December 16, 2025 • 41 mins
Watch Carol and Tim LIVE every day on YouTube: http://bit.ly/3vTiACF.
Jared Kushner’s Affinity Partners is exiting from the takeover battle for Warner Bros. Discovery Inc.
The private equity firm this month emerged as a participant in Paramount Skydance Corp.’s hostile bid for Warner Bros., which valued the media and entertainment company at $108.4 billion including debt. Paramount is seeking to scupper Netflix Inc.’s agreed $82.7 billion deal for Warner Bros.
Affinity was helping to finance Paramount’s move. It now believes the dynamics of an investment have changed since it became involved in the process in October, a representative for the firm said.
Warner Bros. is planning to reject Paramount’s offer due to concerns about financing and other terms, people familiar with the matter said Tuesday. Affinity’s investment in the bid is about $200 million in equity, Bloomberg News has reported.
Today's show features:
- Bloomberg News Media and Entertainment Editor Felix Gillette on the latest in the
- R.C. “Chris” Whalen, Chairman of Whalen Global Advisors, on the health of the banking sector and the crypto market outlook
- Julia Pollak, Chief Economist for the US Department of Labor, on the November nonfarm payrolls report
- Larry Pitkowsky, Co-Founder, Managing Partner, and Portfolio Manager of GoodHaven Capital Management
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. 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
(00:23):
news as it happens. The Bloomberg Business Week Daily Podcast
with Carol Masser and Tim Stenebek on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
We mentioned some breaking news has been listening just in
the last few minutes regarding the media deal that we
just can't stop talking about.
Speaker 3 (00:40):
Yeah, and that just can't seem to get done because
it goes back and forth. One of brothers Discovery planning
to reject Paramount Skuidances hostile takeover bid due to concerns
about financing and other terms. Let's see what our Felix
Jellette has to say about this. He covers the media
space for us so closely here at Bloomberg. So I
do feel like that back and forth, back and forth
the time to really kind of read the tea leaves.
Speaker 4 (01:01):
What do you make about this latest reporting.
Speaker 5 (01:04):
I mean, I think it's not entirely surprising, right, Paramount
lost the initial round of bids and to Netflix and
then came out with the public hostal offer.
Speaker 6 (01:15):
But it was the same offer that the.
Speaker 5 (01:16):
Board had already rejected, essentially, so we're all essentially waiting
for them to review it again, you know, and then
essentially say, oh, you know what we actually did, like
the Netflix a bid more, and that'll toss the ball
back into Paramount's court, and I think they're going to
have to come back with a better offer, more money,
something way of addressing the concerns about financing that Warner
(01:39):
Brothers board has had all long.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
Does Paramounts Guidance have that money? I mean Larry Ellison's
worth two hundred and forty billion dollars, Yeah, two hundred
and nineteen billion dollars of that is tied up in
Oracle stock.
Speaker 7 (01:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (01:53):
Well, I think there's questions that have not been addressed,
even though the Ellisons have said one way or another, oh,
we actually did address all these concerns about the financing.
You know, initially there was money from ten Cents which
caused some concern that was taken out or whatever. So
there were there have been adjustments made, but you know,
I think at this point it's officially going to go
(02:14):
back to them again and they'll probably have to come
up with something more, whether it's more money or whatever,
addressing those concerns that remain.
Speaker 3 (02:23):
You know, I lost track in terms of feel like
the Paramount Skydance deal because it was Jared Kushner's investment
firm and there was I think some Saudi investors and like,
do you help me understand because it feels like I
thought that was a lot of the financial offer.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Like it was diversified at I felt like the rather
of money to come in, well they were ponying up.
Speaker 3 (02:45):
It felt like a lot of money. But I'm not
quite so sure because if Larry Ellison is still so
important to this offer, yeah, like is it a much
smaller portion it was.
Speaker 6 (02:55):
I mean, they've made adjustments.
Speaker 5 (02:56):
So it's like, I think what probably what the Warner
Brothers Discovery board is saying, they want more assurance that
it's from Larry Ellison, that that money feels, you know,
better from a regulatory perspective if you can get the
money from Ellison, the Ellison family versus these other sources
that have been part of financing deal from the beginning,
such as the Middle East you know Middle East money,
(03:19):
you know money that from Tencent, Like I said that
was taken out Jared Kushner, which again might help with
the White House, but might raise other concerns.
Speaker 2 (03:26):
Yeah, I'm glad you brought that up, because Carol brought
up just a few weeks ago what happened when Rupert
Murdoch wanted to buy Fox and what a challenge it
was for him to do that because of foreign ownership
of a broadcast network and the hoops that he had
to jump through in order to do that. Okay, so
we I still have a lot of questions and unanswerable
at this point about what this deal looks like. Let's
(03:46):
just say, for the sake of simplicity, Netflix wins out. Yeah,
Netflix actually gets these assets. Netflix gets HBO. You wrote
the book on HBO. This is a wild world that
we're living in. If Netflix actually gets this, what does
it mean for consumers? I mean, is this is this
good for us?
Speaker 6 (04:02):
Well?
Speaker 5 (04:02):
Netflix would say, oh, it's going to be great because ultimately,
with lower prices, you know, we'll have you know, we'll
be able to be more flexible in terms of bundling.
Speaker 6 (04:10):
Just consolidation, usually lower prices. That's very nice.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
I'm just asking I'm just asking a rhetorical question.
Speaker 5 (04:16):
I think you've seen a lot of voices in Hollywood
raising concern immediately about Netflix taking winning this deal because
it's going to be so much consolidation of power.
Speaker 6 (04:25):
Now Netflix has said.
Speaker 5 (04:26):
Well, you know, really you have to look at the
broader universe of people's attention. And now people are on
TikTok and they're on YouTube and all these other things.
But really, in this subscription video on demand world, Netflix
is already the market leader. If you add in all
of these assets from HBO Max, they're going to be
you know, more than four hundred million uh subscribers around
(04:48):
the world. They're going to absolutely, so utterly dominate the
subscription video business that I think people are going to
be like, yeah, who are There's going to be no
one else to sell to, and that's going to be
for the business overall. Ultimately, it'll cost consumers more money
down the lone.
Speaker 3 (05:04):
Yeah, that feels about right. Hey, why is this so
difficult to get this done? Why is this one so difficult?
Speaker 5 (05:11):
Well, I mean people trying to you know, make these
assets you know, more valuable from Warner Brothers Discovery for
twenty years. I mean, you're going back to AOL time Warner,
which again was around what the two thousands, so, you know,
and then AT and T made a run at trying
to make these assets work for them.
Speaker 6 (05:30):
Then you had Discovery come in.
Speaker 5 (05:31):
It's a you know, a challenge that has enticed so
many different people and yet has always proven more difficult
in reality than on paper for you know, decades.
Speaker 3 (05:42):
Now, what's the risk that somebody overpays ultimately, Like, I
feel like there's there's been so much in terms of
media assets, and we know the media landscape, you know
better than most how it continues to change and evolved.
Speaker 4 (05:54):
So I'm just curious.
Speaker 5 (05:55):
Well, I think the idea is like, you know, you
have the biggest library, you have the most selection for
your viewers. It's going to drive subscribers. People are going
to engage with it. You're going to you know, have
more subscribers coming in. But the problem is always how
do you arrange those assets? How do you arrange those
shows and movies on a small app in a way
that's enticing and available. I mean, I think the problem
(06:17):
that Discovery has had with Warner Brothers Discovery is that
you know, piling and all these reality shows into these
into HBO, Max didn't actually increase engagement at all. In fact,
it just kind of like a lot of those shows
and programs just get lost in the mix and no one,
no one watches them. So that's the problem is you
end up paying for a bunch of things that don't
(06:38):
actually drive engagement.
Speaker 3 (06:39):
Well, here's this Jared Kushner's affinity withdrawing from the Warner
Brothers Takeover Battle.
Speaker 6 (06:43):
Yeah, okay, I mean again, that would make sense.
Speaker 5 (06:46):
It would lower some of the concerns from state attorney generals,
anyone that like is worried about what paramount and Nellison's
would do with things like CNN.
Speaker 2 (06:57):
If so, that makes Paramounts Guidances offer more attractive to
Warner Brothers Discovery.
Speaker 5 (07:03):
I think it makes it simpler, and that's a little
bit more attractive in terms of again, if you're willing
to just if Larry Ellison will just put up the
money and backs up this whole thing, that that's the
easiest way.
Speaker 4 (07:16):
For any historical share price.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
So much of his wealth is tied up or he
only has twenty billion rights only, but he is basically
eighteen according to the Bloomberg Billionaire indecks, basically eighteen billion
dollars worth of net worth that is not tied up.
Speaker 3 (07:28):
Wait to go back to this headline that just crossed
Jared Kushner's affinity withdrawing from the Warner Brothers takeover battle.
Speaker 4 (07:34):
That you say makes.
Speaker 3 (07:35):
The paramount's guidance potentially more attractive.
Speaker 5 (07:39):
From the Warner Brothers Discovery Boards perspective potentially also, Yeah,
although at the same time, you know, it's a two
edged sword because then it's also you know, will that
make it harder for the regulatory approval down the line
in terms of getting approval from you know, the Department
of Justice and Trump's White House. You know, will they
(08:01):
without the sun and law involved, does that make it harder?
I mean, I think there's a lot of questions on
both sides of this, and it's going to continue to
play out in the week's ahead.
Speaker 2 (08:11):
Okay, So one question that we have is about the
global linear networks, because Netflix's deal does not include CNN, TNT,
Cartoon Network. I mean, the list certainly goes on when
it comes to these assets that not that many people
really want right now. What's the fate of those If
Netflix wins this bid.
Speaker 5 (08:30):
Well, it'll be spun off into a separate company before
the bid, before the acquisition takes place.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
Like a publicly traded company, a separate.
Speaker 5 (08:38):
Publicly traded company discovered, probably called Discovery Global.
Speaker 6 (08:42):
That's the plant at this point.
Speaker 5 (08:45):
And yeah, those assets are still throwing off profits, but
the viewership is the client across the board. There's a
lot of other cable networks out there right Comcast is
in the process of just spinning off a bunch of
bits additional cable assets. So you know, at some point,
does somebody come along and roll all of those assets
(09:05):
into one company. There's probably some you know, synergies if
you combine them in one place. But yeah, it's managing
the declining asset over time.
