May 30, 2025 • 25 mins
Watch Carol and Tim LIVE every day on YouTube: http://bit.ly/3vTiACF.
Elon Musk said he will continue to advise President Donald Trump even after stepping away from the Department of Government Efficiency effort he has spearheaded.
“I expect to remain a friend and an adviser, and hopefully, if there’s anything the president wants me to do, I’m at the president’s service,” Musk said alongside Trump during a press conference Friday at the White House. “This is not the end of DOGE, but really the beginning.”
The comments indicate that the chief executive officer of Tesla Inc. and SpaceX plans to remain in the president’s orbit despite vows to pull back from Washington and prioritize his business empire. As the head of DOGE, Musk’s efforts to slash spending and cut government jobs have drawn pushback from federal workers and Democratic lawmakers as well as a consumer backlash to his business interests.
Musk’s divided attention has rattled investors and Wall Street analysts who underestimated the damage being done to Tesla’s brand around the world. As discontent grew over his focus, the billionaire vowed to pull back “significantly” from his government work to devote more time to Tesla as it nears the critical launch of robotaxi service.
Today's show features:
- Bloomberg Businessweek Senior Reporter Max Chafkin on Elon Musk’s departure from his White House role
- Monica Duffy Toft, Professor of International Politics at Tufts University’s Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, on geopolitical conflicts
- Tyler Rosenlicht, Portfolio Manager & Head of Natural Resource Equities at Cohen and Steers on alternative investment strategies
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
This is Bloomberg business Week Daily reporting from the magazine
that helps global leaders stay ahead with insight on the people, companies,
and trends shaping today's complex economy, plus global business, finance
and tech news as it happens. The Bloomberg Business Week
Daily Podcast with Carol Masser and Tim Steneveek on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
A lot to get to. We want to bring in
Max Chafkin, senior reporter at Bloomberg business Week, co host
of the Everybody's Business and Elon In podcast so much more,
a very close follower of all things Elon. You've been
listening along with us. Elon kind of not leaving though, no,
not leaving.
Speaker 4 (00:47):
And you know, I think those of us who follow
us closely kind of expected this to some extent. I mean,
Trump signaled it last night in his post on truth
Social Also, you know, for all this talk of Elon
getting pushed out or making his exit, we've seen those headlines.
There have sure been a lot of events at the
(01:08):
White House or at Trump related things over the last month.
They brought up the presidential travel musk joining Trump on
this tour in the middle East. We've also seen these
kind of valedictory This isn't even the first valedictory kind
of appearance. There was a cabinet meeting I believe last month.
The thing is Trump needs Elon Musk. The Republicans need
(01:30):
Elon Musk. He was the most the biggest donor to
Republican candidates or Republican campaigns in the twenty twenty four cycle.
They are certainly counting on him in the twenty twenty
six cycle and having him on side, having him a
part of this, having this show of unity is helpful
to the president in helping to bring Republican members of
(01:53):
Congress around to you know, to pass the big beautiful
bill or anything else, you know. On the other hand,
Musk also needs Trump. He for all the reasons that
made him an enthusiastic supporter of Donald Trump. I mean,
SpaceX is a large government contractor, Tesla is a highly
regulated company. It goes on and on. Having this close
relationship is very valuable. So I think it's in both
(02:14):
their interests to keep this going. It is clear though
that Elon Musk's kind of connection to Doge, and I
think to a greater extent, the kind of prominence of Doge.
The vision of Doge is this kind of Elon Musk
driven maximalist for netic getting in there and breaking stuff
that feels like it's sunsetting.
Speaker 3 (02:36):
And to be fair, there have been numbers put out
by the administration and others about you know, I think
Elon specifically said that he still expects to hit that
I think a trillion dollars in cuts over the years
or something, some large numbers. But the point is everybody's
done a lot of reporting, including Bloomberg that really questions
some of the numbers that have been out there and
what ultimately they will achieve in terms of cuts. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (02:57):
Well, and even if you take what he said right,
it's a trillion dollars over an undefined time period. A
big difference from where Elon Musk was, you know during
the campaign when when during an event with Howard Lutnik
he said two trillion a year that was then downgraded
to one trillion. And and so, you know, by his
own admission, and I think anyone who.
Speaker 3 (03:18):
Was familiar with the working of the federal government.
Speaker 4 (03:20):
Could have told him this. There were experts certainly at
the time saying this is going to be very hard
you know that that was probably an unrealistic goal. Of course,
Elon Musk is all about unrealistic goals, right, That's kind
of his thing. He likes He even by his own account,
you know, likes to set these audacious goals. You know,
even if you fall short, even if you're a little late,
it's still impressed.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
If you get a black guy for me five year seven.
Speaker 4 (03:43):
Yeah, he's going to argue that, you know, one hundred
and sixty billion, which is the claimed figure, is significant.
Speaker 3 (03:49):
It's it's not a small number.
Speaker 4 (03:51):
It's just it's just so far off from where they
were and when you look at you know, the deficit
projections from even from this latest spending bill, right, it's
not a huge number.
Speaker 5 (04:00):
And Musk even pointed out that he wants to focus
more on his businesses. I mean, if you're looking at
Tesla's stock down close to thirteen percent a year to date.
But Trump said himself that Musk will be back and forth.
So how would shareholders and investors in his companies feel
about this?
Speaker 4 (04:15):
He's what Elon Musk is walking a line here, and
it's even there's even sort of some kind of contradictions
within the movements of the share price, because of course,
the stock went crazy up after Trump was elected. The
story we heard back then was, well, the stock is
going up because Elon Musk is going to have all
this access, and then we reached a point where the
stock went up started trading up because Elon Musk said
(04:37):
he was stepping away. Now I think the truth is
Tesla investors are very much on board with pretty much
whatever Elon Musk says. They believe that this is a
shareholder base that is different from most publicly traded companies.
There is a level of belief in the CEO that
is greater than a normal company. They are trusting that
(04:59):
Elon Musk can walk a line that he can simultaneously
focus on all these companies. He's bringing five companies at
the same time while maintaining his role as we heard
just now as an advisor.
Speaker 3 (05:10):
I mean, there was a little bit of a shift there.
Speaker 4 (05:12):
You heard a question about is he going to be
involved twenty four to seven with sum It was a
claim that Elon Musk made on Twitter just.
Speaker 3 (05:19):
A few days ago. Elon Musk didn't.
Speaker 4 (05:21):
Respond to that directly, but he did say I will
continue to be an advisor and a friend. I hear that,
and I think this is you know, this relationship as
we you know, as we heard from the President and
from Elon Musk, it will continue.
Speaker 3 (05:34):
Really fascinating stuff. Max, thank you so much, really appreciate
Max Chaffkins, Senior reporter at Bloomberg business Week, co host
of the Everybody's Business and Elon Inc. Podcast. Check it
out because they really do follow the day to day
gyrations of all things Elon.
