320 --> 0:00:59.240
<v Speaker 1>of these working income families deal with extremely high inflation?

0:00:59.280 --> 0:01:02.680
<v Speaker 1>And yeah, no bias here, but that's a pretty fair point. Yeah, absolutely.

0:01:02.720 --> 0:01:05.720
<v Speaker 1>I mean, the FED is clearly sticking with its we

0:01:05.760 --> 0:01:08.360
<v Speaker 1>are fighting inflation montra. All right, let's bring in somebody

0:01:08.400 --> 0:01:11.319
<v Speaker 1>here who does this whole FED thing, this interest rate thing.

0:01:11.360 --> 0:01:14.800
<v Speaker 1>He does it for a living. Bloomberg Intelligence US interest

0:01:14.840 --> 0:01:20.000
<v Speaker 1>rate strategist Jersey joined us from Petetown, New Jersey, IRA.

0:01:20.120 --> 0:01:22.560
<v Speaker 1>What'd you take away from FED chairman pal here yet

0:01:22.560 --> 0:01:26.040
<v Speaker 1>about it? You know, almost a couple hours there. Yeah,

0:01:25.280 --> 0:01:28.399
<v Speaker 1>he was somewhat more hawkish, which I guess isn't a

0:01:28.440 --> 0:01:31.880
<v Speaker 1>shock given the path of the recent data and just

0:01:31.959 --> 0:01:34.479
<v Speaker 1>how strong it's been. You know, he didn't I agree

0:01:34.480 --> 0:01:37.280
<v Speaker 1>with you, Paul. He didn't say anything completely foreign to

0:01:37.360 --> 0:01:39.960
<v Speaker 1>what we've heard out of FED speakers in recent weeks.

0:01:40.000 --> 0:01:42.440
<v Speaker 1>But but I think importantly is that he didn't make

0:01:42.480 --> 0:01:45.080
<v Speaker 1>that many dovish statements. You know. One of the big

0:01:45.120 --> 0:01:47.400
<v Speaker 1>things that has come out of a lot of the

0:01:47.400 --> 0:01:49.960
<v Speaker 1>FED statements and even some of the speeches, particularly from

0:01:49.960 --> 0:01:54.640
<v Speaker 1>the chair, is that starting about last October November that

0:01:55.000 --> 0:01:58.080
<v Speaker 1>they started to have more dovish statements. Still the same hawkishness,

0:01:58.280 --> 0:02:01.520
<v Speaker 1>but more dovish statements kind of you know, with risk management.

0:02:02.360 --> 0:02:05.440
<v Speaker 1>You didn't hear that today, So our models suggest that

0:02:05.600 --> 0:02:09.080
<v Speaker 1>his sentiment today was somewhat more hawkish than they have

0:02:09.160 --> 0:02:12.679
<v Speaker 1>been the last couple of months. Well, during those headlines,

0:02:12.760 --> 0:02:15.839
<v Speaker 1>you saw some pretty interesting market moves, an inversion now

0:02:15.880 --> 0:02:18.600
<v Speaker 1>in the two tents of a negative one hundred, as

0:02:18.639 --> 0:02:21.320
<v Speaker 1>well as fifty bases points now being priced in for March.

0:02:21.440 --> 0:02:25.480
<v Speaker 1>Is that an overreaction? So, you know, I don't think

0:02:25.520 --> 0:02:27.960
<v Speaker 1>that the curve in version is a particularly big reaction

0:02:28.000 --> 0:02:29.600
<v Speaker 1>because I do think with the with the path of

0:02:29.680 --> 0:02:32.959
<v Speaker 1>the data, and you know, quite frankly, the data surprised

0:02:33.000 --> 0:02:35.840
<v Speaker 1>us so much that we were changing where we thought

0:02:35.840 --> 0:02:38.160
<v Speaker 1>the terminal rate would be. And so it makes sense

0:02:38.200 --> 0:02:40.560
<v Speaker 1>that if the Fed's going to be going to five

0:02:40.600 --> 0:02:42.720
<v Speaker 1>and a half five and three quarter percent on the

0:02:42.800 --> 0:02:45.800
<v Speaker 1>terminal rate, that the yield curve would probably just invert

0:02:45.880 --> 0:02:48.959
<v Speaker 1>that much more, in part because eventually we're going to

0:02:49.040 --> 0:02:52.520
<v Speaker 1>see a very dramatic slowdown probably in inflation and growth,

