September 11, 2025 • 36 mins
Watch Carol and Tim LIVE every day on YouTube: http://bit.ly/3vTiACF.
A search is underway for the killer of Charlie Kirk, a conservative activist and close ally of President Donald Trump who was fatally shot Wednesday at a Utah university.
Kirk, executive director of the Turning Point USA advocacy group, was speaking at an outdoor event before a crowd at Utah Valley University when a single shot was fired from a nearby building, according to local police.
Governor Spencer Cox described it as a “political assassination.”A person of interest was taken into custody and later released, FBI director Kash Patel said in social media posts, later tweeting that the FBI is seeking information, video and photos to help find the killer.
The shooting, the latest in a spate of political violence in the US, drew an outpouring of shock and condemnation from Republicans and Democrats. Kirk, 31, started Turning Point USA more than a decade ago and had turned it into one of the most influential groups helping to rally young voters to conservative causes. He leaves behind a wife and two young children.
Today's show features:
- Congressman Gabe Amo (D-RI), on domestic security, geopolitical unrest, US economic policy and offshore power projects involving his state
- Bloomberg Tech Co-Host Caroline Hyde on the report that Paramount Skydance Corp. is preparing a bid for Warner Bros. Discovery Inc.
- Kristy Akullian, CFA, is the Head of Investment Strategy, Americas, BlackRock, on asset allocation strategies
- Mark F. Cancian, Colonel, USMCR (Ret.) and Senior Adviser for the Defense and Security Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on the changing nature of US warfare and foreign military operations
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):
We are, as you know, noting the twenty fourth anniversary
of nine to eleven. Today. It's a day when we
continue to see geo political threats and tensions and honease
here at home following the shooting and killing of conservative
activist Charlie Kirk during that campus event in Utah. And
on a global scale, we see tensions between Poland and
(00:52):
Russia and so NATO certainly watching, and we would assume
the US is as well. For a perspective, we want
to head to the US House of Representatives. Congressman Gabe Amo,
Democrat for Rhode Islands first Congressional District. He joins us
from the Canon Rotunda in the nation's capital. Congressman Almo,
thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 4 (01:12):
It is thanks for having me.
Speaker 3 (01:13):
This twenty fourth anniversary of nine to eleven. It's a
reminder that terrorism on a grand scale ken and did
happen here in the US. We've seen other forms of
political violence, numerous shootings of political figures and officials, and
of course we're talking about Charlie Kirk today. Your reaction
to the shooting and killing of him.
Speaker 4 (01:34):
Well, first and foremost to remember all those lost on
nine to eleven and the brave first responders and civilians
who stepped in. And of course we have another somber
note today as we reflect on the killing of Charlie Kirk,
and I start from a place of great sympathy, sympathy
(01:56):
for his family, his spouse and children. And that turned
to political violence that we have seen in this country
in a way that we should not be experiencing, and
it is not acceptable. We should not disagree and be
disagreeable to the extent of taking people's lives away. You
(02:20):
can have political divisions, you can have divides, but violent actions,
murder is never, never.
Speaker 5 (02:29):
Acceptable, and yet it happens. And the attacks have happened
quite a bit in the last few years. We heard
some of them from Carol the Minnesota legislation leaders, Steve Scalise.
Nancy Pelosi's husband attacked, of course, the attack on President
Trump's life twice last year, including that assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania.
What is the right way to turn down the temperature
(02:50):
in the United States right now?
Speaker 4 (02:53):
I think the right way to turn down the temperature
is to treat one another as neighbors, another, as people
who belong in the same community. America is great because
we have origins that span the globe. But we come
here because we can achieve great things and they always
(03:14):
happen when we work together. And so I say that
to every person with a platform, a title, a place
where you can influence others to today commit recommit to
moving forward with rhetoric that isn't going to inspire action
(03:35):
like violence in our communities. We yes have things that
we don't agree on, paths ideologically, paths based on our
belief that might be different than those of other people
in our community. I, as a Democrat, do not need
to be mad to be angry at a Republican. We
(03:56):
can disagree on the substance, but at the end of
the day, come back. I can realize we're in the
same mission for the same country. And advancing leadership in
the world. And that's what I'm going to commit to,
and I encourage others to look inwardly and see how
they can do that today.
Speaker 3 (04:10):
But Congressman Amo, with all due respect, that political discourse
that productive technology conversations, excuse me, and debates. When you
don't agree with someone's thoughts on something, it doesn't seem
to happen anymore.
Speaker 5 (04:27):
Well, we have to do better.
Speaker 4 (04:29):
I'm not going to, you know, suggest that we have
found the way to resolve our conflicts in the best way,
but I'll tell you what isn't and will never be acceptable,
and that is violence. And so we have an extra
burden today to keep trying to keep working towards meeting
(04:49):
the ideals that I know that we share.
Speaker 3 (04:52):
So let me ask you about geopolitics, because you are
a vice ranking member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
We did have a big story today about Poling seeking
a consultation with NATO specifically and NATO powers after shooting
down drones that crossed into its territory during Russia's latest
massive air strike on Ukraine. They called the incursion and
quote active aggression. What are you hearing from us officials
(05:16):
and the White House on this.
Speaker 4 (05:18):
Well, Look, I go back to the president's summit with
Vladimir Putin, his deadlines that weren't met. Vladimir Putin is
testing limits. He is testing our resolve in our commitment
to NATO and to our European allies. And the way
we must respond is by recommitting to Ukraine's fight against
(05:43):
Vladimir Putin's aggression that has only become harsher, has been
more aggressive against civilians and is seeking to undermine our
strength and our alliances in Europe. And so I need
to hear from the White House and we need to
see a commitment to Ukraine an even stronger way.
Speaker 5 (06:05):
What does that commitment look like.
Speaker 4 (06:07):
Look, that commitment goes to certainly supporting them militarily and
continuing to provide the support they need on that, but
beyond that, when you have rhetoric that is uncertain about
our commitments to NATAL, that helps to fuel of Vladimir
(06:27):
Putin's test and he certainly wants us to have an
uncertainty in our relationship with Ukraine, our relationship with Europe,
and continuing to see an inconsistency from this administration provides
some of that continued motivation for Putin to try actions
(06:48):
like he did in Poland.
Speaker 3 (06:50):
All right, so there are definitely geo political concerns with
everything that's going on overseas. The other thing we think
about a lot is security and independence when it comes
to energy. You're a member of the House Committee on Science,
Space and Technology, ranking member of the Subcommittee on Environment.
Wind power is something that has been singled out several
times critically by President Trump. Talk to us about how
(07:12):
important offshore wind is to the state of Rhode Island.
Speaker 4 (07:17):
It's very important. Offshore wind is incredibly important to Rhode Island.
We have a project that received a stop work order,
Revolution Wind, that was set to power three hundred and
fifty thousand households between Rhode Island and Connecticut. And unfortunately,
the stop work order not only imperils our solution to
(07:39):
the challenges of climate change, our work to lower energy costs,
but it also puts people out of work. Right. You know,
we talk about the all of the above strategy. The
all of the above strategy has to include wind. And
this project was eighty percent complete, forty five out of
sixty five turbines in the water end. You're sending people home.
(08:01):
That's the president's actions, not creating jobs, taking them away.
And so we're continuing to work very aggressively across the
aisle with Republican colleagues as well to speak to the
wisdom of continuing this project.
Speaker 3 (08:15):
Well, let me just ask you something, Congressman. Governors in
the US Northeast are considering dropping resistance to natural gas
pipelines and other fossil fuel projects and the hopes they
can convince the President to allow those offshore wind farms
to move forward. Do you agree with that possible trade off,
if that's what needs to be done to save wind
farms in your home home state.
