WEBVTT - Bloomberg Surveillance TV: May 8th, 2026

0:00:02.400 --> 0:00:06.760
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.

0:00:11.680 --> 0:00:15.480
<v Speaker 2>This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Jonathan Ferrow, along

0:00:15.520 --> 0:00:18.720
<v Speaker 2>with Lisa Bromwitz and Amrie Hordert. Join us each day

0:00:18.760 --> 0:00:22.280
<v Speaker 2>for insight from the best in markets, economics, and geopolitics

0:00:22.440 --> 0:00:24.880
<v Speaker 2>from our global headquarters in New York City. We are

0:00:24.960 --> 0:00:27.680
<v Speaker 2>live on Bloomberg Television weekday mornings from six to nine

0:00:27.720 --> 0:00:31.319
<v Speaker 2>am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify or

0:00:31.360 --> 0:00:33.960
<v Speaker 2>anywhere else you listen, and as always on the Bloomberg

0:00:34.040 --> 0:00:37.200
<v Speaker 2>Terminal and the Bloomberg Business app. So here's the laces.

0:00:37.280 --> 0:00:40.479
<v Speaker 2>This morning, the US and Eran exchanging strikes near the Stratiformers,

0:00:40.520 --> 0:00:42.800
<v Speaker 2>with President Donald Trump calling on Tehran to make a

0:00:42.840 --> 0:00:46.239
<v Speaker 2>deal to end a war. Stephen Koker CFRA right in

0:00:46.240 --> 0:00:48.160
<v Speaker 2>the White House seems to have backed it south into

0:00:48.159 --> 0:00:51.680
<v Speaker 2>a situation where it either escalates or hands Iran a

0:00:51.720 --> 0:00:55.080
<v Speaker 2>strategic victory. Stephen joins us now from More. Stephen, welcome

0:00:55.120 --> 0:00:57.160
<v Speaker 2>to the program. We've got a decent understanding of the

0:00:57.200 --> 0:00:59.760
<v Speaker 2>details of the US proposal. We've been waiting a day

0:00:59.800 --> 0:01:03.280
<v Speaker 2>or what kind of response to you expecting from the Iranians.

0:01:04.440 --> 0:01:06.400
<v Speaker 3>I don't think it's going to be a positive response.

0:01:06.959 --> 0:01:10.120
<v Speaker 4>The Iranians believe that they have more time on their

0:01:10.120 --> 0:01:13.839
<v Speaker 4>hands to wait the president out to force the United

0:01:13.880 --> 0:01:18.280
<v Speaker 4>States to capitulate. The US Intelligence community yesterday issued a

0:01:18.360 --> 0:01:20.920
<v Speaker 4>report indicating that they believe that the Iranians can live

0:01:21.000 --> 0:01:26.080
<v Speaker 4>like this for months with rising gas prices and other

0:01:26.120 --> 0:01:29.039
<v Speaker 4>concerns for the American consumer. It does not seem that

0:01:29.080 --> 0:01:32.680
<v Speaker 4>the President has as much time either way you have it.

0:01:32.720 --> 0:01:34.559
<v Speaker 3>I think the statement.

0:01:34.120 --> 0:01:36.880
<v Speaker 4>From the Iranian Foreign minister would suggest that we are

0:01:36.920 --> 0:01:38.080
<v Speaker 4>still at a stalemate.

0:01:38.640 --> 0:01:41.000
<v Speaker 5>When it comes to that report that Washington Post was

0:01:41.000 --> 0:01:43.720
<v Speaker 5>talking about with the CIA, they say that the naval blockade,

0:01:43.880 --> 0:01:46.240
<v Speaker 5>the Iranians could survive that for at least three to

0:01:46.319 --> 0:01:50.040
<v Speaker 5>four months. We're talking about basically the entire summer. Stephen,

0:01:50.240 --> 0:01:52.520
<v Speaker 5>do you think then the administration has to rethink its plan.

0:01:53.960 --> 0:01:57.480
<v Speaker 4>Well, this is what I was seeing when I suggested

0:01:57.480 --> 0:02:00.360
<v Speaker 4>that the President has backed himself into either sq relation

0:02:00.560 --> 0:02:04.800
<v Speaker 4>or capitulate to the Iranians. If the Iranians can hold out,

0:02:05.920 --> 0:02:10.760
<v Speaker 4>as the CIA indicates, they're not going to be forthcoming

0:02:11.040 --> 0:02:14.919
<v Speaker 4>with any kind of proposal that requires them to give

0:02:15.000 --> 0:02:20.919
<v Speaker 4>up enriching uranium, not having at least parcel control over

0:02:20.960 --> 0:02:23.640
<v Speaker 4>the Strait of hor moves and giving up their ballistic

0:02:23.680 --> 0:02:24.400
<v Speaker 4>missile program.

0:02:24.520 --> 0:02:26.960
<v Speaker 3>We've already dropped basically the issue of proxies.

