WEBVTT - Daybreak Holiday: Black Friday Sales, Markets, Bitcoin and Antitrust

0:00:02.120 --> 0:00:05.040
<v Speaker 1>Happy Thanksgiving everybody, and thank you for joining us on

0:00:05.080 --> 0:00:08.799
<v Speaker 1>this special edition of Bloomberg Daybreak. US markets are closed

0:00:08.880 --> 0:00:11.840
<v Speaker 1>for the holiday. I'm Nathan Hager coming up this hour.

0:00:12.080 --> 0:00:14.760
<v Speaker 1>It's been a voladile November for both the stock and

0:00:14.920 --> 0:00:17.759
<v Speaker 1>cryptocurrency markets. We'll look at what's in store for the

0:00:17.800 --> 0:00:20.159
<v Speaker 1>rest of this year and into twenty twenty six with

0:00:20.320 --> 0:00:24.119
<v Speaker 1>Scott Martin, chief investment officer of Kingsview Wealth Management, and

0:00:24.120 --> 0:00:28.560
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Intelligence senior commodity strategist Mike mcgloone. Plus, we'll update

0:00:28.600 --> 0:00:31.200
<v Speaker 1>you on the latest anti trust battles facing high tech

0:00:31.520 --> 0:00:35.839
<v Speaker 1>with Bloomberg Intelligence senior litigation analyst Jennifer Ree. But first,

0:00:35.880 --> 0:00:38.560
<v Speaker 1>we are entering one of the busiest and most important

0:00:38.560 --> 0:00:41.639
<v Speaker 1>times of year for retail. How are things shaping up

0:00:41.720 --> 0:00:44.120
<v Speaker 1>as we get said for Black Friday and the countdown

0:00:44.159 --> 0:00:46.960
<v Speaker 1>to the holidays. Let's ask a couple of our senior

0:00:47.000 --> 0:00:50.240
<v Speaker 1>analysts in the retail space, Punam Goyle and Lindsay Dutch

0:00:50.600 --> 0:00:54.480
<v Speaker 1>of Bloomberg Intelligence. Happy holidays to both of you. And

0:00:54.600 --> 0:00:56.960
<v Speaker 1>I think I saw a report going into this conversation

0:00:56.960 --> 0:01:00.440
<v Speaker 1>from the National Retail Federation. They're predicting that holiday spending

0:01:00.480 --> 0:01:03.880
<v Speaker 1>I think could pass a trillion dollars this year. Punum,

0:01:03.920 --> 0:01:05.840
<v Speaker 1>I'll start with you. Do you see those kind of

0:01:05.920 --> 0:01:07.039
<v Speaker 1>levels from consumers?

0:01:07.400 --> 0:01:10.680
<v Speaker 2>Yes? Absolutely. The consumer has been quite resilient all year,

0:01:10.720 --> 0:01:14.160
<v Speaker 2>to our surprise, despite the tariff dwins, and we do

0:01:14.280 --> 0:01:19.640
<v Speaker 2>think that spending will continue into Thanksgiving weekend especially and

0:01:19.680 --> 0:01:23.319
<v Speaker 2>then into December. But that said, spending will be selective.

0:01:23.840 --> 0:01:28.120
<v Speaker 2>Shoppers are conscious price conscious more notably, and they are

0:01:28.160 --> 0:01:31.160
<v Speaker 2>spending where they find the product that they're looking for.

0:01:31.760 --> 0:01:34.520
<v Speaker 1>Lizzie, let's bring you in. What are you seeing in

0:01:34.640 --> 0:01:39.200
<v Speaker 1>terms of consumer behavior and where they could be spending

0:01:39.480 --> 0:01:40.759
<v Speaker 1>as we head into the holidays.

0:01:41.040 --> 0:01:44.120
<v Speaker 3>Yes, I would agree. I think we're seeing resilience, especially

0:01:44.160 --> 0:01:48.520
<v Speaker 3>coming from that higher income consumer, while the lower income

0:01:48.560 --> 0:01:51.080
<v Speaker 3>consumer might be pulling back just a drop when we

0:01:51.160 --> 0:01:55.720
<v Speaker 3>compare that year over year. But as Puna mentioned, you know,

0:01:55.760 --> 0:01:59.440
<v Speaker 3>we do see growth coming into the season, and although

0:01:59.480 --> 0:02:03.520
<v Speaker 3>there is a focus on value and price, consumers are

0:02:03.560 --> 0:02:07.560
<v Speaker 3>splurging on things that they really want or that they

0:02:08.040 --> 0:02:11.399
<v Speaker 3>need so for a best buy. For example, we see

0:02:11.400 --> 0:02:15.720
<v Speaker 3>strength in gaming, computing, phones and the Dick's sporting goods.

0:02:15.760 --> 0:02:19.080
<v Speaker 3>We see strengths continuing on both footwear and apparel for

0:02:19.200 --> 0:02:21.840
<v Speaker 3>sort of those new trendy sports.

0:02:21.440 --> 0:02:23.959
<v Speaker 1>Items now I'll put them. I knowe you cover a

0:02:24.000 --> 0:02:27.640
<v Speaker 1>lot of apparel retailers as well in your focus at

0:02:27.639 --> 0:02:30.400
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Intelligence. How are some of those companies set up

0:02:30.400 --> 0:02:31.080
<v Speaker 1>for the holidays.

0:02:31.400 --> 0:02:33.560
<v Speaker 2>I think they're set up quite nicely. I think the

0:02:33.680 --> 0:02:36.040
<v Speaker 2>product there's a lot of fashion, there's a lot of newness.

0:02:36.080 --> 0:02:39.400
<v Speaker 2>In fact, we ran a sneaker survey just earlier this

0:02:39.520 --> 0:02:42.000
<v Speaker 2>month and what we found is that people want to

0:02:42.040 --> 0:02:45.480
<v Speaker 2>buy sneakers for the holidays, So sneakers are a top category.

0:02:45.600 --> 0:02:49.800
<v Speaker 2>Other top categories based on surveys we've seen are apparel, home, and,

0:02:49.880 --> 0:02:53.920
<v Speaker 2>as a Lindsay said, electronics. So these are still the

0:02:54.080 --> 0:02:57.640
<v Speaker 2>top categories in addition to of course toys where people

0:02:57.720 --> 0:02:59.560
<v Speaker 2>will be spending their dollars this holiday.

0:03:00.120 --> 0:03:03.520
<v Speaker 1>Interesting to bring toys in as well, given some of

0:03:03.560 --> 0:03:08.720
<v Speaker 1>the tariff headwinds those types of products could be facing

0:03:09.400 --> 0:03:11.799
<v Speaker 1>not just in the holidays, but into next year as well.

0:03:11.800 --> 0:03:15.320
<v Speaker 1>Could we be seeing tariff headwinds for retail going into

0:03:15.360 --> 0:03:15.760
<v Speaker 1>next year?

0:03:15.800 --> 0:03:18.959
<v Speaker 3>Lindsay Yeah, So the toy backdrop this year is very

0:03:19.000 --> 0:03:22.960
<v Speaker 3>different than most years prior. You know, typically we see

0:03:23.400 --> 0:03:26.400
<v Speaker 3>big retailers like a Walmart or a target. They're taking

0:03:26.440 --> 0:03:30.919
<v Speaker 3>their holiday toy inventory in July, sort of the mid

0:03:30.960 --> 0:03:34.240
<v Speaker 3>mid middle of the year. This year, we saw a

0:03:34.280 --> 0:03:37.360
<v Speaker 3>significant delay in those orders. They kind of fell into

0:03:37.400 --> 0:03:40.760
<v Speaker 3>the fourth quarter, so there was a delay, and they

0:03:40.800 --> 0:03:44.440
<v Speaker 3>also were taking on smaller shipments than historically they've done,

0:03:44.720 --> 0:03:48.000
<v Speaker 3>thinking that they might replenish some product with you know,

0:03:48.400 --> 0:03:52.560
<v Speaker 3>domestic shipments, you know, in that holiday season. So there's

0:03:52.600 --> 0:03:55.600
<v Speaker 3>a lot of uncertainty heading into twenty twenty six for

0:03:55.720 --> 0:03:59.200
<v Speaker 3>the toy makers and that sort of category as a whole.

0:03:59.480 --> 0:04:02.440
<v Speaker 3>Just because we saw us such a significant delay, you know,

0:04:02.480 --> 0:04:05.080
<v Speaker 3>we don't really know where demand is. And if we

0:04:05.080 --> 0:04:08.440
<v Speaker 3>look at twenty twenty five as the whole, really most

0:04:08.480 --> 0:04:11.240
<v Speaker 3>of the demand has not been driven by kids toys.

0:04:11.280 --> 0:04:15.120
<v Speaker 3>It's really been driven by adults their interest in trading cards,

0:04:15.120 --> 0:04:18.480
<v Speaker 3>collectibles and building sets, and the holiday is quite different

0:04:18.480 --> 0:04:19.560
<v Speaker 3>with a focus on kids.

0:04:19.720 --> 0:04:23.280
<v Speaker 1>We're speaking with Lindsey Dutch, a senior retail analyst at

0:04:23.400 --> 0:04:26.720
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Intelligence, along with Punham Goyle, also a senior retail

0:04:26.760 --> 0:04:31.000
<v Speaker 1>analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence. Going into the holidays, of course,

0:04:31.640 --> 0:04:34.760
<v Speaker 1>a lot of customers are thinking about deals going into

0:04:34.760 --> 0:04:39.320
<v Speaker 1>Black Friday and beyond how important PUNAM is this weekend

0:04:39.400 --> 0:04:42.039
<v Speaker 1>in particular for the retailers and what kind of deals

0:04:42.080 --> 0:04:43.039
<v Speaker 1>are we seeing.

0:04:43.080 --> 0:04:46.000
<v Speaker 2>This weekend is very important. It actually kicks off holiday

0:04:46.040 --> 0:04:49.320
<v Speaker 2>despite all the deals we've been seeing prior to today,

0:04:49.680 --> 0:04:54.400
<v Speaker 2>so I think deals will be prevalent. We don't expect steep,

0:04:54.480 --> 0:04:57.000
<v Speaker 2>steep discounts. You know, in the past, it's eight years

0:04:57.000 --> 0:05:00.120
<v Speaker 2>ago when there were inventory issues, we saw fifty six

0:05:00.000 --> 0:05:03.120
<v Speaker 2>seventy person off at sometimes. I think we'll probably stay

0:05:03.120 --> 0:05:05.560
<v Speaker 2>in the range of between thirty and forty person off

0:05:05.640 --> 0:05:08.320
<v Speaker 2>on average. That's what we saw last year. So I

0:05:08.360 --> 0:05:11.680
<v Speaker 2>do expect discounts to be similar at most places. But

0:05:11.800 --> 0:05:15.599
<v Speaker 2>you will have those doorbuster deals to get the shopper

0:05:15.680 --> 0:05:17.600
<v Speaker 2>into the store, and we expect those to be there

0:05:17.600 --> 0:05:21.040
<v Speaker 2>at Walmart and Target and some of these department stores

0:05:21.040 --> 0:05:24.239
<v Speaker 2>where that is how they draw in customers. That said,

0:05:24.320 --> 0:05:28.320
<v Speaker 2>today's Thanksgiving Day and stores are closed, so everyone is shopping,

0:05:28.480 --> 0:05:31.880
<v Speaker 2>likely online and spending time with family, and online sales

0:05:31.920 --> 0:05:34.480
<v Speaker 2>we expect to still outpay store sales.

