June 25, 2025 • 39 mins
Watch Carol and Tim LIVE every day on YouTube: http://bit.ly/3vTiACF.
The indictment reads like a cinematic plot: A Harvard Fellow and another activist allegedly wanted to buy AK-47s, Stinger missiles and grenades to topple South Sudan’s government. What they lacked was enough cash.Now, Jane Street co-founder Robert Granieri concedes he put up the money — saying he was duped into funding the alleged coup plot. The role played by the wealthy recluse behind a Wall Street trading powerhouse emerges from the US prosecution of Peter Ajak, the Harvard Fellow who was accused last year of scheming to install himself atop the East African nation.
“Granieri is a longtime supporter of human rights causes,” his lawyer said in a statement. “In this case, the person Rob thought was a human rights activist defrauded Rob and lied about his intentions.”
The case came to light in March 2024, when federal prosecutors in Arizona charged Ajak and Abraham Keech with conspiring to illegally export arms to their home country. Both have pleaded not guilty.While prosecutors haven’t said where the defendants obtained several million dollars for an attempt to buy military-grade weaponry, Ajak’s lawyers pointed to Granieri in a recent filing — saying the 53-year-old financier was “vital to the plan.”
“Without the significant financing that Mr. Granieri could and agreed to provide, the alleged conspiracy would have been impossible,” they wrote in the document filed in late May.
The lawyers accused authorities of selectively prosecuting two Black men, even though support also came from Granieri and Garry Kasparov, the chess champion and prominent Russian dissident. The US hasn’t accused either of them of wrongdoing.
Today's show features:
- Bloomberg News Chief Wall Street Correspondent Sri Natarajan on Jane Street Boss Says He Was Duped Into Funding AK-47s for Coup
- John Erath, Senior Policy Director for the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation on latest with Iran’s Nuclear Program
- Kevin Kajiwara, Co-President, Teneo Intelligence; Geopolitical Expert on Advising clients amid Gulf Tensions
- and we Drive to the Close with Jeanette Garretty, Chief Economist & Head of Advisor Experience at Robertson Stephen
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
This is Bloomberg Business Week Daily reporting from the magazine
that helps global leaders stay ahead with insight on the people, companies,
and trends shaping today's complex economy, plus global business finance
and tech news as it happens. The Bloomberg Business Week
Daily Podcast with Carol Masser and Tim Steneveek on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
All right, this is one of those moments like where
do I start with them? Where do I start with them?
Because there is a most red story on the Bloomberg
that involves AK forty seven, Stinger missiles and grenades to
top of a government.
Speaker 1 (00:42):
That's the one.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
Story I think it's the most read all day today.
And then there is the Wall Street to cry as
a hot coming summer after the surprise Democratic primary outcome
for New York City mayors. So we've got a little
bit of a wacky Wall Street roundup for you, courtesy
of our own Street Nataraja on, Chief Wall Street correspondent
here at Bloomberg News, joining us in.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
Let's start with.
Speaker 3 (01:02):
What is the most right story in the Bloomberg involves
as I said, AK forty seven and so more and
a lot more who, what, where.
Speaker 1 (01:09):
And why?
Speaker 4 (01:11):
We write a lot about Wall Street big wigs were
writing all about CEOs and founders of big trading firms.
I don't think I've ever written a story like this before.
We'll probably get a chance to write another story where
I get to say a Wall Street co founder, co founder,
one of the biggest Wall Street trading powerhouses, accidentally funded
(01:31):
an attempt to topple the government in South Sudan. This
is just maddening. So let's transet the scene a little
bit here. Last year, for those.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
On radio, Tim's mouth is open wide.
Speaker 5 (01:40):
He's like, what these are just accusations at this point, Yes.
Speaker 4 (01:43):
These are allegations in god, but last year there was
a court case. There was a charge charging document that
said two South Sudan activists, one of them Peter Ajak
and for those in the human rights circles, a name
well known to them because he was someone who was
one of those Lost Boys of Suddan. A former child
(02:04):
soldier who moved to the United States, studied at Howard
Kennedy School, then worked at as a World Bank economist.
Back in his home country in South Sudan, became an
opposition activist opposition leader was imprisoned in South Sudan, and
in twenty twenty, after immense pressure on that country's government,
was released, caught asylum in the USA and was a
postdoctoral fellow at Howard Kennedy School's Belfare Center super Credentials.
(02:30):
People in the State Department, people in the United States
government knew who he was. But things went south soon after.
According to the allegations from the Department of Justice, he
started scheming to put together a plot to procure weapons
to smuggle into South Suddan. There is a ban, there
is an embargo on taking weapons to South Suddan, but
(02:52):
he decided, working with another activist, that a coup, a
violent coup and attempt to overthrow the current government in
stall himself as a new prime minister of a new
democratic regime was the best way forward. The only problem,
well two problems, was he was talking to undercover agents
when trying to secure the arms. And where our interest
(03:12):
comes in is the plan might have sounded great in
his head, he lacked cash. What we found out in
the last two weeks, and this is what peaked our
curiosity was the man who was fronting up that cash
turned out to be a co founder of Jane Street
Rob Greniery, because he is conceded. He's come out and
said that, look, yes, I did provide the money to
(03:34):
these guys, but I thought I was supporting human rights causes.
I thought I was doing simple stuff like food and
shelter and blankets and whatnot. He says he had no
idea that this was going to be used for anything
other than that. Says he was defrauded in light to
and you know, even after having published a story, even
after having spent the last week going through dockets talking
(03:54):
to so many people, this one is still hard to
get your arms around.
Speaker 5 (03:59):
Well, the weather names kind of grows bigger, and I
think people will be familiar with some other characters who
are involved in this story. How did Peter Ajack get
connected to Rob Grenari.
Speaker 4 (04:09):
And that goes to your point of the web of
characters getting bigger and more prominent. The middleman in this
case appears to have been Gary Kasproov, former World chess champion,
who then you know, prominent Russian dissident lives in the
United States, was the chair of the Human Rights Foundation.
He obviously got to know Peter Zak through those circles.
He knew Rob Grenieri because again, Greniery is at the
(04:33):
top of Jane Street, and therefore a firm that has
made like what twenty one billion dollars in trading revenue
last year. You can be rest assured someone atop that
firm has a lot of money, and he's been donating. Look,
he's back political candidates like Nikki Hally's presidential bit. He's
helped build a casino in Mississippi called the Scarlet Bull
by the way, quick shout out, and he's donated to
(04:53):
a lot of humanitarian causes. So Kasparov knew both of
these people. He's the one who connected the two of them.
It appears that after a couple of meetings, Greniery thought
everything was on the up and up and he was
ready to sign off on some seven million dollars over
a course of two weeks and two different chunks. He
passed on the money to Peter Ajak. And when Peter
(05:15):
Ajax then started transferring bits of that money onto the
arms exporterer or at least of the weapons agents who
happened to be undercover United States federal agents, that's when
problems started. They were arrested soon after, and that's why
we find grenary in this slightly let's call it embarrassing
situation for now.
Speaker 3 (05:33):
So for him, he's saying, I didn't know that this
is where the money was going.
Speaker 1 (05:36):
I did give them money. But that's that's what said issue.
Speaker 4 (05:40):
That is what he's saying right now. Indeed, there will
be a trial later this year. Peter Ajac and Abram Keach,
the other gentleman who has been accused in this case,
have both pleaded not guilty. In fact, they've even indicated
that they plan to use this public authority defense, which
is basically saying, hey, we had the approval and the
support of a government official. They're going to try and
make the case that the United States government, or at
(06:02):
least some elements of it, were backing their plan. The
government obviously contends that, but that is the defense they
plan to use.
Speaker 1 (06:09):
Got it sounds like it should be a movie.
Speaker 5 (06:11):
Yeah it should. I mean it has all the ingredients
of a movie. We only have a couple of minutes left.
I want to go to your other story that is
among the most read two on the Bloomberger.
Speaker 1 (06:20):
It was going to be a little wacky.
Speaker 5 (06:21):
I need to talk about this. But then just before
our show started you publish this piece. It's about Wall
Street to crime, the hot commy summer of Zorin Mamdani's
shock election.
Speaker 4 (06:31):
So let's be very clear when we call it the
hot commy summer, that is not our view. This is
what Wall streeters are calling clearly.
Speaker 5 (06:37):
One prominent Wall Streeter are called it.
Speaker 4 (06:39):
One prominent Wall Streeter called it, many prominent Wall Streeters,
I would say, echo it. The problem here seems to
be that the New York City electorate, the voters, the
Democratic voters, clearly seem to have rebuked this city's elite.
You've gone for weeks and months on end, where the
city's billionaires, where the city's business owners. CEO senior executive
(07:02):
has said a Zoran Mamdani as mayor of New York
City would be catastrophic for the city. But look at
the results last night for someone who had no name
recognition war three four months back, going up against the
might of former New York City Governor Andrew Cuomo, who's
not just the former New York City governor, but a
part of a major New York New York State governor
(07:25):
and also part of a major New York political dynasty.
For him to be able to take him on, not
just keep it close, actually jump out ahead of him
in the first round of primary, and all signs point
to the idea that by the time we're done with
his rank choice voting, he could be the Democratic candidate
for being mayor of New York City. That shows that
there's a huge, huge disconnect between the voters who have
(07:47):
backed this campaign that came with a lot of style, verve,
charisma and populist appeal and the city's leaders who have
these I think fair to say exaus exaggerated, perhaps concerns
of doom and gloom in the city if Zoran MUNDANEI
were to become mayor.