0:02:27.280 --> 0:02:32.200
<v Speaker 4>So they are in a very strong position from where

0:02:32.560 --> 0:02:34.320
<v Speaker 4>they believe they're in a very strong position. So the

0:02:34.360 --> 0:02:36.880
<v Speaker 4>answer then is either for the United States to come

0:02:36.960 --> 0:02:39.560
<v Speaker 4>off of its demands or for the President to actually

0:02:39.680 --> 0:02:42.760
<v Speaker 4>escalate and try to force them to capitulate on the battlefield.

0:02:42.840 --> 0:02:45.960
<v Speaker 4>So far, they haven't capitulated in either place, the battlefield

0:02:46.040 --> 0:02:47.440
<v Speaker 4>or the negotiating.

0:02:46.919 --> 0:02:49.519
<v Speaker 5>Table when it comes to the President's three red lines proxies,

0:02:49.560 --> 0:02:52.959
<v Speaker 5>ballistic missiles, and a nuclear weapon. Is there any indication

0:02:53.080 --> 0:02:55.440
<v Speaker 5>that we are closer on any of these aims.

0:02:56.080 --> 0:02:58.280
<v Speaker 3>No, we're not closer on any of them.

0:02:58.840 --> 0:03:03.119
<v Speaker 4>Again, the Iranians remained steadfast that they have a right

0:03:03.160 --> 0:03:07.200
<v Speaker 4>to enricheranium. They're not going to give up their ballistic

0:03:07.240 --> 0:03:12.320
<v Speaker 4>missile program. That is a significant threat to the neighbors

0:03:12.320 --> 0:03:14.480
<v Speaker 4>that they want to hold on to after this conflict,

0:03:14.760 --> 0:03:19.320
<v Speaker 4>and the proxies, although greatly diminished, are useful to them now.

0:03:19.520 --> 0:03:21.800
<v Speaker 4>Add the new leverage that they have over the Strait

0:03:21.840 --> 0:03:27.160
<v Speaker 4>of Remus, and the Iranians feel that they have all

0:03:27.160 --> 0:03:31.280
<v Speaker 4>the advantages here. In addition, this is a regime that

0:03:31.320 --> 0:03:35.200
<v Speaker 4>has already forced the Iranian people to suffer. At the

0:03:35.200 --> 0:03:38.520
<v Speaker 4>low end of the estimates, they killed seven thousand people

0:03:38.520 --> 0:03:39.800
<v Speaker 4>in a matter of days in January.

0:03:39.840 --> 0:03:41.920
<v Speaker 3>At the high end, thirty thousand people.

0:03:42.440 --> 0:03:47.280
<v Speaker 4>They are prepared to live out this blockade.

0:03:46.840 --> 0:03:49.400
<v Speaker 3>And make Iranians eat dirt if they need to.

0:03:50.280 --> 0:03:52.600
<v Speaker 1>Every single analyst has come on from Wall Street so

0:03:52.680 --> 0:03:54.840
<v Speaker 1>far this morning has not wanted to talk about Iran.

0:03:54.960 --> 0:03:56.840
<v Speaker 1>They have not wanted to talk about the straight up removes.

0:03:56.920 --> 0:03:59.600
<v Speaker 1>They've wanted to move on. For all the people who

0:03:59.680 --> 0:04:01.920
<v Speaker 1>are trying to tune this out because ultimately they have

0:04:01.960 --> 0:04:04.120
<v Speaker 1>confidence that it's going to turn out one way or another.

0:04:04.920 --> 0:04:08.560
<v Speaker 1>How do you explain why this is still incredibly important

0:04:08.600 --> 0:04:12.520
<v Speaker 1>and potentially revolutionary when it comes to reshaping global alliances

0:04:12.560 --> 0:04:13.680
<v Speaker 1>as well as supply chains.

0:04:14.800 --> 0:04:15.000
<v Speaker 3>Yeah.

0:04:15.040 --> 0:04:17.480
<v Speaker 4>Well, first, I think it's important just in terms of

0:04:17.520 --> 0:04:21.880
<v Speaker 4>the American consumer. It costs a lot more money to

0:04:22.000 --> 0:04:24.560
<v Speaker 4>fill up your car your SUV with gas these days,

0:04:24.560 --> 0:04:27.400
<v Speaker 4>and that's going to have an impact on everything that

0:04:28.160 --> 0:04:31.560
<v Speaker 4>everything that people buy. Eventually, we are somewhat insulated from

0:04:31.600 --> 0:04:33.640
<v Speaker 4>it here in the United States because we're wealthy, but

0:04:33.800 --> 0:04:36.040
<v Speaker 4>in time, this is going to really pinch.

0:04:36.839 --> 0:04:38.599
<v Speaker 3>I'll note that the Israeli has.