Speaker 3 (09:13):
I just want to mention because a Bloomberg story just crossing.
So Jared Kushner's Afinity partners exiting from the takeover battle
for Warner Brothers Discovery. A representative for the firm said,
Affinity there they say they now believe the dynamics of
an investment have changed since it became involved in the process.
Speaker 4 (09:31):
In October.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
Here's a quote with two strong competitors vying to secure
the future this unique American asset, Affinity has decided no
longer to pursue the opportunity. We continue to believe there
is a strong strategic rationale for Paramount's offer.
Speaker 5 (09:49):
Right, Well, I mean that's the thing is. I think
when you put Jared Kushner in the mix. On the
one head again, you think, oh, maybe they'll improve their
ability to get it through regular Tory concerns faster under
Trump's administration. On the other hand, it raises all these
other political objections from progressive states, including California and New York,
(10:11):
where a lot of entertainment assets are located. So yeah,
there's there's definitely problems of bolt.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
Well, even without Affinity Partners, Paramount's offer is being bankrolled
by a list of influential Middle Eastern investors, Saudi Arabia's
public Investment Fund, Qatar Investment Authority, as well as a
little known group from Abu Dhabi called Limad Holding Company.
Kushner had does have strong ties to at least he
founded Affinity in twenty twenty one with funding from sovereign
wealth funds from the region. Carol, as you say, it's complicated.
Speaker 3 (10:38):
It's complicated this one is, which means it will be
coming because it ain't over yet either, not Felix Jillette.
Speaker 4 (10:44):
Thank you so much, So appreciated.
Speaker 3 (10:47):
Felix, of course covering the media space for us, as
we said, wrote the book on HBO.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
Yeah, the book It's Not TV The Spectacular, Rise, Revolution
and Future of HBO. Get that book now if you
haven't read.
Speaker 4 (11:00):
Felix is media and entertainment editor. So thank you so much.
Speaker 2 (11:04):
Stay with us. More from Bloomberg Business Week Daily coming
up after this.
Speaker 1 (11:12):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Business Week Daily Podcast. Catch
us live weekday afternoons from two to five eastering. Listen
on Applecarplay and Android Otto with the Bloomberg Business app,
or watch us.
Speaker 4 (11:24):
Live on YouTube.
Speaker 3 (11:26):
We're going to stay on the macro with a financial
sector emphasis and great to have back with us.
Speaker 4 (11:31):
Chris Whale and chairman of Whale and Global Advisors. He
worked at the New.
Speaker 3 (11:34):
York FED in the eighties. He's testified before Congress and
the SEC. Worked on Wall Street. I forgot that you
worked at bear Stearns.
Speaker 4 (11:41):
And some other.
Speaker 3 (11:45):
Written many books and also served on the Economic Advisory
Committee of FINRA for over a decade.
Speaker 4 (11:51):
And you also ward consultants of billions.
Speaker 5 (11:53):
Was that right?
Speaker 7 (11:54):
Yes? It was great fun they were buying a bank.
Speaker 4 (11:56):
They were buying a bank, and they wanted to know.
Speaker 7 (11:58):
Yeah, they were trying to you know, finagle regulators. It
was a typical billions kind of script.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
Well, out of the entire resume that Carol just mentioned,
was that the most fun working on Billions?
Speaker 7 (12:11):
No, I think the most fun was early days working
at bear Stearns in London, you know, selling bonds. That
was a lot of fun. We had a blast.
Speaker 4 (12:18):
Well tell us about like it's funny.
Speaker 3 (12:20):
You know, I love talking with someone like you because
you have seen just kind of how the financial sector
has changed a lot, Chris right, and the stress points
that we've seen, certainly the financial crisis and elsewhere when
you look at We just talked with Mike about some
of the macro backdrop, and we've talked with you about
specific risks.
Speaker 4 (12:36):
But does it feel comfortable today.
Speaker 3 (12:38):
Kind of the environment in your view compared to what
we've seen in the past.
Speaker 8 (12:42):
No.
Speaker 7 (12:42):
I was going through the third quarter numbers for the
big bank holding companies, which the FED just released. Yeah,
day seventy five after the quarter closed. That's the best
that they can do, and it's eerie. The credit costs
are trending down the asset returns, thank god, or getting
back to normal about one point five percent. But there's
a lot we don't see, and that's what's worrying people.
(13:05):
Whether you talk about oracle, where you talk about private credit,
what people are worried about today is what they don't
see in the data because they know that a lot
of this is being fudged. And that's what worries me
as well. What do you think is being fudged things
like loan losses. There's a lot of forbearance here in
New York City for multi family apartments. Our new mayor
(13:26):
is threatening to start taking over buildings the landlords are
not keeping up to his standards. Well, the city in
New York can't afford to take care of them either,
and so we have this accumulation of pressures, mostly caused
by inflation, mostly caused by our friends at the FED.
But in their defense, why did they do that? Because
we told everybody they didn't have to pay their loans
(13:48):
and their rent for two years during COVID. People forget that.
In the mortgage industry. In March of twenty twenty, we
were all looking at one another going, what are we
going to do. This is after President Trump the player
of the emergency and said you don't have to pay
your bills. Yeah, well, the FED came to to rescue
by dropping raised to zero because of a surge of home
(14:08):
lending activity record volumes, and that float was borrowed to
help everybody pay their bills.
Speaker 3 (14:15):
So why aren't we seeing more stress in the credit
markets and why are we seeing records on Wall Street?
Speaker 4 (14:19):
And like it sounds like then some disconnect.
Speaker 7 (14:22):
I think part of the reason that the Street has
been doing well listed stocks is because you have a
lot of liquidity coming out of private markets. Going back
into more liquid markets makes sense, right. Private equity, private
credit is a mess, and we all know this. Something
like fifteen percent of private equity companies in the US
are paying in cond rather than in cash.
Speaker 3 (14:44):
So you notice waiting for the year to like the
exits and for things to move on.
Speaker 7 (14:49):
There's a lack of demand from banks for loans except
in one category, non depository financial companies, which is another
way of saying private equity funds, credit shops like Areas
and Apollo. They're the ones that have been aggressively expanding
their business using money in part from banks. So the
banks are now the facilitators. And what does this remind
(15:10):
us of Carol the two thousands? Right right, it's the
same thing. You have non bank intermediation, relying on the
bond market, equity markets, and bank credit, and the thing
is eventually they're going to stumble, and that's what everybody's
worried about it.
Speaker 4 (15:24):
So what does that stumble look like?
Speaker 2 (15:25):
What is the shoe that drops?
Speaker 7 (15:27):
It looks like First Brands, Hello, we're defaulting. And most
people had never focused on that company. It was a private,
totally institutional play. The same thing with Tricolor auto lender
that you know half of their customers were illegal aliens.
Nobody had ever focused on this. It was an institutional
story that suddenly surged.
Speaker 2 (15:48):
So you think those two instances are canaries in the
coal mine.
Speaker 7 (15:52):
I think they are typical of what we're going to
see more in the future, which is you're going to
see more of the missteps in the institutional, non public market,
which was supposedly better. Remember everybody was selling us the
idea that private was better than public. No, we have
public markets because they were open and relatively liquid.
Speaker 3 (16:11):
Chris, you know, after the Jamie Diamond cockroach comment that
there were many members in the private world that came
out or a few, I should say that came on
our air, and that seemed to say, hey, listen, things
are fine, and I understand many would say they're talking
their book, But you know, are.
Speaker 4 (16:29):
They systemic risks?
Speaker 3 (16:30):
Like what's the exposure with the traditional financial sector when
it comes to the private markets, Because I think that's
what we care most about right now.
Speaker 7 (16:38):
I think the private players can fail tomorrow. It will
cause a bit of kurfluffle and volatility in the markets.
But are they systemic like a big bank. No, But
the big banks will take their lumps too, because they
are lending indirectly into these structures. They tend to take
the most senior positions, but that may not save them.
(17:01):
You see the assumption that Okay, I'm senior and three
quarters of the stack is below me, and therefore I'm okay.
That may not work this time around because you have
leverage on leverage on leverage in some of these deals.
Speaker 3 (17:13):
So when so when like the big banks report again,
we're getting ready for another earning.
Speaker 4 (17:17):
Cycle, right, you know, we'll get that, you know, in
early early January.
Speaker 3 (17:21):
So what do we look for for things like that,
like what do you look for The.
Speaker 7 (17:25):
New yors are going to be wonderful. That's what worries me,
you know, just as an analyst. We were supposed to
have a recession last year. Credit losses largely peaked last
year third fourth quarter. Yeah, they've been coming down since then.
So if you look at the picture, you say, God,
everything is great. You don't see a lot of utilization.
You don't see a lot of demand from the banks
(17:47):
for credit. They've got a ton of unused credit out
there that they wish people would use. But so you
don't see stress in the published numbers, where you see
stresses when you talk to professionals, when you read the
really interesting media like Bloomberg and others to cover some
of these stories. There was a great piece in the
Ft over the last week talking about Altus, a company
(18:09):
that Jamie Dimond came to the rescue of paid off
their most restrictive loans so that they go out and
borrow more money. So like and all of the credit
guys that you're talking about looked at Jamie Dimond and
they're going, hello, what are you doing. Yeah, so he's
an enabler of bad behavior. Because Jamie has to go
out and make money too, in a market where there
(18:30):
isn't a lot of you know what I would call
quality demand, Which reminds me of.
Speaker 4 (18:35):
What would happen in the Great Financial Crisis.
Speaker 3 (18:37):
Of people saying, I know it's getting messy and ugly,
but there was it. The CEO of City at the time,
I think who I came out and made some comment
about I got to be in it.
Speaker 4 (18:46):
Like, oh no, that's right, Yeah, that was the I
can't think of the.
Speaker 7 (18:50):
Temporary CEO Whoah, you know replaced John Reid.
Speaker 4 (18:55):
But I'm just saying, like this idea of like feeling
like you have to be in it the pressure of it,
yes and no.