Speaker 4 (08:36):
Well, unfortunately, we've seen this as a mysteriously, you know,
troubling turn. However, when you know the President has been
at the negotiation table, this is something he has impressed
upon and you know, I'm committed to wind. But again,
if there is going to be in all of the
(08:56):
above strategy, it has to include when not excluded, and
so I know that the governors are making very tough decisions.
I think in the long term, renewables are going to
be the path that achieve our cost objectives and our
climate objectives. But this has certainly been part of what
the President has put forward when he has engaged these
(09:17):
governors alongside members of his administration.
Speaker 5 (09:20):
Okay, so let's talk about engagement of those governors. He
did say working alongside Republicans here, working across the aisle
to come to a resolution here. Has the President actually
agreed to discuss offshore wind with the governors of those
Northeast states Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts.
Speaker 4 (09:37):
I know that there are conversations ongoing with members of
the administration. I don't know of a specific commitment from
the President, but the facts are clear. We need wind,
and I'm hopeful that the President and his cabinet members
see the wisdom in continuing a project like revolution when
(09:57):
it is important to my state of Rhode Island, but
it's also a lynchpin to growing the industry across the
Eastern Seaboard, including in places like Virginia, including in Connecticut
and Massachusetts. So I want to continue to see progress here,
and I know those governors are working vigorously to get
to the table.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
All right, so appreciate your time on this Thursday. Congressman
Gabe Amo, Democrat for Rhode Island, joining us there from
the nation's capital.
Speaker 5 (10:26):
Stay with us. More from Bloomberg Business Week Daily coming
up after this.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
If you are 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 app,
or watch us Live on YouTube.
Speaker 3 (10:47):
We are keeping a watch on that. And then there's
several stories that are going on today that are certainly
impacting the markets. At this moment, we are seeing news
of Paramount Skuiddance getting ready to make a bid for
rival Warner Brothers Discovery. According to a person with knowledge
of the matter. This story, initially reported out by the
Wall Street Journal, now matched by our own Lucas Shaw.
(11:09):
We see shares of Paramount Skuidance up about nine percent
in today's trade and Warner Brothers Discovery as the target.
No surprise you're looking at this one, tim up more
than thirty percent.
Speaker 5 (11:18):
Carolyn I is the Coast of Bloomberg Technology on Bloomberg TV.
She joins us here in the Bloomberg BusinessWeek Studio. Caroline.
Initially we did see shares of Paramount Skuydance lower on this,
and then they ended up moving higher. Not typical that
we'd see both companies higher with news like this, But
I guess, hey, people are concerned about the cash source
of David Ellison so right.
Speaker 1 (11:39):
Because it looks as though the cash source would be
family Ellison. Okay, and who was at one point the
most wealthy person in the world yesterday and then settled
just one billion dollars below in a musk, but Larry Ellison,
and that was on the enormous movie Saw an Oracle.
Now you see a similar plus thirty percent move on
Warner brother Discovery, which would be the target in this
particular area, So record move for the stock. But I
(12:01):
think so many people feel that fundamentally, this is what
we need to see in the industry consolidation. You're seeing
David Zaslov over at Warner A Brother's Discovery unwinding the
deal he did several years ago. Because ultimately, you've got
cable on one side and then you have studios and
streaming on the other. You want to split those apart,
and likelihood is paramount would be interested in the studios
(12:21):
and that area.
Speaker 5 (12:22):
Well to that point, we should know Netflix Sharre is
hitting a session low down more than four percent after
this report came out, So this.
Speaker 3 (12:27):
Is all about to get interesting.
Speaker 5 (12:29):
I mean, that's what it's all about. Though. It's all
about Netflix, It's all about streaming.
Speaker 1 (12:32):
And it's all about MNA. And I think you'll speak
to so many analysts on the street of just waiting
for this sort of thing to happen. But you did
need certain areas to come into force. You needed, of course,
Comcasts to be starting to split itself into. You need
a Warner Brothers to Discovery to be talking about splitting
itself into. The interesting deal is why is Paramount trying
to buy both bits? Most people feel that the value
for Paramount as a key studio maker, as a key
(12:55):
streaming focus would be, of course the areas of growth
Harry Potter and the DC comics and the studio side
of Water Brothers Discovery. Why do they want CNN? Why
do they want some of the more struggling cable parts
of the business, or maybe they feel that they could
get more than some of their parts if they then
sold those off in more interesting m and.
Speaker 3 (13:13):
A right like just buy it all right and then
figure out like the parts that they don't want any
chance somebody else comes in. Could there be another interested party.
I mean, as we've heard like the expectations around consolidation
in this industry exactly.
Speaker 1 (13:26):
And look, you talk to some of the new leadership
that have been thinking about when you see Versat that's
been splitting off, for example, from the other key areas
of Comcast.
Speaker 3 (13:35):
They've been saying, look.
Speaker 1 (13:36):
We're not going to be like a dying ember of
cable news here and cable sports. We're actually going to
be acquisitive. But many feel that they're actually gonna be
inquisitive more in the air of startups, more in the
area of the future of sports growth, the future of news,
but perhaps not other cable networks. But they haven't taken
their name off the table when it comes to remember
there's A and E out there. There's so many of
these other companies that could be really interesting targets. Bluemmeg
(14:00):
Intelligence are basically already saying, look, from a ward a
Brother's discovery perspective, you're looking at maybe seventeen dollars would
be the right sort of price for the whole business
as a whole, and you're seeing it move up to
that as we speak.
Speaker 5 (14:10):
Yeah, you know, at the beginning of our careers, this
would be a regulatory issue the government would get involved in,
say we don't want this much media consolidation. Is that
not even part of the concern for analysts right now?
Because the ecosystem has been so beat.
Speaker 1 (14:28):
Up, and the competition just isn't from cable network to
cable network, but it's from its eyeballs. The competitive to
TV now is YouTube. The competitor to a stream and
the streaming platforms is TikTok. Everyone is fighting for your
and my eyeballs. And what is the future growth story?
Is it advertising? Well, advertisers are all going to new
(14:48):
different platforms. Is there different ways in which you can
charge subscription base driving for this value of the business.
I think this is an entire industry that has been uphended,
and I think most feel to even allow them to
stain themselves going forward. You've got to allow M and
A otherwise they just start to die out.
Speaker 3 (15:05):
You cover this world, you know, it just feels like
media technology everything is just kind of emerging. I don't
know what are you watching out for, Like what might
be the next kind of shoe to drop here?
Speaker 1 (15:15):
In terms of this story, well, I think of this
story it is going to be interesting as to you know,
whether we see these purchases happen in cash only, whether
you start to see interesting ways in which are financing
certain deals. I think a lot of the storytelling for
these new businesses, particularly in the cable areas, that we're
going to be splitting off, so saying we're going to
be cash rich, Actually we're going to have the balance
sheet to be able to put to.
Speaker 3 (15:34):
Work for me.
Speaker 1 (15:35):
This is just Look, we are at record highs in
the stock market. You are seeing people going all in
on the artificial intelligence story, but there is still so
much optimism and deal making, and I think it's pretty
phenomenal that you're seeing these sorts of cash bids come.
I don't know how many more billionaires are out there
who can start by all these bids, but Larry Ellison
is clearly something different.
Speaker 3 (15:54):
Or how many can say, hey, dad, a little helping,
just kidding.
Speaker 5 (15:58):
So finally, on the streaming side of this, for consumers,
should we think about this from the context of one
option perhaps in the future, for Paramount Plus subscribers and
HBO Max or Max or whatever it's called now subscribers,
this becomes one thing. It's supercharged and you can get
everything from Warner Brothers, Discovery and Paramounts Guidance.
Speaker 1 (16:17):
And you're really smart to put it that way, because
look how we're seeing Disney trying to interact with its
own bundling.
Speaker 6 (16:22):
And the way I.
Speaker 5 (16:24):
ESPN who new Disney thirty bucks a month.