0:05:34.720 --> 0:05:38.400
<v Speaker 1>That's an interesting return to trend to keep the stores

0:05:38.480 --> 0:05:41.320
<v Speaker 1>closed on Thanksgiving. In past years, we've seen some of

0:05:41.320 --> 0:05:45.440
<v Speaker 1>those doorbusters come Thanksgiving night, but Lindsey, if we don't

0:05:45.480 --> 0:05:48.840
<v Speaker 1>see the kinds of deep discounts that there have been

0:05:48.880 --> 0:05:52.120
<v Speaker 1>in the past for the kickoff of holiday shopping season,

0:05:52.120 --> 0:05:53.680
<v Speaker 1>what could that mean for foot traffic?

0:05:55.160 --> 0:05:57.160
<v Speaker 3>So we do still expect, you know, people to come

0:05:57.200 --> 0:06:00.839
<v Speaker 3>out and shop. I agree with Puna Myke the level

0:06:00.920 --> 0:06:05.159
<v Speaker 3>of discounting might be similar to last year, but rolling

0:06:05.200 --> 0:06:08.560
<v Speaker 3>out those discounts and having those special promotions is really

0:06:08.600 --> 0:06:12.240
<v Speaker 3>the key to driving you know, consumers to your store

0:06:12.440 --> 0:06:16.320
<v Speaker 3>or to your website. And in thinking about foot traffic

0:06:16.360 --> 0:06:19.719
<v Speaker 3>to stores, you know, Best Buy sort of discussed that

0:06:19.839 --> 0:06:22.719
<v Speaker 3>they are seeing a strong interest in in store shopping

0:06:22.760 --> 0:06:25.760
<v Speaker 3>coming from gen Z and we see that also in

0:06:25.800 --> 0:06:28.560
<v Speaker 3>our coverage of All to Beauty. So that younger consumer,

0:06:28.760 --> 0:06:30.960
<v Speaker 3>they like to go to the store, they like in

0:06:31.040 --> 0:06:33.839
<v Speaker 3>person shopping, and I think they'll be out for the weekend.

0:06:34.240 --> 0:06:36.440
<v Speaker 1>That's an interesting point as well, is that kind of

0:06:36.440 --> 0:06:41.760
<v Speaker 1>a shift in trend in terms of shopper behavior overall, poonam.

0:06:41.440 --> 0:06:44.800
<v Speaker 2>The mall has become the new hangout spot, and especially

0:06:44.839 --> 0:06:47.239
<v Speaker 2>the malls that are doing really well and have become

0:06:47.400 --> 0:06:50.240
<v Speaker 2>entertainment hubs. So whether it's coming out you know, last

0:06:50.240 --> 0:06:52.560
<v Speaker 2>weekend aired wicket, So there were a lot of teenagers

0:06:52.560 --> 0:06:54.760
<v Speaker 2>in the mall, or if it's just going to a

0:06:54.839 --> 0:06:57.560
<v Speaker 2>restaurant or with the new Dick sporting goods at the

0:06:57.600 --> 0:06:59.360
<v Speaker 2>mall that I went to was the House of Sports,

0:06:59.400 --> 0:07:02.679
<v Speaker 2>a concept where there's entertainment to build into it. That's

0:07:02.720 --> 0:07:04.320
<v Speaker 2>what's attracting these younger people.

0:07:05.000 --> 0:07:10.400
<v Speaker 1>In terms of the overall outlook for retail, we've gotten

0:07:10.480 --> 0:07:15.240
<v Speaker 1>a lot of reports from the companies themselves from their

0:07:15.280 --> 0:07:19.000
<v Speaker 1>earnings just heading into this weekend, Lindsey. Based on what

0:07:19.040 --> 0:07:21.840
<v Speaker 1>we've seen from the earnings reports so far, what does

0:07:21.880 --> 0:07:24.600
<v Speaker 1>that tell us about what we could get into the holidays.

0:07:25.760 --> 0:07:29.480
<v Speaker 3>I think the companies remain pretty conservative in how they're

0:07:29.520 --> 0:07:31.840
<v Speaker 3>thinking about the fourth quarter. They don't want to get

0:07:31.880 --> 0:07:34.600
<v Speaker 3>over their skis when when they're thinking about, you know,

0:07:34.720 --> 0:07:37.000
<v Speaker 3>what the sales might be. You know, we saw pretty

0:07:37.520 --> 0:07:41.239
<v Speaker 3>you know, low outlooks coming out of Best Buy dis

0:07:42.960 --> 0:07:46.240
<v Speaker 3>meaning a deceleration in same source sales growth from the

0:07:46.280 --> 0:07:49.560
<v Speaker 3>third quarter to the fourth quarter. I think that outlook,

0:07:49.640 --> 0:07:53.280
<v Speaker 3>you know, is conservative. They're not really sure on the consumer.

0:07:53.320 --> 0:07:55.840
<v Speaker 3>There is a lot of uncertainty still out there, but

0:07:55.920 --> 0:07:59.000
<v Speaker 3>I think it does leave room for some surprises. You know,

0:07:59.040 --> 0:08:02.160
<v Speaker 3>we have been seen better than expected sales in the

0:08:02.200 --> 0:08:04.600
<v Speaker 3>third quarter, a lot of that being driven by back

0:08:04.600 --> 0:08:07.640
<v Speaker 3>to school, you know, from many retailers across the board,

0:08:08.160 --> 0:08:11.440
<v Speaker 3>and I think there's definitely reason to be optimistic for

0:08:11.520 --> 0:08:13.080
<v Speaker 3>a strong holiday season.

0:08:13.400 --> 0:08:16.640
<v Speaker 1>If we're seeing those kind of conservative outlooks of from

0:08:16.720 --> 0:08:20.080
<v Speaker 1>the businesses punam, does that point to a sort of

0:08:20.080 --> 0:08:22.920
<v Speaker 1>more of a difficulty for these companies to provide the

0:08:23.040 --> 0:08:26.520
<v Speaker 1>kind of, you know, deep holiday discounts that they'd been

0:08:26.560 --> 0:08:27.760
<v Speaker 1>able to do in the past.

0:08:28.720 --> 0:08:31.520
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I think the conservative outlook stems from the uncertainty

0:08:31.560 --> 0:08:34.160
<v Speaker 2>of just knowing where consumer behavior will be. But in

0:08:34.280 --> 0:08:36.719
<v Speaker 2>terms of the deep discounts, don't get me wrong, there

0:08:36.760 --> 0:08:39.880
<v Speaker 2>will be discounts. It's just you're not going to see

0:08:40.320 --> 0:08:43.360
<v Speaker 2>the store you know, at these deep discounts that we

0:08:43.360 --> 0:08:46.040
<v Speaker 2>were used to seeing, maybe even prior to the pandemic.

0:08:46.559 --> 0:08:49.480
<v Speaker 2>And the reason why you won't see them is because

0:08:49.559 --> 0:08:52.400
<v Speaker 2>inventory is you could imagine this year being a year

0:08:52.520 --> 0:08:56.080
<v Speaker 2>with tariffs and levies added on to retailers, they didn't

0:08:56.120 --> 0:08:58.760
<v Speaker 2>overbuy right so they've been very cautious on how they're

0:08:58.760 --> 0:09:02.120
<v Speaker 2>buying inventory. And for a lot of them, inventory has

0:09:02.240 --> 0:09:05.240
<v Speaker 2>been right sized, which is what's been driving the healthier

0:09:05.320 --> 0:09:08.880
<v Speaker 2>margin and the healthier sales and also healthier full price selling.

0:09:09.720 --> 0:09:12.840
<v Speaker 2>You will find disconsoled. Nike, for example, is still clearing

0:09:12.840 --> 0:09:15.520
<v Speaker 2>out aged inventory and a lot of the at leisure

0:09:15.600 --> 0:09:18.319
<v Speaker 2>brands that are amiss to turn around. That's where you

0:09:18.400 --> 0:09:21.480
<v Speaker 2>find inventory pals, but on old stuff. The new stuff

0:09:21.520 --> 0:09:23.760
<v Speaker 2>I think will be fairly moderate levels.

0:09:24.520 --> 0:09:28.880
<v Speaker 1>Linzie, how do you see retailers weathering tariff impacts into

0:09:28.960 --> 0:09:33.839
<v Speaker 1>next year? We've seen these companies kind of absorb the

0:09:34.200 --> 0:09:36.720
<v Speaker 1>higher costs at least in the in the short term

0:09:36.800 --> 0:09:39.600
<v Speaker 1>some front loading as well as Puna mentioned, But into

0:09:39.600 --> 0:09:42.040
<v Speaker 1>twenty twenty six. What's your expectation there?

0:09:43.080 --> 0:09:48.400
<v Speaker 3>So, I do expect costs generally to continue rising, you know,

0:09:48.520 --> 0:09:51.800
<v Speaker 3>into the next year, at least through the first half.

0:09:52.600 --> 0:09:57.480
<v Speaker 3>So companies will be continuing with their mitigation strategies, whether

0:09:57.520 --> 0:10:00.920
<v Speaker 3>that's you know, continue movement and how they're sourcing, where

0:10:01.040 --> 0:10:04.800
<v Speaker 3>they're selling, the price points, all of those levers that

0:10:04.840 --> 0:10:07.240
<v Speaker 3>they've been pulling sort of this year. I think that

0:10:07.400 --> 0:10:10.800
<v Speaker 3>cost pressure could continue, but we do we have seen,

0:10:10.880 --> 0:10:14.199
<v Speaker 3>as you've mentioned, you know, some resilience on the profit

0:10:14.280 --> 0:10:19.000
<v Speaker 3>line across many retailers, and that is you know, them

0:10:19.080 --> 0:10:21.800
<v Speaker 3>passing some of those costs on or you know, the

0:10:21.840 --> 0:10:24.920
<v Speaker 3>costs haven't come quite to fruition to the levels that

0:10:24.960 --> 0:10:28.840
<v Speaker 3>they were initially expecting. Also, you know, in some of

0:10:28.880 --> 0:10:32.360
<v Speaker 3>the premium brands, like if you think about a Williams Soonoma,

0:10:32.440 --> 0:10:36.680
<v Speaker 3>for example, they are keeping discounts and promotions even for

0:10:36.720 --> 0:10:39.920
<v Speaker 3>the holiday season, very limited and that does allow them

0:10:40.040 --> 0:10:43.800
<v Speaker 3>to maintain such a strong margin even when they're seeing

0:10:43.840 --> 0:10:44.599
<v Speaker 3>some cost.