Speaker 3 (08:07):
And we should point out that Michaelaura Bloomberg, founder majority
owner of Bloomberg News parent Bloomberg Help, he was a
supporter of Andrew Cuomo.
Speaker 1 (08:18):
All right, I mean what.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
We were reminded we just got about thirty forty seconds
here shre is that a lot of what actually happens
to New York City in terms of significant changes has
to come out of Albany.
Speaker 1 (08:28):
Is he really going to change much for Wall Street
just quickly?
Speaker 4 (08:30):
And look, this is the point that other people have
made it and a lot of his proposals would require
some level of tax sikes on the ridge. A lot
of his proposal would require the city taking on a
huge amount of new debt. Kathy Hokel, the governor isn't
too enthused on any of those ideas. Doesn't look like
she's going to be backing it. And those are parts
of his platform that may not quite pan out as
(08:52):
he has promised in the agenda, So they might have
to be some compromise if he were to become mayor.
Speaker 1 (08:57):
Amazing, but clearly there's a peal.
Speaker 3 (08:59):
Gotta Waki store in Wall Street. This is your guy,
talk to Shriy Shre.
Speaker 1 (09:03):
Thank you so much.
Speaker 3 (09:04):
Trinatarajan, Bloomberg News Chief Wall Street correspondent.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Business Weekdaily Podcast. Catch us
live weekday afternoons from two to five pm Eastern Listen
on Apple CarPlay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app,
or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 3 (09:21):
Now, let's get to something else that's definitely been on
our mind and the President's mind.
Speaker 5 (09:24):
Yeah, I think it's fair to say Ron said It's
nuclear installations were quote badly damaged by US airstrikes. It's
the first such comments by day Ron as debate grows
over how much the bombardment managed to dent the Islamic
Republic's atomic program. The comments coming hours after President Trump
disputed a US intelligence report that said the attacks had
limited impact on Iran's nuclear program below the ground, and
(09:46):
carol an assessment from the Pentagon's intelligence agency. The Defense
Intelligence Agency actually said the bombing likely didn't cripple the
core component storre at underground, including centrifugis.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
We're super confused here, hey.
Speaker 3 (09:58):
Meantime, President Trump, he says he thing, the Israel Iran war,
it's over.
Speaker 6 (10:02):
The way I look at it, they fought. The war's done.
And you know, I could get a statement that they're
not going to go nuclear. We're probably going to ask
for that, but they're not going to be doing it.
But they're not going to be doing it anyway.
Speaker 1 (10:15):
They've had it.
Speaker 6 (10:16):
They've had it now. Maybe someday in the future we'll
want that. But I've asked Marco, do you want to
draw I just asked him the question as we were
walking on the stage. You want to draw up a
little agreement for them to sign, because I think we
can get them to sign it. I don't think it's necessary.
Speaker 3 (10:33):
All right, That, of course, was President Trump at the
NATO press conference earlier today. Hey, let's get more on
what we know about Iran's nuclear enrichment capabilities and where
that pile of uranium is.
Speaker 1 (10:44):
See what we know.
Speaker 3 (10:45):
John Erth is back with US, senior policy director for
the Center for Arms Control and Non Proliferation.
Speaker 1 (10:50):
We've had them before.
Speaker 3 (10:51):
It's a nonpartisan nonprofit dedicated to reducing and eventually eliminated
the threats posed by nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.
Speaker 7 (11:00):
Hey.
Speaker 3 (11:00):
John, great to have you back with us. What do
we really know at this point about Iran's nuclear enrichment capabilities.
Speaker 8 (11:09):
We know that the United States Air Force struck these
last weekend. The facilities where the enrichment takes place and
some of the other key facilities associated with the nuclear program.
We know that they were heavily damaged. What we don't
know is the precise degree of the damage. And I
would argue that that's not that important. The White House
(11:33):
uses the word obliterated. The initial reports coming out of
the Defense Department that we're unfortunate beaked seem to use
some lesser adjectives.
Speaker 4 (11:44):
The degree of the adjective.
Speaker 8 (11:46):
Is not what is important. What is important is that
the damage was significant in nature and that at least
for the moment, Iran is not able to enrich uranium
for the moment, I think because it gives.
Speaker 5 (11:59):
Yeah, well, I want to just cut you off for
a second, because for the moment, I think is a
key phrase that I heard come from you just now.
We've heard differing analyses based on intelligence just in recent
days that says it could be set back a number
of years or just set back a number of months.
Do we know what the likely scenario.
Speaker 8 (12:18):
Is at this point We don't. That's going to require
some further analysis, and quite frankly, I don't think we
will know until we get some international inspectors on the
ground there. That's what is useful for the time being
that we use this space for diplomacy, and part of
(12:40):
that should be to request access for the IAEA, the
UN watchdog agency, to get its inspectors in on the
ground to assess what is the nature of Iran's enrichment
program and so that we can start building confidence that
in the future, if there is an arrangement work up,
(13:00):
that we can have the confidence that Iran is not
enriching that it is not doing illicit activities of the
sort that led to the cycle of violence that we
have seen in recent days.
Speaker 3 (13:11):
So, John, if they get those inspectors get on the
ground and they're looking at the sites that were attacked
the targets by the US, do they also get access
to Iran more broadly so, in other words, other installations
or activities or capabilities when it comes to uranium enrichment
(13:32):
or nuclear enrichment. Do they get a full picture or
is it just what was hit. I'm just trying to
get an idea of what they really have access to
and what they still might be unknowns after their visit.
Speaker 1 (13:44):
If they visit, you ask.
Speaker 8 (13:45):
A very good question that will be a subject for
very intense negotiations. In the past, Iran has always been
very secretive and they have always given the impression that
they are hiding something, and this has led to a
lack of confidence. I think what we want to achieve
is a set of arrangements where there is confidence, where
there is transparency, where there is confidence that Iran is
(14:08):
not hiding something, that they are not putting on a
show for the benefit of the inspectors and doing something
behind the scenes. This is how we know that there
is not some sort or bilisted activity going on, and
this is where we will have confidence that there is
not a nuclear weapons program. Iran says, there is not.
(14:32):
The arrangement that is put into place should be one
that shows that.
Speaker 5 (14:36):
What did you make of the comments that we got
from Tehran that the nuclear installations were quote badly damaged
Because and look, I'm not a military strategist, but just
basic logic, as I think this through, would be if
I wanted to hide a nuclear program, or if I
wanted people to think that I wasn't doing enrichment, I
(14:57):
would say that facilities were damn imaged and not allowing
me to do this these enrichment activities. Is that a
fair way to look at these comments from Tehran?
Speaker 8 (15:07):
It could be it's also admitting what is clearly the truth.
There were thousands of tons of explosives dropped on these facilities.
They are going to be heavily damaged, and that I
think is merely accepting reality.
Speaker 3 (15:22):
And bottom line, I mean, do we ultimately know where
the uranium is and where that pile has been moved?
Speaker 1 (15:27):
We don't know that, do we.
Speaker 8 (15:28):
We don't the enriched uranium is in a highly transportable
form and containers that can be moved relatively easily from
one place to another. So this is something also that
if I were on the negotiation team, I would make
a point of asking for early on in the process,
where is the uranium? Can we have an accounting for it?
(15:51):
Can we have some tracking and transparency on where it is?
And as part of the final arrangement, I would want
some accountability and some safeguards on that material that's very dangerous.
Speaker 5 (16:02):
How do you view the role of members of Congress?
And the reason I ask here is because Axios reported
just in the last ninety minutes that the President is
set to limit sharing of classified information with Congress after
this leak on the Iran bombing damage. Is that, in
your view a move that could make it more difficult
for the United States and members of the United States
(16:24):
Congress to sort of understand national security issues that affect
the nation.
Speaker 8 (16:30):
Well, there are two issues. The first is that the
information leaked. I don't know that it leaked from Congress,
but it leaked, and that's unfortunate and that absolutely should
not have This is highly sensitive classified information and everybody
who has access to it could note pro features for
(16:51):
maintaining control.
Speaker 5 (16:52):
John Arath, Senior policy director for the Center for Arms
Control and Non Proliferation. This is Bloomberg BusinessWeek Daily.
Speaker 2 (17:00):
This is the Bloomberg Business Week Daily Podcast. Listen live
each weekday starting at two pm Eastern on Applecarplay and
the Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. You can
also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New
York station, Just Say Alexa played Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 5 (17:18):
Well once again. He Ron said It's nuclear installations were
quote badly damaged by US Airstrikese. These comments coming just
hours after President Trump disputed a US intelligence report that
said the attacks had limited impact on Iran's nuclear program
below ground. Meantime, the President said that he had a
good meeting with Ukraine's Vladimir Zelinsky at the NATO summit
(17:40):
in the Hague. Needless to say, a lot happening around
the world, and especially a lot happening if you're thinking
about political risk, and that's what Kevin Kadjawara does. He's
managing director and co president at Tineo Intelligence. He focuses
on geopolitics. He's also a member of the Council on
Foreign Relations. He joins us here in the Bloomberg Interactive
Brokers studio in ourn't reduction, we talked about two different things.