0:04:38.480 --> 0:04:41.039
<v Speaker 4>Recently agreed to send jet fuel to Germany so that

0:04:41.120 --> 0:04:44.920
<v Speaker 4>Luftonza can maintain its obligations in its flight schedule. So

0:04:44.960 --> 0:04:48.200
<v Speaker 4>this can be very, very disruptive in terms of reshaping

0:04:48.520 --> 0:04:51.680
<v Speaker 4>global alliances. We are seeing a realignment in the region

0:04:52.360 --> 0:04:53.600
<v Speaker 4>starting to take shape.

0:04:54.160 --> 0:04:55.400
<v Speaker 3>You have the Saudi's, the.

0:04:55.360 --> 0:04:58.919
<v Speaker 4>Turks, the cutlery Is, the Pakistanis on one end, and

0:04:58.920 --> 0:05:03.840
<v Speaker 4>then you have the Israelis, Emerdis, Bahrainis and other extra

0:05:04.200 --> 0:05:09.720
<v Speaker 4>regional actors like Greece, Kenya, Ethiopia, Somaliland on another end

0:05:09.880 --> 0:05:15.120
<v Speaker 4>of an alignment. Here, the expectations that American policymakers have

0:05:15.160 --> 0:05:18.480
<v Speaker 4>had over twenty five years about an alignment of Saudi Arabia,

0:05:18.520 --> 0:05:23.640
<v Speaker 4>the UAE, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, and virtually less and not

0:05:23.720 --> 0:05:26.640
<v Speaker 4>so virtually Israel have been shattered as a result of

0:05:26.680 --> 0:05:29.719
<v Speaker 4>this conflict, and we're going to start seeing different blocks emerge.

0:05:30.640 --> 0:05:33.839
<v Speaker 4>The Iranians are now empowered in ways that no one

0:05:33.839 --> 0:05:38.520
<v Speaker 4>really had imagined when the President launched this conflict on

0:05:38.600 --> 0:05:39.440
<v Speaker 4>February twenty eighth.

0:05:40.279 --> 0:05:43.760
<v Speaker 2>Stay with US mul Bloomberg Savannan's coming up after this

0:05:53.000 --> 0:05:55.360
<v Speaker 2>Francis don at the VABI SI joined us now for more. Francis,

0:05:55.400 --> 0:05:58.440
<v Speaker 2>welcome to the program. One fifteen. The estimate sixty five

0:05:58.520 --> 0:06:01.640
<v Speaker 2>is an upside surprise beneath the how encouraging our things.

0:06:02.279 --> 0:06:06.200
<v Speaker 6>Well, John, you've heard me say it before. America needs workers,

0:06:06.200 --> 0:06:10.520
<v Speaker 6>not jobs, and that is so clear in today's April release.

0:06:10.680 --> 0:06:14.320
<v Speaker 6>Job creation is just fine in America. It is matching

0:06:14.320 --> 0:06:18.000
<v Speaker 6>what we're seeing in low jobas claims, improving continuous claims,

0:06:18.279 --> 0:06:21.920
<v Speaker 6>drops in layoffs activity. We have more than enough jobs

0:06:22.120 --> 0:06:25.039
<v Speaker 6>to actually lower the rate of unemployment over time. We

0:06:25.080 --> 0:06:28.240
<v Speaker 6>are substantially above that break even rate. And for a

0:06:28.279 --> 0:06:30.159
<v Speaker 6>long time, for the last decade, that's what would have

0:06:30.200 --> 0:06:33.760
<v Speaker 6>mattered most is the consumer employed. But that's not what

0:06:33.839 --> 0:06:36.600
<v Speaker 6>matters in the American economy anymore. What matters is not

0:06:36.720 --> 0:06:39.320
<v Speaker 6>do they have a job? It's are they working enough hours?

0:06:39.440 --> 0:06:41.960
<v Speaker 6>A little bit better in April, and are they making

0:06:42.080 --> 0:06:44.799
<v Speaker 6>enough money in those jobs? Now, wage growth a little

0:06:44.800 --> 0:06:47.920
<v Speaker 6>disappointing here, and I'm watching this very very closely as

0:06:47.920 --> 0:06:50.960
<v Speaker 6>we head into an inflationary shock. Real wages are very

0:06:50.960 --> 0:06:54.240
<v Speaker 6>close to zero and could go negative. So the story

0:06:54.279 --> 0:06:57.040
<v Speaker 6>here is one of cyclical improvement. But also a lot

0:06:57.080 --> 0:06:59.880
<v Speaker 6>of structural themes coming through in this morning's numbers.

0:07:00.120 --> 0:07:02.760
<v Speaker 2>Francis on the structural themes, you'd expect wages to be

0:07:02.839 --> 0:07:04.760
<v Speaker 2>hotter than they are. When I hear you say we're

0:07:04.839 --> 0:07:07.479
<v Speaker 2>lacking workers, not jobs. That sounds like a labor market

0:07:07.480 --> 0:07:10.280
<v Speaker 2>that should be tight generating wage growth. So what's going

0:07:10.320 --> 0:07:11.000
<v Speaker 2>wrong there.