Speaker 1 (16:26):
I just bought it and suddenly it makes more sense
like what old is new again? Before we wanted everything
to split off, Now we want to go once again
back in. And I think that that ultimately has to
be the way in which they can drive cross pollination.
And you will see people want to be able to
just go to a one stop shop. Look you're seeing
even deals done across the aisle with Amazon having been
able to offer other rivals. I mean, we will just
(16:47):
generally want one go to button that we can click,
and suddenly while we can get all of them.
Speaker 5 (16:52):
I think you could do that with a cable subscription.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
I think you can do that right Exactly. It's revolution, guys, exactly, exactly,
incredible story. Bloomberg News and Bloomberg Technology co host Caroline
High catch her and ed La Low every day at
eleven am Wall Street Time.
Speaker 2 (17:11):
This is the Bloomberg Business Week Daily Podcast. Listen live
each weekday starting at two pm Eastern on Apple car
Play and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. You
can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship
New York station Just Say Alexa played Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 3 (17:28):
You know, you've got investors moving into equities, also into bonds,
which is why we've seen yields all along the yel
curve moved down. We talked about this earlier with our team.
The tenure right now still at four point zero one.
But as we know tim earlier today, and as we
heard from our stewart Paul, it really was on the
weekly's jobless numbers that he said, you saw that movement
down when it comes to US yield.
Speaker 7 (17:49):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (17:49):
I want to see what Christia Cooley and has to
say about all this. She's head of investment strategy for
the America's at Black Rocks. She joins us once again
from San Francisco. Curious how you're reading this macro economic data,
the sticky inflation but also a weakening jobs market. What
do you see?
Speaker 7 (18:05):
Yeah, it's great to be back with you, and happy
CPI day. It's all to celebrate.
Speaker 5 (18:10):
Thank you.
Speaker 7 (18:11):
I think what we you know what we got today
was good enough reading. Obviously, there was some acceleration in
pocket some of the places we expected to see acceleration,
some of that tear if pass through happening, you know,
things like food and apparel. But I think the market
is really reading this as again good enough for the
Fed to be able to continue to focus on rate
(18:32):
cutting in terms of kind of the balance of their
dual mandate. It seems like attention is fully focused on
the jobs market right now. So again, I think we're
seeing a reaction of good enough inflation data to allow
for some cutting to happen through the rest of the year.
Speaker 3 (18:47):
Do you think that makes sense in terms of a
rate cut? And I'm just curious how much you think
is already kind of baked into the equity trade where
we've kind of hit record after record after record. Yeah.
Speaker 7 (18:57):
Absolutely. You know, our view is the Fed is going
to cut twenty five basis points next week. We think
that that's more likely than going for a jumbo just
to leave themselves more optionality into the rest of the year.
Obviously that can be good for equities, but to your point,
it's pretty well expected and well broadcasted at this point,
So you know, I think that i'd characterize our view
on equities as we're still constructive, but we prefer, you know,
(19:20):
those companies that have pricing power, that are highly profitable.
We prefer the more quality end of the spectrum. You've
seen a bit of a junk rally. You've seen small
caps rally over the last couple of weeks in anticipation
of some of these rate cuts. But in our view,
you know, you need to see both the amount of
rate cuts that are expected actually be delivered, and you
(19:41):
need to see growth stay really strong. It's a tight
rope in terms of that both of those things being
able to happen at the same time. It leaves us
cautious on small caps. So we like equities, We like
leaning into large caps. We like staying really nimble and dynamic.
Something like DYNF which is our our factor rotation actly
managed fund. It makes a lot of sense in moments
(20:02):
like these.
Speaker 3 (20:03):
So when you want to remain nimble, does that mean
you increase the amount you have in cash or cash
like investments so that you can maybe reallocate as you
feel like some of the uncertain aspects of the market
maybe become more certain.
Speaker 7 (20:18):
I mean normally I think the answer would be yes.
But when you look at the data, investors already hold
so much cash, we think it's actually more of a
time to get invested. If you look at just flows
over the last three years, more money has been allocated
to money market funds than to stock or bond funds,
and so again there's a pretty big wall of cash.
(20:38):
We still think it makes sense to get and stay
invested even though rates are coming down. I think you know,
we're having a lot of conversations and fixed income about
where to seek the income that you're maybe losing on
some of your cash, your money markets, your high yield
saving accounts, and within fixed income, we like kind of
the intermediate part of the curve and focusing on the
incomponent more than the duration. Is where we're really going
(21:01):
to get returns for the next kind of six to
twelve months.
Speaker 5 (21:04):
Is that where you think the cash is going to
go more so than in equities or different products. I'm
just I just have an our time understanding if people
have are you see these high yield savings accounts or
products with higher returns and fixed income? Where does that
trillions of dollars go when rates fall?
Speaker 3 (21:23):
Yeah?
Speaker 7 (21:23):
I mean, I think one answer is ESKOV, which is
our short DA CITYDF. It has taken in a tremendous
amount of money that we do think is investors considering
that as sort of an alternative to high yield savings accounts,
so short dated fixed income. We don't see this as
you know, every investor is going to pile into the
equity market. It's you know, it's dry powder to an extent,
(21:43):
but it's in cash for a reason. I just think
that there's more opportunistic ways to source that yield now
since it's going to be coming down in some of
the very front end or some of those cash like
instruments costing market.
Speaker 3 (21:54):
Christy, do you find it interesting that there's still so
much money in cash? And there always is a fair
amount of money cash, it's just the way it goes.
But do you feel like when you see record after
record on Wall Street that there is still not more
movement out of those cash investments or what's sitting in
money markets like what if that Telly don't buy it?
Or they're just like, you know.
Speaker 7 (22:17):
There's always a reason to be concerned, right, There's always
some risk on the horizon, and so I think that
that's part of it. I also think that there was
a bit of a structural shift in terms of cash
and where it was held and maybe moving from deposit
accounts into things like money market funds. So some of
that cash is really just set aside for emergencies. It's
not investable. But even that said, you know, we've seen
(22:38):
really strong participation out of the retail community and equity markets,
where we see the institutional community is actually still relatively
muted compared to what was at the end of last year.
So certain pockets of the institutional community maybe look a
little bit longer in terms of positioning, but kind of
the traditional asset managers, some of the you know, pension
funds and some of those long onlys, they're not as
(23:00):
you know, there's still well off the highs in terms
of equity exposure where they were at the end of
last year, so we think that there's still room for
some of that cash to move into markets.
Speaker 6 (23:08):
For sure.
Speaker 5 (23:08):
Are you bullish on the equity markets right now?
Speaker 3 (23:12):
Yeah, again, I do.
Speaker 7 (23:13):
I would characterize us as still fairly risk on, but
we're really focusing on where the growth is happening. So
if you look at the composition of returns for US
equity markets so far this year. You know, if you
look at at kind of the large cap growth, if
you look at technology, you know, eighty percent of those
returns have come from earnings growth. So it's incredibly fundamentally driven.
(23:35):
It's only about half for the broader S and P
five hundred index. It's about a third for the value
portion of the index. So we are still risk on.
We still see opportunity in equity markets, but we do
prefer being really focused on where the growth is. And
so even though you know, I know that investors get
concerned about valuations, a lot of the you know, the
(23:56):
I think that some of the valuations and some of
the concentration that you see in US equity market it's
a feature and not a bug. So much of the
growth as coming from the top. Then so much of
it is coming from the AI trade that we think
it's really hard to sit out, but you know, being
really deliberate about diversification elsewhere, being cognizant of some of
those risks that you introduced.
Speaker 3 (24:16):
All right, Christy, good to get some time with you.
Christia Cooley and head of Investment Strategy for the Americas
Ever at Blackrock joining us from San Francisco.
Speaker 5 (24:24):
Stay with us. More from Bloomberg Business Week Daily coming
up after this.
Speaker 2 (24:31):
If 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
Act or watch US live on YouTube.