(18:01):
One is the latest from Iran and the relationship between
Israel and Iran and how the US fits into that
or lack thereof relationship. And then two the latest when
it comes to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the war between
Russia and Ukraine. You also have geopolitical risk, I think
here at home in New York City with the shock
upset in a Democratic primary last night that business leaders
(18:25):
are trying to digest today. What is the biggest risk
to your clients right now?
Speaker 9 (18:31):
Well, I think you highlighted just the variety of issues
that are out there right and the fact that they
are all happening at the same time. What's you know,
more typical historically, right is to have a number of
sort of discrete events and you can respond to each
of them. But these now happening with greater frequency. They
(18:52):
are happening simultaneously, and they are therefore compounding on one
another in ways that you know, you look at any
individual issue and you might question why the market reacts
in that way, But there's really you know, there's a
lot of different inputs coming in. So I think that
the you know, the challenge for say a CEO or
(19:12):
frankly an institutional investor for that matter, But for a
CEO is, you know, how do I triage everything that's
going on and what is actually kind of signal for
the business that I'm in versus trying to cut through
all that noise.
Speaker 1 (19:25):
Well, that's where I want to go, Kevin.
Speaker 3 (19:27):
Because companies are going public, right, IPOs are happening, companies
are doing deals, companies are making decisions, they're spending cap X.
So what are you hearing from the community about, Like,
what are the lines to say, all right, I'm ready
to pull the trigger on spending money or hiring people
or expanding versus it's just too unclear.
Speaker 1 (19:46):
I'm out.
Speaker 9 (19:46):
Well, I think the way that they look at it
is that uncertainty is essentially a tax, or it is
effectively a text in the sense that it perverts what
would be otherwise normal economic behavior. Right, So in other words,
you know, if you were trying to anticipate tariffs, you
probably tied up capital building inventory that you wouldn't otherwise do,
(20:07):
or because you have no visibility on what the runway
is looking like, you're going to hold off on that
potential m and a transaction or opening that new factory,
or rejiggering the supply chain in some way, shape or form.
So I think though, that while there's this realization that
there's a lot going on, there's a lot of uncertainty. CEOs,
just like the President himself, always making decisions based on
(20:29):
imperfect information, and now it's perhaps more imperfect than usual.
But any moment that you get that clarity and there's
an opportunity, you know, you and your CFO had better
be ready to act and be able to commit that capital.
Speaker 5 (20:43):
On the uncertainty tax on the uncertainty side of this,
there's certainly geopolitical uncertainty, but there's also the uncertainty about
policies that are coming out of Washington, that are coming
out of the White House. And we've seen this sort
of changing way that companies are speaking or communicating with
the President, especially companies outside of the United States announcing investments,
(21:03):
companies in the United States announcing investments in the US.
How would you say that your clients or you're advising
your clients to communicate with Washington to communicate with the president.
Speaker 9 (21:13):
Well, look, I think that there's a The issue is
that it gets really bespoke or really quickly, depending on
the sensitivity of the industry you're in, depending the country
that you're you're from, and what the trade relationship is
or the overall nature of the relationship is. So you
have to take all of those things, into all of
those things into consideration. I think that there is a focus,
(21:34):
you know, perhaps a greater indexation, if you will, on
things that you know are going to resonate well and
via avenues that you know will resonate well with this uh,
you know, with this administration and with this uh, with
this president.
Speaker 7 (21:49):
Right.
Speaker 9 (21:49):
So for some people that means we've got to go
to Mara a Lago. For some people that means appearing
on certain news organ news outlets, and in others it
means executives.
Speaker 8 (21:59):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (22:00):
Sure, we saw Jamie Diamond, I think it's fair to
say Carol communicate that morning on Fox with Maria Bartiromo. Yeah,
and it seemed like he made his message known to
Washington through that interview.
Speaker 3 (22:13):
So it was an audience of one so understanding that
going on there that President Trump is listening, yes and
watch absolutely.
Speaker 1 (22:21):
Huh.
Speaker 3 (22:23):
You know, We've had a lot of conversations here, like
it's just amazing the fear of executives to speak out
in the United States of America.
Speaker 1 (22:35):
Tell me, give me what what intel?
Speaker 3 (22:39):
And I understand you can't tell us specifics and stuff,
but I'm just curious, like, what is kind of the
psyche of the corporate clients that you're dealing with and
why there is that fear. Well, I mean, I understand
if you don't want to be a target, but aren't
you surprised. I mean, these are leaders that are supposed
to speak out when things are maybe they don't agree
with things.
Speaker 9 (22:59):
Well, I think that they're are. There's again, there's a
hierarchy of leaders, right. You just mentioned Jamie Diamond, who's
probably the closest thing we've got to sort of a
head of state level chief executive in this country and
perhaps further empower but that also plays into his own personality.
He is comfortable in that role in the way that
not every executive is, I think. But secondly, I think
(23:22):
this is this has forced executives not necessarily to shrink,
but to refocus on what's important to them. Their industry,
their company, the stakeholders they have, and to focus in
on those things rather than feeling like they need to
you know, they need to weigh in and open on
every single issue that is out there. Do you think
that's a good thing, Well, I think it's I think
(23:42):
it's just the new reality. I don't think any of
these things are good things or bad things. It's just
the thing. This is the this is the environment that
we are currently in. That environment will change four years
from now, and they'll shift again.
Speaker 1 (23:52):
Because it's such a swing.
Speaker 3 (23:53):
If you think, you go from the murder of George
Floyd and COVID and executives are out talking about everything,
and we thought that there was this real opening and
then it just feels like, I understand pendulum swing, but
it swung another.
Speaker 9 (24:06):
Well, of course, the other thing is is action, right,
and I think being on the other side of this
now right where we're looking at for instance, de E
and I initiatives right being rolled back in terms of
how they're promoted and so on and so forth. But
a lot of executives have bought with their stakeholders and
their employees and their customer bases. They bought a lot
(24:27):
of good will because of the actions that they have
taken over the years and now even if you change
the website a little bit or something of that nature,
but you remain committed because you can see the bottom
line positive impact of these types of policies. You've got
a lot of good will already built in with your stakeholder.
Speaker 5 (24:44):
So you consider the stakeholders, the ones who work for you,
the employees as a group of stakeholders. You don't necessarily
talk about the DEI policies outside of the company in
the same way, or maybe you don't even talk to
them about them internally in the same way. But you
did see a return on the investment, so you keep
doing those things and you call them something else.
Speaker 9 (25:04):
Like there's ellings with that, and you know, and and
today it was a perfect example of the type of
company that has a lot of people who are devoted
toward helping executives, you know, kind of thread this needle,
so to speak, and some need more help than others.
And also you know, it's it's it's an awareness of
who your audience is, who your customer base is. Some
are going to respond, you know, and we all know
(25:26):
the companies right where you know, we're taking certain taking
certain stands has stood them in good stead with their
audiences and others who have had a more challenging time.
So it's you know, it's about being smart and surgical
about this.
Speaker 3 (25:40):
But you've seen cycles like I think about, you know,
in this world, and I think about the Great Financial Crisis,
there's COVID, there's just so much stuff, war overseas, different presidents.
Speaker 1 (25:51):
And so on and so forth. How do you describe
this cycle?
Speaker 3 (25:53):
And how do you think a lot of CEOs And
I had to dump everybody in a bucket because it's
just not the way the world wars.
Speaker 1 (26:00):
But I am just.
Speaker 3 (26:00):
Curious, you know, historically, business wise, economically, the role of
the United States in the world, Like, how do you see.
Speaker 9 (26:06):
That there is something changing right now? And this is
not just a cycle. This is a secular change, right
and this is something that can no longer be punted
down the road. In other words, the decisions that CEOs
are making today are existential decisions for their companies and
whether they are going to be you know, nimble enough
(26:26):
to be some of the you know, some of the
winners on the other side. Think about it in the
context of like climate change, as an example, right, remember
a few years ago, companies managements were, you know, making
zero carbon commitments and the light but the reality of
it was it was like a generation or two down
the road of management that would actually have to implement
that was an easy commitment to make in a sense,
(26:47):
right exactly right now, like you say, the playing field
is actually fundamentally changing, and it is not hyperbolic to
say that it's a para paradigmatic shift right now, but
it is this generation of leadership that's having to have
the situational awareness and kind of realize that even though
you've got all these balls in the air right now
with the just in time, you know it, just what's
(27:08):
happening right now with trade, with the geopolitics, with the
fiscal bills, all.
Speaker 1 (27:12):
Of that presidential administration.
Speaker 9 (27:14):
Though not at all.
Speaker 3 (27:15):
So you're talking about supply chains, you're talking about what
a like what is.
Speaker 9 (27:20):
Say we think of as the international rules based order, right,
which is a system that has that that laid the
groundwork for the multinational corporation to be the single most
important economic actor. If that is evolving, if the role
of the US is evolving, is it axiomatic that those
same economic actors are going to be the big winners
in the next or do you have to be nimble
(27:41):
enough to be thinking ahead of how this is, how
this might change. I mean, we're this interim period. I
don't know if it's going to be long or short.
We don't know exactly what it's going to look like
on the other side. But you know, those who are aware,
it's like Eisenhower said, right, the plan is worthless one
of the first bullet flies. But planning is everything thing right.