Speaker 2 (05:49):
You're listening to the Bloomberg business Weekdaily podcast. Catch us
live weekday afternoons from two to five pm Eastern. Listen
on Applecarplay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business or
watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 3 (06:03):
We did hear from President Trump just from the Oval Office.
He did say he expected to speak to Chinese President
Xi ximping after accusing China of violating in agreement with
the United States to East tariff. So we did see
kind of a ratcheting up of tensions between the world's
two largest economies that was initially putting pressure on some
of the trade. But it didn't seem that some of
(06:25):
that eased as we did hear a comment out of
the White House saying that he expected to actually speak
to the Chinese president. But I have to say geopolitically,
so much going on. We've got the strained and evolving
US China relationship, the Russia Ukraine War, how that may end,
when it will end, the Middle East, Israel and Hamas,
Greenland and more. Everyone is kind of looking at maybe
(06:47):
what is the new global world order going forward? And
eighty years later, it's hard not to wonder if the
world has really kind of headed toward another Yaulta conference
and a carving up of our world. Our next guest
actually wrote about it Fornerfairs magazine that caught our attention.
It's great to have with us. Monica Tuft. She's professor
of International Politics at the Fletcher School at Tufts University.
She's taught at Oxford University's Blovotnik School of Government, Harvard
(07:12):
University's jfk School of Government, and she spent four years
in the US Army as a Russian linguist. And she
joins us from Medford, Massachusetts. Monica, great to have you
here with us. How are you.
Speaker 6 (07:24):
I'm terrific. Thanks for having me.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
Carol and Jess, Well, it's good to have you here.
There's so much coming at us domestically, but also continually geopolitically.
The President just talking about various parts of the world,
whether it's Russia, Ukraine, whether it's about China and trade
just from the Oval Office. Is the world about to
be carved up in a new way, just like we
saw after World War Two?
Speaker 6 (07:49):
It's a question still. I think we have to watch it.
Speaker 7 (07:51):
I did write this piece, and it's a speculative piece
in the sense of using history basically, of looking at
prior history to try to understand and what's happening. We
do seem to be in a liminal moment right now
where you have leaders who are talking about expansive aims.
And when I talk about expansive aims, it's not only economically,
but it's politically. So you have President Trump coming in
(08:12):
and talking about Greenland, maybe it would be nicely Greenland
to be part of the United States Canada and then
taking control over the Panama Canal. And then you have
Russian President Vladimir Putin actually going in and taking Crimea
and then four other provinces. And then of course we
know China's president she would love to reacquire Taiwan, and
(08:33):
they seem to be in a position right now politically
to be able to talk about this and you know,
this kind of language of expanding their nations geographically, and
each of them seems to have sort of ideas that
this is somewhat desirable. So the question is whether they
succeed right Putin is not succeeding right now. Taiwan has
not made a I mean, China has not made a
play for Taiwan. And President Trump it's not clear that
(08:57):
he has the capacity or the full design to take
great Land Canada, so it's a question mark.
Speaker 6 (09:03):
Still.
Speaker 3 (09:03):
Well, this concept of professor toft of spears of influence
or spear of influence not a new one. It's been around,
they change, right, So I don't know if we think
about a new carving up, is it a good thing
or a bad thing or tbd.
Speaker 7 (09:21):
I think it depends upon your perspective. So for the
states that are managed to in the statesmen that manage
to establish a new sphere of influence, it.
Speaker 6 (09:29):
Could be a good thing.
Speaker 7 (09:31):
But for the states that are sort of gobbled up
within that sphere, it's not such a great thing because
basically those larger countries, what they're doing is they're using
their advantages in military power, military might, economic leverage, and
diplomacy right to secure those spheres of influence, get control
of those geographic areas in order to exert more control economically,
(09:51):
militarily without necessarily exercising formal sovereignty. And the question is
is over time, are they benign so do they do
good right? Will they help develop up the countries that
they sort of move into, or are they maligned?
Speaker 6 (10:04):
They are they repressive? Generally speaking?
Speaker 7 (10:07):
When we were living in the world between nineteen forty
five and let's say nineteen ninety one, during the Cold
War period, we had the liberal West right and that
was one block, and that was our sphere with Western Europe,
and then you had this sort of Warsaw Pact, and
within the Warsaw Pact that was considered the Soviet Union sphere,
and it didn't go so well for the East Europeans,
(10:28):
which is why today or in the post nineteen ninety period,
the post Cold War period, many of those Eastern European
countries try to get into the Western side, right, into
the West sphere, and the United States was the great stabilizer.
What's kind of tossed this all up in the air
at this point is two things. The first factor is
Russian President Vladimir Putin going into Ukraine and actually using
(10:52):
force to do that. And then secondarily you now have
a US president talking in these expansive terms about possibly
expanding United States territory. So so it does seem to
be a situation where there is change, uh, you know,
afloat uh. And and whether it's a good or bad thing,
(11:12):
it's a it's I think we need to suspend judgment.
But I will tell you it tends not to be
a good thing. In fact, I could have you know,
titled the piece spheares of war, right, because what happens
is you get up into those buffer areas between where
the different spheres rub up against one another, and who
gets to control what part?
Speaker 6 (11:31):
How deep do you go into each other's sphere of influence?
Speaker 5 (11:34):
How does China play into this?
Speaker 7 (11:37):
It's a great question. And the thing is is, if
you think about President She, he's very conservative in his movements.
Speaker 4 (11:43):
Right.
Speaker 7 (11:43):
Basically, the President She wants to keep the Chinese economy,
economy humming, right, so he has to keep the middle
class happy, keep the jobs, make sure that the real
estate market doesn't collapse. And so for him, the economy
is everything, because it's the legitimacy in which the Communist
Party and President She built his power. On the other hand,
you have this thing looming in the background, which is nationalism.
(12:06):
And Chinese, just like the Americans, there's nationalism and they
believe that Taiwan is part of Chinese territory. And when
you've got another major power of the United States supporting Taiwan,
which the Chinese see is theirs, that leads to tensions.
And so the Chinese, on the one hand, under President
She recognized that war is very costly. We understand that
(12:27):
war can be quite costly. Yet on the other hand,
there's these impulses that they need to expand economically. Oh
and by the way, politically national In terms of nationalism,
it would be nice to reacquire some territories that they
see as rightfully their own.
Speaker 3 (12:43):
We are talking with Monica Toft. She's professor of International
politics at the Fletcher School at Tufts University. We're talking
about an article that she has written for Foreign Affairs
entitled the Return of Spheres of Influence. Monica, I want
to Professor Toft, I want to relate it to the
Bloomberg audience and I think about every story, there is
I feel like a money component to it, right, a
(13:05):
market component, economic component. So if indeed we are seeing
up a new carving up and as you said, you know,
it depends on kind of how it gets carved up.