Speaker 5 (24:46):
Twenty four years ago today, the US was attacked. President
Trump made comments earlier from the Pentagon, one of the
sites that was attacked on nine to eleven. He paid
tribute to firefighters, police service members too. One service member
who was there on nine eleven than Mark F. Kansion.
He's a retired colonel US Marine Corps Reserve, now senior
advisor for the Defense and Security Department at the Center
(25:07):
for Strategic and International Studies. He writes about military forces
and operations. Mark also served two tours in Iraq with
Deep Marines. Mark's with us now from Washington. Mark, First,
thank you for your service. We're going to talk about
the change in US national security since nine to eleven, because,
as you've written about for years, it's significant and there
(25:27):
was a significant shift a little over a decade ago.
But first, a day like today, as somebody who experienced
it up close, what does it mean to you?
Speaker 6 (25:36):
Well, I actually called one of my former staff members
and reminded him where we were twenty four years ago
and what had happened was it was an overwhelming experience
to be in the middle of it. I think what
people often don't appreciate it is just how confusing it
is because nobody really knew what it happened. You know,
we could see that part of the building was burning
(26:00):
and evacuated our offices, but it was a long time
before we knew exactly what but it happened. I heard
a story that a plane hit the Pentagon. I was thinking,
Asessma didn't realize that this was a passenger aircraft, that
many people had been killed, and that it was part
of a larger terrorist plot.
Speaker 3 (26:20):
You know. Since then, I feel like there are so
many different security levels that are now part of our world.
I just think about when I go to fly, whether
it's face, finger, hands, like, it's just amazing things that
we now just assume to be kind of ubiquitous in
our world. And I'm just wondering, do you think we
are more secure here in the United States? And I
(26:42):
asked this on a day when we have had what
we assume to be you know, well, what we've seen
is the shooting and murder of one conservative activist. We
see politics, politicians really under risk there, you know, attacks
and other shootings, if you will, even the President. I'm
(27:04):
just wondering, do you think we are safer here in
the United States?
Speaker 6 (27:09):
Well, I think the general public is safer. You know,
there hasn't been hijacking in the United States. There had
been very few terrorist incidents. Right after nine to eleven.
There was great concern that there were going to be
other terrorist attacks like what we had experienced with three
thousand people killed, you know, and nothing like that has happened.
(27:32):
We've endured a lot of inconvenience tsa, you know, taking
your shoes off for all those those years. I mean
all of the security every building. Now you have to
be badged to get in. People forget that. At one
point in my early career, the Pentagon was an open building.
I mean you could just walk in. Anybody from the
public just walk into the Pentagon. You could walk up
(27:53):
to the Secretary of Defensives office if you want. You
couldn't get in the office, but you could walk up
to it. Then in the nineties they put in some
sort of basic security, and of course after nine to
eleven they put in really very severe UH security measures.
But we're required given the new environment.
Speaker 5 (28:13):
But to Carrol's point, is it a bigger threat? Is
there a bigger threat coming from inside the United States,
from our own neighbors who are close to us, fellow Americans,
than from people outside of the US.
Speaker 6 (28:30):
Well, I think both threats exist. And you know, we
have seen of course this terrible incident with the assassination
of Charlie Kirk, we saw legislators in Minnesota murdered, and
the attempts on President Trump's life. Those are different though,
because you know, that is political inspired murder, which unfortunately
(28:56):
has not been is increasing, you know, has not been
part of our culture. But then we have the broader
question about the public, you know, and if you are not,
you know, politically prominent, you know, I think that the
threats to you are much reduced compared to what they
(29:17):
were on nine to eleven.
Speaker 5 (29:21):
Mark, as I mentioned, I want to talk a little
bit about what you've been writing about for years, military
forces and operations and the evolution or the change that
we saw when the US moved away from counter insurgency
and instead focusing on Russia and China. When was this
and what was the reason for doing this?
Speaker 6 (29:45):
Yeah, there's been an evolution. If we go back to
the end of the Cold War, there was a period
of time when it wasn't clear what the enemies were,
what our adversaries were article for instance, Yama, you know,
the end of history question mark, and that ended at
the in the nineties, you know, the defense budget came
(30:07):
down by forty percent, forces shrank by forty percent. But
then we had Bosnia, we had Kosovo, we had some
incidents with Iraq, so that defense budget plataued and started
coming back up, you know, just for these general concerns
that the world you know, had would not always a
safe place. Then we have nine to eleven and two
(30:31):
things happen. Of course, we embark on these two huge
counterinsurgency campaigns, first in Afghanistan, then in Iraq, and then
homeland security becomes part of our national security strategy. But
back after nine to eleven, it was only a small
part of what DoD did. It was much more of
(30:52):
a law enforcement effort. D d did do ballistic missile
defense that did do some work on the Northwest border.
Most of it was TSA, it was FBI, which got
a big plus up. It was domestic counter terrorism, and
that's was our strategy that had our focus up until
(31:14):
twenty fourteen. And in twenty fourteen three things happened. Russia
took over Crimea, Isis, roared out of the desert and
nearly captured Baghdad, and the Chinese continued their assertive actions
in the South China Sea. So it was a break
that at that point. It was at the end of
(31:35):
the bomb administration, and they started focusing on great power conflict,
recognizing that Russia and China were going to be threats
in the future. Initially they put Russia at the top
and then China. The first Trump administration reversed that order China,
(31:56):
then Russia, but again focused on great power conflict. The
Biden administration essentially didn't change that, although they probably wouldn't
admit that. They were very close on national security policy
with the first Trump administration, but you get a lot
of continuity there. What we've seen in the last couple
(32:18):
of months is a shift. Early in this second Trump administration,
the focus was still on China. Secretor Haigseth was talking
about how Taiwan was our driving scenario and in fact
we were going to shift forces into the Western Pacific.
Of course, a couple of things happened. You have the
(32:40):
events in the Middle East, you have Hamas and the
wars there, and then you have a folk sort of
an increasing focus on homeland security in new ways. Right, Well,
so go ahead, I want.
Speaker 3 (32:55):
To jump in on because we have about three minutes
left or so. But we're talking with Mark Canty, and
he's Senior Defense and Security Department at csis the center
of a strategic and international studies retired colonel with the
US Marine Corps Reserve. One thing I want to ask
you is that we've had President Trump come out with
(33:16):
plans to change the Department of Defense to the Department
of War, and in doing so, our Defense Secretary Pete
Hegseth has said secretary of War. So the department is
now about maximum lethality, not tepid legality, violent effect, not
politically correct. We're going to raise up warriors, not just defenders.
(33:37):
What's the message if China is, as things have evolved,
our biggest threat, What's the message is that we are
willing to go to war with China in this new environment,
this new reality.
Speaker 6 (33:52):
I think what Higgseth is trying to signal is that
the United States is able to conduct a conflict if
that becomes necessary. There is some tension between that notion
about lethality, which is appropriate in a conflict, and the
(34:12):
focus on homeland security, where it's not lethality, it's a
variety of other tools to reduce crime, reduce immigration, reduced
drug smuggling. And that tension has arisen in the last
couple of months. The Department still hasn't resolved it understand
that their new national defense strategy is going to try
(34:35):
to straddle that put homeland security at the top. Those
initiatives we've seen with the Trump administration, you know, they
had tremendous policy implications. So far, they haven't demanded a
lot of forces. In other words, what we've seen in Washington,
d C. For law enforcement, huge political and law enforcement implications,
(34:58):
hasn't taken a lot of troops.
Speaker 3 (35:01):
Well, and that's what I was thinking about too, Like
the military aspect of the US, I mean, are we
attracting enough if we are building out this Department of
War and we've just got about twenty five seconds because
it does. I don't know. I'm just curious your thoughts
on that.