0:07:11.200 --> 0:07:13.360
<v Speaker 6>Well, it's not going wrong. You've got wage growth of

0:07:13.480 --> 0:07:16.520
<v Speaker 6>three point six percent and moving higher. And again it's

0:07:16.560 --> 0:07:20.239
<v Speaker 6>a structural theme that will evolve over time. There's also

0:07:20.280 --> 0:07:23.240
<v Speaker 6>a sectoral issue here. I'm seeing almost half of this

0:07:23.360 --> 0:07:27.160
<v Speaker 6>job growth is once again in healthcare and education in

0:07:27.200 --> 0:07:29.600
<v Speaker 6>the past year. If you slip out, if you take

0:07:29.680 --> 0:07:33.560
<v Speaker 6>out healthcare and education from the system, cyclical private payrolls

0:07:33.640 --> 0:07:35.760
<v Speaker 6>are going negative. So we hear a lot about this

0:07:35.880 --> 0:07:39.400
<v Speaker 6>no higher, no fire zone. That's true on aggregate, but

0:07:39.520 --> 0:07:42.440
<v Speaker 6>it's not true bi sector. There's plenty of hiring in

0:07:42.640 --> 0:07:46.160
<v Speaker 6>education and plenty of firing in trade related sectors. So

0:07:46.520 --> 0:07:48.760
<v Speaker 6>just looking at that aggregate and saying, well, this is

0:07:48.800 --> 0:07:52.000
<v Speaker 6>true for everybody isn't quite the case. And I'll highlight

0:07:52.080 --> 0:07:54.720
<v Speaker 6>here once again my eye went right through it. Labor

0:07:54.720 --> 0:07:58.280
<v Speaker 6>force participation rate is down again. This peaked in two

0:07:58.320 --> 0:08:01.320
<v Speaker 6>thousand and one, John has been declining ever since and

0:08:01.440 --> 0:08:04.600
<v Speaker 6>is getting worse, not better. So a little bit of

0:08:04.640 --> 0:08:06.560
<v Speaker 6>wage growth is here, but this is going to be

0:08:06.600 --> 0:08:08.520
<v Speaker 6>the issue going forward in the next one to three

0:08:08.560 --> 0:08:11.200
<v Speaker 6>years in America is can you find the right workers?

0:08:11.200 --> 0:08:13.360
<v Speaker 6>Can you find the right skilled workers? And what do

0:08:13.400 --> 0:08:14.480
<v Speaker 6>you have to pay to get them?

0:08:14.640 --> 0:08:17.040
<v Speaker 1>Francis, how much were you watching in real time the

0:08:17.120 --> 0:08:21.920
<v Speaker 1>shift from white collar to other jobs, whether it's in

0:08:22.000 --> 0:08:25.400
<v Speaker 1>manufacturing and construction or whether it's an education in healthcare.

0:08:26.040 --> 0:08:28.640
<v Speaker 6>We talked to clients about this endlessly because what we

0:08:28.800 --> 0:08:31.160
<v Speaker 6>highlight to them is as a growing share of jobs

0:08:31.200 --> 0:08:35.160
<v Speaker 6>our public sector or public sector adjacent, the cyclicality of

0:08:35.200 --> 0:08:38.320
<v Speaker 6>your job market starts to decline. For example, we don't

0:08:38.360 --> 0:08:41.520
<v Speaker 6>see cyclicality and healthcare employment. If there's a recession, you

0:08:41.559 --> 0:08:44.200
<v Speaker 6>don't really see a meaningful decline, and that sort of

0:08:44.440 --> 0:08:48.520
<v Speaker 6>breaks the relationship between private sector cyclical weakness and the

0:08:48.640 --> 0:08:51.120
<v Speaker 6>job market. It also means it's less likely to spread

0:08:51.160 --> 0:08:53.079
<v Speaker 6>through the coole economy than it has before.

0:08:53.480 --> 0:08:53.640
<v Speaker 3>Now.

0:08:53.679 --> 0:08:55.599
<v Speaker 6>The downside of that is that you don't tend to

0:08:55.640 --> 0:08:58.560
<v Speaker 6>see the same sort of large productivity increases. You don't

0:08:58.600 --> 0:09:01.400
<v Speaker 6>see the same four or five six percent GDP numbers

0:09:01.400 --> 0:09:04.719
<v Speaker 6>that you start to see a big private sector engagement.

0:09:04.920 --> 0:09:07.520
<v Speaker 6>So effectively, what this means is as the job market

0:09:07.559 --> 0:09:10.800
<v Speaker 6>moves towards more government and government adjacent type rules, you

0:09:10.960 --> 0:09:14.600
<v Speaker 6>end up with a floor undergrowth, but also a ceiling.