But should we assume that there are implications then for
financial markets, for economies. And I do think about this
US exceptionalism where it seems to be waning. We're talking
(13:26):
about that a lot more today than at the beginning
of the year January first, when we talked about US
exceptionalism rating supreme and that applied to financial markets.
Speaker 6 (13:36):
Yeah, I mean it does.
Speaker 7 (13:38):
It does matter quite a bit for the economy and
for trade and few exceptionalism. And I think what's happening
the under the Trump administration is they're sort of tossing
that exceptionalism further up.
Speaker 6 (13:50):
In the air.
Speaker 7 (13:51):
Right, So you know, we do have sort of now
competing powers. China has risen economically, and what's so interesting
about the Chinese case is the United States helped that
through the nineteen nineties and early two thousands until all
of a sudden we have the crisis in two thousand
and eight and China and actually both China.
Speaker 6 (14:10):
Under She and Russian President.
Speaker 7 (14:13):
Putin look at that two thousand and eight crisis and
think maybe that Western capitalism isn't so great, maybe the
American dollar isn't as secure as we thought it was.
Speaker 6 (14:22):
And so they started, you started.
Speaker 7 (14:24):
Seeing sort of the decoupling and trying to sort of
vary out and diversify their economies a little bit more so.
Speaker 6 (14:30):
Economics is absolutely critical to this story.
Speaker 7 (14:35):
But I think, you know, it's interesting. I'm now, you know,
talking to people about political risk. It used to be
geoeconomic risk, right, and now people are thinking, wow, politics
really matter, And I'm thinking, of course they do.
Speaker 6 (14:46):
I'm a political scientist by training.
Speaker 7 (14:48):
But when you have leaders making major decisions about tariffs
and trade and who the rival is, right, then you're
going to have changes in the economic market.
Speaker 3 (15:00):
We'll leave a couple of minutes left. I want to
ask you if, indeed, when we see some end to
the Russia Ukraine war, if Ukraine has to give back
or let go of some territory, and that is certainly
seen as another win in terms of President Putin expanding
his territory again after that initial annexation of Crimea. That
(15:24):
sends a very big message right to the world in
terms of great powers being able to take land.
Speaker 7 (15:31):
Yes, what it does is it validates the use of force, right,
So it basically says, if you use force, then potentially
you're going to be able to keep the territory that you.
Speaker 6 (15:41):
Have actually conquested and now occupy.
Speaker 7 (15:44):
But you know what I want to do is I'd
love for the audience to think about sort of extending
their time horizons.
Speaker 6 (15:50):
So in the shorter term of the.
Speaker 7 (15:52):
Medium term, it may be the case that Ukraine may
have to modify some of its territorial you know construct
right that the nature and the size of the state.
But over the longer term, you know, Putin is not
going to be in power the whole time. You may
not have such sort of a hypernationalist in power, and
Ukraine may be able to renegotiate or get that territory back,
(16:13):
maybe by having a referendum down the road and having
some you know, proper electoral processes that allow the Crimeans
and then those four provinces the folks there. So it
doesn't necessarily have to be seen as a done deal.
Speaker 6 (16:26):
Yes, in the moment, and would be quite painful.
Speaker 7 (16:28):
Again, I was talking about Chinese nationalism right, Ukrainians and
nationalists right, This is going to be very painful right
for the country. So yes, you know, Ukraine could be
left in a rump state, but what I'd say is
over the longer term they may be able.
Speaker 6 (16:43):
To get that territory back. It's happened before historically.
Speaker 3 (16:46):
So it's interesting. I mean political changes in governments, whether
it's Russia, the United States, China. I mean, these things,
as you say, kind of are going to impact things
more longer term. Monica, Thank you so much. Monica Talk,
Professor National Politics at the Fletcher School at Tufts University,
joining us from Medford, Massachusetts.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
This is the Bloomberg Business Week Daily Podcast. Listen live
each weekday starting at two pm Eastern on applecar Play
and the Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. You
can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship
New York station, Just Say Alexa played Bloomberg Time.
Speaker 3 (17:23):
Heky everybody just about eighteen minutes, coming up on the
close on this Friday, wrapping up the day and the
trading week overall. Just heard from Bill and Charlie. We're
definitely I said a rally, but I met earlier like
rally off our lows, but we're still just down about
two points on the S and P five hundred and
just down about forty three on the NAWS DEAK one hundred,
but much more positive than we were earlier in the session.
Speaker 5 (17:43):
That's right, and it looks like the S and P
five hundreds still on course for its best May since
nineteen ninety carousel. We'll see if that can hold through
four PM.
Speaker 3 (17:51):
Thirty five years. That's a long time, all right, Let's
get to it. Tyler Rosinlicht is with US portfolio manager,
head of natural resource equities at the publicly held investment
from Cohen and Steak years. He is here in our
Bloomberg Interactor Broker studio. Keep in mind the firm has
about eighty seven billion in assets under management. Tyler, you
mentioned you reminded me it's been a while. Good to
have you back. Just let's start broadly, big picture, your
(18:14):
investment thesis and focus. Talk to us a little bit
about it, especially against the backdrop of you know, every
day we're following news out of Washington and what kind
of impact that has in policy and ultimately industries and
corporate earnings.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
Well, thanks so much for having me. I guess there's
kind of two pieces that I can talk about. One
is the infrastructure side and one is natural resource equities,
and I think both of them are really well positioned today.
You know, I'd start with infrastructure. You know, I think
there's a lot of uncertainty out there, and every day
we wake up to new news that's causing a lot
of concern.
Speaker 8 (18:42):
Right.
Speaker 1 (18:43):
What we like about infrastructure is it's really predictable, you know.
We think about it as a lower volatility downside protected
asset class. It's the stuff that you have to pay
for as a consumer. It's what helps make the economy run.
So we've seen a lot of interest in infrastructure, and
it's very sensible to us.
Speaker 3 (18:58):
You have a lot of energy companies in that fund specifically.
Speaker 1 (19:01):
So within infrastructure, it's just utilities and then pipeline companies.
For us, it's really the present is truly the infrastructure,
just the infrastructure. Now we have natural resource equities as well,
which invests across the energy value chain, metals and mining
and agribusiness. That's also seeing a lot of interesting things today,
just given all the volatility that we have.
Speaker 5 (19:18):
So how do you read with everything going on with
the economic data to the back and forth with the
trade headlines. How do you use those types of stories
to then try to figure out what the best investment
thesis is.
Speaker 1 (19:29):
Yeah, let's start with infrastructure. So one of the unique
things about it as an asset class is the risk
that really keeps us up at night is regulatory risk
and changes to regulation, changes to policy that can be
on the national level. Are we going to potentially privatize Amtrak?
What that could that mean for us as investors? Or
on the more local level, so is the Utility Commission
going to change the rules of the game or the
(19:50):
returns for a local utility? So our focus a lot
more nuclear are allow more nuclear, which we're really excited
and bullish on.