Speaker 5 (28:01):
So interesting putting you on the spot, is this a
positive development in the work that you do well?
Speaker 9 (28:08):
I mean, I think so in the sense that it
is inevitable that you know, over time, strategic decisions have
been made predicated on a certain perspective on what the
global operating environment is going to look like, and then
all your other decisions stem from that.
Speaker 5 (28:25):
The global operating environment being a world of liberal democracies.
Speaker 9 (28:29):
But not just that, this ability to have to take
advantage of the free flow of labor, free flow of capital,
you know, a just in time global supply chain system,
opening of markets, all all of that, right, the sort
of the key variables of globalization. If that's shifting right,
If that's shifting. You've got to start scenario planning for
(28:50):
how that might impact your business.
Speaker 1 (28:52):
Twenty five seconds.
Speaker 3 (28:53):
It's a question, Tim and I like to ask a
lot of folks who come on here, because in January
we thought about American exceptionalism. A lot is at going
away and forgive me only about twenty five seconds.
Speaker 9 (29:03):
Look, the United States has certain built in advantages scale
the English language, the dollar, a a you know, an
economic ecosystem and financing ecosystem that finds phenomenal ideas and
can and can bring them to market and so on
and so forth. Nobody else has got that. Still, even
with all the challenges we've got.
Speaker 1 (29:20):
What a great conversation. Kevin, Thank you so much. Come
back sooner, don't wait so long.
Speaker 9 (29:23):
Thanks for having me. I appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (29:25):
Kevin Kajawara. He's benaginged director Krek, President at to Neo Intelligence.
This is Bloomberg Business Weekdaily.
Speaker 2 (29:31):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Business Weekdaily Podcast. Catch us
live weekday afternoons from two to five pm Eastern Listen
on Apple CarPlay and the Android Auto with the Bloomberg
Business app, or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 8 (29:46):
Mac.
Speaker 4 (29:47):
No I'll bet you let me drive.
Speaker 9 (29:48):
Oh no, no, no, no, this is not a toy, honey. Please,
I'll do the driving travels. Excuse gat I want to drive?
Speaker 4 (30:00):
Question?
Speaker 2 (30:04):
This is the drive to the clothes.
Speaker 4 (30:06):
Now plung for me a thing?
Speaker 2 (30:07):
Well, don on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1 (30:10):
All right, TikTok everybody.
Speaker 3 (30:12):
We're coming up on about eighteen minutes to go into
we wrap up the trade on this Wednesday, June twenty fifth.
Speaker 1 (30:17):
Where the heck did June go?
Speaker 5 (30:19):
It is behind us, Carol. We can only look forward
to the third quarter of the year.
Speaker 1 (30:24):
What do you like in Hamilton or something? Just start wrapping.
Speaker 5 (30:29):
Yesterday on air?
Speaker 1 (30:30):
I think I said it not on air.
Speaker 5 (30:32):
I've never seen Hamilton.
Speaker 3 (30:34):
I know.
Speaker 1 (30:34):
I don't even know why I can share something those
in New York.
Speaker 5 (30:36):
For fifteen years and I've never seen Hamilton.
Speaker 1 (30:38):
Like you got to see Hamilton. It's really really good
on You can watch it streaming.
Speaker 5 (30:42):
I know, but I, like I said, I don't want
to watch it on streaming without seeing it on Broadway.
Speaker 1 (30:46):
Don't get us singing, all right, okay, be one of
the rights.
Speaker 9 (30:50):
To that music.
Speaker 7 (30:51):
All right.
Speaker 3 (30:51):
We've got the S and P little change down two
points one hundred and twenty nine to the downside on
the Dow Jones Industrial Average if you care about that index,
and then as one under d up twenty two points,
up a tenth of a percent. This is kind of
a I almost feel like a sideways move. Let's see
what Jeanette Garritty has to say about all of it.
She's managing director chief economist at the wealth management firm
Robertson Stevens. She's joining us from Menlo Park, California. Robertson Stevens,
(31:15):
by the way, has about seven point one billion in
assets under management.
Speaker 1 (31:18):
How are you?
Speaker 7 (31:20):
I'm fine? How are you guys?
Speaker 1 (31:22):
Okay? Okay?
Speaker 3 (31:25):
You know, another week where a lot comes at us.
We had a rally yesterday.
Speaker 1 (31:29):
Today feels like we don't know where we're going.
Speaker 3 (31:32):
Tell us what your clients come to you or your
team comes to you and says, you know, I don't
understand where we go from here or what's next or
what's top of mind?
Speaker 7 (31:43):
Well, you know, actually they haven't, at least in the
last six weeks, they haven't been saying so much of
where do we go from here? As where can I
go from here? Where are the opportunities? What am I
going to do is certainly everybody feels a bit better
than they did in April. I don't know, and I
(32:05):
think the market reflects that. The equity markets reflect that
the amount, as you said, just look at this week.
I mean, the news cycle this week is head spinning
the last couple of weeks, and so it's just kind
of interesting. I mean, people are energized to trying to
find opportunities, but there are still a lot of challenges
(32:28):
out there, and it's a little bit more about reminding
them what some of those might be.
Speaker 5 (32:32):
Well, what's the biggest challenge that you see right now?
I mean, if we were to talk to you back
in April, I think it would have been navigating tariff policy.
Here we are two months later, just a few days
away from that July ninth deadline for the extension of
some of those tariffs. Is that the biggest challenge for
investors navigating what these companies are going to do in
the face of changing policy or uncertain policy.
Speaker 7 (32:55):
Well, I think the biggest challenge is, let's not say tariffs,
but trade in general. You know, just figuring out the
relationships that are in place, what new relationships are maybe
going to be in place. Some of that is influenced
by tariffs. Some of that is influenced by geopolitics. As
(33:19):
we've seen the topic of the day, the disruptions in
the Middle East. Trade is changing in front of our eyes,
These relationships are changing. So I think that is a
big challenge, and maybe the fundamental challenge from investors is
it's not an easy environment perhaps in which to pick
winners and losers, because a lot of it is going
(33:42):
to come down to company management, how dynamic you are,
the right educated guesses that you make. We're going to
see winners and losers everywhere, and a lot of it is.
Some of it's going to be luck, some of it's
going to be skilled. Better to be lucky and good
actually not just one.
Speaker 3 (34:04):
So we talked earlier with our tyler Kendall about kind
of the next couple of weeks, two or three weeks
or so that are facing President Trump, and there's a
lot on his docket, you know, wanting to get this
tax and spending bill done. He's got a deadline on
that one, the deadline ticking on the imposition of higher
tariffs against some of our allies or really on everyone.
Speaker 1 (34:28):
So it's a lot on his plate.
Speaker 3 (34:30):
Are you anticipating that he does an extension pushes it
down the road. And so we continue to live in
this world of uncertainty as we get ready to kick
off another earning season, and we'll see what that means
for companies.
Speaker 1 (34:45):
But what's your take on that.
Speaker 3 (34:49):
Do you expect things get done or do you think
it just gets pushed down the road?
Speaker 7 (34:54):
Oh? I do think things get done, but we're not
sure what thing, and we're not sure what done we
means right, So there going to be deals. We'll see
how he feels coming back from NATO. That'll be about
more than just NATO. That'll be about who he sat
down with and how the conversations went. It's also a
(35:14):
bit about the people around him and what they think
they can be able to achieve. Look at Chairman Powell
in the press conference last week, had this nice, little
unappreciated distinction between risk and uncertainty, and he said, then
the level of uncertainty is down, but the risk is
still high. And what he was getting at is uncertainty
(35:35):
means you can't see anything at all. If you will,
you can't see at all what might happen. Risk is
that you don't you have a wide range of outcomes.
So I think more so than in April, we sort
of know what's going on out there. There are these
trade negotiations, occasionally a trade fight. There are these surprises
(35:58):
that are going to be kind of out of the
One Big Budget Bill Act obah, So you know what
that sort of is. I know, we know what that's
sort of already heard. I didn't hear.
Speaker 5 (36:13):
I didn't hear you say beautiful, Yeah.
Speaker 7 (36:16):
One big beautiful act. Excuse me, I left out beautiful.
It's so much eat just to say oba.
Speaker 5 (36:23):
Saying that I didn't I haven't heard that yet, say it.
Speaker 7 (36:28):
Because you lose track of the bees. But but you know,
so you know that that's there. You know the general
parameters you can see. But the range of outcomes from
any of these things is very large, and I think
that's what defines the variability and the volatility as we
go into the third quarter. Is that's still there.
Speaker 5 (36:46):
Okay, So we just want to end hearing what you're
hearing from clients right now. Your client, you're in Memo Park,
you're in the heart of Silicon Valley. I imagine your
client's a lot of high networth individuals who made their
money in technology. Correct me if I'm wrong?
Speaker 7 (36:59):
Though?
Speaker 5 (37:01):
What do you hear from them?
Speaker 7 (37:04):
I think what I hear is, please tell me that
I can think like the growth investor that I really
genetically am predisposed to be. There's a lot of focus
on growth. There's a lot of focus on AI. I think, uh,
in looking at the fundamentals, I want to broaden it
from AI. There's there's a an understanding of what the
(37:28):
secular trends are. Tight labor markets, slow labor force growth,
predictions for slower economic growth. How do we how do
we ride the wave that will kind of get us
to a different place? How do we how what's what
can we do? Where can we be that will be consistent?