0:09:14.880 --> 0:09:17.520
<v Speaker 6>And that's the key takeaway from these big structural trends

0:09:17.559 --> 0:09:19.680
<v Speaker 6>is the way that we've looked at these numbers, been

0:09:19.679 --> 0:09:21.680
<v Speaker 6>on the show for a decade. I've talked about a

0:09:21.720 --> 0:09:24.400
<v Speaker 6>lot of them. It's going to have to change.

0:09:24.240 --> 0:09:27.200
<v Speaker 1>For insis how much does this underscore the difficult decision

0:09:27.200 --> 0:09:29.679
<v Speaker 1>that the Federal Reserve has to make because ultimately they

0:09:29.720 --> 0:09:33.200
<v Speaker 1>don't influence the jobs that you're talking about that much

0:09:33.280 --> 0:09:37.240
<v Speaker 1>one way or another. They do, however, potentially influence financial

0:09:37.240 --> 0:09:40.200
<v Speaker 1>conditions that are leading to some of the optimism in

0:09:40.280 --> 0:09:42.000
<v Speaker 1>areas like artificial intelligence.

0:09:42.800 --> 0:09:44.640
<v Speaker 6>You know, I don't know why it would be a

0:09:44.679 --> 0:09:48.080
<v Speaker 6>difficult decision, although clearly there's some angst in the Federal Reserve.

0:09:48.280 --> 0:09:52.280
<v Speaker 6>Where is the data that would suggests that easing is necessary?

0:09:52.320 --> 0:09:55.880
<v Speaker 6>What problem are we trying to solve? Their job creation

0:09:56.040 --> 0:09:59.920
<v Speaker 6>a very tight labor market, underlying trends of inflation are

0:10:00.080 --> 0:10:04.560
<v Speaker 6>heading upwards, not downwards. There's still a significant amount of

0:10:04.600 --> 0:10:07.720
<v Speaker 6>heat under this economy, and the risk now, particularly in

0:10:07.720 --> 0:10:10.079
<v Speaker 6>the last month, of seeing a lot of underlying labor

0:10:10.080 --> 0:10:14.480
<v Speaker 6>market indicators picking up is not of disinflation or needing

0:10:14.520 --> 0:10:18.160
<v Speaker 6>to ease to correct for some growth downturn, but actually

0:10:18.240 --> 0:10:21.240
<v Speaker 6>having to be very cognizant of the upside risks no

0:10:21.320 --> 0:10:24.520
<v Speaker 6>longer just for inflation, but for the economy as well.

0:10:24.760 --> 0:10:26.240
<v Speaker 6>And you know, every month we put out a report

0:10:26.240 --> 0:10:28.439
<v Speaker 6>and we say what's the risk to our base case.

0:10:28.480 --> 0:10:30.840
<v Speaker 6>The risk to our base case for growth is now

0:10:30.880 --> 0:10:35.079
<v Speaker 6>tilted upwards. And that's really disjointed from the ongoing narrative

0:10:35.120 --> 0:10:37.240
<v Speaker 6>that there's weakness in the job market and that there

0:10:37.240 --> 0:10:40.439
<v Speaker 6>could be recession concerns coming. I just don't see it.

0:10:41.040 --> 0:10:44.480
<v Speaker 2>Stay with us more Bloomberg Surveillan's coming up after this.

0:10:53.840 --> 0:10:56.080
<v Speaker 2>Colway shares falling in the pre market after giving a

0:10:56.120 --> 0:10:59.480
<v Speaker 2>disappointed forecast, and the stock is down by seven percent

0:11:00.040 --> 0:11:02.360
<v Speaker 2>in the pre market. Sarah Counst of Cleo Capital Rights

0:11:02.360 --> 0:11:04.600
<v Speaker 2>and Core Weave will be an early domino to fall

0:11:04.640 --> 0:11:07.480
<v Speaker 2>in any real tech correction, and if I had gains there,

0:11:07.800 --> 0:11:11.000
<v Speaker 2>I would lock them in and run. Sarah joined us

0:11:11.040 --> 0:11:13.440
<v Speaker 2>now for more. Sarah, Welcome to the program. Why is

0:11:13.520 --> 0:11:17.000
<v Speaker 2>Corewave in this move today potentially more signal than noise.

0:11:18.240 --> 0:11:20.760
<v Speaker 7>Because this is a company that has just sort of

0:11:20.880 --> 0:11:24.880
<v Speaker 7>struggled and has kept getting lucky because they keep sort

0:11:24.880 --> 0:11:27.480
<v Speaker 7>of pulling out these these deals to be able to

0:11:27.480 --> 0:11:29.600
<v Speaker 7>build more data centers. But when you look back to

0:11:29.640 --> 0:11:32.400
<v Speaker 7>their IPO, the sentiment around that, I don't think that

0:11:32.480 --> 0:11:35.640
<v Speaker 7>those concerns have materially changed. This is not a company

0:11:35.800 --> 0:11:40.400
<v Speaker 7>that has super solid financials. It's gotten incredibly lucky that

0:11:40.720 --> 0:11:44.000
<v Speaker 7>very solid companies, the videos of the world, the metas

0:11:44.040 --> 0:11:46.320
<v Speaker 7>of the world, have all decided to sort of yolo

0:11:46.440 --> 0:11:49.440
<v Speaker 7>their capbacks into data center spend.