Speaker 3 (19:56):
So seeing the President on some executive orders to wrap
that up in the.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
Yeah, I'm tuss that's really a good thing. Like we
think we're in an energy deficit globally, we think there's
this tension between trying to find decarbonization efforts but also
have predictable baseload energy. Nuclear to us is a great example.
It's going to require a lot of government support and
so making sure that we can understand what's going on
from a policy perspective is what's going to drive investment
opportunities for US?
Speaker 3 (20:20):
I am curious in this fund. I'm just looking at
year to date. I think it is up. I'm just
looking at here. Is it up? About? Why am I
not seeing this number?
Speaker 8 (20:31):
Probably kind of like mid single digits? Called it seven
or eight percent?
Speaker 3 (20:34):
Yeah, okay, Well, I just think about in terms of
the market volatility that we've been seeing, is it have
you been adding? Have you been subtracting? Like I'm just
curious how like moving in and out?
Speaker 1 (20:44):
So I'd start with the investor appetite. We've definitely seen
a lot of investor interest in infrastructure in particular. Again,
certainty is really high, and folks are looking for ways
to get equity like returns but with a little bit
less volatility, and that's what infrastructure does. Clearly, sort of
there's a lot of news out there on we need
more infrastructure development, how do we finance that? And listed
companies in particular benefiting for US. I'd say we've been
(21:06):
somewhat defensively positioned. We think sort of there's concerns around
the macroeconomy, things like freight rail volumes and so forth
are a little bit less predictable. So we've definitely moved
I'd call it like a four and a half or
five on a zero to ten scale in terms of
risk on risk off, which is just kind of balanced.
There's some concerns out there, but we're not super concerned,
and we just are trying to find the right stocks
(21:27):
and sectors today.
Speaker 5 (21:28):
What do you think of the hottest picks within infrastructure
if you're looking kind of more within groups or maybe
more specific companies that are listed.
Speaker 1 (21:35):
Yeah, nuclear to us is really interesting. You know, we
invest in.
Speaker 3 (21:38):
That everybody's kind of energy the utility because of the data,
you know, I'm thinking about all the AI and the
data and the energy needs or was that more it
seemed to kind of supercharge it, if you will, But
I'm just curious if it was kind of circulating anyway.
Speaker 8 (21:52):
I think that's part of it.
Speaker 1 (21:53):
But it goes a little bit beyond that, which is,
we think the world needs more energy, and we want
energy that is, you know, good for the environ mint.
Speaker 3 (22:00):
But we all see the nuclear waste well for sure,
for sure.
Speaker 1 (22:03):
We went to figure that one out, but we also
want it that's predictable and what we call baseload you
know the problem with a lot of renewables is that
they're intermittent, and when the sun's not shining, the wind's
not blowing, they don't produce power. Guess what if you're
a data center CEO, that's a big problem. You need
to make sure that the powerms stay on. So nuclear
to us is like the one resource that serves both masters.
It is decarbonized. Yes, there's a spent uranium with which
(22:25):
to deal with, but it's also baseload. It runs at
very high capacity factors at very low variable costs, and
I think people are saying, hey, we know we need
the energy. This is the sort of best of the worst,
if you want to think about it that way, And
that's why it's coming back in vogue.
Speaker 5 (22:38):
What about commodity investors, because I know you're looking at
kind of the performance of real assets now versus how
they would have been the last decade.
Speaker 1 (22:45):
Yeah, we're really excited about the commodity cycle, and we're
really excited about the natural resource equity cycle as well.
I mean, we've thought about it as we've exited this
period of abundance, which was kind of the two thousand
and seven A twenty twenty period, and we've entered what
we call the air of scarcity. Elite demand for commodities
and materials is pretty strong. We've underinvested in the supply
side for a really long time. Commodity producers, you know,
(23:07):
if you can find the right ones that aren't going
to sort of miss in terms of their production profiles,
they're really cheap, and we think marginal costs for what
they produce are going to rise and that's going to
be good for them.
Speaker 5 (23:16):
Son if it's more Canadian investors or US if you're
looking at the commodities aspect, it.
Speaker 1 (23:21):
Really depends on the commodity you're talking about and sort
of the investment. Like, for instance, take oil. We're actually
pretty bearish oil, but we particularly don't like US shale
producers because of the depletion right they see massive declines
and volumes every year. We like the Canadian oil sands
producers because they produce with a lot less sort of
base declients.
Speaker 8 (23:39):
So generally speaking, the Canadian.
Speaker 1 (23:41):
Economy is a lot more commodity centric, but I think
you can find good opportunities in both places.
Speaker 3 (23:46):
Let's talk about a couple of companies you do like
in particular, and one of them is trp TC Energy Corporation.
Tell us about this one.
Speaker 1 (23:53):
Yeah, just very broadly speaking, it's an energy natural gas
pipeline company.
Speaker 8 (23:58):
Very predictable.
Speaker 1 (23:59):
You know, they're ebit that when they say what it's
going to be at the beginning of the year tends
to be what it is at the end of the year.
We think demand for natural gas is going to keep growing.
We think data centers and everything else are going to
require more investment in gas pipelines. They've got a really
good footprint, and they do own some nuclear assets in
Ontario that we think will sort of see some life
extensions that could be good for them. But it's a
very predictable way to play energy infrastructure across North America.
Speaker 3 (24:21):
Canadian company looks like it's up about almost nine percent
so far year to date. One last one got about
thirty seconds Waste Connections tickers WCN. This is an American
company or US company.
Speaker 8 (24:30):
Yeah, it's funny.
Speaker 1 (24:31):
A lot of people don't necessarily think about and environmental
services as infrastructure.
Speaker 8 (24:35):
We think they are. For us. It's about pricing power.
Speaker 3 (24:37):
It's what businesses to deal with it.
Speaker 1 (24:38):
It is you have to stay the bill and guess
what they can raise their rates with inflation or better
than inflation. So for us, we're always on the hunt
for what businesses have pricing power. We've found that in
a lot of waste management business over time, and that
tends to be one that we feel really good from
a volume perspective as well.
Speaker 3 (24:53):
Yeah, and that name is up almost about fifteen percent
year to date.
Speaker 5 (24:56):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (24:56):
Yeah, I think about this stuff a lot. No waste
is like Unfortunately, it's part of our world. You got
to figure it out. Really good stuff. Thank you so much.
Good to see you. Yeah, all right, look forward to
next time. Tyler Rosenlicht, he's portfolio manager head of natural
resource equities over at Conan Steers, joining us here in
our Bloomberg Interactive Brokers studio. Folks were coming up on
ten minutes until we wrap up this trading day. Just
(25:17):
up my hair on the S and P five hundred
and you've got a Nasdaq one hundred that's down about
twenty nine. Carol Mass just betting in. This is Bloomberg
Business Weekdaily.