Speaker 7 (19:01):
I think that some institutions have the common sense to
pull back and say no, others don't. I'll give you
an example P and C. P and C has the
lowest loss rate in the top seven banks. They've always
also got one of the lowest funding costs. That's a
fairly well run half trillion dollar bank that has managed
(19:21):
to avoid risk. I think often by saying no, the
street wanted them to get more involved in certain things
like prime brokerage, dealing with private equity funds that sort
of thing, and they said no. So I think there
are institutions that are very well run in this market.
But again, the banks are underutilized because the non bank
financial companies have stolen their march and they are going
(19:42):
to the customer and they're using wholesale funding from the
big banks, and they're in turn disintermediating them.
Speaker 2 (19:49):
At the same time, christ we want to talk a
little bit about AI too in the time that we
have left. We've talked about it with you before circular financing.
We're not sure how it all plays out in the
economy and what it has to do with productivity and
with economic growth. Weighing in on AI in its potential
economic impact. Ken Griffin of Citadel speaking with Bloomberg's Danny
Berger a little earlier today at a conference in Paris.
(20:11):
Check out what he said.
Speaker 9 (20:12):
I think there is some chance that we will see
meaningful progress in this field that will change the calculation
that i'm or calculus that I'm setting forth, Like there
are so many bright people in their twenties and thirties
trying to unlock trying to unlock true intelligence, that this
does create the environment in which a breakthrough may happen.
(20:36):
But I think that generit of AI as we know
today will have a very pointed, but relatively limited impact
on the broader economy.
Speaker 2 (20:45):
Appointed but relatively limited impact on the broader economy. Ken
Griffin of Citadel earlier today, What in your view is
the impact of AI on this economy?
Speaker 7 (20:54):
I think it's incremental better search tools. You know, we're writers,
So is he right?
Speaker 4 (20:59):
I think he?
Speaker 7 (21:00):
And frankly I read a lot of the long haired
stuff on AI. So of the people in the scientific community,
and they tell you the same thing. Because this is
a third or four fifth time that we have talked
about AI. You go back to the seventies and the eighties.
Remember Watson IBM, which was a fiasco, but it was
their way of showing what new technology could do. But
(21:23):
is it creating general intelligence?
Speaker 5 (21:25):
Now?
Speaker 7 (21:26):
So it was all this waste?
Speaker 2 (21:27):
Is all this waste?
Speaker 7 (21:28):
No, it's marketing, you know, never Yeah, but.
Speaker 4 (21:30):
That's a lot of market to spend.
Speaker 7 (21:32):
Yeah, but that's Look, everything in the US economy is
about marketing, Okay, it doesn't matter what it is. And
if it's attached to a stock, then you know it's marketing.
In video, I've made a ton of money on in video.
I'm very grateful to mister Wang, but is he going
to have changed the world. No, what we're doing is
building a lot of infrastructure. We're spending a ton of money,
not so much on building AI, but preparing to have
(21:55):
the capacity to do it, mostly by studying the past.
To me, that's not AI. AI is when a machine
can start to observe what's around it and react and
determine what to do next based on what it sees,
not because of you know, it's studied our language for
the last fifty years, so you're.
Speaker 3 (22:15):
Understood, Like the whole idea of AI is all the
data that's put in from the past.
Speaker 4 (22:18):
You think that, Okay, that's your take, Well we have
Are you still in on video?
Speaker 7 (22:25):
No? I got out, I got out. I wrote it up.
It's split. I wrote it up again. It's split. But
it gets to be a third of my portfolio. I've
got to take the money and run, you know. With
all due respect to Jim Kramer, who I'm very grateful
to for getting me into the stock, but.
Speaker 2 (22:39):
It sounds like you're saying that this that we're in
a bubble with, at least with the spat of course
we are.
Speaker 7 (22:44):
That's what humans do. That's what marks what happens when
they follow the shiny object. What happens when the bubble pops.
We're going to see that a lot of the spend
for AI will not be compensated with revenue growth that's
going to help to pay it off. An oracle I think, unfortunately,
a great company is the poster child for this. They
were following the crowd. They decided to double down and
(23:07):
do even more. And the truth of the matter is
one large language model. If all of the tech companies
had gotten together and said, look, let's do this together, right, right.
But the other problem I think is the metaphors that
we use in this conversation is race with China. The
Chinese don't use metaphors like that. When you listen to
them talk about AI. It's part of a broader range
(23:29):
of initiatives that they're trying to use to give them
an advantage in the global economy. They don't see it
as a race. This is all marketing hype, and we
have to differentiate between the technology and the sell. Okay,
it's like we used to say about a IBM. Never
mistake sales with delivery.
Speaker 4 (23:46):
No all right, we gotta leave it there. Thank you, Billy,
appreciate it my pleasure.
Speaker 3 (23:51):
Chris Well and Chairman of Whale and Global Advisors, joining
us here in studio.
Speaker 2 (23:55):
Stay with us. More from Bloomberg Business Week Daily coming
up after this.
Speaker 1 (24:03):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Business Week Daily Podcast. Catch
us live weekday afternoons from two to five Easter and
listen on Applecarplay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app,
or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 3 (24:17):
Hey, we talked about the market, the US jobs market
earlier with Michael McKee. It's sluggish, not rapidly deteriorating. And
we did see that data that came out saw traders
refraining from boosting bets on your term fed rate cuts,
setting stock slower and bonds wavering.
Speaker 4 (24:34):
So we're not you know, it's not like.
Speaker 3 (24:35):
All of a sudden traders are saying, Okay, we're going
to get more rate cuts because of that labor data
we got this morning.
Speaker 2 (24:40):
Yeah, a reduction is fully priced ined by mid next year,
you should not. But we're not seeing those bets go.
Speaker 4 (24:45):
Up, no, exactly.
Speaker 3 (24:47):
I'm curious to see what our next guest has to say,
specifically about the US labor market. Let's head to the
Bloomberg News Bureau in DC to someone well known to
our Bloomberg audience. She was formerly chief economist over at
ZIP Recruiter. She's Uliah Pollock and she's chief economists for
the US Department of Labor. Julia, Good to have you
back here on Bloomberg. How worried are you about rising unemployment?
Speaker 8 (25:10):
I'm not so This report over states understates the strength
of the labor market right now because there are two
huge temporary distortions at play in the data here. The
first is one hundred thousand or more federal workers who
took the fork and came off payrolls and some of
them have gone into temporary frictional unemployment. And the second
(25:31):
big distortion in this report is the Schumer shutdown, which
forced nine hundred thousand federal workers off the job. But
it also led to weakness in the private sector because
it forced work stoppages for federal contractors and led to
temporary layoffs there. So I expect the unemployment rate to
jump back down very soon.
Speaker 2 (25:49):
What about the youth unemployment right the rising and rising
youth unemployment. Are you concerned about that?
Speaker 8 (25:57):
So you know the unemployment rate is exactly where it
was when President Trump first took office in his first term,
and he has a track record of bringing it all
the way down to three point five percent. We have
a bigger challenge this time because of the Biden inflation hangover,
which forced the Fed to slam the brakes on the economy,
(26:17):
and that has hurt marginal workers the most. But we
are setting the stage for a huge comeback in twenty
twenty six and beyond with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act,
which has hugely stimulative policies, and you'll see those macro
stimulative effects build into twenty twenty six. They are things
(26:37):
like like expensing fast and accelerated, full and accelerating expensing
for business investments, no tax on tips, no tax on overtime,
no tax on social security.
Speaker 3 (26:50):
So, Julie, if I may just jump in, just because
we only have about five minutes left here. So it
sounds to you like that there's and we've heard this
certainly from guests here on Bloomberg, more liquidity coming into
the market, things to support economic growth. It sounds like
you said that the labor picture is actually better than
what the data showed, So it sounds to me then
that the FED is correct, Jay Powell is correct and
(27:12):
being are you know, actually forgive me what your sounding
like you're saying is that maybe the FED doesn't need
then ultimately to be cutting rates. That things actually look
pretty rosy for twenty twenty six.
Speaker 8 (27:28):
So I think the reason that UH employment growth, the
job growth slowed so dramatically between mid twenty twenty two
and mid twenty twenty four is that rates were high.
And the longer rates stay restrictive, the more of the
economy gets hurt, the more businesses have to refinance, the
double the rate, the more families go out there and
(27:49):
try to buy a home and find that it's just unaffordable.
So rates right now are still restrictive, and they are
still a problem for much of the economy.
Speaker 4 (27:58):
But you said were you said you weren't concerned about
rising unemployment. So I'm a little confused.
Speaker 8 (28:04):
Well, the FED has a duel mandate full employment on
the one hand, and price stability, and this president has
shown that his policies delivered both. In the first Trump administration,
we had non inflationary growth, and you can do that
with policies that don't throw fuel on the fire of
(28:26):
demand and restrict supply, but do the exact opposite. So
through deregulation, through reshoring incentives, we're going to see this
labor market take off again and in a non inflationary way.
Speaker 2 (28:42):
Well, on the resharing part of this motivation for resharing
on sharing, imposing tariffs to bring back the Midwest, to
revitalize what many consider the American dream. Secretary Bessett has
said it's been harmed by global trade. The manufacturing industry,
though it keeps shedding workers, when can we expect the
data to reflect progress that the administration is trying to
(29:03):
make in restoring that American dream.
Speaker 8 (29:06):
So the economy shed manufacturing jobs for about two years
before President Trump took office. Again, this latest report shows
the largest increase in construction jobs in over a year.
And that's really the front end of those investments in
mining and energy and manufacturing, and there is signal that
manufacturing job growth will pick up.
Speaker 3 (29:30):
So, okay, you know, you look at the labor market,
I mean in terms of initiatives that will potentially help the.
Speaker 4 (29:40):
US labor market.
Speaker 3 (29:41):
You know, the conversation around artificial intelligence at your j
Powell even addressed it in saying it hasn't impacted US
jobs yet, So I'm just curious how are you factoring
that into as you look at some of the upcoming
moves the President ramping up in terms of hiring people
to really focused on technology AI specifically in the administration,
(30:04):
so looking to make more investments so that the US
certainly has a dominant role. I'm just curious how then
you factor that into your estimates for the impact on
the US labor market.
Speaker 8 (30:15):
Well, the AI boom is driving huge demand for workers
in the skills trades, in advanced manufacturing, and of course
workers with AI skills, and it is our job at
the Labor Department to ensure that US workers are prepared
for those jobs of the future. For the first time,
labor policy and education policy of pulling in the same direction.