0:11:49.480 --> 0:11:51.319
<v Speaker 8>But I don't know how long that's going to last.

0:11:51.400 --> 0:11:54.800
<v Speaker 2>Does it tell you something about the broader AI ecosystem

0:11:54.920 --> 0:11:56.520
<v Speaker 2>or just this name? And I think that's what I'm

0:11:56.559 --> 0:11:57.200
<v Speaker 2>going to get here.

0:11:58.440 --> 0:11:59.400
<v Speaker 8>It's a little bit of both.

0:11:59.600 --> 0:12:03.800
<v Speaker 7>I think Corewave is a uniquely fragile company in the ecosystem.

0:12:04.000 --> 0:12:07.040
<v Speaker 7>We certainly saw that, you know, before their IPO, that

0:12:07.200 --> 0:12:10.240
<v Speaker 7>was widely the sentiment, and so you know, I would

0:12:10.280 --> 0:12:11.959
<v Speaker 7>go back and look at some of those notes then

0:12:12.000 --> 0:12:14.840
<v Speaker 7>and say, has much really changed? But I think that

0:12:14.880 --> 0:12:17.559
<v Speaker 7>the broader AI market, The question is when will they

0:12:17.679 --> 0:12:20.800
<v Speaker 7>make money. We know that on the private side we're

0:12:20.800 --> 0:12:24.200
<v Speaker 7>seeing a lot of unease around open ai, not just

0:12:24.280 --> 0:12:28.440
<v Speaker 7>the lawsuits, but you know, questions of how sustainable is

0:12:28.480 --> 0:12:31.199
<v Speaker 7>their current business model. Is there going to be huge

0:12:31.240 --> 0:12:34.559
<v Speaker 7>price hikes from from open ai and Nthropic, which then

0:12:34.640 --> 0:12:37.080
<v Speaker 7>drives a lot of the more casual users of smaller

0:12:37.120 --> 0:12:41.200
<v Speaker 7>business users off of using them. How much efficiency or

0:12:41.240 --> 0:12:44.280
<v Speaker 7>even really big enterprises actually getting.

0:12:44.000 --> 0:12:45.400
<v Speaker 8>From ai in the workplace.

0:12:45.600 --> 0:12:47.720
<v Speaker 7>There's a lot of data that shows that it might

0:12:47.800 --> 0:12:51.600
<v Speaker 7>be close to zero, or that compute credits are actually

0:12:51.640 --> 0:12:55.840
<v Speaker 7>more expensive to just hiring a good, solid junior engineer.

0:12:55.440 --> 0:12:56.480
<v Speaker 8>To do some of this work.

0:12:56.520 --> 0:12:59.000
<v Speaker 7>And so I think that we're spending like it's a

0:12:59.080 --> 0:13:01.880
<v Speaker 7>sure thing, but when you look at the data, the ROI,

0:13:02.160 --> 0:13:04.400
<v Speaker 7>even the revenue, it's really unclear if it is.

0:13:04.520 --> 0:13:07.360
<v Speaker 1>You talked about open ai, and we were discussing earlier

0:13:07.360 --> 0:13:11.400
<v Speaker 1>this morning how soft Bank is having trouble getting a

0:13:11.440 --> 0:13:14.120
<v Speaker 1>margin loan for ten billion dollars backed by their stake

0:13:14.160 --> 0:13:16.480
<v Speaker 1>in open ai because the creditors are concerned about the

0:13:16.559 --> 0:13:21.000
<v Speaker 1>valuation being assigned to open Ai. How much is this

0:13:21.559 --> 0:13:25.360
<v Speaker 1>just winners and losers? Coming to the surface, versus a

0:13:25.440 --> 0:13:29.400
<v Speaker 1>sense that maybe the entire ecosystem is overpriced right now

0:13:29.679 --> 0:13:33.080
<v Speaker 1>based on very high expectations and very high costs.

0:13:34.000 --> 0:13:38.199
<v Speaker 7>Look, I love Masa because that guy is great for entertainment,

0:13:38.240 --> 0:13:39.840
<v Speaker 7>but I don't know that if you can look at

0:13:40.080 --> 0:13:43.240
<v Speaker 7>soft bank struggles and sort of wide in and out

0:13:43.240 --> 0:13:45.560
<v Speaker 7>to the rest of the market, because they operate in

0:13:45.559 --> 0:13:48.959
<v Speaker 7>an incredibly unique way if you think back to the

0:13:49.440 --> 0:13:51.480
<v Speaker 7>we work days and Uber and all of that, so

0:13:51.800 --> 0:13:55.000
<v Speaker 7>you know, I wouldn't be sort of overly looking at

0:13:55.000 --> 0:13:58.040
<v Speaker 7>them as the signal. I think that that big question

0:13:58.120 --> 0:14:01.960
<v Speaker 7>does come back to and where we see companies outside

0:14:01.960 --> 0:14:03.040
<v Speaker 7>of the alphabets of the.