Speaker 2 (25:26):
This is the Bloomberg Business Week Daily podcast, available on Apple,
Spotify and anywhere else you get your podcasts. Listen live
weekday afternoons from two to five pm Eastern on Bloomberg
dot com, the iHeartRadio app tune In, and the Bloomberg
Business app. You can also watch us live every weekday
on YouTube and always on the Bloomberg terminal
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
This is Bloomberg business Week Daily reporting from the magazine
that helps global leaders stay ahead with insight on the people, companies,
and trends shaping today's complex economy, plus global business, finance
and tech news as it happens. The Bloomberg Business Week
Daily Podcast with Carol Masser and Tim Steneveek on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
A lot to get to. We want to bring in
Max Chafkin, senior reporter at Bloomberg business Week, co host
of the Everybody's Business and Elon In podcast so much more,
a very close follower of all things Elon. You've been
listening along with us. Elon kind of not leaving though, no,
not leaving.
Speaker 4 (00:47):
And you know, I think those of us who follow
us closely kind of expected this to some extent. I mean,
Trump signaled it last night in his post on truth
Social Also, you know, for all this talk of Elon
getting pushed out or making his exit, we've seen those headlines.
There have sure been a lot of events at the
(01:08):
White House or at Trump related things over the last month.
They brought up the presidential travel musk joining Trump on
this tour in the middle East. We've also seen these
kind of valedictory This isn't even the first valedictory kind
of appearance. There was a cabinet meeting I believe last month.
The thing is Trump needs Elon Musk. The Republicans need
(01:30):
Elon Musk. He was the most the biggest donor to
Republican candidates or Republican campaigns in the twenty twenty four cycle.
They are certainly counting on him in the twenty twenty
six cycle and having him on side, having him a
part of this, having this show of unity is helpful
to the president in helping to bring Republican members of
(01:53):
Congress around to you know, to pass the big beautiful
bill or anything else, you know. On the other hand,
Musk also needs Trump. He for all the reasons that
made him an enthusiastic supporter of Donald Trump. I mean,
SpaceX is a large government contractor, Tesla is a highly
regulated company. It goes on and on. Having this close
relationship is very valuable. So I think it's in both
(02:14):
their interests to keep this going. It is clear though
that Elon Musk's kind of connection to Doge, and I
think to a greater extent, the kind of prominence of Doge.
The vision of Doge is this kind of Elon Musk
driven maximalist for netic getting in there and breaking stuff
that feels like it's sunsetting.
Speaker 3 (02:36):
And to be fair, there have been numbers put out
by the administration and others about you know, I think
Elon specifically said that he still expects to hit that
I think a trillion dollars in cuts over the years
or something, some large numbers. But the point is everybody's
done a lot of reporting, including Bloomberg that really questions
some of the numbers that have been out there and
what ultimately they will achieve in terms of cuts. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (02:57):
Well, and even if you take what he said right,
it's a trillion dollars over an undefined time period. A
big difference from where Elon Musk was, you know during
the campaign when when during an event with Howard Lutnik
he said two trillion a year that was then downgraded
to one trillion. And and so, you know, by his
own admission, and I think anyone who.
Speaker 3 (03:18):
Was familiar with the working of the federal government.
Speaker 4 (03:20):
Could have told him this. There were experts certainly at
the time saying this is going to be very hard
you know that that was probably an unrealistic goal. Of course,
Elon Musk is all about unrealistic goals, right, That's kind
of his thing. He likes He even by his own account,
you know, likes to set these audacious goals. You know,
even if you fall short, even if you're a little late,
it's still impressed.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
If you get a black guy for me five year seven.
Speaker 4 (03:43):
Yeah, he's going to argue that, you know, one hundred
and sixty billion, which is the claimed figure, is significant.
Speaker 3 (03:49):
It's it's not a small number.
Speaker 4 (03:51):
It's just it's just so far off from where they
were and when you look at you know, the deficit
projections from even from this latest spending bill, right, it's
not a huge number.
Speaker 5 (04:00):
And Musk even pointed out that he wants to focus
more on his businesses. I mean, if you're looking at
Tesla's stock down close to thirteen percent a year to date.
But Trump said himself that Musk will be back and forth.
So how would shareholders and investors in his companies feel
about this?
Speaker 4 (04:15):
He's what Elon Musk is walking a line here, and
it's even there's even sort of some kind of contradictions
within the movements of the share price, because of course,
the stock went crazy up after Trump was elected. The
story we heard back then was, well, the stock is
going up because Elon Musk is going to have all
this access, and then we reached a point where the
stock went up started trading up because Elon Musk said
(04:37):
he was stepping away. Now I think the truth is
Tesla investors are very much on board with pretty much
whatever Elon Musk says. They believe that this is a
shareholder base that is different from most publicly traded companies.
There is a level of belief in the CEO that
is greater than a normal company. They are trusting that
(04:59):
Elon Musk can walk a line that he can simultaneously
focus on all these companies. He's bringing five companies at
the same time while maintaining his role as we heard
just now as an advisor.
Speaker 3 (05:10):
I mean, there was a little bit of a shift there.
Speaker 4 (05:12):
You heard a question about is he going to be
involved twenty four to seven with sum It was a
claim that Elon Musk made on Twitter just.
Speaker 3 (05:19):
A few days ago. Elon Musk didn't.
Speaker 4 (05:21):
Respond to that directly, but he did say I will
continue to be an advisor and a friend. I hear that,
and I think this is you know, this relationship as
we you know, as we heard from the President and
from Elon Musk, it will continue.
Speaker 3 (05:34):
Really fascinating stuff. Max, thank you so much, really appreciate
Max Chaffkins, Senior reporter at Bloomberg business Week, co host
of the Everybody's Business and Elon Inc. Podcast. Check it
out because they really do follow the day to day
gyrations of all things Elon.
Speaker 2 (05:49):
You're listening to the Bloomberg business Weekdaily podcast. Catch us
live weekday afternoons from two to five pm Eastern. Listen
on Applecarplay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business or
watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 3 (06:03):
We did hear from President Trump just from the Oval Office.
He did say he expected to speak to Chinese President
Xi ximping after accusing China of violating in agreement with
the United States to East tariff. So we did see
kind of a ratcheting up of tensions between the world's
two largest economies that was initially putting pressure on some
of the trade. But it didn't seem that some of
(06:25):
that eased as we did hear a comment out of
the White House saying that he expected to actually speak
to the Chinese president. But I have to say geopolitically,
so much going on. We've got the strained and evolving
US China relationship, the Russia Ukraine War, how that may end,
when it will end, the Middle East, Israel and Hamas,
Greenland and more. Everyone is kind of looking at maybe
(06:47):
what is the new global world order going forward? And
eighty years later, it's hard not to wonder if the
world has really kind of headed toward another Yaulta conference
and a carving up of our world. Our next guest
actually wrote about it Fornerfairs magazine that caught our attention.