(37:52):
Well what we think is going to happen, which is
people are going to strive for doing something new and
different and and higher growth, higher labor productivity. And I
think that that has merit. I think that is where
we are going to be. This is a This remains
an extremely dynamic economy. Look at everything that has been
(38:13):
thrown at this well, and yet we're here and right now.
The difference between got it day April is people saying
I can figure it.
Speaker 1 (38:22):
Out Jeanette, We Got to Run.
Speaker 3 (38:23):
Jeanette Garretty, Managing director, Chief Economists at Robertson Stevens, joining
us from Menlo Park, California.
Speaker 2 (38:29):
This is the Bloomberg Business Week Daily podcast, available on Apple, Spotify,
and anywhere else you get your podcasts. Listen live weekday
afternoons from two to five pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot com,
the iHeartRadio app, tune In, and the Bloomberg Business App.
You can also watch us live every weekday on YouTube
(38:50):
and always on the Bloomberg terminal
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
This is Bloomberg Business Week Daily reporting from the magazine
that helps global leaders stay ahead with insight on the people, companies,
and trends shaping today's complex economy, plus global business finance
and tech news as it happens. The Bloomberg Business Week
Daily Podcast with Carol Masser and Tim Steneveek on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
All right, this is one of those moments like where
do I start with them? Where do I start with them?
Because there is a most red story on the Bloomberg
that involves AK forty seven, Stinger missiles and grenades to
top of a government.
Speaker 1 (00:42):
That's the one.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
Story I think it's the most read all day today.
And then there is the Wall Street to cry as
a hot coming summer after the surprise Democratic primary outcome
for New York City mayors. So we've got a little
bit of a wacky Wall Street roundup for you, courtesy
of our own Street Nataraja on, Chief Wall Street correspondent
here at Bloomberg News, joining us in.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
Let's start with.
Speaker 3 (01:02):
What is the most right story in the Bloomberg involves
as I said, AK forty seven and so more and
a lot more who, what, where.
Speaker 1 (01:09):
And why?
Speaker 4 (01:11):
We write a lot about Wall Street big wigs were
writing all about CEOs and founders of big trading firms.
I don't think I've ever written a story like this before.
We'll probably get a chance to write another story where
I get to say a Wall Street co founder, co founder,
one of the biggest Wall Street trading powerhouses, accidentally funded
(01:31):
an attempt to topple the government in South Sudan. This
is just maddening. So let's transet the scene a little
bit here. Last year, for those.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
On radio, Tim's mouth is open wide.
Speaker 5 (01:40):
He's like, what these are just accusations at this point, Yes.
Speaker 4 (01:43):
These are allegations in god, but last year there was
a court case. There was a charge charging document that
said two South Sudan activists, one of them Peter Ajak
and for those in the human rights circles, a name
well known to them because he was someone who was
one of those Lost Boys of Suddan. A former child
(02:04):
soldier who moved to the United States, studied at Howard
Kennedy School, then worked at as a World Bank economist.
Back in his home country in South Sudan, became an
opposition activist opposition leader was imprisoned in South Sudan, and
in twenty twenty, after immense pressure on that country's government,
was released, caught asylum in the USA and was a
postdoctoral fellow at Howard Kennedy School's Belfare Center super Credentials.
(02:30):
People in the State Department, people in the United States
government knew who he was. But things went south soon after.
According to the allegations from the Department of Justice, he
started scheming to put together a plot to procure weapons
to smuggle into South Suddan. There is a ban, there
is an embargo on taking weapons to South Suddan, but
(02:52):
he decided, working with another activist, that a coup, a
violent coup and attempt to overthrow the current government in
stall himself as a new prime minister of a new
democratic regime was the best way forward. The only problem,
well two problems, was he was talking to undercover agents
when trying to secure the arms. And where our interest
(03:12):
comes in is the plan might have sounded great in
his head, he lacked cash. What we found out in
the last two weeks, and this is what peaked our
curiosity was the man who was fronting up that cash
turned out to be a co founder of Jane Street
Rob Greniery, because he is conceded. He's come out and
said that, look, yes, I did provide the money to
(03:34):
these guys, but I thought I was supporting human rights causes.
I thought I was doing simple stuff like food and
shelter and blankets and whatnot. He says he had no
idea that this was going to be used for anything
other than that. Says he was defrauded in light to
and you know, even after having published a story, even
after having spent the last week going through dockets talking
(03:54):
to so many people, this one is still hard to
get your arms around.
Speaker 5 (03:59):
Well, the weather names kind of grows bigger, and I
think people will be familiar with some other characters who
are involved in this story. How did Peter Ajack get
connected to Rob Grenari.
Speaker 4 (04:09):
And that goes to your point of the web of
characters getting bigger and more prominent. The middleman in this
case appears to have been Gary Kasproov, former World chess champion,
who then you know, prominent Russian dissident lives in the
United States, was the chair of the Human Rights Foundation.
He obviously got to know Peter Zak through those circles.
He knew Rob Grenieri because again, Greniery is at the
(04:33):
top of Jane Street, and therefore a firm that has
made like what twenty one billion dollars in trading revenue
last year. You can be rest assured someone atop that
firm has a lot of money, and he's been donating. Look,
he's back political candidates like Nikki Hally's presidential bit. He's
helped build a casino in Mississippi called the Scarlet Bull
by the way, quick shout out, and he's donated to
(04:53):
a lot of humanitarian causes. So Kasparov knew both of
these people. He's the one who connected the two of them.
It appears that after a couple of meetings, Greniery thought
everything was on the up and up and he was
ready to sign off on some seven million dollars over
a course of two weeks and two different chunks. He
passed on the money to Peter Ajak. And when Peter
(05:15):
Ajax then started transferring bits of that money onto the
arms exporterer or at least of the weapons agents who
happened to be undercover United States federal agents, that's when
problems started. They were arrested soon after, and that's why
we find grenary in this slightly let's call it embarrassing
situation for now.
Speaker 3 (05:33):
So for him, he's saying, I didn't know that this
is where the money was going.
Speaker 1 (05:36):
I did give them money. But that's that's what said issue.
Speaker 4 (05:40):
That is what he's saying right now. Indeed, there will
be a trial later this year. Peter Ajac and Abram Keach,
the other gentleman who has been accused in this case,
have both pleaded not guilty. In fact, they've even indicated
that they plan to use this public authority defense, which
is basically saying, hey, we had the approval and the
support of a government official. They're going to try and
make the case that the United States government, or at
(06:02):
least some elements of it, were backing their plan. The
government obviously contends that, but that is the defense they
plan to use.
Speaker 1 (06:09):
Got it sounds like it should be a movie.
Speaker 5 (06:11):
Yeah it should. I mean it has all the ingredients
of a movie. We only have a couple of minutes left.
I want to go to your other story that is
among the most read two on the Bloomberger.
Speaker 1 (06:20):
It was going to be a little wacky.
Speaker 5 (06:21):
I need to talk about this. But then just before
our show started you publish this piece. It's about Wall
Street to crime, the hot commy summer of Zorin Mamdani's
shock election.
Speaker 4 (06:31):
So let's be very clear when we call it the
hot commy summer, that is not our view. This is
what Wall streeters are calling clearly.
Speaker 5 (06:37):
One prominent Wall Streeter are called it.
Speaker 4 (06:39):
One prominent Wall Streeter called it, many prominent Wall Streeters,
I would say, echo it. The problem here seems to
be that the New York City electorate, the voters, the
Democratic voters, clearly seem to have rebuked this city's elite.
You've gone for weeks and months on end, where the
city's billionaires, where the city's business owners. CEO senior executive
(07:02):
has said a Zoran Mamdani as mayor of New York
City would be catastrophic for the city. But look at
the results last night for someone who had no name
recognition war three four months back, going up against the
might of former New York City Governor Andrew Cuomo, who's
not just the former New York City governor, but a
part of a major New York New York State governor
(07:25):
and also part of a major New York political dynasty.
For him to be able to take him on, not
just keep it close, actually jump out ahead of him
in the first round of primary, and all signs point
to the idea that by the time we're done with
his rank choice voting, he could be the Democratic candidate
for being mayor of New York City. That shows that
there's a huge, huge disconnect between the voters who have
(07:47):
backed this campaign that came with a lot of style, verve,
charisma and populist appeal and the city's leaders who have
these I think fair to say exaus exaggerated, perhaps concerns
of doom and gloom in the city if Zoran MUNDANEI
were to become mayor.
Speaker 3 (08:07):
And we should point out that Michaelaura Bloomberg, founder majority
owner of Bloomberg News parent Bloomberg Help, he was a
supporter of Andrew Cuomo.
Speaker 1 (08:18):
All right, I mean what.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
We were reminded we just got about thirty forty seconds
here shre is that a lot of what actually happens
to New York City in terms of significant changes has
to come out of Albany.
Speaker 1 (08:28):
Is he really going to change much for Wall Street
just quickly?
Speaker 4 (08:30):
And look, this is the point that other people have
made it and a lot of his proposals would require
some level of tax sikes on the ridge. A lot
of his proposal would require the city taking on a
huge amount of new debt. Kathy Hokel, the governor isn't
too enthused on any of those ideas. Doesn't look like
she's going to be backing it. And those are parts
of his platform that may not quite pan out as
(08:52):
he has promised in the agenda, So they might have
to be some compromise if he were to become mayor.