Speaker 6 (35:18):
As a veteran, well, people have worried about that, but
that isn't reflected in the numbers at least yet. The
recruiting and retention has been very good. The administration has
highlighted that due to their policies. Might be true. Hard
to say. The increase in recruiting started under the Biden administration.
(35:40):
It's possible that some of these recent actions will discourage people,
but we haven't seen any indication of that yet.
Speaker 3 (35:47):
All right, gonn't leave it on that note. Really appreciate
you joining and sharing your perspective. Mark Cansey and he's
Senior Advisor Defense and Security Department at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies, retired colonel at the US Marine
Corps Reserve, joining us from Washington.
Speaker 2 (36:02):
This is the Bloomberg Business Weekdaily 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.
(36:23):
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):
We are, as you know, noting the twenty fourth anniversary
of nine to eleven. Today. It's a day when we
continue to see geo political threats and tensions and honease
here at home following the shooting and killing of conservative
activist Charlie Kirk during that campus event in Utah. And
on a global scale, we see tensions between Poland and
(00:52):
Russia and so NATO certainly watching, and we would assume
the US is as well. For a perspective, we want
to head to the US House of Representatives. Congressman Gabe Amo,
Democrat for Rhode Islands first Congressional District. He joins us
from the Canon Rotunda in the nation's capital. Congressman Almo,
thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 4 (01:12):
It is thanks for having me.
Speaker 3 (01:13):
This twenty fourth anniversary of nine to eleven. It's a
reminder that terrorism on a grand scale ken and did
happen here in the US. We've seen other forms of
political violence, numerous shootings of political figures and officials, and
of course we're talking about Charlie Kirk today. Your reaction
to the shooting and killing of him.
Speaker 4 (01:34):
Well, first and foremost to remember all those lost on
nine to eleven and the brave first responders and civilians
who stepped in. And of course we have another somber
note today as we reflect on the killing of Charlie Kirk,
and I start from a place of great sympathy, sympathy
(01:56):
for his family, his spouse and children. And that turned
to political violence that we have seen in this country
in a way that we should not be experiencing, and
it is not acceptable. We should not disagree and be
disagreeable to the extent of taking people's lives away. You
(02:20):
can have political divisions, you can have divides, but violent actions,
murder is never, never.
Speaker 5 (02:29):
Acceptable, and yet it happens. And the attacks have happened
quite a bit in the last few years. We heard
some of them from Carol the Minnesota legislation leaders, Steve Scalise.
Nancy Pelosi's husband attacked, of course, the attack on President
Trump's life twice last year, including that assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania.
What is the right way to turn down the temperature
(02:50):
in the United States right now?
Speaker 4 (02:53):
I think the right way to turn down the temperature
is to treat one another as neighbors, another, as people
who belong in the same community. America is great because
we have origins that span the globe. But we come
here because we can achieve great things and they always
(03:14):
happen when we work together. And so I say that
to every person with a platform, a title, a place
where you can influence others to today commit recommit to
moving forward with rhetoric that isn't going to inspire action
(03:35):
like violence in our communities. We yes have things that
we don't agree on, paths ideologically, paths based on our
belief that might be different than those of other people
in our community. I, as a Democrat, do not need
to be mad to be angry at a Republican. We
(03:56):
can disagree on the substance, but at the end of
the day, come back. I can realize we're in the
same mission for the same country. And advancing leadership in
the world. And that's what I'm going to commit to,
and I encourage others to look inwardly and see how
they can do that today.
Speaker 3 (04:10):
But Congressman Amo, with all due respect, that political discourse
that productive technology conversations, excuse me, and debates. When you
don't agree with someone's thoughts on something, it doesn't seem
to happen anymore.
Speaker 5 (04:27):
Well, we have to do better.
Speaker 4 (04:29):
I'm not going to, you know, suggest that we have
found the way to resolve our conflicts in the best way,
but I'll tell you what isn't and will never be acceptable,
and that is violence. And so we have an extra
burden today to keep trying to keep working towards meeting
(04:49):
the ideals that I know that we share.
Speaker 3 (04:52):
So let me ask you about geopolitics, because you are
a vice ranking member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
We did have a big story today about Poling seeking
a consultation with NATO specifically and NATO powers after shooting
down drones that crossed into its territory during Russia's latest
massive air strike on Ukraine. They called the incursion and
quote active aggression. What are you hearing from us officials
(05:16):
and the White House on this.
Speaker 4 (05:18):
Well, Look, I go back to the president's summit with
Vladimir Putin, his deadlines that weren't met. Vladimir Putin is
testing limits. He is testing our resolve in our commitment
to NATO and to our European allies. And the way
we must respond is by recommitting to Ukraine's fight against
(05:43):
Vladimir Putin's aggression that has only become harsher, has been
more aggressive against civilians and is seeking to undermine our
strength and our alliances in Europe. And so I need
to hear from the White House and we need to
see a commitment to Ukraine an even stronger way.
Speaker 5 (06:05):
What does that commitment look like.
Speaker 4 (06:07):
Look, that commitment goes to certainly supporting them militarily and
continuing to provide the support they need on that, but
beyond that, when you have rhetoric that is uncertain about
our commitments to NATAL, that helps to fuel of Vladimir
(06:27):
Putin's test and he certainly wants us to have an
uncertainty in our relationship with Ukraine, our relationship with Europe,
and continuing to see an inconsistency from this administration provides
some of that continued motivation for Putin to try actions
(06:48):
like he did in Poland.
Speaker 3 (06:50):
All right, so there are definitely geo political concerns with
everything that's going on overseas. The other thing we think
about a lot is security and independence when it comes
to energy. You're a member of the House Committee on Science,
Space and Technology, ranking member of the Subcommittee on Environment.
Wind power is something that has been singled out several
times critically by President Trump. Talk to us about how
(07:12):
important offshore wind is to the state of Rhode Island.
Speaker 4 (07:17):
It's very important. Offshore wind is incredibly important to Rhode Island.
We have a project that received a stop work order,
Revolution Wind, that was set to power three hundred and
fifty thousand households between Rhode Island and Connecticut. And unfortunately,
the stop work order not only imperils our solution to
(07:39):
the challenges of climate change, our work to lower energy costs,
but it also puts people out of work. Right. You know,
we talk about the all of the above strategy. The
all of the above strategy has to include wind. And
this project was eighty percent complete, forty five out of
sixty five turbines in the water end. You're sending people home.
(08:01):
That's the president's actions, not creating jobs, taking them away.
And so we're continuing to work very aggressively across the
aisle with Republican colleagues as well to speak to the
wisdom of continuing this project.
Speaker 3 (08:15):
Well, let me just ask you something, Congressman. Governors in
the US Northeast are considering dropping resistance to natural gas
pipelines and other fossil fuel projects and the hopes they
can convince the President to allow those offshore wind farms
to move forward. Do you agree with that possible trade off,
if that's what needs to be done to save wind
farms in your home home state.
Speaker 4 (08:36):
Well, unfortunately, we've seen this as a mysteriously, you know,
troubling turn. However, when you know the President has been
at the negotiation table, this is something he has impressed
upon and you know, I'm committed to wind. But again,
if there is going to be in all of the
(08:56):
above strategy, it has to include when not excluded, and
so I know that the governors are making very tough decisions.
I think in the long term, renewables are going to
be the path that achieve our cost objectives and our
climate objectives. But this has certainly been part of what
the President has put forward when he has engaged these
(09:17):
governors alongside members of his administration.
Speaker 5 (09:20):
Okay, so let's talk about engagement of those governors. He
did say working alongside Republicans here, working across the aisle
to come to a resolution here. Has the President actually
agreed to discuss offshore wind with the governors of those
Northeast states Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts.