It's great to have with us. Monica Tuft. She's professor
of International Politics at the Fletcher School at Tufts University.
She's taught at Oxford University's Blovotnik School of Government, Harvard
(07:12):
University's jfk School of Government, and she spent four years
in the US Army as a Russian linguist. And she
joins us from Medford, Massachusetts. Monica, great to have you
here with us. How are you.
Speaker 6 (07:24):
I'm terrific. Thanks for having me.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
Carol and Jess, Well, it's good to have you here.
There's so much coming at us domestically, but also continually geopolitically.
The President just talking about various parts of the world,
whether it's Russia, Ukraine, whether it's about China and trade
just from the Oval Office. Is the world about to
be carved up in a new way, just like we
saw after World War Two?
Speaker 6 (07:49):
It's a question still. I think we have to watch it.
Speaker 7 (07:51):
I did write this piece, and it's a speculative piece
in the sense of using history basically, of looking at
prior history to try to understand and what's happening. We
do seem to be in a liminal moment right now
where you have leaders who are talking about expansive aims.
And when I talk about expansive aims, it's not only economically,
but it's politically. So you have President Trump coming in
(08:12):
and talking about Greenland, maybe it would be nicely Greenland
to be part of the United States Canada and then
taking control over the Panama Canal. And then you have
Russian President Vladimir Putin actually going in and taking Crimea
and then four other provinces. And then of course we
know China's president she would love to reacquire Taiwan, and
(08:33):
they seem to be in a position right now politically
to be able to talk about this and you know,
this kind of language of expanding their nations geographically, and
each of them seems to have sort of ideas that
this is somewhat desirable. So the question is whether they
succeed right Putin is not succeeding right now. Taiwan has
not made a I mean, China has not made a
play for Taiwan. And President Trump it's not clear that
(08:57):
he has the capacity or the full design to take
great Land Canada, so it's a question mark.
Speaker 6 (09:03):
Still.
Speaker 3 (09:03):
Well, this concept of professor toft of spears of influence
or spear of influence not a new one. It's been around,
they change, right, So I don't know if we think
about a new carving up, is it a good thing
or a bad thing or tbd.
Speaker 7 (09:21):
I think it depends upon your perspective. So for the
states that are managed to in the statesmen that manage
to establish a new sphere of influence, it.
Speaker 6 (09:29):
Could be a good thing.
Speaker 7 (09:31):
But for the states that are sort of gobbled up
within that sphere, it's not such a great thing because
basically those larger countries, what they're doing is they're using
their advantages in military power, military might, economic leverage, and
diplomacy right to secure those spheres of influence, get control
of those geographic areas in order to exert more control economically,
(09:51):
militarily without necessarily exercising formal sovereignty. And the question is
is over time, are they benign so do they do
good right? Will they help develop up the countries that
they sort of move into, or are they maligned?
Speaker 6 (10:04):
They are they repressive? Generally speaking?
Speaker 7 (10:07):
When we were living in the world between nineteen forty
five and let's say nineteen ninety one, during the Cold
War period, we had the liberal West right and that
was one block, and that was our sphere with Western Europe,
and then you had this sort of Warsaw Pact, and
within the Warsaw Pact that was considered the Soviet Union sphere,
and it didn't go so well for the East Europeans,
(10:28):
which is why today or in the post nineteen ninety period,
the post Cold War period, many of those Eastern European
countries try to get into the Western side, right, into
the West sphere, and the United States was the great stabilizer.
What's kind of tossed this all up in the air
at this point is two things. The first factor is
Russian President Vladimir Putin going into Ukraine and actually using
(10:52):
force to do that. And then secondarily you now have
a US president talking in these expansive terms about possibly
expanding United States territory. So so it does seem to
be a situation where there is change, uh, you know,
afloat uh. And and whether it's a good or bad thing,
(11:12):
it's a it's I think we need to suspend judgment.
But I will tell you it tends not to be
a good thing. In fact, I could have you know,
titled the piece spheares of war, right, because what happens
is you get up into those buffer areas between where
the different spheres rub up against one another, and who
gets to control what part?
Speaker 6 (11:31):
How deep do you go into each other's sphere of influence?
Speaker 5 (11:34):
How does China play into this?
Speaker 7 (11:37):
It's a great question. And the thing is is, if
you think about President She, he's very conservative in his movements.
Speaker 4 (11:43):
Right.
Speaker 7 (11:43):
Basically, the President She wants to keep the Chinese economy,
economy humming, right, so he has to keep the middle
class happy, keep the jobs, make sure that the real
estate market doesn't collapse. And so for him, the economy
is everything, because it's the legitimacy in which the Communist
Party and President She built his power. On the other hand,
you have this thing looming in the background, which is nationalism.
(12:06):
And Chinese, just like the Americans, there's nationalism and they
believe that Taiwan is part of Chinese territory. And when
you've got another major power of the United States supporting Taiwan,
which the Chinese see is theirs, that leads to tensions.
And so the Chinese, on the one hand, under President
She recognized that war is very costly. We understand that
(12:27):
war can be quite costly. Yet on the other hand,
there's these impulses that they need to expand economically. Oh
and by the way, politically national In terms of nationalism,
it would be nice to reacquire some territories that they
see as rightfully their own.
Speaker 3 (12:43):
We are talking with Monica Toft. She's professor of International
politics at the Fletcher School at Tufts University. We're talking
about an article that she has written for Foreign Affairs
entitled the Return of Spheres of Influence. Monica, I want
to Professor Toft, I want to relate it to the
Bloomberg audience and I think about every story, there is
I feel like a money component to it, right, a
(13:05):
market component, economic component. So if indeed we are seeing
up a new carving up and as you said, you know,
it depends on kind of how it gets carved up.
But should we assume that there are implications then for
financial markets, for economies. And I do think about this
US exceptionalism where it seems to be waning. We're talking
(13:26):
about that a lot more today than at the beginning
of the year January first, when we talked about US
exceptionalism rating supreme and that applied to financial markets.
Speaker 6 (13:36):
Yeah, I mean it does.
Speaker 7 (13:38):
It does matter quite a bit for the economy and
for trade and few exceptionalism. And I think what's happening
the under the Trump administration is they're sort of tossing
that exceptionalism further up.
Speaker 6 (13:50):
In the air.
Speaker 7 (13:51):
Right, So you know, we do have sort of now
competing powers. China has risen economically, and what's so interesting
about the Chinese case is the United States helped that
through the nineteen nineties and early two thousands until all
of a sudden we have the crisis in two thousand
and eight and China and actually both China.
Speaker 6 (14:10):
Under She and Russian President.
Speaker 7 (14:13):
Putin look at that two thousand and eight crisis and
think maybe that Western capitalism isn't so great, maybe the
American dollar isn't as secure as we thought it was.
Speaker 6 (14:22):
And so they started, you started.