(30:35):
We've aligned labor and education for the first time ever,
and we are now focusing very heavily on getting workers
access to job connected training that sets them up for
in demand jobs and that doesn't push them to expensive
degrees that leave them with nowhere to go.
Speaker 2 (30:56):
Let's talk personnel a little bit. We're curious about why
it's taken so long to make another nomination as BLS commissioner.
Is your name in the ring? Is your hat in
the ring?
Speaker 8 (31:06):
I have no idea. You'd have to ask the President.
Speaker 2 (31:08):
That would you if you were asked, would you serve
as that?
Speaker 7 (31:13):
Well?
Speaker 8 (31:14):
I think there is a tremendous amount of work to
do there tracking AI's labor impact, improving the timeliness, the granularity,
the accuracy of the data, and I have at the
Labor Department made it my priority to push forward a
very aggressive labor market data modernization agenda that puts workers
(31:38):
and learners first and gives them more access to the
data collected on them. So right now, I love partnering
with the BLS on all of those kinds of initiatives,
and I am happy to serve in whatever role the
President sees fit.
Speaker 2 (31:51):
If we're thinking just thirty seconds, but if we're thinking
about previous commissioners, how will this nominee or this next
commissioner be different just twenty seconds?
Speaker 8 (32:03):
Thanks, I have no idea, but I think that whoever
comes in has a very clear mandate from the President
to put workers, learners at the center of what we do,
to change the data paradigm to a real time data paradigm,
and to make sure that the data is accurate and
(32:25):
has the utmost integrity.
Speaker 3 (32:26):
All right, Julia, thank you so much. Julia Apollo chiep
economists for the US Department of Labor.
Speaker 2 (32:30):
Stay with us. More from Bloomberg Business Week Daily coming
up after this.
Speaker 1 (32:36):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Business Week Daily podcast. Catch
us live weekday afternoons from two to five Easter and
listen on Applecarplay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app,
or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 10 (32:50):
I've been driving on that man's went on.
Speaker 4 (32:52):
Well, let's take a drive. Drive, yeah, drive, Can you.
Speaker 5 (32:58):
Just focus on driving, focus on the roasting your.
Speaker 4 (33:02):
Car, drive, boss, because I'm asking to you, you just
taking place in the draft.
Speaker 7 (33:08):
Just drive, baby.
Speaker 4 (33:10):
Let's see this is the drive to the clothes.
Speaker 1 (33:13):
But we're going we don't need road.
Speaker 3 (33:15):
On Bloomberg Radio, all right, everybody, We are just about
eighteen minutes away from the closing bell on Wall Street.
Carol Master Timstanevik live across Bloomberg platforms here at Bloomberg headquarters,
and we're seeing some buying as we get closer to
the closing bell here and I'm just looking at what
you've got an S and P five hundred though that's
still a little bit lower down about five points here,
(33:38):
but definitely off its worst levels of the session. Now's
that one hundred, now one hundred and seven points to
the upside, tim and that's good for a game of
about four tenths of a percent.
Speaker 2 (33:45):
All right, Let's bring in Larry Patowski's co founder and
managing partner and portfolio manager of good Haven Capital Management.
He joins us here in the Bloomberg Interactive Brokers studio
in person, in the flesh.
Speaker 10 (33:55):
In person. It is nice to be here in this
studio with you both.
Speaker 2 (33:58):
Great, it's been many years.
Speaker 10 (34:00):
Last time, it's been a long time. Then we do
this remotely. It seems like the two of you are
having a lot more fun in the studio than I
am in my office in New Jersey. Plus you have
the unlimited snacks you know in the lobby, so I figured,
what the heck comes?
Speaker 2 (34:11):
Well, You're welcome anytime, and thanks for braving the cold
for coming in. Hey, we want to talk about Berkshire Hathaway.
We want to talk about Lenar, but I want to
talk about the macro economy and sort of what the
outlook looks like for twenty twenty six, and the market
environment looks like for twenty twenty six. How are you
thinking about the new year and asset allocation?
Speaker 10 (34:28):
I am thinking that the market, there's plenty of pockets
in the market that are expensive. The market overall is
certainly not cheap. The economy seems okay. And I have
the luxury, which I have it a little easier than
you folks. You have to, you know, every day, every minute,
have a somewhat of a thoughtful conclusion on everything. I
(34:49):
have the luxury.
Speaker 4 (34:50):
You are so wrong about that.
Speaker 10 (34:52):
I get that's luxury saying I don't know, and nobody's
yelling at me if I say I don't know. So
I look at the landscape and say, it is what
it is. But we've been fortunate. It good even to
be able to, you know, keep turning over rocks and
finding things that are undervalued. And I think the portfolio
itself is attractive.
Speaker 3 (35:10):
Is it still hard to be your value MidCap player?
Is it still hard to be a value player. I'm
looking at the fun up about eight percent year to date.
Three year, we're looking at average annual returns of almost
twenty percent, which puts you in the ninety seventh percentile
five year about sixteen percent on average anually according to
Bloomberg data, ninety eight percentile. So longer term some really
(35:32):
outperformance there.
Speaker 4 (35:34):
But is it harder right now?
Speaker 10 (35:35):
To still it's always hard. I mean it's always hard,
and you if you want to outperform over the long term,
you can't outperform over every period. But it's always hard.
But you should enjoy continuing to look under rocks and
you should expect. As I've written to people for a
long time, you know, there's periods of you know, the
three and five year which you call at which we appreciate,
or you know, numbers we're proud of, and you know,
(35:57):
we think the portfolio is set up very nicely on
an go forward basis. But it's always hard. But it's
always also interesting and it's never boring.
Speaker 2 (36:05):
Okay, So let's talk about some of these individual stocks.
I want to start with Leonar and the opportunity that
you see with Lennard. It's one of the biggest holdings
in the fund.
Speaker 10 (36:14):
Why are you bullish coming out of the Great Financial Crisis?
It appears that we have still been undersupplied in single
family homes. You can believe whichever statistic you want, is
there a two million undisplayed three four five? And so
isn't that.
Speaker 3 (36:31):
Amazing how we went from oversupply and empty homes to undersupply?
Oh you know White, You know, you don't.
Speaker 10 (36:39):
Usually go to other extremes and sometimes they stay there
and everybody remembers how bad that period was. But the
other interesting thing, you know, there's so many fast changing
parts of the economy out there, and in good Haven
we often say it ourselves, wait, what's not changing? What
industry might not be changing that fast that I could
have a strong view of what it might look like
(36:59):
in three, five, seven, ten years. Single family housing. Lenore
is the second biggest builder after Wharton.
Speaker 2 (37:07):
It is a lower price point than some of the
competitors two.
Speaker 10 (37:09):
Hundred thousand dollars price but you know, so are you
know Horton Poulte, you know, or a lot of them
are in the ranged hole is a million bucks. But
the industry and Lenora, you know, I think is leading
the way is becoming what we would call a better business,
higher returns on capital, higher returns on equity. They have
taken what was a historic balance sheet that had a
lot of land and they've spun that out, so and
(37:32):
they're now repurchasing shares in a material way. And I
think your timing is very good to have me on
to discuss this because they report earnings after the close today.
The near term we expect to be somewhat tepid. That's
an opportunity potentially, So you have a business that now
has the ability to earn high returns on capital, repurchase shares,
(37:54):
the price earnings multiple. Maybe they earn around eight books
for a little while, but the opportunity is that if
they embark and continue to succeed in the strategy they've
embarked on, you could imagine earnings at twenty bucks or
so a couple of years down the road as margins
return to twenty twenty four levels, units are up five
six percent, you know, a year on average, and the
(38:15):
share kind of comes down.
Speaker 3 (38:17):
Why are they in a position to show and get
better return on capital?
Speaker 4 (38:22):
Higher return on capital because it's spinatically.
Speaker 10 (38:24):
Because they've taken a balance sheet which had a lot
of land, and they've spun that out into a company
called Milrow, and now they've got a leaner balance sheet, okay,
which gives them the ability to have higher returns on capital.
They're not tying up so much capital in land okay,
And they also will generate free cash flow throughout the cycle.
The industry was a little boom and bust historically when
they you know, they didn't really generate cash except when
(38:47):
they shrunk. And so here is and this is a
very well articulated, well throwed out plan. Again, the near
term should be a bit tepid, but so what, I
think you're creating a better business model for the long term.
Speaker 4 (39:01):
And so Larry.
Speaker 3 (39:02):
It has more to do with their strategy versus a
lower rate environment or people finally getting off the fence
and buying homes.
Speaker 4 (39:08):
It's a little bit of every strategy.
Speaker 10 (39:10):
But I think the bigger players in the industry are
in different ways embracing becoming better businesses. And the other
interesting thing is that if I gave you one hundred
million bucks and I said go compete with Lenar, with Horton,
with Poulte, with MVR, with Toll, I think it would
(39:31):
be very hard to do. So I think these companies
the new home market has taken share from the existing
home market because they have levers to pull. They have
leverage and buying supplies and operating and marketing.
Speaker 4 (39:43):
It's hard to be new.
Speaker 10 (39:44):
It's hard. It's hard to not admire where they're going.
Speaker 2 (39:47):
Before we let you go, we got to get you
awayh on On, Berkshire, Hathaways. It's your top holding in
the fund. Greg Abel takes the reins next year. You're okay,
you're keeping all your shares.
Speaker 10 (39:56):
We are for sure keeping all our shares. We made
Berkshire a very big holding in the covid Or. Our
return since then have been strong. This is a management
team and a board with decades and decades of success.
I think it is appropriate to assume that mister Buffett
and the late mister Munger, after sixty years of great decisions,
(40:17):
have made a thoughtful decision on succession, and you have
to admire how well it's been laid out and articulated
in the selfless way. Mister Buffett is stepping aside and
letting mister Abel write the letter, be on the podium
at the meeting, letting him really, you know, write candy
right if you will, let them, let him run the show.
So we are. We admire how it's been done, and
(40:39):
we think it's the kind of thing where you should
give them the medefit of the doubt that it is
a sensible and well thought out plan which we do well.
Speaker 1 (40:45):
Fun.
Speaker 4 (40:45):
Have you in studio? Yeah, come again sooner I will.