0:10:44.400 --> 0:10:47.400
<v Speaker 1>Pick up and put them. How do you see some

0:10:47.440 --> 0:10:51.080
<v Speaker 1>of the companies that you cover mitigating tariffs into twenty six.

0:10:51.960 --> 0:10:53.560
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I think so there's two things that we have

0:10:53.559 --> 0:10:55.320
<v Speaker 2>to think about when we think of twenty twenty six.

0:10:55.400 --> 0:10:57.160
<v Speaker 2>First and the first half of the year, and last

0:10:57.240 --> 0:11:00.040
<v Speaker 2>year didn't have really tariff pressure. We were just speculating

0:11:00.120 --> 0:11:02.600
<v Speaker 2>is what the tariffs could be. So there is more pressure.

0:11:03.080 --> 0:11:06.000
<v Speaker 2>But that said, the reason we've seen so much resilience,

0:11:06.040 --> 0:11:10.000
<v Speaker 2>in my view, is because they're finding opportunities elsewhere. You know,

0:11:10.000 --> 0:11:13.120
<v Speaker 2>when you think about artificial intelligence generative AI and how

0:11:13.160 --> 0:11:17.040
<v Speaker 2>that's really helped streamline operations create efficiencies. I think part

0:11:17.120 --> 0:11:19.880
<v Speaker 2>of the reason they've been able to offset some of

0:11:19.920 --> 0:11:22.960
<v Speaker 2>this pain, in addition to supplier negotiations, is because of

0:11:22.960 --> 0:11:24.360
<v Speaker 2>the benefit that they're getting from.

0:11:24.280 --> 0:11:30.479
<v Speaker 1>AI in our last minute, Lindsey, are there certain items

0:11:30.679 --> 0:11:34.000
<v Speaker 1>that you think are going to find a big competition

0:11:34.240 --> 0:11:37.600
<v Speaker 1>from consumers sort of fighting each other to get into

0:11:37.760 --> 0:11:40.240
<v Speaker 1>the stores to get under the tree this holiday season?

0:11:41.480 --> 0:11:45.000
<v Speaker 3>You know, I think toys is typically a category where

0:11:45.080 --> 0:11:49.120
<v Speaker 3>you might see something like that. When we looked at

0:11:49.320 --> 0:11:52.760
<v Speaker 3>the toy lists, you know, coming out of Walmart, Target

0:11:53.080 --> 0:11:56.240
<v Speaker 3>and Amazon, you know those top toy lists, you know,

0:11:56.280 --> 0:11:58.960
<v Speaker 3>they look very similar to last year. So I don't

0:11:59.000 --> 0:12:01.040
<v Speaker 3>know that there's a real hot item that you have

0:12:01.160 --> 0:12:04.840
<v Speaker 3>to be at the door when they open to get

0:12:04.960 --> 0:12:09.360
<v Speaker 3>or wait in line. Even Nintendo Switch, the inventory on

0:12:09.440 --> 0:12:14.400
<v Speaker 3>that console is much greater than the original Nintendo Switch

0:12:14.440 --> 0:12:16.400
<v Speaker 3>that was rolled out a couple of years ago, So

0:12:16.440 --> 0:12:21.000
<v Speaker 3>the inventory looks appropriate in that. I don't think retailers

0:12:21.000 --> 0:12:24.480
<v Speaker 3>are over inventory this season, but they have enough for

0:12:25.040 --> 0:12:26.480
<v Speaker 3>the expected demand trends.

0:12:27.040 --> 0:12:30.080
<v Speaker 1>All right, Well, happy holidays to both of you. Really

0:12:30.120 --> 0:12:32.400
<v Speaker 1>appreciate you coming on with us. That's put them Goyle

0:12:32.600 --> 0:12:36.880
<v Speaker 1>and Lindsay Dutch, senior retail analysts at Bloomberg Intelligence and

0:12:37.000 --> 0:12:40.200
<v Speaker 1>up next on the special Thanksgiving edition of Bloomberg Daybreak.

0:12:40.320 --> 0:12:42.880
<v Speaker 1>Is December going to bring any relief to stocks and

0:12:42.960 --> 0:12:46.600
<v Speaker 1>crypto Alaska couple experts in both those spaces. As this

0:12:46.720 --> 0:12:50.880
<v Speaker 1>holiday edition of Bloomberg Daybreak continues, I'm Nathan Hager, and

0:12:51.000 --> 0:13:04.319
<v Speaker 1>this is Bloomberg. Thanks for joining us on this special

0:13:04.440 --> 0:13:07.320
<v Speaker 1>edition of Bloomberg day Break. US markets are closed for

0:13:07.320 --> 0:13:11.000
<v Speaker 1>the Thanksgiving holiday. I'm Nathan Hager. Well, after soaring from

0:13:11.080 --> 0:13:13.920
<v Speaker 1>the spring into the fall, the stock market kind of

0:13:13.960 --> 0:13:16.400
<v Speaker 1>took a breather this month. The S and P five

0:13:16.480 --> 0:13:19.360
<v Speaker 1>hundreds on track for its first monthly decline in seven

0:13:19.800 --> 0:13:21.760
<v Speaker 1>So is there more pain ahead or could this be

0:13:21.840 --> 0:13:25.120
<v Speaker 1>a buying opportunity. Let's ask Scott Martin. He's the chief

0:13:25.120 --> 0:13:29.480
<v Speaker 1>investment officer at Kingsview Wealth Management. Happy holiday to you, Scott.

0:13:29.520 --> 0:13:31.719
<v Speaker 1>I think we all remember what happened seven months ago,

0:13:31.880 --> 0:13:35.280
<v Speaker 1>the April tariff announcement. We did get the bounce back

0:13:35.360 --> 0:13:37.480
<v Speaker 1>since then. Can we be set up for a repeat

0:13:37.520 --> 0:13:38.400
<v Speaker 1>of that this time around?

0:13:39.080 --> 0:13:41.200
<v Speaker 4>Yes, it seems you're less similar, actually, Nathan. And as

0:13:41.200 --> 0:13:42.920
<v Speaker 4>we approach the holidays, I'm certainly in a little bit

0:13:42.920 --> 0:13:44.440
<v Speaker 4>more of a market's been a little bit more of

0:13:44.440 --> 0:13:46.199
<v Speaker 4>a giving mood, let's say, with regards to a give

0:13:46.280 --> 0:13:48.240
<v Speaker 4>back in prices and so I believe that this is

0:13:48.240 --> 0:13:49.880
<v Speaker 4>gonna be one of those stress points again that we

0:13:49.920 --> 0:13:52.920
<v Speaker 4>did experience earlier this year where markets feel broken, they

0:13:53.000 --> 0:13:55.480
<v Speaker 4>feel like they're focusing on the bad versus the good,

0:13:55.480 --> 0:13:58.240
<v Speaker 4>and we're seeing that in price action, mostly across tech

0:13:58.280 --> 0:13:59.960
<v Speaker 4>and but also across some other areas of the market

0:14:00.120 --> 0:14:02.760
<v Speaker 4>that have been bled into by the liquidations that happen.

0:14:02.880 --> 0:14:04.960
<v Speaker 4>So I think, similar to what's gone on in April

0:14:05.000 --> 0:14:07.000
<v Speaker 4>and into even many this year, we're starting to have

0:14:07.040 --> 0:14:08.880
<v Speaker 4>some of those weekends get out of the market. Those

0:14:08.920 --> 0:14:11.080
<v Speaker 4>weekends get out of those areas where there has been

0:14:11.120 --> 0:14:13.160
<v Speaker 4>a little bit of froth, and so I think those

0:14:13.160 --> 0:14:15.000
<v Speaker 4>weekends are going to get out and allow these stronger

0:14:15.040 --> 0:14:17.120
<v Speaker 4>hands to come in where you, the investor, could come

0:14:17.160 --> 0:14:18.920
<v Speaker 4>in and find price levels that are built a little

0:14:18.920 --> 0:14:20.960
<v Speaker 4>bit the same, more attractive than they were just a

0:14:20.960 --> 0:14:22.800
<v Speaker 4>couple of months ago. And that's an opportunity for us

0:14:22.800 --> 0:14:25.600
<v Speaker 4>to reallocate, rebalance, and get ready for next year as

0:14:25.600 --> 0:14:26.280
<v Speaker 4>things go up again.

0:14:26.280 --> 0:14:28.720
<v Speaker 1>In our opinion, Okay, well, I'm going to go ahead

0:14:28.720 --> 0:14:31.160
<v Speaker 1>and play a devil's advocate here just a little bit,

0:14:31.280 --> 0:14:34.520
<v Speaker 1>because there is this debate in the market about whether

0:14:34.760 --> 0:14:38.240
<v Speaker 1>you know the artificial intelligence names. The megacaps have gotten

0:14:38.280 --> 0:14:41.560
<v Speaker 1>too stretched in terms of their valuations. Is it just

0:14:42.000 --> 0:14:45.640
<v Speaker 1>froth or could there be more to give back here?

0:14:46.480 --> 0:14:48.280
<v Speaker 4>I think there's probably some more to give back, certainly

0:14:48.280 --> 0:14:50.200
<v Speaker 4>because the markets have shown they need as they get

0:14:50.200 --> 0:14:52.640
<v Speaker 4>extended to the upside. As we get frothy, the markets

0:14:52.680 --> 0:14:55.240
<v Speaker 4>also get too scared, they get too too fighting, let's say.

0:14:55.280 --> 0:14:57.240
<v Speaker 4>And so I think that's going to be the essence

0:14:57.280 --> 0:14:59.800
<v Speaker 4>of what the market is. As investors ourselves, we have

0:14:59.800 --> 0:15:03.000
<v Speaker 4>to remember that not only are markets nonlinear, they're also

0:15:03.200 --> 0:15:05.400
<v Speaker 4>very emotionally driven. And so when fundamentals kind of get

0:15:05.400 --> 0:15:07.240
<v Speaker 4>thrown out the window here with regards to both on

0:15:07.280 --> 0:15:09.840
<v Speaker 4>the upside and downside, that creates opportunity for us. And

0:15:09.880 --> 0:15:11.960
<v Speaker 4>so what we look longer term here, and that's beyond

0:15:12.000 --> 0:15:14.840
<v Speaker 4>obviously five days, ten days, or thirty days. We tend

0:15:14.880 --> 0:15:16.960
<v Speaker 4>to look at these price levels at a price action

0:15:17.440 --> 0:15:21.400
<v Speaker 4>as opportunities, as points where investors who really like the space,

0:15:21.400 --> 0:15:23.200
<v Speaker 4>who really like the tech space, who really like the

0:15:23.240 --> 0:15:27.160
<v Speaker 4>AI space, if it's servers, if it's servers, if it's AI,

0:15:27.440 --> 0:15:29.120
<v Speaker 4>if it's areas in the market that have really been

0:15:29.160 --> 0:15:31.880
<v Speaker 4>strong and really shown, as we saw with Nvidia earlier

0:15:31.880 --> 0:15:33.960
<v Speaker 4>in November that really have the earnings, and they really

0:15:34.000 --> 0:15:36.200
<v Speaker 4>have the potential to deliver what I believe the market

0:15:36.200 --> 0:15:38.640
<v Speaker 4>expects when it comes to profits. For example, I think

0:15:38.680 --> 0:15:40.680
<v Speaker 4>there's a long term story here in that space, or

0:15:40.720 --> 0:15:43.200
<v Speaker 4>in the tech space, especially which has been hit reasonably

0:15:43.200 --> 0:15:45.720
<v Speaker 4>hard in the last day several weeks. There's opportunities there

0:15:45.720 --> 0:15:48.160
<v Speaker 4>for investors to take a steak here and say that yes,

0:15:48.200 --> 0:15:50.160
<v Speaker 4>things could be a little bit more volatile in the

0:15:50.160 --> 0:15:52.440
<v Speaker 4>next month or two, but overall, in the next day

0:15:52.480 --> 0:15:54.680
<v Speaker 4>six to twelve months, it's our opinion that the prices

0:15:54.680 --> 0:15:56.400
<v Speaker 4>will again rebound and they will go higher.