0:02:52.880 --> 0:02:54.520
<v Speaker 1>and the FED will have to respond to that by

0:02:54.520 --> 0:02:58.040
<v Speaker 1>cutting interest rates. So the longer term interest rates, you know,

0:02:58.160 --> 0:03:00.520
<v Speaker 1>kind of like we've been saying, well, will be more

0:03:00.560 --> 0:03:03.040
<v Speaker 1>or less hover where they are, But it's the front

0:03:03.120 --> 0:03:05.920
<v Speaker 1>end that keeps on repricing, and you may have to

0:03:05.960 --> 0:03:08.920
<v Speaker 1>reprice even more if the FED goes to say six percent,

0:03:08.960 --> 0:03:11.519
<v Speaker 1>because the data doesn't slow down the way that that,

0:03:11.600 --> 0:03:14.320
<v Speaker 1>you know, kind of we all hope, all right, So

0:03:14.360 --> 0:03:17.080
<v Speaker 1>I guess fifty basis points is not only on the

0:03:17.120 --> 0:03:21.080
<v Speaker 1>table but front and center. Is that your takeaway? Yeah,

0:03:21.160 --> 0:03:24.000
<v Speaker 1>so I think fifty fifty odds. I don't think that

0:03:24.040 --> 0:03:26.360
<v Speaker 1>they want to that that the FED really wants to

0:03:26.400 --> 0:03:29.080
<v Speaker 1>increase rates fifty basis points. But if you know, if

0:03:29.080 --> 0:03:31.360
<v Speaker 1>we get data that's kind of in line with what

0:03:31.360 --> 0:03:33.880
<v Speaker 1>we saw in February, I don't think I think that

0:03:33.919 --> 0:03:36.480
<v Speaker 1>they'll have the ammunition and the cover in order to

0:03:36.520 --> 0:03:38.160
<v Speaker 1>do that, because they can just say, like, hey, we

0:03:38.200 --> 0:03:40.120
<v Speaker 1>need to get in front of this data that's been

0:03:40.560 --> 0:03:44.320
<v Speaker 1>significantly stronger. So so it wouldn't be a surprise. I

0:03:44.360 --> 0:03:46.560
<v Speaker 1>think that the market at least until we get the

0:03:46.560 --> 0:03:49.840
<v Speaker 1>payrolls data on Friday and then the CPI data next week,

0:03:50.160 --> 0:03:53.040
<v Speaker 1>that will that the market will probably be fifty fifty,

0:03:53.080 --> 0:03:55.480
<v Speaker 1>and then you'll see pretty big shifts in there based

0:03:55.520 --> 0:03:57.760
<v Speaker 1>on how this data comes out. You know, we get

0:03:57.760 --> 0:03:59.640
<v Speaker 1>a you know, we get one hundred and fifty thousand

0:03:59.640 --> 0:04:02.920
<v Speaker 1>payroll print, we probably go back to pricing at twenty five.

0:04:03.240 --> 0:04:06.440
<v Speaker 1>We get some somewhat significantly higher than that, know, another

0:04:06.440 --> 0:04:08.680
<v Speaker 1>five hundred print, we're certainly going to be pricing for

0:04:08.720 --> 0:04:11.720
<v Speaker 1>a fifty. Well, the repricing for a fifty is I

0:04:11.760 --> 0:04:15.360
<v Speaker 1>think what scares kind of me the most if you're

0:04:15.400 --> 0:04:17.279
<v Speaker 1>looking at it from a market point of view, simply

0:04:17.360 --> 0:04:20.880
<v Speaker 1>because the idea of a step up era when I

0:04:20.880 --> 0:04:22.240
<v Speaker 1>feel like such a big deal was made it from

0:04:22.240 --> 0:04:23.960
<v Speaker 1>a step down that we were end we were getting

0:04:23.960 --> 0:04:26.000
<v Speaker 1>closer to the end of this kind of tightening cycle

0:04:26.279 --> 0:04:29.760
<v Speaker 1>instead of this reacceleration of one. Why are we not

0:04:29.880 --> 0:04:33.200
<v Speaker 1>seeing a more dramatic equity reaction and or actually a

0:04:33.200 --> 0:04:36.160
<v Speaker 1>bond reaction, since you are a bond strategist, a ten