Speaker 7 (14:24):
Seeing sort of the decoupling and trying to sort of
vary out and diversify their economies a little bit more so.
Speaker 6 (14:30):
Economics is absolutely critical to this story.
Speaker 7 (14:35):
But I think, you know, it's interesting. I'm now, you know,
talking to people about political risk. It used to be
geoeconomic risk, right, and now people are thinking, wow, politics
really matter, And I'm thinking, of course they do.
Speaker 6 (14:46):
I'm a political scientist by training.
Speaker 7 (14:48):
But when you have leaders making major decisions about tariffs
and trade and who the rival is, right, then you're
going to have changes in the economic market.
Speaker 3 (15:00):
We'll leave a couple of minutes left. I want to
ask you if, indeed, when we see some end to
the Russia Ukraine war, if Ukraine has to give back
or let go of some territory, and that is certainly
seen as another win in terms of President Putin expanding
his territory again after that initial annexation of Crimea. That
(15:24):
sends a very big message right to the world in
terms of great powers being able to take land.
Speaker 7 (15:31):
Yes, what it does is it validates the use of force, right,
So it basically says, if you use force, then potentially
you're going to be able to keep the territory that you.
Speaker 6 (15:41):
Have actually conquested and now occupy.
Speaker 7 (15:44):
But you know what I want to do is I'd
love for the audience to think about sort of extending
their time horizons.
Speaker 6 (15:50):
So in the shorter term of the.
Speaker 7 (15:52):
Medium term, it may be the case that Ukraine may
have to modify some of its territorial you know construct
right that the nature and the size of the state.
But over the longer term, you know, Putin is not
going to be in power the whole time. You may
not have such sort of a hypernationalist in power, and
Ukraine may be able to renegotiate or get that territory back,
(16:13):
maybe by having a referendum down the road and having
some you know, proper electoral processes that allow the Crimeans
and then those four provinces the folks there. So it
doesn't necessarily have to be seen as a done deal.
Speaker 6 (16:26):
Yes, in the moment, and would be quite painful.
Speaker 7 (16:28):
Again, I was talking about Chinese nationalism right, Ukrainians and
nationalists right, This is going to be very painful right
for the country. So yes, you know, Ukraine could be
left in a rump state, but what I'd say is
over the longer term they may be able.
Speaker 6 (16:43):
To get that territory back. It's happened before historically.
Speaker 3 (16:46):
So it's interesting. I mean political changes in governments, whether
it's Russia, the United States, China. I mean, these things,
as you say, kind of are going to impact things
more longer term. Monica, Thank you so much. Monica Talk,
Professor National Politics at the Fletcher School at Tufts University,
joining us from Medford, Massachusetts.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
This is the Bloomberg Business Week Daily Podcast. Listen live
each weekday starting at two pm Eastern on applecar Play
and the Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. You
can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship
New York station, Just Say Alexa played Bloomberg Time.
Speaker 3 (17:23):
Heky everybody just about eighteen minutes, coming up on the
close on this Friday, wrapping up the day and the
trading week overall. Just heard from Bill and Charlie. We're
definitely I said a rally, but I met earlier like
rally off our lows, but we're still just down about
two points on the S and P five hundred and
just down about forty three on the NAWS DEAK one hundred,
but much more positive than we were earlier in the session.
Speaker 5 (17:43):
That's right, and it looks like the S and P
five hundreds still on course for its best May since
nineteen ninety carousel. We'll see if that can hold through
four PM.
Speaker 3 (17:51):
Thirty five years. That's a long time, all right, Let's
get to it. Tyler Rosinlicht is with US portfolio manager,
head of natural resource equities at the publicly held investment
from Cohen and Steak years. He is here in our
Bloomberg Interactor Broker studio. Keep in mind the firm has
about eighty seven billion in assets under management. Tyler, you
mentioned you reminded me it's been a while. Good to
have you back. Just let's start broadly, big picture, your
(18:14):
investment thesis and focus. Talk to us a little bit
about it, especially against the backdrop of you know, every
day we're following news out of Washington and what kind
of impact that has in policy and ultimately industries and
corporate earnings.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
Well, thanks so much for having me. I guess there's
kind of two pieces that I can talk about. One
is the infrastructure side and one is natural resource equities,
and I think both of them are really well positioned today.
You know, I'd start with infrastructure. You know, I think
there's a lot of uncertainty out there, and every day
we wake up to new news that's causing a lot
of concern.
Speaker 8 (18:42):
Right.
Speaker 1 (18:43):
What we like about infrastructure is it's really predictable, you know.
We think about it as a lower volatility downside protected
asset class. It's the stuff that you have to pay
for as a consumer. It's what helps make the economy run.
So we've seen a lot of interest in infrastructure, and
it's very sensible to us.
Speaker 3 (18:58):
You have a lot of energy companies in that fund specifically.
Speaker 1 (19:01):
So within infrastructure, it's just utilities and then pipeline companies.
For us, it's really the present is truly the infrastructure,
just the infrastructure. Now we have natural resource equities as well,
which invests across the energy value chain, metals and mining
and agribusiness. That's also seeing a lot of interesting things today,
just given all the volatility that we have.
Speaker 5 (19:18):
So how do you read with everything going on with
the economic data to the back and forth with the
trade headlines. How do you use those types of stories
to then try to figure out what the best investment
thesis is.
Speaker 1 (19:29):
Yeah, let's start with infrastructure. So one of the unique
things about it as an asset class is the risk
that really keeps us up at night is regulatory risk
and changes to regulation, changes to policy that can be
on the national level. Are we going to potentially privatize Amtrak?
What that could that mean for us as investors? Or
on the more local level, so is the Utility Commission
going to change the rules of the game or the
(19:50):
returns for a local utility? So our focus a lot
more nuclear are allow more nuclear, which we're really excited
and bullish on.
Speaker 3 (19:56):
So seeing the President on some executive orders to wrap
that up in the.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
Yeah, I'm tuss that's really a good thing. Like we
think we're in an energy deficit globally, we think there's
this tension between trying to find decarbonization efforts but also
have predictable baseload energy. Nuclear to us is a great example.
It's going to require a lot of government support and
so making sure that we can understand what's going on
from a policy perspective is what's going to drive investment
opportunities for US?
Speaker 3 (20:20):
I am curious in this fund. I'm just looking at
year to date. I think it is up. I'm just
looking at here. Is it up? About? Why am I
not seeing this number?
Speaker 8 (20:31):
Probably kind of like mid single digits? Called it seven
or eight percent?
Speaker 3 (20:34):
Yeah, okay, Well, I just think about in terms of
the market volatility that we've been seeing, is it have
you been adding? Have you been subtracting? Like I'm just
curious how like moving in and out?