Speaker 2 (40:50):
We would love it and help yourself to any snacks.
Speaker 10 (40:52):
I'm going to load up my backpack.
Speaker 6 (40:54):
Old school. You're not the only one to do that.
Speaker 10 (40:56):
Old school.
Speaker 4 (40:57):
I love God, I love the popcorn.
Speaker 3 (40:59):
Larry pitcass Sky, co founder, managing partner, portfolio manager, Goodhaven Capital.
Speaker 4 (41:02):
Manage it right here in studio.
Speaker 1 (41:04):
This is the Bloomberg Businessweekdaily 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
(41:25):
and always on the Bloomberg terminal.
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio news. 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
(00:23):
news as it happens. The Bloomberg Business Week Daily Podcast
with Carol Masser and Tim Stenebek on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
We mentioned some breaking news has been listening just in
the last few minutes regarding the media deal that we
just can't stop talking about.
Speaker 3 (00:40):
Yeah, and that just can't seem to get done because
it goes back and forth. One of brothers Discovery planning
to reject Paramount Skuidances hostile takeover bid due to concerns
about financing and other terms. Let's see what our Felix
Jellette has to say about this. He covers the media
space for us so closely here at Bloomberg. So I
do feel like that back and forth, back and forth
the time to really kind of read the tea leaves.
Speaker 4 (01:01):
What do you make about this latest reporting.
Speaker 5 (01:04):
I mean, I think it's not entirely surprising, right, Paramount
lost the initial round of bids and to Netflix and
then came out with the public hostal offer.
Speaker 6 (01:15):
But it was the same offer that the.
Speaker 5 (01:16):
Board had already rejected, essentially, so we're all essentially waiting
for them to review it again, you know, and then
essentially say, oh, you know what we actually did, like
the Netflix a bid more, and that'll toss the ball
back into Paramount's court, and I think they're going to
have to come back with a better offer, more money,
something way of addressing the concerns about financing that Warner
(01:39):
Brothers board has had all long.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
Does Paramounts Guidance have that money? I mean Larry Ellison's
worth two hundred and forty billion dollars, Yeah, two hundred
and nineteen billion dollars of that is tied up in
Oracle stock.
Speaker 7 (01:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (01:53):
Well, I think there's questions that have not been addressed,
even though the Ellisons have said one way or another, oh,
we actually did address all these concerns about the financing.
You know, initially there was money from ten Cents which
caused some concern that was taken out or whatever. So
there were there have been adjustments made, but you know,
I think at this point it's officially going to go
(02:14):
back to them again and they'll probably have to come
up with something more, whether it's more money or whatever,
addressing those concerns that remain.
Speaker 3 (02:23):
You know, I lost track in terms of feel like
the Paramount Skydance deal because it was Jared Kushner's investment
firm and there was I think some Saudi investors and like,
do you help me understand because it feels like I
thought that was a lot of the financial offer.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Like it was diversified at I felt like the rather
of money to come in, well they were ponying up.
Speaker 3 (02:45):
It felt like a lot of money. But I'm not
quite so sure because if Larry Ellison is still so
important to this offer, yeah, like is it a much
smaller portion it was.
Speaker 6 (02:55):
I mean, they've made adjustments.
Speaker 5 (02:56):
So it's like, I think what probably what the Warner
Brothers Discovery board is saying, they want more assurance that
it's from Larry Ellison, that that money feels, you know,
better from a regulatory perspective if you can get the
money from Ellison, the Ellison family versus these other sources
that have been part of financing deal from the beginning,
such as the Middle East you know Middle East money,
(03:19):
you know money that from Tencent, Like I said that
was taken out Jared Kushner, which again might help with
the White House, but might raise other concerns.
Speaker 2 (03:26):
Yeah, I'm glad you brought that up, because Carol brought
up just a few weeks ago what happened when Rupert
Murdoch wanted to buy Fox and what a challenge it
was for him to do that because of foreign ownership
of a broadcast network and the hoops that he had
to jump through in order to do that. Okay, so
we I still have a lot of questions and unanswerable
at this point about what this deal looks like. Let's
(03:46):
just say, for the sake of simplicity, Netflix wins out. Yeah,
Netflix actually gets these assets. Netflix gets HBO. You wrote
the book on HBO. This is a wild world that
we're living in. If Netflix actually gets this, what does
it mean for consumers? I mean, is this is this
good for us?
Speaker 6 (04:02):
Well?
Speaker 5 (04:02):
Netflix would say, oh, it's going to be great because ultimately,
with lower prices, you know, we'll have you know, we'll
be able to be more flexible in terms of bundling.
Speaker 6 (04:10):
Just consolidation, usually lower prices. That's very nice.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
I'm just asking I'm just asking a rhetorical question.
Speaker 5 (04:16):
I think you've seen a lot of voices in Hollywood
raising concern immediately about Netflix taking winning this deal because
it's going to be so much consolidation of power.
Speaker 6 (04:25):
Now Netflix has said.
Speaker 5 (04:26):
Well, you know, really you have to look at the
broader universe of people's attention. And now people are on
TikTok and they're on YouTube and all these other things.
But really, in this subscription video on demand world, Netflix
is already the market leader. If you add in all
of these assets from HBO Max, they're going to be
you know, more than four hundred million uh subscribers around
(04:48):
the world. They're going to absolutely, so utterly dominate the
subscription video business that I think people are going to
be like, yeah, who are There's going to be no
one else to sell to, and that's going to be
for the business overall. Ultimately, it'll cost consumers more money
down the lone.
Speaker 3 (05:04):
Yeah, that feels about right. Hey, why is this so
difficult to get this done? Why is this one so difficult?
Speaker 5 (05:11):
Well, I mean people trying to you know, make these
assets you know, more valuable from Warner Brothers Discovery for
twenty years. I mean, you're going back to AOL time Warner,
which again was around what the two thousands, so, you know,
and then AT and T made a run at trying
to make these assets work for them.
Speaker 6 (05:30):
Then you had Discovery come in.
Speaker 5 (05:31):
It's a you know, a challenge that has enticed so
many different people and yet has always proven more difficult
in reality than on paper for you know, decades.
Speaker 3 (05:42):
Now, what's the risk that somebody overpays ultimately, Like, I
feel like there's there's been so much in terms of
media assets, and we know the media landscape, you know
better than most how it continues to change and evolved.
Speaker 4 (05:54):
So I'm just curious.
Speaker 5 (05:55):
Well, I think the idea is like, you know, you
have the biggest library, you have the most selection for
your viewers. It's going to drive subscribers. People are going
to engage with it. You're going to you know, have
more subscribers coming in. But the problem is always how
do you arrange those assets? How do you arrange those
shows and movies on a small app in a way
that's enticing and available. I mean, I think the problem
(06:17):
that Discovery has had with Warner Brothers Discovery is that
you know, piling and all these reality shows into these
into HBO, Max didn't actually increase engagement at all. In fact,
it just kind of like a lot of those shows
and programs just get lost in the mix and no one,
no one watches them. So that's the problem is you
end up paying for a bunch of things that don't
(06:38):
actually drive engagement.
Speaker 3 (06:39):
Well, here's this Jared Kushner's affinity withdrawing from the Warner
Brothers Takeover Battle.
Speaker 6 (06:43):
Yeah, okay, I mean again, that would make sense.
Speaker 5 (06:46):
It would lower some of the concerns from state attorney generals,
anyone that like is worried about what paramount and Nellison's
would do with things like CNN.
Speaker 2 (06:57):
If so, that makes Paramounts Guidances offer more attractive to
Warner Brothers Discovery.
Speaker 5 (07:03):
I think it makes it simpler, and that's a little
bit more attractive in terms of again, if you're willing
to just if Larry Ellison will just put up the
money and backs up this whole thing, that that's the
easiest way.
Speaker 4 (07:16):
For any historical share price.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
So much of his wealth is tied up or he
only has twenty billion rights only, but he is basically
eighteen according to the Bloomberg Billionaire indecks, basically eighteen billion
dollars worth of net worth that is not tied up.
Speaker 3 (07:28):
Wait to go back to this headline that just crossed
Jared Kushner's affinity withdrawing from the Warner Brothers takeover battle.
Speaker 4 (07:34):
That you say makes.
Speaker 3 (07:35):
The paramount's guidance potentially more attractive.
Speaker 5 (07:39):
From the Warner Brothers Discovery Boards perspective potentially also, Yeah,
although at the same time, you know, it's a two
edged sword because then it's also you know, will that
make it harder for the regulatory approval down the line
in terms of getting approval from you know, the Department
of Justice and Trump's White House. You know, will they
(08:01):
without the sun and law involved, does that make it harder?
I mean, I think there's a lot of questions on
both sides of this, and it's going to continue to
play out in the week's ahead.
Speaker 2 (08:11):
Okay, So one question that we have is about the
global linear networks, because Netflix's deal does not include CNN, TNT,
Cartoon Network. I mean, the list certainly goes on when
it comes to these assets that not that many people
really want right now. What's the fate of those If
Netflix wins this bid.
Speaker 5 (08:30):
Well, it'll be spun off into a separate company before
the bid, before the acquisition takes place.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
Like a publicly traded company, a separate.
Speaker 5 (08:38):
Publicly traded company discovered, probably called Discovery Global.
Speaker 6 (08:42):
That's the plant at this point.
Speaker 5 (08:45):
And yeah, those assets are still throwing off profits, but
the viewership is the client across the board. There's a
lot of other cable networks out there right Comcast is
in the process of just spinning off a bunch of
bits additional cable assets. So you know, at some point,
does somebody come along and roll all of those assets
(09:05):
into one company. There's probably some you know, synergies if
you combine them in one place. But yeah, it's managing
the declining asset over time.
Speaker 3 (09:13):
I just want to mention because a Bloomberg story just crossing.
So Jared Kushner's Afinity partners exiting from the takeover battle
for Warner Brothers Discovery. A representative for the firm said,
Affinity there they say they now believe the dynamics of
an investment have changed since it became involved in the process.
Speaker 4 (09:31):
In October.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
Here's a quote with two strong competitors vying to secure
the future this unique American asset, Affinity has decided no
longer to pursue the opportunity. We continue to believe there
is a strong strategic rationale for Paramount's offer.