Speaker 4 (09:37):
I know that there are conversations ongoing with members of
the administration. I don't know of a specific commitment from
the President, but the facts are clear. We need wind,
and I'm hopeful that the President and his cabinet members
see the wisdom in continuing a project like revolution when
(09:57):
it is important to my state of Rhode Island, but
it's also a lynchpin to growing the industry across the
Eastern Seaboard, including in places like Virginia, including in Connecticut
and Massachusetts. So I want to continue to see progress here,
and I know those governors are working vigorously to get
to the table.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
All right, so appreciate your time on this Thursday. Congressman
Gabe Amo, Democrat for Rhode Island, joining us there from
the nation's capital.
Speaker 5 (10:26):
Stay with us. More from Bloomberg Business Week Daily coming
up after this.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
If you are 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 app,
or watch us Live on YouTube.
Speaker 3 (10:47):
We are keeping a watch on that. And then there's
several stories that are going on today that are certainly
impacting the markets. At this moment, we are seeing news
of Paramount Skuiddance getting ready to make a bid for
rival Warner Brothers Discovery. According to a person with knowledge
of the matter. This story, initially reported out by the
Wall Street Journal, now matched by our own Lucas Shaw.
(11:09):
We see shares of Paramount Skuidance up about nine percent
in today's trade and Warner Brothers Discovery as the target.
No surprise you're looking at this one, tim up more
than thirty percent.
Speaker 5 (11:18):
Carolyn I is the Coast of Bloomberg Technology on Bloomberg TV.
She joins us here in the Bloomberg BusinessWeek Studio. Caroline.
Initially we did see shares of Paramount Skuydance lower on this,
and then they ended up moving higher. Not typical that
we'd see both companies higher with news like this, But
I guess, hey, people are concerned about the cash source
of David Ellison so right.
Speaker 1 (11:39):
Because it looks as though the cash source would be
family Ellison. Okay, and who was at one point the
most wealthy person in the world yesterday and then settled
just one billion dollars below in a musk, but Larry Ellison,
and that was on the enormous movie Saw an Oracle.
Now you see a similar plus thirty percent move on
Warner brother Discovery, which would be the target in this
particular area, So record move for the stock. But I
(12:01):
think so many people feel that fundamentally, this is what
we need to see in the industry consolidation. You're seeing
David Zaslov over at Warner A Brother's Discovery unwinding the
deal he did several years ago. Because ultimately, you've got
cable on one side and then you have studios and
streaming on the other. You want to split those apart,
and likelihood is paramount would be interested in the studios
(12:21):
and that area.
Speaker 5 (12:22):
Well to that point, we should know Netflix Sharre is
hitting a session low down more than four percent after
this report came out, So this.
Speaker 3 (12:27):
Is all about to get interesting.
Speaker 5 (12:29):
I mean, that's what it's all about. Though. It's all
about Netflix, It's all about streaming.
Speaker 1 (12:32):
And it's all about MNA. And I think you'll speak
to so many analysts on the street of just waiting
for this sort of thing to happen. But you did
need certain areas to come into force. You needed, of course,
Comcasts to be starting to split itself into. You need
a Warner Brothers to Discovery to be talking about splitting
itself into. The interesting deal is why is Paramount trying
to buy both bits? Most people feel that the value
for Paramount as a key studio maker, as a key
(12:55):
streaming focus would be, of course the areas of growth
Harry Potter and the DC comics and the studio side
of Water Brothers Discovery. Why do they want CNN? Why
do they want some of the more struggling cable parts
of the business, or maybe they feel that they could
get more than some of their parts if they then
sold those off in more interesting m and.
Speaker 3 (13:13):
A right like just buy it all right and then
figure out like the parts that they don't want any
chance somebody else comes in. Could there be another interested party.
I mean, as we've heard like the expectations around consolidation
in this industry exactly.
Speaker 1 (13:26):
And look, you talk to some of the new leadership
that have been thinking about when you see Versat that's
been splitting off, for example, from the other key areas
of Comcast.
Speaker 3 (13:35):
They've been saying, look.
Speaker 1 (13:36):
We're not going to be like a dying ember of
cable news here and cable sports. We're actually going to
be acquisitive. But many feel that they're actually gonna be
inquisitive more in the air of startups, more in the
area of the future of sports growth, the future of news,
but perhaps not other cable networks. But they haven't taken
their name off the table when it comes to remember
there's A and E out there. There's so many of
these other companies that could be really interesting targets. Bluemmeg
(14:00):
Intelligence are basically already saying, look, from a ward a
Brother's discovery perspective, you're looking at maybe seventeen dollars would
be the right sort of price for the whole business
as a whole, and you're seeing it move up to
that as we speak.
Speaker 5 (14:10):
Yeah, you know, at the beginning of our careers, this
would be a regulatory issue the government would get involved in,
say we don't want this much media consolidation. Is that
not even part of the concern for analysts right now?
Because the ecosystem has been so beat.
Speaker 1 (14:28):
Up, and the competition just isn't from cable network to
cable network, but it's from its eyeballs. The competitive to
TV now is YouTube. The competitor to a stream and
the streaming platforms is TikTok. Everyone is fighting for your
and my eyeballs. And what is the future growth story?
Is it advertising? Well, advertisers are all going to new
(14:48):
different platforms. Is there different ways in which you can
charge subscription base driving for this value of the business.
I think this is an entire industry that has been uphended,
and I think most feel to even allow them to
stain themselves going forward. You've got to allow M and
A otherwise they just start to die out.
Speaker 3 (15:05):
You cover this world, you know, it just feels like
media technology everything is just kind of emerging. I don't
know what are you watching out for, Like what might
be the next kind of shoe to drop here?
Speaker 1 (15:15):
In terms of this story, well, I think of this
story it is going to be interesting as to you know,
whether we see these purchases happen in cash only, whether
you start to see interesting ways in which are financing
certain deals. I think a lot of the storytelling for
these new businesses, particularly in the cable areas, that we're
going to be splitting off, so saying we're going to
be cash rich, Actually we're going to have the balance
sheet to be able to put to.
Speaker 3 (15:34):
Work for me.
Speaker 1 (15:35):
This is just Look, we are at record highs in
the stock market. You are seeing people going all in
on the artificial intelligence story, but there is still so
much optimism and deal making, and I think it's pretty
phenomenal that you're seeing these sorts of cash bids come.
I don't know how many more billionaires are out there
who can start by all these bids, but Larry Ellison
is clearly something different.
Speaker 3 (15:54):
Or how many can say, hey, dad, a little helping,
just kidding.
Speaker 5 (15:58):
So finally, on the streaming side of this, for consumers,
should we think about this from the context of one
option perhaps in the future, for Paramount Plus subscribers and
HBO Max or Max or whatever it's called now subscribers,
this becomes one thing. It's supercharged and you can get
everything from Warner Brothers, Discovery and Paramounts Guidance.
Speaker 1 (16:17):
And you're really smart to put it that way, because
look how we're seeing Disney trying to interact with its
own bundling.
Speaker 6 (16:22):
And the way I.
Speaker 5 (16:24):
ESPN who new Disney thirty bucks a month.
Speaker 1 (16:26):
I just bought it and suddenly it makes more sense
like what old is new again? Before we wanted everything
to split off, Now we want to go once again
back in. And I think that that ultimately has to
be the way in which they can drive cross pollination.
And you will see people want to be able to
just go to a one stop shop. Look you're seeing
even deals done across the aisle with Amazon having been
able to offer other rivals. I mean, we will just
(16:47):
generally want one go to button that we can click,
and suddenly while we can get all of them.
Speaker 5 (16:52):
I think you could do that with a cable subscription.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
I think you can do that right Exactly. It's revolution, guys, exactly, exactly,
incredible story. Bloomberg News and Bloomberg Technology co host Caroline
High catch her and ed La Low every day at
eleven am Wall Street Time.