Speaker 1 (20:44):
So I'd start with the investor appetite. We've definitely seen
a lot of investor interest in infrastructure in particular. Again,
certainty is really high, and folks are looking for ways
to get equity like returns but with a little bit
less volatility, and that's what infrastructure does. Clearly, sort of
there's a lot of news out there on we need
more infrastructure development, how do we finance that? And listed
companies in particular benefiting for US. I'd say we've been
(21:06):
somewhat defensively positioned. We think sort of there's concerns around
the macroeconomy, things like freight rail volumes and so forth
are a little bit less predictable. So we've definitely moved
I'd call it like a four and a half or
five on a zero to ten scale in terms of
risk on risk off, which is just kind of balanced.
There's some concerns out there, but we're not super concerned,
and we just are trying to find the right stocks
(21:27):
and sectors today.
Speaker 5 (21:28):
What do you think of the hottest picks within infrastructure
if you're looking kind of more within groups or maybe
more specific companies that are listed.
Speaker 1 (21:35):
Yeah, nuclear to us is really interesting. You know, we
invest in.
Speaker 3 (21:38):
That everybody's kind of energy the utility because of the data,
you know, I'm thinking about all the AI and the
data and the energy needs or was that more it
seemed to kind of supercharge it, if you will, But
I'm just curious if it was kind of circulating anyway.
Speaker 8 (21:52):
I think that's part of it.
Speaker 1 (21:53):
But it goes a little bit beyond that, which is,
we think the world needs more energy, and we want
energy that is, you know, good for the environ mint.
Speaker 3 (22:00):
But we all see the nuclear waste well for sure,
for sure.
Speaker 1 (22:03):
We went to figure that one out, but we also
want it that's predictable and what we call baseload you
know the problem with a lot of renewables is that
they're intermittent, and when the sun's not shining, the wind's
not blowing, they don't produce power. Guess what if you're
a data center CEO, that's a big problem. You need
to make sure that the powerms stay on. So nuclear
to us is like the one resource that serves both masters.
It is decarbonized. Yes, there's a spent uranium with which
(22:25):
to deal with, but it's also baseload. It runs at
very high capacity factors at very low variable costs, and
I think people are saying, hey, we know we need
the energy. This is the sort of best of the worst,
if you want to think about it that way, And
that's why it's coming back in vogue.
Speaker 5 (22:38):
What about commodity investors, because I know you're looking at
kind of the performance of real assets now versus how
they would have been the last decade.
Speaker 1 (22:45):
Yeah, we're really excited about the commodity cycle, and we're
really excited about the natural resource equity cycle as well.
I mean, we've thought about it as we've exited this
period of abundance, which was kind of the two thousand
and seven A twenty twenty period, and we've entered what
we call the air of scarcity. Elite demand for commodities
and materials is pretty strong. We've underinvested in the supply
side for a really long time. Commodity producers, you know,
(23:07):
if you can find the right ones that aren't going
to sort of miss in terms of their production profiles,
they're really cheap, and we think marginal costs for what
they produce are going to rise and that's going to
be good for them.
Speaker 5 (23:16):
Son if it's more Canadian investors or US if you're
looking at the commodities aspect, it.
Speaker 1 (23:21):
Really depends on the commodity you're talking about and sort
of the investment. Like, for instance, take oil. We're actually
pretty bearish oil, but we particularly don't like US shale
producers because of the depletion right they see massive declines
and volumes every year. We like the Canadian oil sands
producers because they produce with a lot less sort of
base declients.
Speaker 8 (23:39):
So generally speaking, the Canadian.
Speaker 1 (23:41):
Economy is a lot more commodity centric, but I think
you can find good opportunities in both places.
Speaker 3 (23:46):
Let's talk about a couple of companies you do like
in particular, and one of them is trp TC Energy Corporation.
Tell us about this one.
Speaker 1 (23:53):
Yeah, just very broadly speaking, it's an energy natural gas
pipeline company.
Speaker 8 (23:58):
Very predictable.
Speaker 1 (23:59):
You know, they're ebit that when they say what it's
going to be at the beginning of the year tends
to be what it is at the end of the year.
We think demand for natural gas is going to keep growing.
We think data centers and everything else are going to
require more investment in gas pipelines. They've got a really
good footprint, and they do own some nuclear assets in
Ontario that we think will sort of see some life
extensions that could be good for them. But it's a
very predictable way to play energy infrastructure across North America.
Speaker 3 (24:21):
Canadian company looks like it's up about almost nine percent
so far year to date. One last one got about
thirty seconds Waste Connections tickers WCN. This is an American
company or US company.
Speaker 8 (24:30):
Yeah, it's funny.
Speaker 1 (24:31):
A lot of people don't necessarily think about and environmental
services as infrastructure.
Speaker 8 (24:35):
We think they are. For us. It's about pricing power.
Speaker 3 (24:37):
It's what businesses to deal with it.
Speaker 1 (24:38):
It is you have to stay the bill and guess
what they can raise their rates with inflation or better
than inflation. So for us, we're always on the hunt
for what businesses have pricing power. We've found that in
a lot of waste management business over time, and that
tends to be one that we feel really good from
a volume perspective as well.
Speaker 3 (24:53):
Yeah, and that name is up almost about fifteen percent
year to date.
Speaker 5 (24:56):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (24:56):
Yeah, I think about this stuff a lot. No waste
is like Unfortunately, it's part of our world. You got
to figure it out. Really good stuff. Thank you so much.
Good to see you. Yeah, all right, look forward to
next time. Tyler Rosenlicht, he's portfolio manager head of natural
resource equities over at Conan Steers, joining us here in
our Bloomberg Interactive Brokers studio. Folks were coming up on
ten minutes until we wrap up this trading day. Just
(25:17):
up my hair on the S and P five hundred
and you've got a Nasdaq one hundred that's down about
twenty nine. Carol Mass just betting in. This is Bloomberg
Business Weekdaily.
Speaker 2 (25:26):
This is the Bloomberg Business Week Daily podcast, available on Apple,
Spotify and anywhere else you get your podcasts. Listen live
weekday afternoons from two to five pm Eastern on Bloomberg
dot com, the iHeartRadio app tune In, and the Bloomberg
Business app. You can also watch us live every weekday
on YouTube 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.
True Crime Tonight
If you eat, sleep, and breathe true crime, TRUE CRIME TONIGHT is serving up your nightly fix. Five nights a week, KT STUDIOS & iHEART RADIO invite listeners to pull up a seat for an unfiltered look at the biggest cases making headlines, celebrity scandals, and the trials everyone is watching. With a mix of expert analysis, hot takes, and listener call-ins, TRUE CRIME TONIGHT goes beyond the headlines to uncover the twists, turns, and unanswered questions that keep us all obsessed—because, at TRUE CRIME TONIGHT, there’s a seat for everyone. Whether breaking down crime scene forensics, scrutinizing serial killers, or debating the most binge-worthy true crime docs, True Crime Tonight is the fresh, fast-paced, and slightly addictive home for true crime lovers.