Speaker 5 (09:49):
Right, Well, I mean that's the thing is. I think
when you put Jared Kushner in the mix. On the
one head again, you think, oh, maybe they'll improve their
ability to get it through regular Tory concerns faster under
Trump's administration. On the other hand, it raises all these
other political objections from progressive states, including California and New York,
(10:11):
where a lot of entertainment assets are located. So yeah,
there's there's definitely problems of bolt.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
Well, even without Affinity Partners, Paramount's offer is being bankrolled
by a list of influential Middle Eastern investors, Saudi Arabia's
public Investment Fund, Qatar Investment Authority, as well as a
little known group from Abu Dhabi called Limad Holding Company.
Kushner had does have strong ties to at least he
founded Affinity in twenty twenty one with funding from sovereign
wealth funds from the region. Carol, as you say, it's complicated.
Speaker 3 (10:38):
It's complicated this one is, which means it will be
coming because it ain't over yet either, not Felix Jillette.
Speaker 4 (10:44):
Thank you so much, So appreciated.
Speaker 3 (10:47):
Felix, of course covering the media space for us, as
we said, wrote the book on HBO.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
Yeah, the book It's Not TV The Spectacular, Rise, Revolution
and Future of HBO. Get that book now if you
haven't read.
Speaker 4 (11:00):
Felix is media and entertainment editor. So thank you so much.
Speaker 2 (11:04):
Stay with us. More from Bloomberg Business Week Daily coming
up after this.
Speaker 1 (11:12):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Business Week Daily Podcast. Catch
us live weekday afternoons from two to five eastering. Listen
on Applecarplay and Android Otto with the Bloomberg Business app,
or watch us.
Speaker 4 (11:24):
Live on YouTube.
Speaker 3 (11:26):
We're going to stay on the macro with a financial
sector emphasis and great to have back with us.
Speaker 4 (11:31):
Chris Whale and chairman of Whale and Global Advisors. He
worked at the New.
Speaker 3 (11:34):
York FED in the eighties. He's testified before Congress and
the SEC. Worked on Wall Street. I forgot that you
worked at bear Stearns.
Speaker 4 (11:41):
And some other.
Speaker 3 (11:45):
Written many books and also served on the Economic Advisory
Committee of FINRA for over a decade.
Speaker 4 (11:51):
And you also ward consultants of billions.
Speaker 5 (11:53):
Was that right?
Speaker 7 (11:54):
Yes? It was great fun they were buying a bank.
Speaker 4 (11:56):
They were buying a bank, and they wanted to know.
Speaker 7 (11:58):
Yeah, they were trying to you know, finagle regulators. It
was a typical billions kind of script.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
Well, out of the entire resume that Carol just mentioned,
was that the most fun working on Billions?
Speaker 7 (12:11):
No, I think the most fun was early days working
at bear Stearns in London, you know, selling bonds. That
was a lot of fun. We had a blast.
Speaker 4 (12:18):
Well tell us about like it's funny.
Speaker 3 (12:20):
You know, I love talking with someone like you because
you have seen just kind of how the financial sector
has changed a lot, Chris right, and the stress points
that we've seen, certainly the financial crisis and elsewhere when
you look at We just talked with Mike about some
of the macro backdrop, and we've talked with you about
specific risks.
Speaker 4 (12:36):
But does it feel comfortable today.
Speaker 3 (12:38):
Kind of the environment in your view compared to what
we've seen in the past.
Speaker 8 (12:42):
No.
Speaker 7 (12:42):
I was going through the third quarter numbers for the
big bank holding companies, which the FED just released. Yeah,
day seventy five after the quarter closed. That's the best
that they can do, and it's eerie. The credit costs
are trending down the asset returns, thank god, or getting
back to normal about one point five percent. But there's
a lot we don't see, and that's what's worrying people.
(13:05):
Whether you talk about oracle, where you talk about private credit,
what people are worried about today is what they don't
see in the data because they know that a lot
of this is being fudged. And that's what worries me
as well. What do you think is being fudged things
like loan losses. There's a lot of forbearance here in
New York City for multi family apartments. Our new mayor
(13:26):
is threatening to start taking over buildings the landlords are
not keeping up to his standards. Well, the city in
New York can't afford to take care of them either,
and so we have this accumulation of pressures, mostly caused
by inflation, mostly caused by our friends at the FED.
But in their defense, why did they do that? Because
we told everybody they didn't have to pay their loans
(13:48):
and their rent for two years during COVID. People forget that.
In the mortgage industry. In March of twenty twenty, we
were all looking at one another going, what are we
going to do. This is after President Trump the player
of the emergency and said you don't have to pay
your bills. Yeah, well, the FED came to to rescue
by dropping raised to zero because of a surge of home
(14:08):
lending activity record volumes, and that float was borrowed to
help everybody pay their bills.
Speaker 3 (14:15):
So why aren't we seeing more stress in the credit
markets and why are we seeing records on Wall Street?
Speaker 4 (14:19):
And like it sounds like then some disconnect.
Speaker 7 (14:22):
I think part of the reason that the Street has
been doing well listed stocks is because you have a
lot of liquidity coming out of private markets. Going back
into more liquid markets makes sense, right. Private equity, private
credit is a mess, and we all know this. Something
like fifteen percent of private equity companies in the US
are paying in cond rather than in cash.
Speaker 3 (14:44):
So you notice waiting for the year to like the
exits and for things to move on.
Speaker 7 (14:49):
There's a lack of demand from banks for loans except
in one category, non depository financial companies, which is another
way of saying private equity funds, credit shops like Areas
and Apollo. They're the ones that have been aggressively expanding
their business using money in part from banks. So the
banks are now the facilitators. And what does this remind
(15:10):
us of Carol the two thousands? Right right, it's the
same thing. You have non bank intermediation, relying on the
bond market, equity markets, and bank credit, and the thing
is eventually they're going to stumble, and that's what everybody's
worried about it.
Speaker 4 (15:24):
So what does that stumble look like?
Speaker 2 (15:25):
What is the shoe that drops?
Speaker 7 (15:27):
It looks like First Brands, Hello, we're defaulting. And most
people had never focused on that company. It was a private,
totally institutional play. The same thing with Tricolor auto lender
that you know half of their customers were illegal aliens.
Nobody had ever focused on this. It was an institutional
story that suddenly surged.
Speaker 2 (15:48):
So you think those two instances are canaries in the
coal mine.
Speaker 7 (15:52):
I think they are typical of what we're going to
see more in the future, which is you're going to
see more of the missteps in the institutional, non public market,
which was supposedly better. Remember everybody was selling us the
idea that private was better than public. No, we have
public markets because they were open and relatively liquid.
Speaker 3 (16:11):
Chris, you know, after the Jamie Diamond cockroach comment that
there were many members in the private world that came
out or a few, I should say that came on
our air, and that seemed to say, hey, listen, things
are fine, and I understand many would say they're talking
their book, But you know, are.
Speaker 4 (16:29):
They systemic risks?
Speaker 3 (16:30):
Like what's the exposure with the traditional financial sector when
it comes to the private markets, Because I think that's
what we care most about right now.
Speaker 7 (16:38):
I think the private players can fail tomorrow. It will
cause a bit of kurfluffle and volatility in the markets.
But are they systemic like a big bank. No, But
the big banks will take their lumps too, because they
are lending indirectly into these structures. They tend to take
the most senior positions, but that may not save them.
(17:01):
You see the assumption that Okay, I'm senior and three
quarters of the stack is below me, and therefore I'm okay.
That may not work this time around because you have
leverage on leverage on leverage in some of these deals.
Speaker 3 (17:13):
So when so when like the big banks report again,
we're getting ready for another earning.
Speaker 4 (17:17):
Cycle, right, you know, we'll get that, you know, in
early early January.
Speaker 3 (17:21):
So what do we look for for things like that,
like what do you look for The.
Speaker 7 (17:25):
New yors are going to be wonderful. That's what worries me,
you know, just as an analyst. We were supposed to
have a recession last year. Credit losses largely peaked last
year third fourth quarter. Yeah, they've been coming down since then.
So if you look at the picture, you say, God,
everything is great. You don't see a lot of utilization.
You don't see a lot of demand from the banks
(17:47):
for credit. They've got a ton of unused credit out
there that they wish people would use. But so you
don't see stress in the published numbers, where you see
stresses when you talk to professionals, when you read the
really interesting media like Bloomberg and others to cover some
of these stories. There was a great piece in the
Ft over the last week talking about Altus, a company
(18:09):
that Jamie Dimond came to the rescue of paid off
their most restrictive loans so that they go out and
borrow more money. So like and all of the credit
guys that you're talking about looked at Jamie Dimond and
they're going, hello, what are you doing. Yeah, so he's
an enabler of bad behavior. Because Jamie has to go
out and make money too, in a market where there
(18:30):
isn't a lot of you know what I would call
quality demand, Which reminds me of.
Speaker 4 (18:35):
What would happen in the Great Financial Crisis.
Speaker 3 (18:37):
Of people saying, I know it's getting messy and ugly,
but there was it. The CEO of City at the time,
I think who I came out and made some comment
about I got to be in it.
Speaker 4 (18:46):
Like, oh no, that's right, Yeah, that was the I
can't think of the.
Speaker 7 (18:50):
Temporary CEO Whoah, you know replaced John Reid.
Speaker 4 (18:55):
But I'm just saying, like this idea of like feeling
like you have to be in it the pressure of it,
yes and no.
Speaker 7 (19:01):
I think that some institutions have the common sense to
pull back and say no, others don't. I'll give you
an example P and C. P and C has the
lowest loss rate in the top seven banks. They've always
also got one of the lowest funding costs. That's a
fairly well run half trillion dollar bank that has managed
(19:21):
to avoid risk. I think often by saying no, the
street wanted them to get more involved in certain things
like prime brokerage, dealing with private equity funds that sort
of thing, and they said no. So I think there
are institutions that are very well run in this market.
But again, the banks are underutilized because the non bank
financial companies have stolen their march and they are going
(19:42):
to the customer and they're using wholesale funding from the
big banks, and they're in turn disintermediating them.
Speaker 2 (19:49):
At the same time, christ we want to talk a
little bit about AI too in the time that we
have left. We've talked about it with you before circular financing.