0:14:03.000 --> 0:14:05.240
<v Speaker 8>World make real money on this.

0:14:05.440 --> 0:14:08.400
<v Speaker 7>Obviously, in Nvidia, the chip makers are making a lot

0:14:08.400 --> 0:14:10.760
<v Speaker 7>of money, but that money is only as good as

0:14:10.800 --> 0:14:14.280
<v Speaker 7>the demand for the chips, which really could you know,

0:14:14.400 --> 0:14:16.680
<v Speaker 7>kind of slow down and fall apart at any time.

0:14:16.760 --> 0:14:19.280
<v Speaker 7>The other piece of it is as the global economy

0:14:19.320 --> 0:14:22.680
<v Speaker 7>slows and contracts, which we know is happening, there are

0:14:22.760 --> 0:14:25.880
<v Speaker 7>fewer enterprises who need AI. There are fewer people who

0:14:25.920 --> 0:14:29.600
<v Speaker 7>are necessarily interested in paying for that subscription to be

0:14:29.680 --> 0:14:33.800
<v Speaker 7>able to get you know, a slightly better restaurant recommendation

0:14:33.960 --> 0:14:37.160
<v Speaker 7>or slightly better travel recommendation because they're not doing that,

0:14:37.280 --> 0:14:41.280
<v Speaker 7>and so as those subscriptions wane, the entire industry sort

0:14:41.280 --> 0:14:43.600
<v Speaker 7>of falls apart based on a lack of demand.

0:14:43.720 --> 0:14:46.520
<v Speaker 1>I'd love your to take then, Sarah on cloud Flair,

0:14:46.680 --> 0:14:48.880
<v Speaker 1>saying that they were playing to cut eleven hundred people

0:14:49.120 --> 0:14:53.640
<v Speaker 1>because they can replace them with artificial intelligence. Notably, the

0:14:53.680 --> 0:14:57.160
<v Speaker 1>shares are down significantly in pre market trading after that announcement,

0:14:57.200 --> 0:15:00.440
<v Speaker 1>not being treated as exactly a cost savings. Why don't

0:15:00.480 --> 0:15:02.320
<v Speaker 1>you think that that's being treated by the market as

0:15:02.400 --> 0:15:06.080
<v Speaker 1>evidence of some of the productivity gains and actual monetization

0:15:06.800 --> 0:15:08.360
<v Speaker 1>of some of these tools.

0:15:09.440 --> 0:15:11.680
<v Speaker 8>I think at this point we've kind of heard that story, right.

0:15:11.720 --> 0:15:14.200
<v Speaker 7>We see people go in, they do a big layoff,

0:15:14.200 --> 0:15:15.520
<v Speaker 7>they say it's going to be great, We're going to

0:15:15.600 --> 0:15:18.239
<v Speaker 7>do AI now, and then they realize, oh, the AI.

0:15:18.040 --> 0:15:19.560
<v Speaker 8>Is not working that well. They have to kind of

0:15:19.640 --> 0:15:20.640
<v Speaker 8>hire people back.

0:15:20.920 --> 0:15:23.480
<v Speaker 7>It also is often seen, and certainly not in clouds

0:15:23.520 --> 0:15:26.160
<v Speaker 7>Flares case, but it's often been seen in the market

0:15:26.240 --> 0:15:29.440
<v Speaker 7>as hey, maybe there's something wrong with the underlying business,

0:15:30.000 --> 0:15:32.160
<v Speaker 7>maybe there's something wrong with the revenue, and they are

0:15:32.200 --> 0:15:35.920
<v Speaker 7>covering that with the AI driven layoffs, because that's a

0:15:35.920 --> 0:15:38.840
<v Speaker 7>buzzword we like, and so I think that there's just

0:15:38.880 --> 0:15:40.680
<v Speaker 7>a little bit We saw the same thing with Meta

0:15:40.720 --> 0:15:43.440
<v Speaker 7>a few weeks ago with their layoffs announcement. There's just

0:15:43.480 --> 0:15:46.200
<v Speaker 7>a little bit of I think, kind of people don't

0:15:46.200 --> 0:15:49.200
<v Speaker 7>really buy that an AI triggered layoff is a good

0:15:49.200 --> 0:15:49.840
<v Speaker 7>thing anymore.

0:15:50.000 --> 0:15:52.160
<v Speaker 5>Sara, there's a report in the Wall Street Journal about

0:15:52.200 --> 0:15:54.600
<v Speaker 5>a recent call the Vice President had with the heads

0:15:54.600 --> 0:15:58.080
<v Speaker 5>of all these companies Elon Musk, Dario Mode, Sam Altman

0:15:58.440 --> 0:16:02.320
<v Speaker 5>and expressing alarm about artificial intelligence. Do you think this

0:16:02.480 --> 0:16:04.960
<v Speaker 5>White House in Washington is going to try to put

0:16:05.000 --> 0:16:06.440
<v Speaker 5>a leash on some of these companies.