0:04:36.240 --> 0:04:38.240
<v Speaker 1>year year old. Still it's at three ninety four, Why

0:04:38.240 --> 0:04:41.240
<v Speaker 1>are we not seeing it spike sustainably above four? Well,

0:04:41.360 --> 0:04:44.200
<v Speaker 1>I think, well for two reasons. One is because the

0:04:44.800 --> 0:04:48.040
<v Speaker 1>idea that the equity market and risk assets aren't going

0:04:48.080 --> 0:04:49.839
<v Speaker 1>to do well, I think is one of the reasons

0:04:49.839 --> 0:04:51.800
<v Speaker 1>why you wind up having the long end that you

0:04:51.800 --> 0:04:54.400
<v Speaker 1>know kind of winds up being relatively stable because it

0:04:54.480 --> 0:04:57.520
<v Speaker 1>is a flight to quality asset, and if risk assets

0:04:57.560 --> 0:04:59.920
<v Speaker 1>are selling off, if people are getting out of corporate bond,

0:05:00.040 --> 0:05:02.800
<v Speaker 1>as people are selling equities to buy fixed income, all

0:05:02.839 --> 0:05:06.640
<v Speaker 1>of those things benefit um longer duration treasuries, whereas the

0:05:06.680 --> 0:05:10.080
<v Speaker 1>front end is much more influenced by the Fed's policy actions.

0:05:10.120 --> 0:05:13.960
<v Speaker 1>So that's where that deep inversion, and you know, very

0:05:14.080 --> 0:05:17.480
<v Speaker 1>very significant inversion comes in. Now, keep in mind, the market,

0:05:17.600 --> 0:05:20.560
<v Speaker 1>like a hundred basis point inversion would be where I

0:05:20.560 --> 0:05:22.560
<v Speaker 1>would expect us to be. But keep in mind back

0:05:22.560 --> 0:05:25.320
<v Speaker 1>in the nineteen eighties, you actually we did actually hit

0:05:25.400 --> 0:05:27.520
<v Speaker 1>negative two hundred basis points at one point, So so

0:05:27.560 --> 0:05:30.360
<v Speaker 1>there was a time when the two's tense curve inverted

0:05:30.400 --> 0:05:32.520
<v Speaker 1>significantly more than we did. Now, now, will will that

0:05:32.560 --> 0:05:36.320
<v Speaker 1>happen again? Um? It really depends on the path of

0:05:36.320 --> 0:05:39.480
<v Speaker 1>the data. And you know, the you know, forecasting the

0:05:39.560 --> 0:05:42.400
<v Speaker 1>data at this point I think has been has been

0:05:42.440 --> 0:05:45.559
<v Speaker 1>incredibly difficult, not only for myself but for the street

0:05:45.560 --> 0:05:49.560
<v Speaker 1>at large, in part because you know, the dynamics have

0:05:49.680 --> 0:05:53.359
<v Speaker 1>shifted so much in terms of spending and the like.

0:05:53.600 --> 0:05:56.720
<v Speaker 1>So so if if we if we do get additional hikes,

0:05:56.760 --> 0:06:00.680
<v Speaker 1>and we do get some equity weakness therefore, then yeah,

0:06:00.680 --> 0:06:02.799
<v Speaker 1>you can wind up seeing you know, ten year yields

0:06:02.800 --> 0:06:04.800
<v Speaker 1>going to stay where they are, and you know, two

0:06:04.880 --> 0:06:07.679
<v Speaker 1>year yields can go up significantly more another fifty sixty

0:06:07.720 --> 0:06:10.400
<v Speaker 1>basis points. And if that happens, you know, again, risk

0:06:10.440 --> 0:06:12.360
<v Speaker 1>assets are probably not going to have a good time

0:06:12.400 --> 0:06:15.440
<v Speaker 1>of it, at least for a little while. How would

0:06:15.440 --> 0:06:17.400
<v Speaker 1>you characterize it? Or maybe when you when you talk

0:06:17.440 --> 0:06:20.160
<v Speaker 1>to investors out there, traders out there in the marketplace,

0:06:20.200 --> 0:06:23.400
<v Speaker 1>how did they view the the feder reserve here is

0:06:23.400 --> 0:06:25.760
<v Speaker 1>is this a FED that's still kind of playing catch up?