We're not sure how it all plays out in the
economy and what it has to do with productivity and
with economic growth. Weighing in on AI in its potential
economic impact. Ken Griffin of Citadel speaking with Bloomberg's Danny
Berger a little earlier today at a conference in Paris.
(20:11):
Check out what he said.
Speaker 9 (20:12):
I think there is some chance that we will see
meaningful progress in this field that will change the calculation
that i'm or calculus that I'm setting forth, Like there
are so many bright people in their twenties and thirties
trying to unlock trying to unlock true intelligence, that this
does create the environment in which a breakthrough may happen.
(20:36):
But I think that generit of AI as we know
today will have a very pointed, but relatively limited impact
on the broader economy.
Speaker 2 (20:45):
Appointed but relatively limited impact on the broader economy. Ken
Griffin of Citadel earlier today, What in your view is
the impact of AI on this economy?
Speaker 7 (20:54):
I think it's incremental better search tools. You know, we're writers,
So is he right?
Speaker 4 (20:59):
I think he?
Speaker 7 (21:00):
And frankly I read a lot of the long haired
stuff on AI. So of the people in the scientific community,
and they tell you the same thing. Because this is
a third or four fifth time that we have talked
about AI. You go back to the seventies and the eighties.
Remember Watson IBM, which was a fiasco, but it was
their way of showing what new technology could do. But
(21:23):
is it creating general intelligence?
Speaker 5 (21:25):
Now?
Speaker 7 (21:26):
So it was all this waste?
Speaker 2 (21:27):
Is all this waste?
Speaker 7 (21:28):
No, it's marketing, you know, never Yeah, but.
Speaker 4 (21:30):
That's a lot of market to spend.
Speaker 7 (21:32):
Yeah, but that's Look, everything in the US economy is
about marketing, Okay, it doesn't matter what it is. And
if it's attached to a stock, then you know it's marketing.
In video, I've made a ton of money on in video.
I'm very grateful to mister Wang, but is he going
to have changed the world. No, what we're doing is
building a lot of infrastructure. We're spending a ton of money,
not so much on building AI, but preparing to have
(21:55):
the capacity to do it, mostly by studying the past.
To me, that's not AI. AI is when a machine
can start to observe what's around it and react and
determine what to do next based on what it sees,
not because of you know, it's studied our language for
the last fifty years, so you're.
Speaker 3 (22:15):
Understood, Like the whole idea of AI is all the
data that's put in from the past.
Speaker 4 (22:18):
You think that, Okay, that's your take, Well we have
Are you still in on video?
Speaker 7 (22:25):
No? I got out, I got out. I wrote it up.
It's split. I wrote it up again. It's split. But
it gets to be a third of my portfolio. I've
got to take the money and run, you know. With
all due respect to Jim Kramer, who I'm very grateful
to for getting me into the stock, but.
Speaker 2 (22:39):
It sounds like you're saying that this that we're in
a bubble with, at least with the spat of course
we are.
Speaker 7 (22:44):
That's what humans do. That's what marks what happens when
they follow the shiny object. What happens when the bubble pops.
We're going to see that a lot of the spend
for AI will not be compensated with revenue growth that's
going to help to pay it off. An oracle I think, unfortunately,
a great company is the poster child for this. They
were following the crowd. They decided to double down and
(23:07):
do even more. And the truth of the matter is
one large language model. If all of the tech companies
had gotten together and said, look, let's do this together, right, right.
But the other problem I think is the metaphors that
we use in this conversation is race with China. The
Chinese don't use metaphors like that. When you listen to
them talk about AI. It's part of a broader range
(23:29):
of initiatives that they're trying to use to give them
an advantage in the global economy. They don't see it
as a race. This is all marketing hype, and we
have to differentiate between the technology and the sell. Okay,
it's like we used to say about a IBM. Never
mistake sales with delivery.
Speaker 4 (23:46):
No all right, we gotta leave it there. Thank you, Billy,
appreciate it my pleasure.
Speaker 3 (23:51):
Chris Well and Chairman of Whale and Global Advisors, joining
us here in studio.
Speaker 2 (23:55):
Stay with us. More from Bloomberg Business Week Daily coming
up after this.
Speaker 1 (24:03):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Business Week Daily Podcast. Catch
us live weekday afternoons from two to five Easter and
listen on Applecarplay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app,
or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 3 (24:17):
Hey, we talked about the market, the US jobs market
earlier with Michael McKee. It's sluggish, not rapidly deteriorating. And
we did see that data that came out saw traders
refraining from boosting bets on your term fed rate cuts,
setting stock slower and bonds wavering.
Speaker 4 (24:34):
So we're not you know, it's not like.
Speaker 3 (24:35):
All of a sudden traders are saying, Okay, we're going
to get more rate cuts because of that labor data
we got this morning.
Speaker 2 (24:40):
Yeah, a reduction is fully priced ined by mid next year,
you should not. But we're not seeing those bets go.
Speaker 4 (24:45):
Up, no, exactly.
Speaker 3 (24:47):
I'm curious to see what our next guest has to say,
specifically about the US labor market. Let's head to the
Bloomberg News Bureau in DC to someone well known to
our Bloomberg audience. She was formerly chief economist over at
ZIP Recruiter. She's Uliah Pollock and she's chief economists for
the US Department of Labor. Julia, Good to have you
back here on Bloomberg. How worried are you about rising unemployment?
Speaker 8 (25:10):
I'm not so This report over states understates the strength
of the labor market right now because there are two
huge temporary distortions at play in the data here. The
first is one hundred thousand or more federal workers who
took the fork and came off payrolls and some of
them have gone into temporary frictional unemployment. And the second
(25:31):
big distortion in this report is the Schumer shutdown, which
forced nine hundred thousand federal workers off the job. But
it also led to weakness in the private sector because
it forced work stoppages for federal contractors and led to
temporary layoffs there. So I expect the unemployment rate to
jump back down very soon.
Speaker 2 (25:49):
What about the youth unemployment right the rising and rising
youth unemployment. Are you concerned about that?
Speaker 8 (25:57):
So you know the unemployment rate is exactly where it
was when President Trump first took office in his first term,
and he has a track record of bringing it all
the way down to three point five percent. We have
a bigger challenge this time because of the Biden inflation hangover,
which forced the Fed to slam the brakes on the economy,
(26:17):
and that has hurt marginal workers the most. But we
are setting the stage for a huge comeback in twenty
twenty six and beyond with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act,
which has hugely stimulative policies, and you'll see those macro
stimulative effects build into twenty twenty six. They are things
(26:37):
like like expensing fast and accelerated, full and accelerating expensing
for business investments, no tax on tips, no tax on overtime,
no tax on social security.
Speaker 3 (26:50):
So, Julie, if I may just jump in, just because
we only have about five minutes left here. So it
sounds to you like that there's and we've heard this
certainly from guests here on Bloomberg, more liquidity coming into
the market, things to support economic growth. It sounds like
you said that the labor picture is actually better than
what the data showed, So it sounds to me then
that the FED is correct, Jay Powell is correct and
(27:12):
being are you know, actually forgive me what your sounding
like you're saying is that maybe the FED doesn't need
then ultimately to be cutting rates. That things actually look
pretty rosy for twenty twenty six.
Speaker 8 (27:28):
So I think the reason that UH employment growth, the
job growth slowed so dramatically between mid twenty twenty two
and mid twenty twenty four is that rates were high.
And the longer rates stay restrictive, the more of the
economy gets hurt, the more businesses have to refinance, the
double the rate, the more families go out there and
(27:49):
try to buy a home and find that it's just unaffordable.
So rates right now are still restrictive, and they are
still a problem for much of the economy.
Speaker 4 (27:58):
But you said were you said you weren't concerned about
rising unemployment. So I'm a little confused.
Speaker 8 (28:04):
Well, the FED has a duel mandate full employment on
the one hand, and price stability, and this president has
shown that his policies delivered both. In the first Trump administration,
we had non inflationary growth, and you can do that
with policies that don't throw fuel on the fire of
(28:26):
demand and restrict supply, but do the exact opposite. So
through deregulation, through reshoring incentives, we're going to see this
labor market take off again and in a non inflationary way.
Speaker 2 (28:42):
Well, on the resharing part of this motivation for resharing
on sharing, imposing tariffs to bring back the Midwest, to
revitalize what many consider the American dream. Secretary Bessett has
said it's been harmed by global trade. The manufacturing industry,
though it keeps shedding workers, when can we expect the
data to reflect progress that the administration is trying to
(29:03):
make in restoring that American dream.
Speaker 8 (29:06):
So the economy shed manufacturing jobs for about two years
before President Trump took office. Again, this latest report shows
the largest increase in construction jobs in over a year.
And that's really the front end of those investments in
mining and energy and manufacturing, and there is signal that
manufacturing job growth will pick up.
Speaker 3 (29:30):
So, okay, you know, you look at the labor market,
I mean in terms of initiatives that will potentially help the.
Speaker 4 (29:40):
US labor market.
Speaker 3 (29:41):
You know, the conversation around artificial intelligence at your j
Powell even addressed it in saying it hasn't impacted US
jobs yet, So I'm just curious how are you factoring
that into as you look at some of the upcoming
moves the President ramping up in terms of hiring people
to really focused on technology AI specifically in the administration,
(30:04):
so looking to make more investments so that the US
certainly has a dominant role. I'm just curious how then
you factor that into your estimates for the impact on
the US labor market.
Speaker 8 (30:15):
Well, the AI boom is driving huge demand for workers
in the skills trades, in advanced manufacturing, and of course
workers with AI skills, and it is our job at
the Labor Department to ensure that US workers are prepared
for those jobs of the future. For the first time,
labor policy and education policy of pulling in the same direction.
(30:35):
We've aligned labor and education for the first time ever,
and we are now focusing very heavily on getting workers
access to job connected training that sets them up for
in demand jobs and that doesn't push them to expensive
degrees that leave them with nowhere to go.
Speaker 2 (30:56):
Let's talk personnel a little bit. We're curious about why
it's taken so long to make another nomination as BLS commissioner.
Is your name in the ring? Is your hat in
the ring?
Speaker 8 (31:06):
I have no idea. You'd have to ask the President.
Speaker 2 (31:08):
That would you if you were asked, would you serve
as that?