Speaker 2 (17:11):
This is the Bloomberg Business Week Daily Podcast. Listen live
each weekday starting at two pm Eastern on Apple car
Play and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. You
can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship
New York station Just Say Alexa played Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 3 (17:28):
You know, you've got investors moving into equities, also into bonds,
which is why we've seen yields all along the yel
curve moved down. We talked about this earlier with our team.
The tenure right now still at four point zero one.
But as we know tim earlier today, and as we
heard from our stewart Paul, it really was on the
weekly's jobless numbers that he said, you saw that movement
down when it comes to US yield.
Speaker 7 (17:49):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (17:49):
I want to see what Christia Cooley and has to
say about all this. She's head of investment strategy for
the America's at Black Rocks. She joins us once again
from San Francisco. Curious how you're reading this macro economic data,
the sticky inflation but also a weakening jobs market. What
do you see?
Speaker 7 (18:05):
Yeah, it's great to be back with you, and happy
CPI day. It's all to celebrate.
Speaker 5 (18:10):
Thank you.
Speaker 7 (18:11):
I think what we you know what we got today
was good enough reading. Obviously, there was some acceleration in
pocket some of the places we expected to see acceleration,
some of that tear if pass through happening, you know,
things like food and apparel. But I think the market
is really reading this as again good enough for the
Fed to be able to continue to focus on rate
(18:32):
cutting in terms of kind of the balance of their
dual mandate. It seems like attention is fully focused on
the jobs market right now. So again, I think we're
seeing a reaction of good enough inflation data to allow
for some cutting to happen through the rest of the year.
Speaker 3 (18:47):
Do you think that makes sense in terms of a
rate cut? And I'm just curious how much you think
is already kind of baked into the equity trade where
we've kind of hit record after record after record. Yeah.
Speaker 7 (18:57):
Absolutely. You know, our view is the Fed is going
to cut twenty five basis points next week. We think
that that's more likely than going for a jumbo just
to leave themselves more optionality into the rest of the year.
Obviously that can be good for equities, but to your point,
it's pretty well expected and well broadcasted at this point,
So you know, I think that i'd characterize our view
on equities as we're still constructive, but we prefer, you know,
(19:20):
those companies that have pricing power, that are highly profitable.
We prefer the more quality end of the spectrum. You've
seen a bit of a junk rally. You've seen small
caps rally over the last couple of weeks in anticipation
of some of these rate cuts. But in our view,
you know, you need to see both the amount of
rate cuts that are expected actually be delivered, and you
(19:41):
need to see growth stay really strong. It's a tight
rope in terms of that both of those things being
able to happen at the same time. It leaves us
cautious on small caps. So we like equities, We like
leaning into large caps. We like staying really nimble and dynamic.
Something like DYNF which is our our factor rotation actly
managed fund. It makes a lot of sense in moments
(20:02):
like these.
Speaker 3 (20:03):
So when you want to remain nimble, does that mean
you increase the amount you have in cash or cash
like investments so that you can maybe reallocate as you
feel like some of the uncertain aspects of the market
maybe become more certain.
Speaker 7 (20:18):
I mean normally I think the answer would be yes.
But when you look at the data, investors already hold
so much cash, we think it's actually more of a
time to get invested. If you look at just flows
over the last three years, more money has been allocated
to money market funds than to stock or bond funds,
and so again there's a pretty big wall of cash.
(20:38):
We still think it makes sense to get and stay
invested even though rates are coming down. I think you know,
we're having a lot of conversations and fixed income about
where to seek the income that you're maybe losing on
some of your cash, your money markets, your high yield
saving accounts, and within fixed income, we like kind of
the intermediate part of the curve and focusing on the
incomponent more than the duration. Is where we're really going
(21:01):
to get returns for the next kind of six to
twelve months.
Speaker 5 (21:04):
Is that where you think the cash is going to
go more so than in equities or different products. I'm
just I just have an our time understanding if people
have are you see these high yield savings accounts or
products with higher returns and fixed income? Where does that
trillions of dollars go when rates fall?
Speaker 3 (21:23):
Yeah?
Speaker 7 (21:23):
I mean, I think one answer is ESKOV, which is
our short DA CITYDF. It has taken in a tremendous
amount of money that we do think is investors considering
that as sort of an alternative to high yield savings accounts,
so short dated fixed income. We don't see this as
you know, every investor is going to pile into the
equity market. It's you know, it's dry powder to an extent,
(21:43):
but it's in cash for a reason. I just think
that there's more opportunistic ways to source that yield now
since it's going to be coming down in some of
the very front end or some of those cash like
instruments costing market.
Speaker 3 (21:54):
Christy, do you find it interesting that there's still so
much money in cash? And there always is a fair
amount of money cash, it's just the way it goes.
But do you feel like when you see record after
record on Wall Street that there is still not more
movement out of those cash investments or what's sitting in
money markets like what if that Telly don't buy it?
Or they're just like, you know.
Speaker 7 (22:17):
There's always a reason to be concerned, right, There's always
some risk on the horizon, and so I think that
that's part of it. I also think that there was
a bit of a structural shift in terms of cash
and where it was held and maybe moving from deposit
accounts into things like money market funds. So some of
that cash is really just set aside for emergencies. It's
not investable. But even that said, you know, we've seen
(22:38):
really strong participation out of the retail community and equity markets,
where we see the institutional community is actually still relatively
muted compared to what was at the end of last year.
So certain pockets of the institutional community maybe look a
little bit longer in terms of positioning, but kind of
the traditional asset managers, some of the you know, pension
funds and some of those long onlys, they're not as
(23:00):
you know, there's still well off the highs in terms
of equity exposure where they were at the end of
last year, so we think that there's still room for
some of that cash to move into markets.
Speaker 6 (23:08):
For sure.
Speaker 5 (23:08):
Are you bullish on the equity markets right now?
Speaker 3 (23:12):
Yeah, again, I do.
Speaker 7 (23:13):
I would characterize us as still fairly risk on, but
we're really focusing on where the growth is happening. So
if you look at the composition of returns for US
equity markets so far this year. You know, if you
look at at kind of the large cap growth, if
you look at technology, you know, eighty percent of those
returns have come from earnings growth. So it's incredibly fundamentally driven.
(23:35):
It's only about half for the broader S and P
five hundred index. It's about a third for the value
portion of the index. So we are still risk on.
We still see opportunity in equity markets, but we do
prefer being really focused on where the growth is. And
so even though you know, I know that investors get
concerned about valuations, a lot of the you know, the
(23:56):
I think that some of the valuations and some of
the concentration that you see in US equity market it's
a feature and not a bug. So much of the
growth as coming from the top. Then so much of
it is coming from the AI trade that we think
it's really hard to sit out, but you know, being
really deliberate about diversification elsewhere, being cognizant of some of
those risks that you introduced.
Speaker 3 (24:16):
All right, Christy, good to get some time with you.
Christia Cooley and head of Investment Strategy for the Americas
Ever at Blackrock joining us from San Francisco.
Speaker 5 (24:24):
Stay with us. More from Bloomberg Business Week Daily coming
up after this.
Speaker 2 (24:31):
If 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
Act or watch US live on YouTube.
Speaker 5 (24:46):
Twenty four years ago today, the US was attacked. President
Trump made comments earlier from the Pentagon, one of the
sites that was attacked on nine to eleven. He paid
tribute to firefighters, police service members too. One service member
who was there on nine eleven than Mark F. Kansion.
He's a retired colonel US Marine Corps Reserve, now senior
advisor for the Defense and Security Department at the Center
(25:07):
for Strategic and International Studies. He writes about military forces
and operations. Mark also served two tours in Iraq with
Deep Marines. Mark's with us now from Washington. Mark, First,
thank you for your service. We're going to talk about
the change in US national security since nine to eleven, because,
as you've written about for years, it's significant and there
(25:27):
was a significant shift a little over a decade ago.
But first, a day like today, as somebody who experienced
it up close, what does it mean to you?