0:06:25.880 --> 0:06:27.680
<v Speaker 1>Is it still on its heels or has it gotten

0:06:27.720 --> 0:06:32.360
<v Speaker 1>ahead of the kind of the whole policy debate issue. Yeah,

0:06:32.600 --> 0:06:35.480
<v Speaker 1>so it's it's interesting because a year ago, when I

0:06:35.560 --> 0:06:37.200
<v Speaker 1>was talking about the FED hiking to four and a

0:06:37.240 --> 0:06:39.719
<v Speaker 1>half percent, you had a lot of people saying, like,

0:06:39.720 --> 0:06:41.240
<v Speaker 1>if the FED hikes to four and a half percent,

0:06:41.279 --> 0:06:43.120
<v Speaker 1>we're definitely going in recess rights. It's going to be

0:06:43.120 --> 0:06:46.080
<v Speaker 1>really bad. Yeah, you know, and and you know now

0:06:46.080 --> 0:06:48.000
<v Speaker 1>that we're definitely going to be hiking above that, right,

0:06:48.000 --> 0:06:50.159
<v Speaker 1>they've already hiked above where we thought that they would

0:06:50.200 --> 0:06:53.960
<v Speaker 1>at the time. The you now have people who are like,

0:06:54.000 --> 0:06:55.880
<v Speaker 1>you know, they're they're definitely behind the curve. They're so

0:06:55.880 --> 0:06:58.120
<v Speaker 1>far behind the curve, and then you have others who

0:06:58.120 --> 0:07:00.000
<v Speaker 1>are like, you know, probably more in our camp, which

0:07:00.160 --> 0:07:02.240
<v Speaker 1>is they're getting close to the end, but you know,

0:07:02.240 --> 0:07:04.240
<v Speaker 1>will the end be five and a half percent or

0:07:04.240 --> 0:07:06.159
<v Speaker 1>will it be five and three quarters? Will it be six?

0:07:06.279 --> 0:07:09.680
<v Speaker 1>Like like we're kind of tweaking and calibrating where the

0:07:09.760 --> 0:07:11.120
<v Speaker 1>Fed's going to get to. Now, the one thing I

0:07:11.200 --> 0:07:13.800
<v Speaker 1>will note is that when we get the CPI print,

0:07:13.880 --> 0:07:16.240
<v Speaker 1>we're going to have to consider how is that going

0:07:16.240 --> 0:07:20.120
<v Speaker 1>to affect the Fed's preferred inflation measure, which is the

0:07:20.200 --> 0:07:23.880
<v Speaker 1>personal consumption expenditure deflator, the pc deflator that came in

0:07:23.920 --> 0:07:26.480
<v Speaker 1>at five point four percent year on year when we

0:07:26.520 --> 0:07:29.680
<v Speaker 1>got the data for January. So if that remains the same,

0:07:29.760 --> 0:07:32.280
<v Speaker 1>let's just assume that remains the same, then that means

0:07:32.280 --> 0:07:35.760
<v Speaker 1>the Feder reserved. If it hikes to five and three quarters,

0:07:35.800 --> 0:07:38.000
<v Speaker 1>that means that the FED funds rate, the real FED

0:07:38.000 --> 0:07:41.040
<v Speaker 1>funds rate, will be positive. The FED has always hiked

0:07:41.240 --> 0:07:43.200
<v Speaker 1>in the post war period. The FED has always hiked

0:07:43.280 --> 0:07:46.000
<v Speaker 1>until that measure was positive. So they're not going to

0:07:46.080 --> 0:07:48.920
<v Speaker 1>stop until we get at least a five and a

0:07:48.960 --> 0:07:53.200
<v Speaker 1>half probably five and three quarters, And so that's why

0:07:53.240 --> 0:07:56.640
<v Speaker 1>this next inflation print and the next few inflation prints

0:07:56.680 --> 0:08:00.000
<v Speaker 1>are going to be really imperative for us to analyze,

0:08:00.360 --> 0:08:03.000
<v Speaker 1>and those will drive where the Fed's going to go,

0:08:03.040 --> 0:08:05.360
<v Speaker 1>And therefore what the shapes the curve is probably what

0:08:05.480 --> 0:08:07.800
<v Speaker 1>risk assets do as well. Well, you talked about the

0:08:07.800 --> 0:08:10.680
<v Speaker 1>CBI print, of course, and it feels like the trend

0:08:10.720 --> 0:08:14.280
<v Speaker 1>thus far has kind of been a one way disinflation.