0:15:56.680 --> 0:15:58.920
<v Speaker 1>Is it going to be an opportunity across the tech

0:15:58.960 --> 0:16:00.560
<v Speaker 1>space or do you think it's going to be like

0:16:00.600 --> 0:16:02.760
<v Speaker 1>a stock pickers market in terms of what we see

0:16:02.760 --> 0:16:03.080
<v Speaker 1>in tech.

0:16:03.840 --> 0:16:05.760
<v Speaker 4>That's a great question. I think we've seen from the

0:16:05.800 --> 0:16:07.840
<v Speaker 4>price action so far in Nathan, it's going to probably

0:16:07.840 --> 0:16:09.880
<v Speaker 4>be more of a stock pickers market in the sense

0:16:09.960 --> 0:16:11.840
<v Speaker 4>of some of the tech has been doing okay. If

0:16:11.840 --> 0:16:13.640
<v Speaker 4>you look at some of the Googles of the world,

0:16:13.640 --> 0:16:16.600
<v Speaker 4>and even in Vidia until most recently, and even Oracle

0:16:16.680 --> 0:16:18.640
<v Speaker 4>until most recently, there has been strength. And so if

0:16:18.640 --> 0:16:20.480
<v Speaker 4>you look at some of the names that maybe have

0:16:20.640 --> 0:16:23.680
<v Speaker 4>relatively stayed stable or relatively been maybe against some of

0:16:23.680 --> 0:16:26.280
<v Speaker 4>the big moves in tech in general, those would be

0:16:26.320 --> 0:16:27.960
<v Speaker 4>areas that I think you can find some strengths. But

0:16:28.000 --> 0:16:30.280
<v Speaker 4>then again, if you look at the corwe's for example,

0:16:30.400 --> 0:16:32.560
<v Speaker 4>if you look at say A M D, those are

0:16:32.600 --> 0:16:35.600
<v Speaker 4>areas that have come on with an additional punishment that

0:16:35.720 --> 0:16:38.240
<v Speaker 4>in our opinion looks a little bit overdone. So when

0:16:38.240 --> 0:16:39.800
<v Speaker 4>you pick the stocks here and you look at some

0:16:39.800 --> 0:16:42.320
<v Speaker 4>of the names that have been say irrepidbly punished, I

0:16:42.320 --> 0:16:44.200
<v Speaker 4>think those are areas where investors can find some of

0:16:44.200 --> 0:16:46.560
<v Speaker 4>the most upside going forward, because those are companies too

0:16:46.600 --> 0:16:49.400
<v Speaker 4>that are getting stay unduly punished because of this liquidation,

0:16:49.680 --> 0:16:51.800
<v Speaker 4>and therefore that's probably where most of the upside exists.

0:16:52.160 --> 0:16:55.200
<v Speaker 1>Is there too much focus on the tech sector right now?

0:16:55.240 --> 0:16:59.200
<v Speaker 1>Do you see any opportunities for either broadening in the

0:16:59.360 --> 0:17:03.520
<v Speaker 1>in the a rotation out of tack?

0:17:04.240 --> 0:17:06.320
<v Speaker 4>We do. I think the rotation of the tech, depending

0:17:06.320 --> 0:17:08.560
<v Speaker 4>on how long it lasts, will obviously spread itself into

0:17:08.560 --> 0:17:10.520
<v Speaker 4>different areas where I've seeing that, and say financials, we're

0:17:10.520 --> 0:17:13.480
<v Speaker 4>seeing that in pharmaceuticals. My goodness, healthcare, which was a

0:17:13.480 --> 0:17:15.400
<v Speaker 4>dead space for the last couple of years has come

0:17:15.440 --> 0:17:18.320
<v Speaker 4>on very strong. Utilities, what i'd like to call a

0:17:18.400 --> 0:17:21.240
<v Speaker 4>very boring sector, have stepped up very well. So yes,

0:17:21.280 --> 0:17:24.720
<v Speaker 4>as the tech let's say tech malay spreads through the

0:17:24.960 --> 0:17:26.399
<v Speaker 4>rest of the year here, I think you're going to

0:17:26.480 --> 0:17:28.959
<v Speaker 4>see those areas step up and take leadership. But as

0:17:28.960 --> 0:17:31.200
<v Speaker 4>we've seen in the past days and the real story

0:17:31.200 --> 0:17:32.879
<v Speaker 4>here though, and the real story for growth and the

0:17:32.880 --> 0:17:36.199
<v Speaker 4>real story for investors that want that long term appreciation

0:17:36.560 --> 0:17:38.919
<v Speaker 4>that still remains in tech. If you just look over history,

0:17:39.040 --> 0:17:40.560
<v Speaker 4>if you look at the healthcare space, if you look

0:17:40.560 --> 0:17:44.040
<v Speaker 4>at pharmaceuticals, if you look at utilities, telecom in fact too,

0:17:44.240 --> 0:17:46.360
<v Speaker 4>those areas have stepped up in times when there has

0:17:46.400 --> 0:17:49.880
<v Speaker 4>been this general fullback area, the general pullback sty attitude

0:17:49.920 --> 0:17:52.119
<v Speaker 4>in the marketplace. But the reality is that over the

0:17:52.160 --> 0:17:54.640
<v Speaker 4>long term, it's tech that's going to provide that long

0:17:54.720 --> 0:17:57.760
<v Speaker 4>term growth potential. And so while tech does stay weak here,

0:17:57.960 --> 0:18:00.440
<v Speaker 4>say in the next short term period, there's going to

0:18:00.440 --> 0:18:02.760
<v Speaker 4>be that long term appreciation in tech that we'll rebound

0:18:02.920 --> 0:18:05.040
<v Speaker 4>and we'll reward investors that take a stake in some

0:18:05.080 --> 0:18:05.719
<v Speaker 4>of these names.

0:18:06.040 --> 0:18:08.280
<v Speaker 1>So is it going to be about a return to

0:18:08.760 --> 0:18:11.960
<v Speaker 1>a fundamental thesis here, the idea of fundamentals coming back

0:18:11.960 --> 0:18:15.560
<v Speaker 1>into play, or is there going to be the need

0:18:15.760 --> 0:18:18.760
<v Speaker 1>for the FED to support this market.

0:18:19.720 --> 0:18:21.639
<v Speaker 4>That's the greatest question that we all are waiting for,

0:18:21.680 --> 0:18:23.520
<v Speaker 4>is that we have a FED meeting coming up in December.

0:18:23.520 --> 0:18:25.359
<v Speaker 4>And in my opinion, I've been one of those that's

0:18:25.359 --> 0:18:26.840
<v Speaker 4>been out there saying the FED shoon out of cut

0:18:26.880 --> 0:18:28.639
<v Speaker 4>rates the last two times in fact, and so I

0:18:28.640 --> 0:18:31.840
<v Speaker 4>believe the FED is definitely being relied upon by the

0:18:31.880 --> 0:18:34.560
<v Speaker 4>markets by certainly the administration to come in and see quote

0:18:34.600 --> 0:18:36.879
<v Speaker 4>unquote as you use the words save this market. And

0:18:36.920 --> 0:18:39.400
<v Speaker 4>it's laty to think about that because if you line

0:18:39.440 --> 0:18:42.040
<v Speaker 4>that up with a fundamental story that you initiated there,

0:18:42.359 --> 0:18:44.480
<v Speaker 4>what really is the FED doing here? Because yes, there's

0:18:44.520 --> 0:18:47.080
<v Speaker 4>been some forced liquidation here. There's been some concerns of

0:18:47.200 --> 0:18:49.879
<v Speaker 4>late about bank credits, about private credit and things like

0:18:49.920 --> 0:18:52.760
<v Speaker 4>that being way too extended. It certainly interest rates being

0:18:52.800 --> 0:18:54.960
<v Speaker 4>too high, I guess, But then again, we still have

0:18:55.000 --> 0:18:58.879
<v Speaker 4>inflation that is not teamed considerably. Inflation that's around her

0:18:58.880 --> 0:19:01.240
<v Speaker 4>about three percent floss. We're supposed to get to two percent,

0:19:01.560 --> 0:19:03.160
<v Speaker 4>never got there. That was the target of the three

0:19:03.200 --> 0:19:07.679
<v Speaker 4>Reserve and Jerome Pal's commentary. We also have GDP growth now, Nathan.

0:19:07.680 --> 0:19:10.320
<v Speaker 4>That's certainly above where it was some months ago when

0:19:10.359 --> 0:19:12.840
<v Speaker 4>the FED was concerned about cutting rates to help support

0:19:12.840 --> 0:19:16.280
<v Speaker 4>the economy. GDP growth for our projections for both Q

0:19:16.400 --> 0:19:19.120
<v Speaker 4>four and some of the first parts of Q one

0:19:19.160 --> 0:19:21.439
<v Speaker 4>and two for twenty twenty six looks like it's going

0:19:21.480 --> 0:19:22.560
<v Speaker 4>to be in the range of three and a half

0:19:22.600 --> 0:19:25.520
<v Speaker 4>to four percent. And so with job growth obviously being

0:19:25.520 --> 0:19:27.840
<v Speaker 4>recently strong as we put too a little pause in

0:19:27.880 --> 0:19:29.600
<v Speaker 4>the job on the job numbers are the last couple

0:19:29.600 --> 0:19:31.320
<v Speaker 4>of months we started to see those come in. It's

0:19:31.320 --> 0:19:33.439
<v Speaker 4>our opinion that the economy is strong enough for the

0:19:33.440 --> 0:19:35.280
<v Speaker 4>FED not to cut rates actually, and so the FED

0:19:35.520 --> 0:19:38.240
<v Speaker 4>is going to probably have to be this red herring,

0:19:38.280 --> 0:19:40.919
<v Speaker 4>if you will, or this savior in the face of

0:19:40.960 --> 0:19:43.920
<v Speaker 4>this emotional investment period where I don't think that's necessary

0:19:43.960 --> 0:19:45.720
<v Speaker 4>really for the FED to do that, and so I

0:19:45.760 --> 0:19:47.879
<v Speaker 4>think actually what's going to end up happening is whether

0:19:47.920 --> 0:19:49.800
<v Speaker 4>the FED cuts or not in December. That's not going

0:19:49.880 --> 0:19:53.160
<v Speaker 4>to be a big I guess, patternshift or if you will,

0:19:53.200 --> 0:19:56.119
<v Speaker 4>for our sake of things as investors ourselves, but it

0:19:56.160 --> 0:19:57.720
<v Speaker 4>is something that if the FED does not cut, that

0:19:57.880 --> 0:19:59.480
<v Speaker 4>that could be taken poorly by the market. But I

0:19:59.480 --> 0:20:01.920
<v Speaker 4>believe over and longer term that's the right move for

0:20:01.960 --> 0:20:04.240
<v Speaker 4>the FED is to step back, let the economy breathe

0:20:04.240 --> 0:20:06.159
<v Speaker 4>a little bit, let everybody kind of calm down, and

0:20:06.160 --> 0:20:08.440
<v Speaker 4>then therefore we can be in a period where going forward,

0:20:08.480 --> 0:20:09.720
<v Speaker 4>I think there's going to be a reason for the

0:20:09.720 --> 0:20:12.160
<v Speaker 4>FED possibly to cut some other time, but certainly not now.