Speaker 1 (08:57):
Amazing, but clearly there's a peal.
Speaker 3 (08:59):
Gotta Waki store in Wall Street. This is your guy,
talk to Shriy Shre.
Speaker 1 (09:03):
Thank you so much.
Speaker 3 (09:04):
Trinatarajan, Bloomberg News Chief Wall Street correspondent.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Business Weekdaily Podcast. Catch us
live weekday afternoons from two to five pm Eastern Listen
on Apple CarPlay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app,
or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 3 (09:21):
Now, let's get to something else that's definitely been on
our mind and the President's mind.
Speaker 5 (09:24):
Yeah, I think it's fair to say Ron said It's
nuclear installations were quote badly damaged by US airstrikes. It's
the first such comments by day Ron as debate grows
over how much the bombardment managed to dent the Islamic
Republic's atomic program. The comments coming hours after President Trump
disputed a US intelligence report that said the attacks had
limited impact on Iran's nuclear program below the ground, and
(09:46):
carol an assessment from the Pentagon's intelligence agency. The Defense
Intelligence Agency actually said the bombing likely didn't cripple the
core component storre at underground, including centrifugis.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
We're super confused here, hey.
Speaker 3 (09:58):
Meantime, President Trump, he says he thing, the Israel Iran war,
it's over.
Speaker 6 (10:02):
The way I look at it, they fought. The war's done.
And you know, I could get a statement that they're
not going to go nuclear. We're probably going to ask
for that, but they're not going to be doing it.
But they're not going to be doing it anyway.
Speaker 1 (10:15):
They've had it.
Speaker 6 (10:16):
They've had it now. Maybe someday in the future we'll
want that. But I've asked Marco, do you want to
draw I just asked him the question as we were
walking on the stage. You want to draw up a
little agreement for them to sign, because I think we
can get them to sign it. I don't think it's necessary.
Speaker 3 (10:33):
All right, That, of course, was President Trump at the
NATO press conference earlier today. Hey, let's get more on
what we know about Iran's nuclear enrichment capabilities and where
that pile of uranium is.
Speaker 1 (10:44):
See what we know.
Speaker 3 (10:45):
John Erth is back with US, senior policy director for
the Center for Arms Control and Non Proliferation.
Speaker 1 (10:50):
We've had them before.
Speaker 3 (10:51):
It's a nonpartisan nonprofit dedicated to reducing and eventually eliminated
the threats posed by nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.
Speaker 7 (11:00):
Hey.
Speaker 3 (11:00):
John, great to have you back with us. What do
we really know at this point about Iran's nuclear enrichment capabilities.
Speaker 8 (11:09):
We know that the United States Air Force struck these
last weekend. The facilities where the enrichment takes place and
some of the other key facilities associated with the nuclear program.
We know that they were heavily damaged. What we don't
know is the precise degree of the damage. And I
would argue that that's not that important. The White House
(11:33):
uses the word obliterated. The initial reports coming out of
the Defense Department that we're unfortunate beaked seem to use
some lesser adjectives.
Speaker 4 (11:44):
The degree of the adjective.
Speaker 8 (11:46):
Is not what is important. What is important is that
the damage was significant in nature and that at least
for the moment, Iran is not able to enrich uranium
for the moment, I think because it gives.
Speaker 5 (11:59):
Yeah, well, I want to just cut you off for
a second, because for the moment, I think is a
key phrase that I heard come from you just now.
We've heard differing analyses based on intelligence just in recent
days that says it could be set back a number
of years or just set back a number of months.
Do we know what the likely scenario.
Speaker 8 (12:18):
Is at this point We don't. That's going to require
some further analysis, and quite frankly, I don't think we
will know until we get some international inspectors on the
ground there. That's what is useful for the time being
that we use this space for diplomacy, and part of
(12:40):
that should be to request access for the IAEA, the
UN watchdog agency, to get its inspectors in on the
ground to assess what is the nature of Iran's enrichment
program and so that we can start building confidence that
in the future, if there is an arrangement work up,
(13:00):
that we can have the confidence that Iran is not
enriching that it is not doing illicit activities of the
sort that led to the cycle of violence that we
have seen in recent days.
Speaker 3 (13:11):
So, John, if they get those inspectors get on the
ground and they're looking at the sites that were attacked
the targets by the US, do they also get access
to Iran more broadly so, in other words, other installations
or activities or capabilities when it comes to uranium enrichment
(13:32):
or nuclear enrichment. Do they get a full picture or
is it just what was hit. I'm just trying to
get an idea of what they really have access to
and what they still might be unknowns after their visit.
Speaker 1 (13:44):
If they visit, you ask.
Speaker 8 (13:45):
A very good question that will be a subject for
very intense negotiations. In the past, Iran has always been
very secretive and they have always given the impression that
they are hiding something, and this has led to a
lack of confidence. I think what we want to achieve
is a set of arrangements where there is confidence, where
there is transparency, where there is confidence that Iran is
(14:08):
not hiding something, that they are not putting on a
show for the benefit of the inspectors and doing something
behind the scenes. This is how we know that there
is not some sort or bilisted activity going on, and
this is where we will have confidence that there is
not a nuclear weapons program. Iran says, there is not.
(14:32):
The arrangement that is put into place should be one
that shows that.
Speaker 5 (14:36):
What did you make of the comments that we got
from Tehran that the nuclear installations were quote badly damaged
Because and look, I'm not a military strategist, but just
basic logic, as I think this through, would be if
I wanted to hide a nuclear program, or if I
wanted people to think that I wasn't doing enrichment, I
(14:57):
would say that facilities were damn imaged and not allowing
me to do this these enrichment activities. Is that a
fair way to look at these comments from Tehran?
Speaker 8 (15:07):
It could be it's also admitting what is clearly the truth.
There were thousands of tons of explosives dropped on these facilities.
They are going to be heavily damaged, and that I
think is merely accepting reality.
Speaker 3 (15:22):
And bottom line, I mean, do we ultimately know where
the uranium is and where that pile has been moved?
Speaker 1 (15:27):
We don't know that, do we.
Speaker 8 (15:28):
We don't the enriched uranium is in a highly transportable
form and containers that can be moved relatively easily from
one place to another. So this is something also that
if I were on the negotiation team, I would make
a point of asking for early on in the process,
where is the uranium? Can we have an accounting for it?
(15:51):
Can we have some tracking and transparency on where it is?
And as part of the final arrangement, I would want
some accountability and some safeguards on that material that's very dangerous.
Speaker 5 (16:02):
How do you view the role of members of Congress?
And the reason I ask here is because Axios reported
just in the last ninety minutes that the President is
set to limit sharing of classified information with Congress after
this leak on the Iran bombing damage. Is that, in
your view a move that could make it more difficult
for the United States and members of the United States
(16:24):
Congress to sort of understand national security issues that affect
the nation.
Speaker 8 (16:30):
Well, there are two issues. The first is that the
information leaked. I don't know that it leaked from Congress,
but it leaked, and that's unfortunate and that absolutely should
not have This is highly sensitive classified information and everybody
who has access to it could note pro features for
(16:51):
maintaining control.
Speaker 5 (16:52):
John Arath, Senior policy director for the Center for Arms
Control and Non Proliferation. This is Bloomberg BusinessWeek Daily.
Speaker 2 (17:00):
This is the Bloomberg Business Week Daily Podcast. Listen live
each weekday starting at two pm Eastern on Applecarplay and
the Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. You can
also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New
York station, Just Say Alexa played Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 5 (17:18):
Well once again. He Ron said It's nuclear installations were
quote badly damaged by US Airstrikese. These comments coming just
hours after President Trump disputed a US intelligence report that
said the attacks had limited impact on Iran's nuclear program
below ground. Meantime, the President said that he had a
good meeting with Ukraine's Vladimir Zelinsky at the NATO summit
(17:40):
in the Hague. Needless to say, a lot happening around
the world, and especially a lot happening if you're thinking
about political risk, and that's what Kevin Kadjawara does. He's
managing director and co president at Tineo Intelligence. He focuses
on geopolitics. He's also a member of the Council on
Foreign Relations. He joins us here in the Bloomberg Interactive
Brokers studio in ourn't reduction, we talked about two different things.
(18:01):
One is the latest from Iran and the relationship between
Israel and Iran and how the US fits into that
or lack thereof relationship. And then two the latest when
it comes to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the war between
Russia and Ukraine. You also have geopolitical risk, I think
here at home in New York City with the shock
upset in a Democratic primary last night that business leaders
(18:25):
are trying to digest today. What is the biggest risk
to your clients right now?
Speaker 9 (18:31):
Well, I think you highlighted just the variety of issues
that are out there right and the fact that they
are all happening at the same time. What's you know,
more typical historically, right is to have a number of
sort of discrete events and you can respond to each
of them. But these now happening with greater frequency. They
(18:52):
are happening simultaneously, and they are therefore compounding on one
another in ways that you know, you look at any
individual issue and you might question why the market reacts
in that way, But there's really you know, there's a
lot of different inputs coming in. So I think that
the you know, the challenge for say a CEO or
(19:12):
frankly an institutional investor for that matter, But for a
CEO is, you know, how do I triage everything that's
going on and what is actually kind of signal for
the business that I'm in versus trying to cut through
all that noise.