0:08:14.680 --> 0:08:17.080
<v Speaker 1>But I were what happens when we get if we

0:08:17.120 --> 0:08:20.000
<v Speaker 1>get I have no insight, but if we get a

0:08:20.040 --> 0:08:23.200
<v Speaker 1>super hot jobs report on Friday, is that the bigger

0:08:23.280 --> 0:08:27.440
<v Speaker 1>news event out of the two? Um? Well, well, so

0:08:27.520 --> 0:08:30.760
<v Speaker 1>the distribution of those jobs will be important. But yeah,

0:08:30.760 --> 0:08:32.720
<v Speaker 1>if we get a hot jobs print, not only the

0:08:32.800 --> 0:08:34.880
<v Speaker 1>number of jobs, but you look at the wage data

0:08:34.880 --> 0:08:38.040
<v Speaker 1>and the distribution of that wage data, Um, that'll be

0:08:38.120 --> 0:08:40.720
<v Speaker 1>very important. So so J Powell even as open opening

0:08:40.760 --> 0:08:43.600
<v Speaker 1>remarks that they reiterated the idea that they're looking at

0:08:43.679 --> 0:08:46.480
<v Speaker 1>what they call core services X housing. So it's basically

0:08:46.840 --> 0:08:52.960
<v Speaker 1>the service sector excluding energy services, food services, and UH

0:08:53.240 --> 0:08:56.400
<v Speaker 1>and housing, which which still equates to a very large

0:08:56.440 --> 0:09:00.480
<v Speaker 1>port like forty percent of of the PC to Flater.

0:09:00.960 --> 0:09:05.080
<v Speaker 1>So so the and services are driven in very large

0:09:05.120 --> 0:09:08.360
<v Speaker 1>part by wages. So wages are growing very quickly because

0:09:08.360 --> 0:09:11.600
<v Speaker 1>there's not enough work people in the workforce. Then yeah,

0:09:11.640 --> 0:09:14.440
<v Speaker 1>that that number could wind up being you know, crucial

0:09:14.440 --> 0:09:16.640
<v Speaker 1>to how the market prices for the next FED move.

0:09:16.679 --> 0:09:18.800
<v Speaker 1>And I think, again, if that's hot, we're going to

0:09:18.840 --> 0:09:21.520
<v Speaker 1>price for a fifty No, almost no doubt in my mind.

0:09:21.640 --> 0:09:24.120
<v Speaker 1>All right, great stuff, Ire Jersey, chief US interest rate

0:09:24.120 --> 0:09:27.240
<v Speaker 1>strategists for Bloomberg Intelligence giving us a kind of a

0:09:27.240 --> 0:09:30.120
<v Speaker 1>review of what we heard from Senator I'm sorry, Jay

0:09:30.160 --> 0:09:37.560
<v Speaker 1>Palfam the Federal Reserve this morning. Meta formerly known as

0:09:38.160 --> 0:09:42.079
<v Speaker 1>Hey Facebook, thank you very much, layoff some more people.

0:09:42.240 --> 0:09:44.360
<v Speaker 1>I find it fascinating as these tech companies we see

0:09:44.400 --> 0:09:48.120
<v Speaker 1>layoff after layoff after layoff a couple of things. One,

0:09:48.200 --> 0:09:50.520
<v Speaker 1>the stock usually goes up on the house these layoffs,

0:09:50.559 --> 0:09:53.719
<v Speaker 1>and two you really need context here. So to get

0:09:53.760 --> 0:09:56.920
<v Speaker 1>some context, we asked an expert to join his Man

0:09:56.960 --> 0:10:00.000
<v Speaker 1>Deep sing. He covers all things technology for Bloomberg Intelligence.