0:20:12.520 --> 0:20:15.160
<v Speaker 1>Interesting view on where things could go in terms of policy.

0:20:15.240 --> 0:20:16.800
<v Speaker 1>Thank you for this, Scott, great you having me on

0:20:16.840 --> 0:20:17.119
<v Speaker 1>with us.

0:20:17.640 --> 0:20:18.440
<v Speaker 4>Thank you very much.

0:20:18.640 --> 0:20:22.400
<v Speaker 1>That's Scott Martin, chief investment officer at Kingsview Wealth Management.

0:20:22.840 --> 0:20:26.639
<v Speaker 1>Even harder hit than stocks this month have been crypto currencies.

0:20:26.840 --> 0:20:29.480
<v Speaker 1>Bitcoin is plummeted from its high of one hundred and

0:20:29.480 --> 0:20:31.399
<v Speaker 1>twenty five thousand back just a little more than a

0:20:31.400 --> 0:20:34.520
<v Speaker 1>month ago in early October. So let's look at what

0:20:34.840 --> 0:20:38.560
<v Speaker 1>might be ahead. We're pleased to welcome Bloomberg Intelligence senior

0:20:38.600 --> 0:20:42.040
<v Speaker 1>commodity strategist Mike mcgloan, and I say might be ahead, Mike,

0:20:42.119 --> 0:20:44.560
<v Speaker 1>because it really is hard to predict what's going to

0:20:44.600 --> 0:20:47.080
<v Speaker 1>happen with bitcoin. I got to think it's tough for

0:20:47.119 --> 0:20:47.600
<v Speaker 1>you as well.

0:20:47.680 --> 0:20:50.919
<v Speaker 5>Is it. It certainly is, But sometimes it's best to

0:20:50.960 --> 0:20:53.080
<v Speaker 5>be a contrarian, and sometimes it's good to go with

0:20:53.160 --> 0:20:55.600
<v Speaker 5>a flow. One mistake I did last year as I

0:20:55.680 --> 0:20:59.080
<v Speaker 5>jumped on the contrarian battle and pass at least think

0:20:59.080 --> 0:21:01.120
<v Speaker 5>a little bit too early. But now I think that's

0:21:01.160 --> 0:21:03.280
<v Speaker 5>working in the right way. Bitcoin just got way too

0:21:03.280 --> 0:21:06.280
<v Speaker 5>expensive wit and all the signs of a classic bull

0:21:06.359 --> 0:21:09.679
<v Speaker 5>market peak with the President's flip and then all the

0:21:10.080 --> 0:21:12.439
<v Speaker 5>ETF inflows and everything, and now look, I think we've

0:21:12.440 --> 0:21:15.359
<v Speaker 5>put in a pretty enduring peak. A key thing was

0:21:15.359 --> 0:21:17.880
<v Speaker 5>breaking back down below one hundred thousand and then back

0:21:17.880 --> 0:21:20.160
<v Speaker 5>down in the year, which is around ninety four thousand,

0:21:21.080 --> 0:21:22.960
<v Speaker 5>and now it's hovering below that level, and I think

0:21:22.960 --> 0:21:25.600
<v Speaker 5>bitcoin's just a good indication of a way overdo a

0:21:25.640 --> 0:21:28.560
<v Speaker 5>bull market that's correcting, and it could easily go back

0:21:28.600 --> 0:21:30.520
<v Speaker 5>to fifty thousand, which is still my base case.

0:21:30.800 --> 0:21:33.280
<v Speaker 1>Wow, what makes you think it could get down that

0:21:33.400 --> 0:21:35.919
<v Speaker 1>low from the current levels that we're seeing right.

0:21:35.800 --> 0:21:38.920
<v Speaker 5>Now on the annual chart. Certainly going back to twenty

0:21:39.000 --> 0:21:41.119
<v Speaker 5>twenty one to fifty thousand has been a key pivot.

0:21:41.440 --> 0:21:43.199
<v Speaker 5>It looks like it can easily go back there. And

0:21:43.200 --> 0:21:45.520
<v Speaker 5>the key thing is What has been happening is Bitcoin

0:21:45.600 --> 0:21:50.080
<v Speaker 5>usually doesn't bottom until stock market bolatile also peaks, and

0:21:50.359 --> 0:21:53.280
<v Speaker 5>stock market ballatley is just buried. It's running very low.

0:21:53.400 --> 0:21:55.280
<v Speaker 5>If it ends the year at a current level around

0:21:55.320 --> 0:21:59.160
<v Speaker 5>eleven percent, it'll be the lowest year and since twenty seventeen.

0:21:59.400 --> 0:22:02.399
<v Speaker 5>And bitcoin it's basically the opposite of vis in stock

0:22:02.440 --> 0:22:04.359
<v Speaker 5>market volatile. So to me, that's the key risk that

0:22:04.400 --> 0:22:06.640
<v Speaker 5>goes back there. What can get it to sustain back

0:22:06.640 --> 0:22:08.399
<v Speaker 5>above one hundred thousand, I don't know, but I have

0:22:08.520 --> 0:22:10.800
<v Speaker 5>to stock start with a higher stock market. I think

0:22:10.800 --> 0:22:13.320
<v Speaker 5>the key risk is Bitcoin's warning on this ahead of

0:22:13.320 --> 0:22:16.160
<v Speaker 5>time that we are way overdue for the third down

0:22:16.200 --> 0:22:18.520
<v Speaker 5>year for the stock market. Since two thousand and eight,

0:22:18.560 --> 0:22:21.000
<v Speaker 5>we haven't had that, but every time we've had down years,

0:22:21.000 --> 0:22:23.720
<v Speaker 5>there's only been two twenty and eighteen twenty twenty two

0:22:24.000 --> 0:22:27.400
<v Speaker 5>that's coincided with the bitcoin to gold racial breaking down

0:22:27.480 --> 0:22:27.920
<v Speaker 5>like it has.

0:22:27.960 --> 0:22:31.480
<v Speaker 1>So far this year, we've seen the correlation sort of

0:22:31.480 --> 0:22:34.680
<v Speaker 1>breakdown as well between bitcoin and what the stock market's

0:22:34.720 --> 0:22:37.160
<v Speaker 1>been doing. We've seen this pretty steady decline in bitcoin

0:22:37.280 --> 0:22:40.000
<v Speaker 1>despite some of the fluctuations that we've seen in the

0:22:40.040 --> 0:22:42.520
<v Speaker 1>equity space. What do you think is behind that breakdown.

0:22:43.359 --> 0:22:45.439
<v Speaker 5>The key thing I think is we just rate a

0:22:45.480 --> 0:22:49.080
<v Speaker 5>pretty significant peak in cryptos. The key the bottom line

0:22:49.119 --> 0:22:51.040
<v Speaker 5>is a lot of crypto people will tell you that

0:22:51.119 --> 0:22:53.080
<v Speaker 5>bitcoin is different from the other ones, But I like

0:22:53.119 --> 0:22:54.600
<v Speaker 5>to point out in two thousand and nine there was

0:22:54.640 --> 0:22:58.679
<v Speaker 5>one cryptocurrency, and now on coin market camp there's listed

0:22:58.720 --> 0:23:01.600
<v Speaker 5>twenty seven million. Almost those don't matter, But the bottom

0:23:01.640 --> 0:23:04.320
<v Speaker 5>line is most of those have billions of dollars tracking them,

0:23:04.480 --> 0:23:07.439
<v Speaker 5>and they basically really track nothing. They're you know, So

0:23:07.480 --> 0:23:09.479
<v Speaker 5>I think what we're doing is finally seeing the purge

0:23:09.480 --> 0:23:11.600
<v Speaker 5>of excesses of a bull market.

0:23:11.680 --> 0:23:14.280
<v Speaker 1>So are you thinking that we might not see the

0:23:14.320 --> 0:23:17.040
<v Speaker 1>peak that we saw just a little over a month ago.

0:23:17.200 --> 0:23:19.879
<v Speaker 1>I mean, we've had some analysts that we've heard from

0:23:19.920 --> 0:23:22.480
<v Speaker 1>saying that they see bitcoin getting as high as two

0:23:22.600 --> 0:23:25.159
<v Speaker 1>hundred thousand. Are are you just out of that camp?

0:23:25.800 --> 0:23:28.160
<v Speaker 5>Definitely? Well, those are kind of things you see near peaks.

0:23:27.840 --> 0:23:30.320
<v Speaker 5>And what I'm looking for is every single time we

0:23:30.520 --> 0:23:33.280
<v Speaker 5>reached loaves, I have people calling for zero. No, I

0:23:33.359 --> 0:23:35.760
<v Speaker 5>haven't seen those yet. But when we initially dropped to

0:23:35.800 --> 0:23:38.639
<v Speaker 5>roun one hundred thousand. My first take for twenty twenty

0:23:38.640 --> 0:23:40.639
<v Speaker 5>six was fifty or one fifty, and I stick with

0:23:40.720 --> 0:23:43.080
<v Speaker 5>one to fifty. Now could happen this year, it's just

0:23:43.160 --> 0:23:45.280
<v Speaker 5>normally how it does. Remember, there's a high spectrum of

0:23:45.320 --> 0:23:48.159
<v Speaker 5>digital ASCID with unlimited competition. Now Bitcoin is supposed to

0:23:48.160 --> 0:23:51.760
<v Speaker 5>have a definable diminishing supply, but there's unlimited competition of

0:23:51.840 --> 0:23:54.080
<v Speaker 5>other cryptocurrencies out there, and that's what we're finding out.