0:16:08.080 --> 0:16:10.400
<v Speaker 7>I think that the White House is going to do

0:16:10.480 --> 0:16:12.560
<v Speaker 7>what we've seen it do over the last few years,

0:16:12.640 --> 0:16:14.520
<v Speaker 7>which is that you have to stay in.

0:16:14.480 --> 0:16:15.240
<v Speaker 8>Their good graces.

0:16:15.280 --> 0:16:16.720
<v Speaker 7>It's a bit of a pay to play, and so

0:16:17.080 --> 0:16:19.800
<v Speaker 7>I think that what you're going to find is that

0:16:19.840 --> 0:16:22.160
<v Speaker 7>they're going to say, you know, it's a little bit

0:16:22.200 --> 0:16:24.280
<v Speaker 7>like when the mob comes into your store and says,

0:16:24.280 --> 0:16:26.359
<v Speaker 7>you know, we want to make sure that you're taken.

0:16:26.120 --> 0:16:30.000
<v Speaker 8>Well care of. And so I think that these AI companies.

0:16:29.560 --> 0:16:33.680
<v Speaker 7>Are going to have to very aggressively stay on the

0:16:33.720 --> 0:16:36.920
<v Speaker 7>sort of right side of the White House of the administration.

0:16:37.640 --> 0:16:39.920
<v Speaker 7>I don't know how much sort of the anti data

0:16:39.920 --> 0:16:43.240
<v Speaker 7>center sentiment, which we're seeing sort of bipartisan in communities

0:16:43.280 --> 0:16:45.240
<v Speaker 7>across the country, is feeding.

0:16:44.920 --> 0:16:47.640
<v Speaker 8>Into this, but I do think that one jd.

0:16:47.760 --> 0:16:50.160
<v Speaker 7>Vance is trying to set himself apart a little bit

0:16:50.160 --> 0:16:52.920
<v Speaker 7>from the rest of the administration and look like he's

0:16:53.040 --> 0:16:56.320
<v Speaker 7>caring a little bit more about main street issues. Anti

0:16:56.400 --> 0:16:59.720
<v Speaker 7>Data Center very much is a main street issue right now.

0:17:00.080 --> 0:17:02.640
<v Speaker 7>And then two, this administration wants to make sure that

0:17:03.200 --> 0:17:05.440
<v Speaker 7>everybody knows that at the end of the day, they're

0:17:05.480 --> 0:17:07.920
<v Speaker 7>going to owe the White House something, and this is

0:17:07.960 --> 0:17:09.040
<v Speaker 7>a great way to remind them.

0:17:09.200 --> 0:17:11.440
<v Speaker 2>Sarah, Is any of that new? I remember when these

0:17:11.440 --> 0:17:13.720
<v Speaker 2>companies used to dress themselves up in the cloak of

0:17:13.760 --> 0:17:16.199
<v Speaker 2>liberal values and make out there was super progressive and

0:17:16.280 --> 0:17:19.000
<v Speaker 2>left wing because they were worried about progressive people down

0:17:19.000 --> 0:17:21.359
<v Speaker 2>in Washington, d C. Is any of this new Just

0:17:21.400 --> 0:17:22.679
<v Speaker 2>a different flavor, isn't it.

0:17:23.640 --> 0:17:27.120
<v Speaker 7>I think it's a certainly different and more aggressive flavor

0:17:27.520 --> 0:17:29.600
<v Speaker 7>in the US. I think that the actual kind of

0:17:29.640 --> 0:17:32.080
<v Speaker 7>the money that's changing hands around the ballroom and things

0:17:32.119 --> 0:17:36.040
<v Speaker 7>is certainly a slightly more Banana Republic take on it.

0:17:36.080 --> 0:17:38.600
<v Speaker 7>But I think that you know to your point, people

0:17:38.720 --> 0:17:41.680
<v Speaker 7>tend to like to play nice with the most powerful

0:17:41.720 --> 0:17:43.359
<v Speaker 7>government in the world for a good reason.

0:17:44.320 --> 0:17:47.879
<v Speaker 2>This is the Bloomberg Survendans podcast, bringing you the best

0:17:47.880 --> 0:17:51.440
<v Speaker 2>in markets, economics, antiopolitics. You can watch the show live

0:17:51.520 --> 0:17:54.520
<v Speaker 2>on Bloomberg TV weekday mornings from six am to nine

0:17:54.600 --> 0:17:58.320
<v Speaker 2>am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify, or

0:17:58.359 --> 0:18:01.639
<v Speaker 2>anywhere else you listen always on the Bloomberg Terminal and

0:18:01.680 --> 0:18:07.480
<v Speaker 2>the Bloomberg Business out Mm hmm.