0:10:00.520 --> 0:10:03.199
<v Speaker 1>Man Deep, what's going on at Meta and some of

0:10:03.240 --> 0:10:07.000
<v Speaker 1>these other tech companies. Is this simply kind of I

0:10:07.040 --> 0:10:09.680
<v Speaker 1>don't know, pairing some fat that they incurred during the

0:10:09.720 --> 0:10:12.680
<v Speaker 1>pandemic when they continue to hire aggressively or is this

0:10:12.720 --> 0:10:17.720
<v Speaker 1>a reflection of real headwinds in their business. I would

0:10:17.720 --> 0:10:20.920
<v Speaker 1>say it's more the latter, simply because if we know

0:10:21.160 --> 0:10:24.600
<v Speaker 1>that the ad businesses are cyclical, and if they saw,

0:10:24.760 --> 0:10:28.240
<v Speaker 1>you know, this downturn was over in the next three

0:10:28.280 --> 0:10:31.840
<v Speaker 1>to six months, they wouldn't be announcing a second round

0:10:31.840 --> 0:10:35.560
<v Speaker 1>of layoff, specially since they've done you know, pretty big

0:10:35.679 --> 0:10:39.959
<v Speaker 1>lya off almost four months back. So in my mind,

0:10:40.080 --> 0:10:44.200
<v Speaker 1>this is signaling. Look, top line, it's gonna take a while.

0:10:44.240 --> 0:10:47.560
<v Speaker 1>Probably it's a twenty twenty fourth thing. And with Meta,

0:10:47.640 --> 0:10:50.679
<v Speaker 1>we know they are going aggressively in terms of spending

0:10:50.679 --> 0:10:54.600
<v Speaker 1>on the Meta Worse and still I mean, look, Mark

0:10:54.679 --> 0:10:59.600
<v Speaker 1>Zuckerberg fields very strongly about his Meta Worse investment, so

0:10:59.640 --> 0:11:02.360
<v Speaker 1>they're not carrying back on that. They're really trying to

0:11:02.480 --> 0:11:06.160
<v Speaker 1>drive efficiencies out of the core business. And that's why

0:11:06.280 --> 0:11:08.640
<v Speaker 1>you see you know, another round of cuts in terms

0:11:08.679 --> 0:11:12.400
<v Speaker 1>of how they can improve the free cash flow from

0:11:12.400 --> 0:11:16.920
<v Speaker 1>the core business. Oh man, theory for our name there

0:11:16.920 --> 0:11:19.160
<v Speaker 1>for a second, Oh my god, complete mind. Like before

0:11:19.200 --> 0:11:20.840
<v Speaker 1>I ask the Meta, I have a question for you.

0:11:20.920 --> 0:11:24.079
<v Speaker 1>Do you actually you cover so much social media out there? Pinterest,

0:11:24.160 --> 0:11:27.840
<v Speaker 1>snap for our listeners Facebook of course, or Meta obviously,

0:11:28.040 --> 0:11:29.880
<v Speaker 1>do actually have an account with all of these social

0:11:29.960 --> 0:11:34.880
<v Speaker 1>media companies, just out of curiosity, say that again, do

0:11:34.920 --> 0:11:36.439
<v Speaker 1>I have a do you? Do you have accounts? Do

0:11:36.440 --> 0:11:39.480
<v Speaker 1>you have like a Pinchest account, a Snapchat account? I do, yes,

0:11:39.640 --> 0:11:43.360
<v Speaker 1>But I mean obviously I use you know, Meta a

0:11:43.400 --> 0:11:48.320
<v Speaker 1>lot more than I use Pinterest or snaps, and I

0:11:48.440 --> 0:11:51.760
<v Speaker 1>do try to play around with the tabs in each

0:11:51.800 --> 0:11:54.280
<v Speaker 1>of the apps. To me, that just goes to show

0:11:54.320 --> 0:11:57.960
<v Speaker 1>you know, what is it. I mean, every tab is different,

0:11:58.040 --> 0:12:00.920
<v Speaker 1>and you have to equate it to a super app,

0:12:01.040 --> 0:12:04.240
<v Speaker 1>you know in China where what these companies are trying

0:12:04.280 --> 0:12:07.800
<v Speaker 1>to do is to really pack everything inside that app.

0:12:07.840 --> 0:12:11.920
<v Speaker 1>And I think in the case of Instagram and core

0:12:11.960 --> 0:12:15.880
<v Speaker 1>Blue app, even though the engagement is declining, they do

0:12:16.000 --> 0:12:18.360
<v Speaker 1>have a lot of functionality, which is why when you

0:12:18.400 --> 0:12:21.600
<v Speaker 1>look at the time spent on these apps average time spent,

0:12:22.000 --> 0:12:25.960
<v Speaker 1>it's still north of thirty forty minutes per daily active user,

0:12:26.400 --> 0:12:29.120
<v Speaker 1>and for a user like me, it's probably on the

0:12:29.160 --> 0:12:32.360
<v Speaker 1>lower side, so the average gets you know, it's it's

0:12:32.480 --> 0:12:36.160
<v Speaker 1>much higher. But I do spend time on these apps.