Speaker 1 (19:25):
Well, that's where I want to go, Kevin.
Speaker 3 (19:27):
Because companies are going public, right, IPOs are happening, companies
are doing deals, companies are making decisions, they're spending cap X.
So what are you hearing from the community about, Like,
what are the lines to say, all right, I'm ready
to pull the trigger on spending money or hiring people
or expanding versus it's just too unclear.
Speaker 1 (19:46):
I'm out.
Speaker 9 (19:46):
Well, I think the way that they look at it
is that uncertainty is essentially a tax, or it is
effectively a text in the sense that it perverts what
would be otherwise normal economic behavior. Right, So in other words,
you know, if you were trying to anticipate tariffs, you
probably tied up capital building inventory that you wouldn't otherwise do,
(20:07):
or because you have no visibility on what the runway
is looking like, you're going to hold off on that
potential m and a transaction or opening that new factory,
or rejiggering the supply chain in some way, shape or form.
So I think though, that while there's this realization that
there's a lot going on, there's a lot of uncertainty. CEOs,
just like the President himself, always making decisions based on
(20:29):
imperfect information, and now it's perhaps more imperfect than usual.
But any moment that you get that clarity and there's
an opportunity, you know, you and your CFO had better
be ready to act and be able to commit that capital.
Speaker 5 (20:43):
On the uncertainty tax on the uncertainty side of this,
there's certainly geopolitical uncertainty, but there's also the uncertainty about
policies that are coming out of Washington, that are coming
out of the White House. And we've seen this sort
of changing way that companies are speaking or communicating with
the President, especially companies outside of the United States announcing investments,
(21:03):
companies in the United States announcing investments in the US.
How would you say that your clients or you're advising
your clients to communicate with Washington to communicate with the president.
Speaker 9 (21:13):
Well, look, I think that there's a The issue is
that it gets really bespoke or really quickly, depending on
the sensitivity of the industry you're in, depending the country
that you're you're from, and what the trade relationship is
or the overall nature of the relationship is. So you
have to take all of those things, into all of
those things into consideration. I think that there is a focus,
(21:34):
you know, perhaps a greater indexation, if you will, on
things that you know are going to resonate well and
via avenues that you know will resonate well with this uh,
you know, with this administration and with this uh, with
this president.
Speaker 7 (21:49):
Right.
Speaker 9 (21:49):
So for some people that means we've got to go
to Mara a Lago. For some people that means appearing
on certain news organ news outlets, and in others it
means executives.
Speaker 8 (21:59):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (22:00):
Sure, we saw Jamie Diamond, I think it's fair to
say Carol communicate that morning on Fox with Maria Bartiromo. Yeah,
and it seemed like he made his message known to
Washington through that interview.
Speaker 3 (22:13):
So it was an audience of one so understanding that
going on there that President Trump is listening, yes and
watch absolutely.
Speaker 1 (22:21):
Huh.
Speaker 3 (22:23):
You know, We've had a lot of conversations here, like
it's just amazing the fear of executives to speak out
in the United States of America.
Speaker 1 (22:35):
Tell me, give me what what intel?
Speaker 3 (22:39):
And I understand you can't tell us specifics and stuff,
but I'm just curious, like, what is kind of the
psyche of the corporate clients that you're dealing with and
why there is that fear. Well, I mean, I understand
if you don't want to be a target, but aren't
you surprised. I mean, these are leaders that are supposed
to speak out when things are maybe they don't agree
with things.
Speaker 9 (22:59):
Well, I think that they're are. There's again, there's a
hierarchy of leaders, right. You just mentioned Jamie Diamond, who's
probably the closest thing we've got to sort of a
head of state level chief executive in this country and
perhaps further empower but that also plays into his own personality.
He is comfortable in that role in the way that
not every executive is, I think. But secondly, I think
(23:22):
this is this has forced executives not necessarily to shrink,
but to refocus on what's important to them. Their industry,
their company, the stakeholders they have, and to focus in
on those things rather than feeling like they need to
you know, they need to weigh in and open on
every single issue that is out there. Do you think
that's a good thing, Well, I think it's I think
(23:42):
it's just the new reality. I don't think any of
these things are good things or bad things. It's just
the thing. This is the this is the environment that
we are currently in. That environment will change four years
from now, and they'll shift again.
Speaker 1 (23:52):
Because it's such a swing.
Speaker 3 (23:53):
If you think, you go from the murder of George
Floyd and COVID and executives are out talking about everything,
and we thought that there was this real opening and
then it just feels like, I understand pendulum swing, but
it swung another.
Speaker 9 (24:06):
Well, of course, the other thing is is action, right,
and I think being on the other side of this
now right where we're looking at for instance, de E
and I initiatives right being rolled back in terms of
how they're promoted and so on and so forth. But
a lot of executives have bought with their stakeholders and
their employees and their customer bases. They bought a lot
(24:27):
of good will because of the actions that they have
taken over the years and now even if you change
the website a little bit or something of that nature,
but you remain committed because you can see the bottom
line positive impact of these types of policies. You've got
a lot of good will already built in with your stakeholder.
Speaker 5 (24:44):
So you consider the stakeholders, the ones who work for you,
the employees as a group of stakeholders. You don't necessarily
talk about the DEI policies outside of the company in
the same way, or maybe you don't even talk to
them about them internally in the same way. But you
did see a return on the investment, so you keep
doing those things and you call them something else.
Speaker 9 (25:04):
Like there's ellings with that, and you know, and and
today it was a perfect example of the type of
company that has a lot of people who are devoted
toward helping executives, you know, kind of thread this needle,
so to speak, and some need more help than others.
And also you know, it's it's it's an awareness of
who your audience is, who your customer base is. Some
are going to respond, you know, and we all know
(25:26):
the companies right where you know, we're taking certain taking
certain stands has stood them in good stead with their
audiences and others who have had a more challenging time.
So it's you know, it's about being smart and surgical
about this.
Speaker 3 (25:40):
But you've seen cycles like I think about, you know,
in this world, and I think about the Great Financial Crisis,
there's COVID, there's just so much stuff, war overseas, different presidents.
Speaker 1 (25:51):
And so on and so forth. How do you describe
this cycle?
Speaker 3 (25:53):
And how do you think a lot of CEOs And
I had to dump everybody in a bucket because it's
just not the way the world wars.
Speaker 1 (26:00):
But I am just.
Speaker 3 (26:00):
Curious, you know, historically, business wise, economically, the role of
the United States in the world, Like, how do you see.
Speaker 9 (26:06):
That there is something changing right now? And this is
not just a cycle. This is a secular change, right
and this is something that can no longer be punted
down the road. In other words, the decisions that CEOs
are making today are existential decisions for their companies and
whether they are going to be you know, nimble enough
(26:26):
to be some of the you know, some of the
winners on the other side. Think about it in the
context of like climate change, as an example, right, remember
a few years ago, companies managements were, you know, making
zero carbon commitments and the light but the reality of
it was it was like a generation or two down
the road of management that would actually have to implement
that was an easy commitment to make in a sense,
(26:47):
right exactly right now, like you say, the playing field
is actually fundamentally changing, and it is not hyperbolic to
say that it's a para paradigmatic shift right now, but
it is this generation of leadership that's having to have
the situational awareness and kind of realize that even though
you've got all these balls in the air right now
with the just in time, you know it, just what's
(27:08):
happening right now with trade, with the geopolitics, with the
fiscal bills, all.
Speaker 1 (27:12):
Of that presidential administration.
Speaker 9 (27:14):
Though not at all.
Speaker 3 (27:15):
So you're talking about supply chains, you're talking about what
a like what is.
Speaker 9 (27:20):
Say we think of as the international rules based order, right,
which is a system that has that that laid the
groundwork for the multinational corporation to be the single most
important economic actor. If that is evolving, if the role
of the US is evolving, is it axiomatic that those
same economic actors are going to be the big winners
in the next or do you have to be nimble
(27:41):
enough to be thinking ahead of how this is, how
this might change. I mean, we're this interim period. I
don't know if it's going to be long or short.
We don't know exactly what it's going to look like
on the other side. But you know, those who are aware,
it's like Eisenhower said, right, the plan is worthless one
of the first bullet flies. But planning is everything thing right.
Speaker 5 (28:01):
So interesting putting you on the spot, is this a
positive development in the work that you do well?
Speaker 9 (28:08):
I mean, I think so in the sense that it
is inevitable that you know, over time, strategic decisions have
been made predicated on a certain perspective on what the
global operating environment is going to look like, and then
all your other decisions stem from that.
Speaker 5 (28:25):
The global operating environment being a world of liberal democracies.
Speaker 9 (28:29):
But not just that, this ability to have to take
advantage of the free flow of labor, free flow of capital,
you know, a just in time global supply chain system,
opening of markets, all all of that, right, the sort
of the key variables of globalization. If that's shifting right,
If that's shifting. You've got to start scenario planning for
(28:50):
how that might impact your business.
Speaker 1 (28:52):
Twenty five seconds.
Speaker 3 (28:53):
It's a question, Tim and I like to ask a
lot of folks who come on here, because in January
we thought about American exceptionalism. A lot is at going
away and forgive me only about twenty five seconds.