Speaker 7 (31:13):
Well?
Speaker 8 (31:14):
I think there is a tremendous amount of work to
do there tracking AI's labor impact, improving the timeliness, the granularity,
the accuracy of the data, and I have at the
Labor Department made it my priority to push forward a
very aggressive labor market data modernization agenda that puts workers
(31:38):
and learners first and gives them more access to the
data collected on them. So right now, I love partnering
with the BLS on all of those kinds of initiatives,
and I am happy to serve in whatever role the
President sees fit.
Speaker 2 (31:51):
If we're thinking just thirty seconds, but if we're thinking
about previous commissioners, how will this nominee or this next
commissioner be different just twenty seconds?
Speaker 8 (32:03):
Thanks, I have no idea, but I think that whoever
comes in has a very clear mandate from the President
to put workers, learners at the center of what we do,
to change the data paradigm to a real time data paradigm,
and to make sure that the data is accurate and
(32:25):
has the utmost integrity.
Speaker 3 (32:26):
All right, Julia, thank you so much. Julia Apollo chiep
economists for the US Department of Labor.
Speaker 2 (32:30):
Stay with us. More from Bloomberg Business Week Daily coming
up after this.
Speaker 1 (32:36):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Business Week Daily podcast. Catch
us live weekday afternoons from two to five Easter and
listen on Applecarplay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app,
or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 10 (32:50):
I've been driving on that man's went on.
Speaker 4 (32:52):
Well, let's take a drive. Drive, yeah, drive, Can you.
Speaker 5 (32:58):
Just focus on driving, focus on the roasting your.
Speaker 4 (33:02):
Car, drive, boss, because I'm asking to you, you just
taking place in the draft.
Speaker 7 (33:08):
Just drive, baby.
Speaker 4 (33:10):
Let's see this is the drive to the clothes.
Speaker 1 (33:13):
But we're going we don't need road.
Speaker 3 (33:15):
On Bloomberg Radio, all right, everybody, We are just about
eighteen minutes away from the closing bell on Wall Street.
Carol Master Timstanevik live across Bloomberg platforms here at Bloomberg headquarters,
and we're seeing some buying as we get closer to
the closing bell here and I'm just looking at what
you've got an S and P five hundred though that's
still a little bit lower down about five points here,
(33:38):
but definitely off its worst levels of the session. Now's
that one hundred, now one hundred and seven points to
the upside, tim and that's good for a game of
about four tenths of a percent.
Speaker 2 (33:45):
All right, Let's bring in Larry Patowski's co founder and
managing partner and portfolio manager of good Haven Capital Management.
He joins us here in the Bloomberg Interactive Brokers studio
in person, in the flesh.
Speaker 10 (33:55):
In person. It is nice to be here in this
studio with you both.
Speaker 2 (33:58):
Great, it's been many years.
Speaker 10 (34:00):
Last time, it's been a long time. Then we do
this remotely. It seems like the two of you are
having a lot more fun in the studio than I
am in my office in New Jersey. Plus you have
the unlimited snacks you know in the lobby, so I figured,
what the heck comes?
Speaker 2 (34:11):
Well, You're welcome anytime, and thanks for braving the cold
for coming in. Hey, we want to talk about Berkshire Hathaway.
We want to talk about Lenar, but I want to
talk about the macro economy and sort of what the
outlook looks like for twenty twenty six, and the market
environment looks like for twenty twenty six. How are you
thinking about the new year and asset allocation?
Speaker 10 (34:28):
I am thinking that the market, there's plenty of pockets
in the market that are expensive. The market overall is
certainly not cheap. The economy seems okay. And I have
the luxury, which I have it a little easier than
you folks. You have to, you know, every day, every minute,
have a somewhat of a thoughtful conclusion on everything. I
(34:49):
have the luxury.
Speaker 4 (34:50):
You are so wrong about that.
Speaker 10 (34:52):
I get that's luxury saying I don't know, and nobody's
yelling at me if I say I don't know. So
I look at the landscape and say, it is what
it is. But we've been fortunate. It good even to
be able to, you know, keep turning over rocks and
finding things that are undervalued. And I think the portfolio
itself is attractive.
Speaker 3 (35:10):
Is it still hard to be your value MidCap player?
Is it still hard to be a value player. I'm
looking at the fun up about eight percent year to date.
Three year, we're looking at average annual returns of almost
twenty percent, which puts you in the ninety seventh percentile
five year about sixteen percent on average anually according to
Bloomberg data, ninety eight percentile. So longer term some really
(35:32):
outperformance there.
Speaker 4 (35:34):
But is it harder right now?
Speaker 10 (35:35):
To still it's always hard. I mean it's always hard,
and you if you want to outperform over the long term,
you can't outperform over every period. But it's always hard.
But you should enjoy continuing to look under rocks and
you should expect. As I've written to people for a
long time, you know, there's periods of you know, the
three and five year which you call at which we appreciate,
or you know, numbers we're proud of, and you know,
(35:57):
we think the portfolio is set up very nicely on
an go forward basis. But it's always hard. But it's
always also interesting and it's never boring.
Speaker 2 (36:05):
Okay, So let's talk about some of these individual stocks.
I want to start with Leonar and the opportunity that
you see with Lennard. It's one of the biggest holdings
in the fund.
Speaker 10 (36:14):
Why are you bullish coming out of the Great Financial Crisis?
It appears that we have still been undersupplied in single
family homes. You can believe whichever statistic you want, is
there a two million undisplayed three four five? And so
isn't that.
Speaker 3 (36:31):
Amazing how we went from oversupply and empty homes to undersupply?
Oh you know White, You know, you don't.
Speaker 10 (36:39):
Usually go to other extremes and sometimes they stay there
and everybody remembers how bad that period was. But the
other interesting thing, you know, there's so many fast changing
parts of the economy out there, and in good Haven
we often say it ourselves, wait, what's not changing? What
industry might not be changing that fast that I could
have a strong view of what it might look like
(36:59):
in three, five, seven, ten years. Single family housing. Lenore
is the second biggest builder after Wharton.
Speaker 2 (37:07):
It is a lower price point than some of the
competitors two.
Speaker 10 (37:09):
Hundred thousand dollars price but you know, so are you
know Horton Poulte, you know, or a lot of them
are in the ranged hole is a million bucks. But
the industry and Lenora, you know, I think is leading
the way is becoming what we would call a better business,
higher returns on capital, higher returns on equity. They have
taken what was a historic balance sheet that had a
lot of land and they've spun that out, so and
(37:32):
they're now repurchasing shares in a material way. And I
think your timing is very good to have me on
to discuss this because they report earnings after the close today.
The near term we expect to be somewhat tepid. That's
an opportunity potentially, So you have a business that now
has the ability to earn high returns on capital, repurchase shares,
(37:54):
the price earnings multiple. Maybe they earn around eight books
for a little while, but the opportunity is that if
they embark and continue to succeed in the strategy they've
embarked on, you could imagine earnings at twenty bucks or
so a couple of years down the road as margins
return to twenty twenty four levels, units are up five
six percent, you know, a year on average, and the
(38:15):
share kind of comes down.
Speaker 3 (38:17):
Why are they in a position to show and get
better return on capital?
Speaker 4 (38:22):
Higher return on capital because it's spinatically.
Speaker 10 (38:24):
Because they've taken a balance sheet which had a lot
of land, and they've spun that out into a company
called Milrow, and now they've got a leaner balance sheet, okay,
which gives them the ability to have higher returns on capital.
They're not tying up so much capital in land okay,
And they also will generate free cash flow throughout the cycle.
The industry was a little boom and bust historically when
they you know, they didn't really generate cash except when
(38:47):
they shrunk. And so here is and this is a
very well articulated, well throwed out plan. Again, the near
term should be a bit tepid, but so what, I
think you're creating a better business model for the long term.
Speaker 4 (39:01):
And so Larry.
Speaker 3 (39:02):
It has more to do with their strategy versus a
lower rate environment or people finally getting off the fence
and buying homes.
Speaker 4 (39:08):
It's a little bit of every strategy.
Speaker 10 (39:10):
But I think the bigger players in the industry are
in different ways embracing becoming better businesses. And the other
interesting thing is that if I gave you one hundred
million bucks and I said go compete with Lenar, with Horton,
with Poulte, with MVR, with Toll, I think it would
(39:31):
be very hard to do. So I think these companies
the new home market has taken share from the existing
home market because they have levers to pull. They have
leverage and buying supplies and operating and marketing.
Speaker 4 (39:43):
It's hard to be new.
Speaker 10 (39:44):
It's hard. It's hard to not admire where they're going.
Speaker 2 (39:47):
Before we let you go, we got to get you
awayh on On, Berkshire, Hathaways. It's your top holding in
the fund. Greg Abel takes the reins next year. You're okay,
you're keeping all your shares.
Speaker 10 (39:56):
We are for sure keeping all our shares. We made
Berkshire a very big holding in the covid Or. Our
return since then have been strong. This is a management
team and a board with decades and decades of success.
I think it is appropriate to assume that mister Buffett
and the late mister Munger, after sixty years of great decisions,
(40:17):
have made a thoughtful decision on succession, and you have
to admire how well it's been laid out and articulated
in the selfless way. Mister Buffett is stepping aside and
letting mister Abel write the letter, be on the podium
at the meeting, letting him really, you know, write candy
right if you will, let them, let him run the show.
So we are. We admire how it's been done, and
(40:39):
we think it's the kind of thing where you should
give them the medefit of the doubt that it is
a sensible and well thought out plan which we do well.
Speaker 1 (40:45):
Fun.
Speaker 4 (40:45):
Have you in studio? Yeah, come again sooner I will.
Speaker 2 (40:50):
We would love it and help yourself to any snacks.
Speaker 10 (40:52):
I'm going to load up my backpack.
Speaker 6 (40:54):
Old school. You're not the only one to do that.
Speaker 10 (40:56):
Old school.
Speaker 4 (40:57):
I love God, I love the popcorn.
Speaker 3 (40:59):
Larry pitcass Sky, co founder, managing partner, portfolio manager, Goodhaven Capital.
Speaker 4 (41:02):
Manage it right here in studio.
Speaker 1 (41:04):
This is the Bloomberg Businessweekdaily 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
(41:25):
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.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!