0:12:36.160 --> 0:12:39.040
<v Speaker 1>And look, that's why social media is so powerful, right

0:12:39.320 --> 0:12:42.480
<v Speaker 1>because we all spend time on these apps totally. So

0:12:42.640 --> 0:12:44.360
<v Speaker 1>men deep talk to us about kind of the bigger

0:12:44.400 --> 0:12:48.040
<v Speaker 1>picture there from a revenue perspective, is, you know, the

0:12:48.040 --> 0:12:51.600
<v Speaker 1>digital advertising space. Talk to us about a the secular

0:12:51.640 --> 0:12:57.080
<v Speaker 1>story has that changed, ie taking share from traditional media growth, growth, growth,

0:12:57.640 --> 0:13:00.120
<v Speaker 1>and then maybe even the shorter term story here over

0:13:00.160 --> 0:13:04.080
<v Speaker 1>the next several quarters as we face maybe you know,

0:13:04.120 --> 0:13:07.920
<v Speaker 1>recessionary headwinds. I mean, there's no doubt in my mind

0:13:08.000 --> 0:13:13.599
<v Speaker 1>that digital advertising is still more targeted, higher ROI and

0:13:13.760 --> 0:13:18.079
<v Speaker 1>you compare it to traditional ad spend and the power

0:13:18.240 --> 0:13:21.280
<v Speaker 1>of AI. Whether you know you believe in what chat

0:13:21.360 --> 0:13:24.960
<v Speaker 1>bots or a large language models could do, but essentially

0:13:25.040 --> 0:13:29.560
<v Speaker 1>it's aimed at leveraging more data to show things that

0:13:29.600 --> 0:13:32.400
<v Speaker 1>are more relevant for you. And and so I do

0:13:32.559 --> 0:13:36.280
<v Speaker 1>think the trend is still intact. Now what is keith

0:13:36.720 --> 0:13:40.000
<v Speaker 1>for me is who has the most engagement. So right now,

0:13:40.360 --> 0:13:43.760
<v Speaker 1>think of you know, the mobile operating systems as the gatekeepers,

0:13:43.800 --> 0:13:48.280
<v Speaker 1>you know, the walled gardens, Apple and Google Android operating

0:13:48.320 --> 0:13:51.600
<v Speaker 1>system they control the apps. And and so even though

0:13:51.880 --> 0:13:56.760
<v Speaker 1>Facebook and TikTok, all these apps have engagement, any change

0:13:56.880 --> 0:13:59.880
<v Speaker 1>that Apple makes has a bearing on you know, their

0:14:00.120 --> 0:14:02.480
<v Speaker 1>entire business models, which is what we saw last year.

0:14:02.520 --> 0:14:08.080
<v Speaker 1>And that's why as long as Facebook Instagram can keep

0:14:08.160 --> 0:14:13.240
<v Speaker 1>that engagement, I think advertising revenues will rebound. Ad pricing

0:14:13.240 --> 0:14:16.480
<v Speaker 1>will come back. Although what Apple has done is really

0:14:16.600 --> 0:14:20.240
<v Speaker 1>something structural in terms of, you know, giving less signal

0:14:20.400 --> 0:14:22.840
<v Speaker 1>to these companies. So that's why we've seen that ad

0:14:22.880 --> 0:14:26.280
<v Speaker 1>pricing headman. But really it's an engagement game at the

0:14:26.360 --> 0:14:29.760
<v Speaker 1>end of the day. As long as you maintain that engagement,

0:14:30.160 --> 0:14:32.800
<v Speaker 1>the ad pricing will come back and the ad revenues

0:14:32.840 --> 0:14:36.000
<v Speaker 1>will follow, because that is a secular theme. So Mandy,

0:14:36.120 --> 0:14:38.360
<v Speaker 1>let's come full circle done to the meta story when

0:14:38.400 --> 0:14:40.080
<v Speaker 1>it comes to these thousands of jobs are being cut,

0:14:40.080 --> 0:14:41.440
<v Speaker 1>which by the way, are on the heels of the

0:14:41.520 --> 0:14:46.000
<v Speaker 1>thirteen percent workforce reduction in November. I believe Mark Zuckerberg