Speaker 9 (29:03):
Look, the United States has certain built in advantages scale
the English language, the dollar, a a you know, an
economic ecosystem and financing ecosystem that finds phenomenal ideas and
can and can bring them to market and so on
and so forth. Nobody else has got that. Still, even
with all the challenges we've got.
Speaker 1 (29:20):
What a great conversation. Kevin, Thank you so much. Come
back sooner, don't wait so long.
Speaker 9 (29:23):
Thanks for having me. I appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (29:25):
Kevin Kajawara. He's benaginged director Krek, President at to Neo Intelligence.
This is Bloomberg Business Weekdaily.
Speaker 2 (29:31):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Business Weekdaily Podcast. Catch us
live weekday afternoons from two to five pm Eastern Listen
on Apple CarPlay and the Android Auto with the Bloomberg
Business app, or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 8 (29:46):
Mac.
Speaker 4 (29:47):
No I'll bet you let me drive.
Speaker 9 (29:48):
Oh no, no, no, no, this is not a toy, honey. Please,
I'll do the driving travels. Excuse gat I want to drive?
Speaker 4 (30:00):
Question?
Speaker 2 (30:04):
This is the drive to the clothes.
Speaker 4 (30:06):
Now plung for me a thing?
Speaker 2 (30:07):
Well, don on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1 (30:10):
All right, TikTok everybody.
Speaker 3 (30:12):
We're coming up on about eighteen minutes to go into
we wrap up the trade on this Wednesday, June twenty fifth.
Speaker 1 (30:17):
Where the heck did June go?
Speaker 5 (30:19):
It is behind us, Carol. We can only look forward
to the third quarter of the year.
Speaker 1 (30:24):
What do you like in Hamilton or something? Just start wrapping.
Speaker 5 (30:29):
Yesterday on air?
Speaker 1 (30:30):
I think I said it not on air.
Speaker 5 (30:32):
I've never seen Hamilton.
Speaker 3 (30:34):
I know.
Speaker 1 (30:34):
I don't even know why I can share something those
in New York.
Speaker 5 (30:36):
For fifteen years and I've never seen Hamilton.
Speaker 1 (30:38):
Like you got to see Hamilton. It's really really good
on You can watch it streaming.
Speaker 5 (30:42):
I know, but I, like I said, I don't want
to watch it on streaming without seeing it on Broadway.
Speaker 1 (30:46):
Don't get us singing, all right, okay, be one of
the rights.
Speaker 9 (30:50):
To that music.
Speaker 7 (30:51):
All right.
Speaker 3 (30:51):
We've got the S and P little change down two
points one hundred and twenty nine to the downside on
the Dow Jones Industrial Average if you care about that index,
and then as one under d up twenty two points,
up a tenth of a percent. This is kind of
a I almost feel like a sideways move. Let's see
what Jeanette Garritty has to say about all of it.
She's managing director chief economist at the wealth management firm
Robertson Stevens. She's joining us from Menlo Park, California. Robertson Stevens,
(31:15):
by the way, has about seven point one billion in
assets under management.
Speaker 1 (31:18):
How are you?
Speaker 7 (31:20):
I'm fine? How are you guys?
Speaker 1 (31:22):
Okay? Okay?
Speaker 3 (31:25):
You know, another week where a lot comes at us.
We had a rally yesterday.
Speaker 1 (31:29):
Today feels like we don't know where we're going.
Speaker 3 (31:32):
Tell us what your clients come to you or your
team comes to you and says, you know, I don't
understand where we go from here or what's next or
what's top of mind?
Speaker 7 (31:43):
Well, you know, actually they haven't, at least in the
last six weeks, they haven't been saying so much of
where do we go from here? As where can I
go from here? Where are the opportunities? What am I
going to do is certainly everybody feels a bit better
than they did in April. I don't know, and I
(32:05):
think the market reflects that. The equity markets reflect that
the amount, as you said, just look at this week.
I mean, the news cycle this week is head spinning
the last couple of weeks, and so it's just kind
of interesting. I mean, people are energized to trying to
find opportunities, but there are still a lot of challenges
(32:28):
out there, and it's a little bit more about reminding
them what some of those might be.
Speaker 5 (32:32):
Well, what's the biggest challenge that you see right now?
I mean, if we were to talk to you back
in April, I think it would have been navigating tariff policy.
Here we are two months later, just a few days
away from that July ninth deadline for the extension of
some of those tariffs. Is that the biggest challenge for
investors navigating what these companies are going to do in
the face of changing policy or uncertain policy.
Speaker 7 (32:55):
Well, I think the biggest challenge is, let's not say tariffs,
but trade in general. You know, just figuring out the
relationships that are in place, what new relationships are maybe
going to be in place. Some of that is influenced
by tariffs. Some of that is influenced by geopolitics. As
(33:19):
we've seen the topic of the day, the disruptions in
the Middle East. Trade is changing in front of our eyes,
These relationships are changing. So I think that is a
big challenge, and maybe the fundamental challenge from investors is
it's not an easy environment perhaps in which to pick
winners and losers, because a lot of it is going
(33:42):
to come down to company management, how dynamic you are,
the right educated guesses that you make. We're going to
see winners and losers everywhere, and a lot of it is.
Some of it's going to be luck, some of it's
going to be skilled. Better to be lucky and good
actually not just one.
Speaker 3 (34:04):
So we talked earlier with our tyler Kendall about kind
of the next couple of weeks, two or three weeks
or so that are facing President Trump, and there's a
lot on his docket, you know, wanting to get this
tax and spending bill done. He's got a deadline on
that one, the deadline ticking on the imposition of higher
tariffs against some of our allies or really on everyone.
Speaker 1 (34:28):
So it's a lot on his plate.
Speaker 3 (34:30):
Are you anticipating that he does an extension pushes it
down the road. And so we continue to live in
this world of uncertainty as we get ready to kick
off another earning season, and we'll see what that means
for companies.
Speaker 1 (34:45):
But what's your take on that.
Speaker 3 (34:49):
Do you expect things get done or do you think
it just gets pushed down the road?
Speaker 7 (34:54):
Oh? I do think things get done, but we're not
sure what thing, and we're not sure what done we
means right, So there going to be deals. We'll see
how he feels coming back from NATO. That'll be about
more than just NATO. That'll be about who he sat
down with and how the conversations went. It's also a
(35:14):
bit about the people around him and what they think
they can be able to achieve. Look at Chairman Powell
in the press conference last week, had this nice, little
unappreciated distinction between risk and uncertainty, and he said, then
the level of uncertainty is down, but the risk is
still high. And what he was getting at is uncertainty
(35:35):
means you can't see anything at all. If you will,
you can't see at all what might happen. Risk is
that you don't you have a wide range of outcomes.
So I think more so than in April, we sort
of know what's going on out there. There are these
trade negotiations, occasionally a trade fight. There are these surprises
(35:58):
that are going to be kind of out of the
One Big Budget Bill Act obah, So you know what
that sort of is. I know, we know what that's
sort of already heard. I didn't hear.
Speaker 5 (36:13):
I didn't hear you say beautiful, Yeah.
Speaker 7 (36:16):
One big beautiful act. Excuse me, I left out beautiful.
It's so much eat just to say oba.
Speaker 5 (36:23):
Saying that I didn't I haven't heard that yet, say it.
Speaker 7 (36:28):
Because you lose track of the bees. But but you know,
so you know that that's there. You know the general
parameters you can see. But the range of outcomes from
any of these things is very large, and I think
that's what defines the variability and the volatility as we
go into the third quarter. Is that's still there.
Speaker 5 (36:46):
Okay, So we just want to end hearing what you're
hearing from clients right now. Your client, you're in Memo Park,
you're in the heart of Silicon Valley. I imagine your
client's a lot of high networth individuals who made their
money in technology. Correct me if I'm wrong?
Speaker 7 (36:59):
Though?
Speaker 5 (37:01):
What do you hear from them?
Speaker 7 (37:04):
I think what I hear is, please tell me that
I can think like the growth investor that I really
genetically am predisposed to be. There's a lot of focus
on growth. There's a lot of focus on AI. I think, uh,
in looking at the fundamentals, I want to broaden it
from AI. There's there's a an understanding of what the
(37:28):
secular trends are. Tight labor markets, slow labor force growth,
predictions for slower economic growth. How do we how do
we ride the wave that will kind of get us
to a different place? How do we how what's what
can we do? Where can we be that will be consistent?
(37:52):
Well what we think is going to happen, which is
people are going to strive for doing something new and
different and and higher growth, higher labor productivity. And I
think that that has merit. I think that is where
we are going to be. This is a This remains
an extremely dynamic economy. Look at everything that has been
(38:13):
thrown at this well, and yet we're here and right now.
The difference between got it day April is people saying
I can figure it.
Speaker 1 (38:22):
Out Jeanette, We Got to Run.
Speaker 3 (38:23):
Jeanette Garretty, Managing director, Chief Economists at Robertson Stevens, joining
us from Menlo Park, California.
Speaker 2 (38:29):
This is the Bloomberg Business Week Daily podcast, available on Apple, Spotify,
and anywhere else you get your podcasts. Listen live weekday
afternoons from two to five pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot com,
the iHeartRadio app, tune In, and the Bloomberg Business App.
You can also watch us live every weekday on YouTube
(38:50):
and always on the Bloomberg terminal
Hosts And Creators
Tim Stenovec
Carol Massar
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.