0:23:54.080 --> 0:23:56.760
<v Speaker 5>So one good example is also look at ethereum. Ethereum

0:23:56.880 --> 0:23:59.600
<v Speaker 5>is running has been betrayed between two thousand and four

0:23:59.640 --> 0:24:02.560
<v Speaker 5>thousand for almost five years, and it's probably heading towards

0:24:02.600 --> 0:24:04.240
<v Speaker 5>the other end of the lower end the range. So

0:24:04.240 --> 0:24:06.360
<v Speaker 5>I think that's the key thing to remember. These are

0:24:06.600 --> 0:24:09.880
<v Speaker 5>not even commodities. They're just trading the vehicles, and they're

0:24:09.920 --> 0:24:11.840
<v Speaker 5>trading in ranges, and I think the range is heading

0:24:11.880 --> 0:24:14.360
<v Speaker 5>lower now. Particularly Also, let's look at it this way.

0:24:14.480 --> 0:24:17.200
<v Speaker 5>Since the stock market's been resilient, if the stock market

0:24:17.200 --> 0:24:19.360
<v Speaker 5>starts giving back some of it games, well know this

0:24:19.400 --> 0:24:21.359
<v Speaker 5>is a good leading indicator. And also we do have

0:24:21.400 --> 0:24:23.280
<v Speaker 5>to point out it was the day that bitcoin dropped

0:24:23.320 --> 0:24:26.920
<v Speaker 5>to eighty right before Thanksgiving that we started seeing FED

0:24:27.080 --> 0:24:30.400
<v Speaker 5>rate cut expectations tilting towards a cut in the December meeting,

0:24:30.440 --> 0:24:32.280
<v Speaker 5>so it's potentially a good leading indicator.

0:24:32.840 --> 0:24:37.479
<v Speaker 1>So how does activity in spot crypto ETF's play into

0:24:38.160 --> 0:24:41.680
<v Speaker 1>your thesis about where cryptocurrency could be going from here.

0:24:42.040 --> 0:24:44.080
<v Speaker 5>In the run up to the launch of ETFs, my

0:24:44.200 --> 0:24:47.040
<v Speaker 5>primary focus was we will see a peak in cryptos

0:24:47.040 --> 0:24:50.320
<v Speaker 5>when we have widely disseminated ETFs, and we certainly have that.

0:24:50.400 --> 0:24:53.560
<v Speaker 5>It's not just Bitcoin, it's all the ones now. So

0:24:53.640 --> 0:24:57.399
<v Speaker 5>the average price we've heard from since ETFs were launched

0:24:57.400 --> 0:24:59.960
<v Speaker 5>from bitcoin is around eighty nine thousand, and the markets

0:25:00.080 --> 0:25:02.560
<v Speaker 5>drop below that level. So we're seeing those stops, people

0:25:02.560 --> 0:25:04.840
<v Speaker 5>getting stopped down below that average price, and so now

0:25:04.880 --> 0:25:07.480
<v Speaker 5>we're seeing outflows. But to me, the whole crypto, the

0:25:07.560 --> 0:25:10.840
<v Speaker 5>whole ETF space, that was the indication of the peak,

0:25:10.960 --> 0:25:13.040
<v Speaker 5>you know, going from the ogs to the kind of

0:25:13.160 --> 0:25:15.560
<v Speaker 5>more the tech geeks who got it and passing it

0:25:15.600 --> 0:25:18.840
<v Speaker 5>on to the main people who are basically lambs. Look

0:25:18.880 --> 0:25:20.360
<v Speaker 5>at me, I want to do the same thing, make

0:25:20.400 --> 0:25:22.199
<v Speaker 5>a lot of money, And to me, that's part of

0:25:22.240 --> 0:25:25.200
<v Speaker 5>the peak now, and the question is what shifts that.

0:25:25.200 --> 0:25:28.040
<v Speaker 5>That's my outlook, and my outlook now is I think

0:25:28.040 --> 0:25:29.560
<v Speaker 5>we're going to see a bottom in the space, and

0:25:29.680 --> 0:25:32.119
<v Speaker 5>we see a lot of the millions of cryptos that

0:25:32.160 --> 0:25:34.639
<v Speaker 5>basically track nothing. I just pine the sky spec the

0:25:34.680 --> 0:25:37.800
<v Speaker 5>digital assets go to zero and then eleven bottom Bitcoin.

0:25:37.920 --> 0:25:41.439
<v Speaker 5>I'll mention one number nine on the Bloomberg Cryp page

0:25:41.520 --> 0:25:44.720
<v Speaker 5>is Dogecoin. It's still worth, you know, between twenty and

0:25:44.760 --> 0:25:47.119
<v Speaker 5>thirty billion dollars and it's a joke. It was launched

0:25:47.119 --> 0:25:48.520
<v Speaker 5>as a joke and that tracks nothing.

0:25:48.920 --> 0:25:51.720
<v Speaker 1>Wow. All right, well, really appreciate this. Mike again, thanks

0:25:51.720 --> 0:25:53.959
<v Speaker 1>for being with us, Thanks for having me. That's our

0:25:53.960 --> 0:25:58.199
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Intelligence senior commodity strategist, Mike McGlone. And coming up

0:25:58.280 --> 0:26:01.440
<v Speaker 1>next on the special holiday edition Bloomberg Daybreak will update

0:26:01.480 --> 0:26:04.520
<v Speaker 1>you on the latest anti trust cases facing big tech.

0:26:04.920 --> 0:26:18.640
<v Speaker 1>I'm Nathan Hager, and this is Bloomberg. Thanks for being

0:26:18.640 --> 0:26:21.560
<v Speaker 1>with us on this special edition of Bloomberg Daybreak. US

0:26:21.600 --> 0:26:24.959
<v Speaker 1>markets are closed for Thanksgiving Day. I'm Nathan Hager, and

0:26:25.000 --> 0:26:27.400
<v Speaker 1>as we head near the close of President Donald Trump's

0:26:27.440 --> 0:26:30.080
<v Speaker 1>first full year of his second term, we thought this

0:26:30.080 --> 0:26:31.800
<v Speaker 1>would be a pretty good time to get an update

0:26:31.880 --> 0:26:36.040
<v Speaker 1>on the administration's anti trust cases against big tech, and

0:26:36.160 --> 0:26:39.280
<v Speaker 1>for that we're pleased to be joined by Bloomberg Intelligence

0:26:39.320 --> 0:26:43.680
<v Speaker 1>Senior Anti trust litigation analyst, Jennifer Ree, Thanks for taking

0:26:43.840 --> 0:26:45.840
<v Speaker 1>some time out of your holiday to be with us,

0:26:46.080 --> 0:26:48.240
<v Speaker 1>Jen And I know we've had a couple of judgments

0:26:48.280 --> 0:26:53.160
<v Speaker 1>already against Google when it comes to search and ad tech.

0:26:53.359 --> 0:26:54.760
<v Speaker 1>Where do those cases stand?

0:26:55.280 --> 0:26:55.480
<v Speaker 4>Right?

0:26:55.520 --> 0:26:58.560
<v Speaker 6>And finally, because if you think about it, these cases, well,

0:26:58.560 --> 0:27:00.399
<v Speaker 6>at least one of them, the Google search case was

0:27:00.400 --> 0:27:03.639
<v Speaker 6>brought during the first Strump administration, so it just shows

0:27:03.680 --> 0:27:05.840
<v Speaker 6>how long it takes to get to an initial decision.

0:27:06.800 --> 0:27:08.800
<v Speaker 6>So on the search case, you know, we're really at

0:27:08.840 --> 0:27:11.560
<v Speaker 6>the tail end. Google lost on my ability. It was

0:27:11.600 --> 0:27:14.760
<v Speaker 6>found to have a monopoly in search and to have

0:27:14.800 --> 0:27:18.920
<v Speaker 6>abused that monopoly position. But the remedy decision was kind

0:27:18.920 --> 0:27:21.600
<v Speaker 6>of I think largely viewed as a win for Google.

0:27:21.720 --> 0:27:24.679
<v Speaker 6>It was pretty mild, you know, with the Department of

0:27:24.800 --> 0:27:29.400
<v Speaker 6>Justice seeking to have Google force to divest Chrome. They

0:27:29.440 --> 0:27:31.600
<v Speaker 6>did not win that. They won some what we call

0:27:31.680 --> 0:27:35.240
<v Speaker 6>behavioral commitments from Google where it has to just change

0:27:35.240 --> 0:27:38.639
<v Speaker 6>some of its conduct. But what the judge ordered was

0:27:38.680 --> 0:27:42.919
<v Speaker 6>really much closer to what Google had offered up, you know,

0:27:43.040 --> 0:27:46.000
<v Speaker 6>as an appropriate remedy than what the Department of Justice

0:27:46.040 --> 0:27:49.000
<v Speaker 6>was seeking. The final touches are being put on that

0:27:49.080 --> 0:27:52.960
<v Speaker 6>remedy right now as we speak. The framework is out,

0:27:53.000 --> 0:27:55.320
<v Speaker 6>but you know, the actual sort of nitty gritty language

0:27:55.359 --> 0:27:57.720
<v Speaker 6>the judge is working on, and I suspect that'll be

0:27:57.760 --> 0:28:00.240
<v Speaker 6>out fairly soon in the next couple months, and once is,

0:28:00.240 --> 0:28:03.080
<v Speaker 6>Google will probably appeal that case, even though as I said,

0:28:03.080 --> 0:28:05.080
<v Speaker 6>it kind of came out pretty well for Google. I

0:28:05.080 --> 0:28:08.720
<v Speaker 6>think they will appeal on the ad Tech case you

0:28:08.800 --> 0:28:12.639
<v Speaker 6>mentioned now. There were just closing arguments on November seventeenth

0:28:13.040 --> 0:28:16.720
<v Speaker 6>for an appropriate remedy in that case, because yes, liability

0:28:16.800 --> 0:28:21.040
<v Speaker 6>was also found and that was about monopolizing these products

0:28:21.040 --> 0:28:24.040
<v Speaker 6>that most of us as consumers don't really know about.

0:28:24.040 --> 0:28:27.400
<v Speaker 6>But it's these digital products that Google owns that put

0:28:27.720 --> 0:28:30.919
<v Speaker 6>advertisers and publishers together. So when you do a searcher,

0:28:31.000 --> 0:28:33.280
<v Speaker 6>you go onto a website and these ads pop up.

0:28:33.640 --> 0:28:36.520
<v Speaker 6>It's the products the software that put those ads in

0:28:36.520 --> 0:28:40.000
<v Speaker 6>front of you when you were looking at that specific website.