0:14:46.040 --> 0:14:47.360
<v Speaker 1>is a twenty twenty three was going to be the

0:14:47.440 --> 0:14:50.400
<v Speaker 1>year of efficiency. How much more efficient do they have

0:14:50.440 --> 0:14:53.720
<v Speaker 1>to get? Well, they can cut a lot on the

0:14:53.760 --> 0:14:57.080
<v Speaker 1>reality lab side. Remember they talked about, you know, the

0:14:57.160 --> 0:15:00.440
<v Speaker 1>loss is getting worse in reality labs, which loss about

0:15:00.480 --> 0:15:03.280
<v Speaker 1>ten billion dollars last year. This year they were talking

0:15:03.320 --> 0:15:07.000
<v Speaker 1>about you know, thirteen fourteen billion dollars loss on the

0:15:07.080 --> 0:15:12.040
<v Speaker 1>reality lab side, So really they curt Kurt Hill expenses,

0:15:12.160 --> 0:15:16.160
<v Speaker 1>and I'm talking about Opex here. They could also curtail Capex,

0:15:16.200 --> 0:15:19.160
<v Speaker 1>which no one wants to cut right now given all

0:15:19.200 --> 0:15:22.360
<v Speaker 1>the interest and you four year around large language models

0:15:22.720 --> 0:15:25.720
<v Speaker 1>and Meta is a big player when it comes to,

0:15:26.160 --> 0:15:30.080
<v Speaker 1>you know, just investments in that area. So I would

0:15:30.120 --> 0:15:34.280
<v Speaker 1>say there is room to lord Opex on the reality

0:15:34.360 --> 0:15:37.720
<v Speaker 1>lab side, and if if things get worse, that is

0:15:37.760 --> 0:15:41.880
<v Speaker 1>where you're going to see some more cuts. I don't know, Mandeve.

0:15:41.920 --> 0:15:43.680
<v Speaker 1>If I were an investor here, I'd be like, you're

0:15:43.720 --> 0:15:46.960
<v Speaker 1>spending what how much money on? What is it? Again?

0:15:47.440 --> 0:15:49.840
<v Speaker 1>And you know that's kind of the problem here, I

0:15:49.880 --> 0:15:53.080
<v Speaker 1>think for a lot of investors. So yeah, well, I

0:15:53.080 --> 0:15:56.000
<v Speaker 1>mean I was at the Mobible Congress and oh you

0:15:56.080 --> 0:16:00.360
<v Speaker 1>with the Barcelona Yes, yes, And look, Meta worse was

0:16:00.400 --> 0:16:03.040
<v Speaker 1>still a big team over there, a lot of demos

0:16:03.120 --> 0:16:05.960
<v Speaker 1>so but everyone kind of agreed on one thing that

0:16:06.000 --> 0:16:08.840
<v Speaker 1>you're not going to be able to monetize it until

0:16:08.880 --> 0:16:12.040
<v Speaker 1>the end of the decade, so it's still investment time.

0:16:12.120 --> 0:16:16.520
<v Speaker 1>And yeah, good stuff. I can't believe I authorized your

0:16:16.520 --> 0:16:19.960
<v Speaker 1>trip to Barcelona. What was I thinking? Man deep sing,

0:16:20.040 --> 0:16:21.960
<v Speaker 1>Thanks so much. We appreciated. Man Deep Singh is a

0:16:21.960 --> 0:16:26.640
<v Speaker 1>senior technology analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence, covering all stuff there.

0:16:26.720 --> 0:16:30.600
<v Speaker 1>We appreciate getting his comments on meta. Thanks for listening

0:16:30.640 --> 0:16:34.160
<v Speaker 1>to the Bloomberg Markets podcast. You can subscribe and listen

0:16:34.200 --> 0:16:38.440
<v Speaker 1>to interviews of Apple Podcasts or whatever podcast platform you prefer.

0:16:38.840 --> 0:16:42.160
<v Speaker 1>I'm Matt Miller. I'm on Twitter at Matt Miller nineteen

0:16:42.240 --> 0:16:44.920
<v Speaker 1>seventy three and on Fall Sweeney I'm on Twitter at

0:16:44.920 --> 0:16:47.760
<v Speaker 1>pt Sweeney Before the podcast. You can always catch us

0:16:47.840 --> 0:16:49.240
<v Speaker 1>worldwide at Bloomberg Radio