Speaker 6 (25:36):
Well, I actually called one of my former staff members
and reminded him where we were twenty four years ago
and what had happened was it was an overwhelming experience
to be in the middle of it. I think what
people often don't appreciate it is just how confusing it
is because nobody really knew what it happened. You know,
we could see that part of the building was burning
(26:00):
and evacuated our offices, but it was a long time
before we knew exactly what but it happened. I heard
a story that a plane hit the Pentagon. I was thinking,
Asessma didn't realize that this was a passenger aircraft, that
many people had been killed, and that it was part
of a larger terrorist plot.
Speaker 3 (26:20):
You know. Since then, I feel like there are so
many different security levels that are now part of our world.
I just think about when I go to fly, whether
it's face, finger, hands, like, it's just amazing things that
we now just assume to be kind of ubiquitous in
our world. And I'm just wondering, do you think we
are more secure here in the United States? And I
(26:42):
asked this on a day when we have had what
we assume to be you know, well, what we've seen
is the shooting and murder of one conservative activist. We
see politics, politicians really under risk there, you know, attacks
and other shootings, if you will, even the President. I'm
(27:04):
just wondering, do you think we are safer here in
the United States?
Speaker 6 (27:09):
Well, I think the general public is safer. You know,
there hasn't been hijacking in the United States. There had
been very few terrorist incidents. Right after nine to eleven.
There was great concern that there were going to be
other terrorist attacks like what we had experienced with three
thousand people killed, you know, and nothing like that has happened.
(27:32):
We've endured a lot of inconvenience tsa, you know, taking
your shoes off for all those those years. I mean
all of the security every building. Now you have to
be badged to get in. People forget that. At one
point in my early career, the Pentagon was an open building.
I mean you could just walk in. Anybody from the
public just walk into the Pentagon. You could walk up
(27:53):
to the Secretary of Defensives office if you want. You
couldn't get in the office, but you could walk up
to it. Then in the nineties they put in some
sort of basic security, and of course after nine to
eleven they put in really very severe UH security measures.
But we're required given the new environment.
Speaker 5 (28:13):
But to Carrol's point, is it a bigger threat? Is
there a bigger threat coming from inside the United States,
from our own neighbors who are close to us, fellow Americans,
than from people outside of the US.
Speaker 6 (28:30):
Well, I think both threats exist. And you know, we
have seen of course this terrible incident with the assassination
of Charlie Kirk, we saw legislators in Minnesota murdered, and
the attempts on President Trump's life. Those are different though,
because you know, that is political inspired murder, which unfortunately
(28:56):
has not been is increasing, you know, has not been
part of our culture. But then we have the broader
question about the public, you know, and if you are not,
you know, politically prominent, you know, I think that the
threats to you are much reduced compared to what they
(29:17):
were on nine to eleven.
Speaker 5 (29:21):
Mark, as I mentioned, I want to talk a little
bit about what you've been writing about for years, military
forces and operations and the evolution or the change that
we saw when the US moved away from counter insurgency
and instead focusing on Russia and China. When was this
and what was the reason for doing this?
Speaker 6 (29:45):
Yeah, there's been an evolution. If we go back to
the end of the Cold War, there was a period
of time when it wasn't clear what the enemies were,
what our adversaries were article for instance, Yama, you know,
the end of history question mark, and that ended at
the in the nineties, you know, the defense budget came
(30:07):
down by forty percent, forces shrank by forty percent. But
then we had Bosnia, we had Kosovo, we had some
incidents with Iraq, so that defense budget plataued and started
coming back up, you know, just for these general concerns
that the world you know, had would not always a
safe place. Then we have nine to eleven and two
(30:31):
things happen. Of course, we embark on these two huge
counterinsurgency campaigns, first in Afghanistan, then in Iraq, and then
homeland security becomes part of our national security strategy. But
back after nine to eleven, it was only a small
part of what DoD did. It was much more of
(30:52):
a law enforcement effort. D d did do ballistic missile
defense that did do some work on the Northwest border.
Most of it was TSA, it was FBI, which got
a big plus up. It was domestic counter terrorism, and
that's was our strategy that had our focus up until
(31:14):
twenty fourteen. And in twenty fourteen three things happened. Russia
took over Crimea, Isis, roared out of the desert and
nearly captured Baghdad, and the Chinese continued their assertive actions
in the South China Sea. So it was a break
that at that point. It was at the end of
(31:35):
the bomb administration, and they started focusing on great power conflict,
recognizing that Russia and China were going to be threats
in the future. Initially they put Russia at the top
and then China. The first Trump administration reversed that order China,
(31:56):
then Russia, but again focused on great power conflict. The
Biden administration essentially didn't change that, although they probably wouldn't
admit that. They were very close on national security policy
with the first Trump administration, but you get a lot
of continuity there. What we've seen in the last couple
(32:18):
of months is a shift. Early in this second Trump administration,
the focus was still on China. Secretor Haigseth was talking
about how Taiwan was our driving scenario and in fact
we were going to shift forces into the Western Pacific.
Of course, a couple of things happened. You have the
(32:40):
events in the Middle East, you have Hamas and the
wars there, and then you have a folk sort of
an increasing focus on homeland security in new ways. Right, Well,
so go ahead, I want.
Speaker 3 (32:55):
To jump in on because we have about three minutes
left or so. But we're talking with Mark Canty, and
he's Senior Defense and Security Department at csis the center
of a strategic and international studies retired colonel with the
US Marine Corps Reserve. One thing I want to ask
you is that we've had President Trump come out with
(33:16):
plans to change the Department of Defense to the Department
of War, and in doing so, our Defense Secretary Pete
Hegseth has said secretary of War. So the department is
now about maximum lethality, not tepid legality, violent effect, not
politically correct. We're going to raise up warriors, not just defenders.
(33:37):
What's the message if China is, as things have evolved,
our biggest threat, What's the message is that we are
willing to go to war with China in this new environment,
this new reality.
Speaker 6 (33:52):
I think what Higgseth is trying to signal is that
the United States is able to conduct a conflict if
that becomes necessary. There is some tension between that notion
about lethality, which is appropriate in a conflict, and the
(34:12):
focus on homeland security, where it's not lethality, it's a
variety of other tools to reduce crime, reduce immigration, reduced
drug smuggling. And that tension has arisen in the last
couple of months. The Department still hasn't resolved it understand
that their new national defense strategy is going to try
(34:35):
to straddle that put homeland security at the top. Those
initiatives we've seen with the Trump administration, you know, they
had tremendous policy implications. So far, they haven't demanded a
lot of forces. In other words, what we've seen in Washington,
d C. For law enforcement, huge political and law enforcement implications,
(34:58):
hasn't taken a lot of troops.
Speaker 3 (35:01):
Well, and that's what I was thinking about too, Like
the military aspect of the US, I mean, are we
attracting enough if we are building out this Department of
War and we've just got about twenty five seconds because
it does. I don't know. I'm just curious your thoughts
on that.
Speaker 6 (35:18):
As a veteran, well, people have worried about that, but
that isn't reflected in the numbers at least yet. The
recruiting and retention has been very good. The administration has
highlighted that due to their policies. Might be true. Hard
to say. The increase in recruiting started under the Biden administration.
(35:40):
It's possible that some of these recent actions will discourage people,
but we haven't seen any indication of that yet.
Speaker 3 (35:47):
All right, gonn't leave it on that note. Really appreciate
you joining and sharing your perspective. Mark Cansey and he's
Senior Advisor Defense and Security Department at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies, retired colonel at the US Marine
Corps Reserve, joining us from Washington.
Speaker 2 (36:02):
This is the Bloomberg Business Weekdaily 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.
(36:23):
And always on the Bloomberg terminal
Hosts And Creators
Tim Stenovec
Carol Massar
Popular Podcasts
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
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.