0:28:40.400 --> 0:28:44.000
<v Speaker 6>And here again the Department of Justice is seeking a

0:28:44.040 --> 0:28:48.000
<v Speaker 6>structural remedy that is for Google to sell what's called

0:28:48.040 --> 0:28:51.160
<v Speaker 6>its ad exchange. This is kind of the auction area

0:28:51.200 --> 0:28:54.200
<v Speaker 6>where the publishers and advertisers come together and bid for

0:28:54.280 --> 0:28:59.520
<v Speaker 6>space on a website and advertisers by that space. We

0:28:59.560 --> 0:29:02.240
<v Speaker 6>also don't think it's our opinion after listening to the

0:29:02.240 --> 0:29:04.840
<v Speaker 6>remedy hearings, that that's probably not going to happen either,

0:29:05.520 --> 0:29:08.320
<v Speaker 6>that the remedy is more likely to be behavioral and

0:29:08.400 --> 0:29:11.920
<v Speaker 6>about kind of Google unbundling its products right now. It

0:29:12.040 --> 0:29:15.400
<v Speaker 6>sort of bundles everything it has together and forces publishers

0:29:15.400 --> 0:29:18.800
<v Speaker 6>to use its products rather than rival products, and it'll

0:29:19.440 --> 0:29:22.320
<v Speaker 6>this is unreally simplifying, so I'm really your technical market.

0:29:22.480 --> 0:29:25.000
<v Speaker 6>But we think this will be behavioral too, and probably

0:29:25.280 --> 0:29:26.960
<v Speaker 6>get a decision sometime in the first quarter.

0:29:27.080 --> 0:29:30.520
<v Speaker 1>But it's interesting if it's seen that Google was kind

0:29:30.520 --> 0:29:32.480
<v Speaker 1>of given a bit of a slap on the wrist

0:29:32.600 --> 0:29:35.680
<v Speaker 1>when it comes to the search remedy, why would it

0:29:36.120 --> 0:29:41.160
<v Speaker 1>go ahead and appeal that And is there a possibility

0:29:41.480 --> 0:29:44.480
<v Speaker 1>that we could see, you know, something of a stronger

0:29:44.840 --> 0:29:46.880
<v Speaker 1>remedy when it comes to ad tech.

0:29:47.840 --> 0:29:50.120
<v Speaker 6>Well, I think the appeal is because you have a

0:29:50.160 --> 0:29:54.320
<v Speaker 6>liability decision calling your company a monopolist, and it may

0:29:54.360 --> 0:29:56.920
<v Speaker 6>be that the company would want to appeal that piece

0:29:56.960 --> 0:29:59.920
<v Speaker 6>of it. You know, they don't want that opinion now

0:30:00.000 --> 0:30:03.560
<v Speaker 6>out there, especially as we move into the world of AI,

0:30:04.160 --> 0:30:05.960
<v Speaker 6>you know, which many think is going to kind of

0:30:06.000 --> 0:30:09.800
<v Speaker 6>take over for search and general search engines. And Google

0:30:09.840 --> 0:30:14.200
<v Speaker 6>wants the freedom to operate within that AI marketplace and

0:30:14.240 --> 0:30:17.400
<v Speaker 6>may not want this decision out there, but you know,

0:30:17.440 --> 0:30:19.680
<v Speaker 6>they did. It was really pretty good decision for them,

0:30:19.800 --> 0:30:22.440
<v Speaker 6>and maybe they won't, but they have said that they

0:30:22.440 --> 0:30:26.479
<v Speaker 6>are likely to on the ad Tech decision. You know,

0:30:26.520 --> 0:30:29.680
<v Speaker 6>the thing is a harsher remedy than a behavioral remedy

0:30:29.720 --> 0:30:32.760
<v Speaker 6>would be structural, and it's a real tall order to

0:30:32.760 --> 0:30:35.600
<v Speaker 6>ask a judge to do something like that because it

0:30:35.720 --> 0:30:39.960
<v Speaker 6>is complex. It's not a cautious decision. It's a decision

0:30:40.000 --> 0:30:42.800
<v Speaker 6>that could easily get overturned on appeal, and that's not

0:30:43.040 --> 0:30:46.480
<v Speaker 6>really what most federal judges want to do. They're more

0:30:46.640 --> 0:30:49.560
<v Speaker 6>likely to go for something that they view as a

0:30:51.480 --> 0:30:54.440
<v Speaker 6>safer route for a remedy that could withstand an appeal.

0:30:54.680 --> 0:30:57.040
<v Speaker 1>Well, it's going to be interesting to see how these

0:30:57.400 --> 0:31:00.720
<v Speaker 1>final remedies play out on the Google case is given

0:31:00.720 --> 0:31:05.960
<v Speaker 1>what we saw, you know, just recently from the FTC's

0:31:07.320 --> 0:31:11.920
<v Speaker 1>antitrust case against meta platforms. How big a loss was

0:31:11.960 --> 0:31:15.840
<v Speaker 1>it for the FTC to have meta platforms declared not

0:31:15.920 --> 0:31:16.560
<v Speaker 1>a monopoly.

0:31:16.880 --> 0:31:19.520
<v Speaker 6>You know, I think it was a pretty big loss. Now.

0:31:19.560 --> 0:31:22.480
<v Speaker 6>I'll say this case has been controversial since the beginning,

0:31:22.960 --> 0:31:26.320
<v Speaker 6>and the judge has expressed skepticism of the FTC from

0:31:26.360 --> 0:31:29.560
<v Speaker 6>the very beginning in this case. So it wasn't a surprise,

0:31:30.360 --> 0:31:32.560
<v Speaker 6>but it is a loss because, you know, the FTC

0:31:32.640 --> 0:31:35.120
<v Speaker 6>had some very strong evidence in this case. They had

0:31:35.200 --> 0:31:39.680
<v Speaker 6>documents that were Mark Zuckerberg's words himself saying, hey, we'd

0:31:39.800 --> 0:31:42.400
<v Speaker 6>rather buy our competitors than try to compete with them,

0:31:42.480 --> 0:31:46.440
<v Speaker 6>and that is illegal under the antitrust laws. And this

0:31:46.560 --> 0:31:50.760
<v Speaker 6>judge kind of skirted the need to explain away those

0:31:50.840 --> 0:31:54.320
<v Speaker 6>bad documents by just saying, well, the Federal Trade Commission

0:31:54.320 --> 0:31:58.160
<v Speaker 6>did not define a market in which competition takes place properly.

0:31:58.200 --> 0:32:02.800
<v Speaker 6>The FTC said face Book competes with Instagram and Snapchat

0:32:02.840 --> 0:32:05.600
<v Speaker 6>and that's it, and not TikTok or YouTube, and the

0:32:05.680 --> 0:32:08.360
<v Speaker 6>judge just didn't buy it. And once you put TikTok

0:32:08.480 --> 0:32:12.080
<v Speaker 6>and YouTube into that market, Facebook doesn't have in terms

0:32:12.120 --> 0:32:14.720
<v Speaker 6>of market share, doesn't have a monopoly position. And it's

0:32:14.720 --> 0:32:18.200
<v Speaker 6>the first thing you have to prove in monopolization case

0:32:18.240 --> 0:32:20.960
<v Speaker 6>is that a defendant has a monopoly position in a

0:32:21.000 --> 0:32:23.479
<v Speaker 6>properly defined market, and that's where the failure was. So

0:32:23.520 --> 0:32:25.440
<v Speaker 6>the judge didn't get to that next step. Well what

0:32:25.560 --> 0:32:28.600
<v Speaker 6>about all these bad documents? He just didn't go there.

0:32:29.360 --> 0:32:31.440
<v Speaker 1>So do you see the Federal Trade Commission trying to

0:32:31.480 --> 0:32:33.920
<v Speaker 1>appeal this case? Is it going to be more difficult

0:32:34.360 --> 0:32:38.360
<v Speaker 1>given the parameters that the judge put on how he

0:32:38.560 --> 0:32:41.000
<v Speaker 1>used meta market dominance.

0:32:41.240 --> 0:32:43.240
<v Speaker 6>I think it would be a difficult appeal because the

0:32:43.320 --> 0:32:46.960
<v Speaker 6>judge's decision was based on evidence and testimony and how

0:32:47.000 --> 0:32:50.160
<v Speaker 6>he weighed the documents and how he weighed the testimony,

0:32:50.200 --> 0:32:52.760
<v Speaker 6>and an appellate court gives deference to that kind of

0:32:52.800 --> 0:32:55.040
<v Speaker 6>a decision. They didn't hear the testimony, so they give

0:32:55.120 --> 0:32:58.080
<v Speaker 6>deference to the trial court judge. And I also tend

0:32:58.120 --> 0:33:00.960
<v Speaker 6>to think the FTC may not appeal because when this

0:33:01.080 --> 0:33:03.640
<v Speaker 6>case was brought, it was the tail end of Trump's

0:33:03.640 --> 0:33:07.280
<v Speaker 6>first administration, when there were three Republicans and two Democrats

0:33:07.280 --> 0:33:10.280
<v Speaker 6>on the FTC, and two of those Republicans sort of

0:33:10.400 --> 0:33:13.280
<v Speaker 6>vehemently voted no in terms of bringing this case to

0:33:13.320 --> 0:33:17.080
<v Speaker 6>begin with, So it was controversial. Only one Republican voted

0:33:17.200 --> 0:33:19.960
<v Speaker 6>yes and two Democrats, and so three to two the

0:33:20.000 --> 0:33:24.000
<v Speaker 6>case was brought. Now, we have only two Republicans on

0:33:24.040 --> 0:33:26.200
<v Speaker 6>the Federal Trade Commission, and I think they're more likely

0:33:26.280 --> 0:33:28.880
<v Speaker 6>to say, let's just chalk this up as a loss

0:33:28.920 --> 0:33:31.960
<v Speaker 6>and move to our next case, which is ftcv. Amazon.

0:33:32.640 --> 0:33:35.800
<v Speaker 1>Let's get to it ftcv Amazon and give what we've

0:33:35.800 --> 0:33:40.560
<v Speaker 1>seen so far from the Google and Meta decisions, how

0:33:40.600 --> 0:33:41.920
<v Speaker 1>could this one play out?

0:33:42.360 --> 0:33:44.120
<v Speaker 6>Yeah, I don't think this is a very strong case

0:33:44.120 --> 0:33:48.880
<v Speaker 6>for the Federal Trade Commission and therefore possibly possibly could settle.

0:33:48.880 --> 0:33:51.440
<v Speaker 6>There's a lot of time. Trial is not set until

0:33:51.440 --> 0:33:53.120
<v Speaker 6>twenty twenty seven in this case.

0:33:53.440 --> 0:33:55.120
<v Speaker 1>Well, what's an issue here for Amazon?

0:33:55.400 --> 0:33:58.760
<v Speaker 6>Well, this is about Amazon forcing third party sellers in

0:33:58.800 --> 0:34:02.920
<v Speaker 6>the marketplace to use Amazon's fulfillment services if they want

0:34:03.760 --> 0:34:06.720
<v Speaker 6>the good locations to be in the buybox, to be

0:34:06.800 --> 0:34:09.359
<v Speaker 6>right there, front and center for buyers to buy, which

0:34:09.400 --> 0:34:12.920
<v Speaker 6>is something that the sellers want. They get the users

0:34:12.920 --> 0:34:15.880
<v Speaker 6>a lot more when they're in that position. And also

0:34:16.040 --> 0:34:19.160
<v Speaker 6>Amazon forcing sellers to provide the lowest price on Amazon,

0:34:19.200 --> 0:34:22.440
<v Speaker 6>so they can't offer a cheaper and less expensive price

0:34:22.680 --> 0:34:25.120
<v Speaker 6>on some other website outside of Amazon, even if their

0:34:25.200 --> 0:34:27.719
<v Speaker 6>costs are lower to offer on that other website, such

0:34:27.719 --> 0:34:30.640
<v Speaker 6>as their own Dot Com and that causes a price

0:34:30.680 --> 0:34:33.760
<v Speaker 6>raising effect across the entire market, not just on Amazon

0:34:33.760 --> 0:34:36.880
<v Speaker 6>dot Com. These are the allegations, and the reason I

0:34:36.880 --> 0:34:40.000
<v Speaker 6>think it could settle is because there were very similar

0:34:40.000 --> 0:34:43.000
<v Speaker 6>claims made against Amazon in the UK and in the EU,

0:34:43.080 --> 0:34:46.000
<v Speaker 6>and Amazon made concessions. It basically said that we're not

0:34:46.040 --> 0:34:48.359
<v Speaker 6>going to force sellers to use our fulfillment services. They

0:34:48.360 --> 0:34:53.640
<v Speaker 6>can use anyone they want to, and we won't co work.

0:34:53.680 --> 0:34:56.520
<v Speaker 6>We won't force them to offer lower, lowest prices on Amazon,

0:34:56.640 --> 0:34:58.520
<v Speaker 6>and we'll have to see how those play out in

0:34:58.560 --> 0:35:02.239
<v Speaker 6>the marketplace, because if it looks like they've worked, I'm

0:35:02.280 --> 0:35:05.640
<v Speaker 6>not sure why something like that wouldn't be acceptable in

0:35:05.680 --> 0:35:06.640
<v Speaker 6>the US as well.

0:35:06.960 --> 0:35:07.120
<v Speaker 4>Well.

0:35:07.120 --> 0:35:10.279
<v Speaker 1>We have seen some pushback from the Trump administration on

0:35:10.640 --> 0:35:14.120
<v Speaker 1>the European Union's tech regulations. How does that play into

0:35:14.840 --> 0:35:18.400
<v Speaker 1>whether we could see a settlement, particularly for Amazon.

0:35:20.120 --> 0:35:23.000
<v Speaker 6>You know, I don't know that the pushback on the

0:35:23.040 --> 0:35:26.319
<v Speaker 6>EU with respect to its new laws, its Digital Markets Act,

0:35:26.560 --> 0:35:29.160
<v Speaker 6>and how it's sort of targeting a lot of big

0:35:29.280 --> 0:35:33.680
<v Speaker 6>US companies, I don't know that they really operate fairly separately.

0:35:33.719 --> 0:35:37.400
<v Speaker 6>Our laws are different. Our monopolization laws are quite different

0:35:37.400 --> 0:35:42.480
<v Speaker 6>from the abuse of a dominant position rules in Europe.

0:35:42.760 --> 0:35:46.560
<v Speaker 6>And I think that the reason I think that the

0:35:46.640 --> 0:35:48.839
<v Speaker 6>FTC could look to Europe is just to say, hey,

0:35:48.840 --> 0:35:51.479
<v Speaker 6>they've had this settlement in place now for over a year,

0:35:51.960 --> 0:35:54.040
<v Speaker 6>and if it isn't working in the marketplace, well then

0:35:54.080 --> 0:35:56.719
<v Speaker 6>we shouldn't consider it an acceptable settlement. But if it

0:35:56.760 --> 0:35:59.280
<v Speaker 6>is working, maybe that's something that we could accept here.

0:36:00.320 --> 0:36:02.279
<v Speaker 6>But I think also the FTC is going to have

0:36:02.280 --> 0:36:05.320
<v Speaker 6>to weigh out weigh its case. If it keeps taking losses,

0:36:05.360 --> 0:36:07.160
<v Speaker 6>it's not going to look good because because they have

0:36:07.239 --> 0:36:11.520
<v Speaker 6>also recently lost on a challenge to a merger as well.

0:36:11.719 --> 0:36:14.960
<v Speaker 1>And even longer term, it's not just the Federal Trade

0:36:14.960 --> 0:36:19.880
<v Speaker 1>Commission with antitrust cases against big tech. The Justice Department

0:36:19.960 --> 0:36:23.600
<v Speaker 1>is considering action against Apple. What's going on there, Well.

0:36:23.480 --> 0:36:26.000
<v Speaker 6>The Justice Department did bring a suit against Apple. It

0:36:26.040 --> 0:36:30.840
<v Speaker 6>has moved really slowly, even in terms of typical antitrust litigation.

0:36:30.920 --> 0:36:35.360
<v Speaker 6>It's not yet separate trial. Efforts to dismiss it have failed.

0:36:35.560 --> 0:36:39.920
<v Speaker 6>But it's a strange case because it's really about Apple

0:36:40.080 --> 0:36:43.680
<v Speaker 6>not making its hardware and software as interoperable as it

0:36:43.760 --> 0:36:47.960
<v Speaker 6>should with rival hardware and software. And the DOJ claims

0:36:48.000 --> 0:36:50.399
<v Speaker 6>that this is because Apple wants to keep people within

0:36:50.440 --> 0:36:52.680
<v Speaker 6>its ecosystem make it harder for people who have an

0:36:52.719 --> 0:36:55.960
<v Speaker 6>iPhone to switch to an Android phone. So, for instance,

0:36:55.960 --> 0:36:58.279
<v Speaker 6>if you invest in an Apple Watch, you're going to

0:36:58.360 --> 0:37:00.960
<v Speaker 6>keep that iPhone because the Apple Watch works best with

0:37:01.000 --> 0:37:03.280
<v Speaker 6>the iPhone and it doesn't work well with an Android

0:37:03.719 --> 0:37:08.120
<v Speaker 6>or vice versa. This one is really slow, so I

0:37:08.160 --> 0:37:10.279
<v Speaker 6>think when you have that much time ahead of it,

0:37:10.360 --> 0:37:13.960
<v Speaker 6>there also is some possibility for settlement. The other reason

0:37:14.000 --> 0:37:15.920
<v Speaker 6>I think I do think that this is also a

0:37:15.960 --> 0:37:18.440
<v Speaker 6>case that might settle down the road because Apple has

0:37:18.440 --> 0:37:22.319
<v Speaker 6>slowly been making changes on its own and changing some

0:37:22.400 --> 0:37:25.320
<v Speaker 6>of the policies that the Department of Justice has targeted

0:37:25.440 --> 0:37:29.640
<v Speaker 6>as unreasonable or anti competitive. And eventually, if Apple keeps

0:37:29.680 --> 0:37:32.320
<v Speaker 6>doing that, by the time we would get to a trial,

0:37:32.680 --> 0:37:35.160
<v Speaker 6>there may not be in very many claims left. So

0:37:35.560 --> 0:37:38.319
<v Speaker 6>it's possible if Apple keeps kind of making concessions and

0:37:38.320 --> 0:37:41.319
<v Speaker 6>tweaking its rules as we go forward, that that case

0:37:41.360 --> 0:37:42.200
<v Speaker 6>could also settle.

0:37:42.440 --> 0:37:45.480
<v Speaker 1>Now, I wonder, just looking at the Trump administration's overall

0:37:45.520 --> 0:37:49.319
<v Speaker 1>strategy when it comes to antitrust enforcement against big tech weather,

0:37:49.360 --> 0:37:51.560
<v Speaker 1>it might be looking at settlements simply because as you've

0:37:51.560 --> 0:37:54.440
<v Speaker 1>been mentioning it's been facing a lot of setbacks in

0:37:54.480 --> 0:37:57.080
<v Speaker 1>court with the Meta matter as well as Google.

0:37:57.800 --> 0:37:59.759
<v Speaker 6>Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. I mean, we'll have to

0:37:59.760 --> 0:38:02.080
<v Speaker 6>see what happens with some of the if there are

0:38:02.120 --> 0:38:04.680
<v Speaker 6>any more challenges to mergers. I'm not so sure that

0:38:04.719 --> 0:38:07.680
<v Speaker 6>there will be, because it seems that this administration is

0:38:07.719 --> 0:38:10.120
<v Speaker 6>settling an awful lot of the time when they have

0:38:10.200 --> 0:38:13.759
<v Speaker 6>concerns about two companies that are doing a transaction. But

0:38:14.760 --> 0:38:17.440
<v Speaker 6>if they do have concerns that they will lose in court,

0:38:17.640 --> 0:38:20.840
<v Speaker 6>it sometimes you can read the tea leaves. Sometimes it

0:38:20.960 --> 0:38:24.440
<v Speaker 6>judge is fairly obvious about how they're feeling about a

0:38:24.480 --> 0:38:27.279
<v Speaker 6>certain matter. For instance, in FTCB Meta, the judge was

0:38:27.320 --> 0:38:30.600
<v Speaker 6>clearly skeptical. As we go forward with those other two cases,

0:38:30.640 --> 0:38:32.960
<v Speaker 6>the Amazon case and the Apple case. And by the way,

0:38:32.960 --> 0:38:35.720
<v Speaker 6>we can't forget Department of Justice versus Live Nation, because

0:38:35.719 --> 0:38:39.440
<v Speaker 6>that's coming to it may be that they'd be more

0:38:39.440 --> 0:38:40.240
<v Speaker 6>inclined to settle.

0:38:41.160 --> 0:38:43.640
<v Speaker 1>All right, Well, we'll see where things go as we

0:38:43.680 --> 0:38:46.719
<v Speaker 1>head into twenty twenty six and beyond. Thank you for this, Jen,

0:38:46.800 --> 0:38:47.880
<v Speaker 1>really great having you with us.

0:38:47.920 --> 0:38:48.640
<v Speaker 6>Thank you so much.

0:38:48.719 --> 0:38:52.799
<v Speaker 1>That's Jennifer Ree, Senior Litigation analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence. We'd

0:38:52.800 --> 0:38:55.440
<v Speaker 1>also like to extend our thanks to her fellow Bloomberg

0:38:55.440 --> 0:38:59.000
<v Speaker 1>Intelligence colleagues Punam Goyle, Lindsey Dutch, and Mike mcglohon for

0:38:59.040 --> 0:39:01.960
<v Speaker 1>being with us on this holiday program, along with Scott

0:39:02.000 --> 0:39:04.960
<v Speaker 1>Martin of Kingsview Wealth Management. Thanks of course to you

0:39:05.080 --> 0:39:08.200
<v Speaker 1>as well for spending part of your Thanksgiving holiday with us.

0:39:08.200 --> 0:39:12.520
<v Speaker 1>Here's hoping for a full and meaningful long weekend on

0:39:12.680 --> 0:39:16.640
<v Speaker 1>Nathan Haker Stay with us. Top stories and global business

0:39:16.680 --> 0:39:18.840
<v Speaker 1>headlines are coming up right now