November 18, 2025 • 37 mins
Watch Carol and Tim LIVE every day on YouTube: http://bit.ly/3vTiACF.
A selloff in the world’s largest technology companies drove stocks to their longest slide since August, underscoring the American market’s narrow reliance on a handful of growth giants.
The S&P 500 lost almost 1%, falling for a fourth straight day. In the run-up to Nvidia Corp.’s results, the shares sank 2.8%. The bar is getting higher for the chipmaker to convince investors that the billions of dollars spent on artificial intelligence will pay off. Its outlook could have significant implications due to the firm’s massive influence on major indexes.
Wall Street has grown increasingly concerned that AI isn’t yet generating enough revenue or profits to justify the massive spending on infrastructure. Microsoft Corp. and Nvidia are committing to invest up to a combined $15 billion in Anthropic PBC, in a move that ties the AI developer closer to two of the biggest backers for its rival OpenAI.
The S&P 500 dropped to around 6,617, the lowest in more than a month. A gauge of tech megacaps slid 1.8%. A closely watched index of stock volatility — the VIX — hovered near 25.
Bitcoin climbed after briefly dropping below $90,000. The yield on 10-year Treasuries slid two basis points to 4.12%. The dollar wavered.
Today's show features:
- Vance Howard, CEO & Portfolio Manager, Howard Capital Management, on market valuation and AI bubble concerns
- Ellen Wald, President of Transversal Consulting and Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council, on Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s White House visit with President Donald Trump
- Dr. Adam Posen, President of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, on the global economic outlook and the US monetary policy impact
- Stephanie Guild, Chief Investment Officer at Robinhood Markets, on the makeup of next-gen retail investors and key trends among female investors who are increasingly coming into greater wealth
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News. This is Bloomberg business
Weekdaily 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
(00:23):
as it happens. The Bloomberg Business Week Daily Podcast with
Carol Masser and Tim Stenebek on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
We did, though, also kick off today with something that
just kind of is staying with us, a warning from
JP Morgan Chase Vice chairman Daniel Pinto. He said and
kind of gave us all our heads up that valuations
in the AI industry are due for a reassessment. It's
something Tim and I've been trying to get into today
which could reverberate across the stock market.
Speaker 3 (00:51):
Here's what he said.
Speaker 4 (00:52):
It is possible there is probably a correction there, and
that correction will also create a correct in the rest
of the segments in the SMPN in the industry, because
you are probably in order to justify these valuations, you
are considering a level of productivity that it will happen,
(01:14):
but it not. It may not happen as fast as
the market is pricing.
Speaker 5 (01:19):
Y A a JP Morgan Chase's vice chair Daniel Pento
earlier today, that was at the Bloomberg Africa Business Summit
in Johannesburg. Curious what buyer sells signals. Our next guest
is seeing great to have back with us Vince Howard,
CEO and portfolio manager at Howard Capital Management, about six
billion dollars in assets under management. He joins us here
in the Bloomberg Interactive Brokers studio. This is the question
(01:40):
we've been wanting to ask you since, you know, last
time we spoke to you. Is the HCM byline model
telling telling you to buy or sell? Right now?
Speaker 6 (01:48):
It's telling us to buy? The HTM byline's positive. Any
pullbacks bible till it changes trend and you know, sort
of discard the noise and just about what's actually happening.
The market's very very healthy. That six great months, I
mean not get it. Hey, do you not have a
pullback after six months?
Speaker 5 (02:02):
Just one step back? Explain the HCM byline model and
it's a data it takes into account and then what
it tells you to do.
Speaker 6 (02:08):
It's a non emotional, mechanical, repeatable process. Because I want
to take as much emotion out of as I possibly can,
which is incredibly challenging with the amount of things that
are throwing it at each and every one of us
every day. But it's a math based tool, and it's
just a trend indicator, and we think it's a very
good trend indicator. It's been very well for us. Perfect No,
but good. Yes.
Speaker 3 (02:26):
Does momentum though the momentum trade mess it up at all? No,
not at all.
Speaker 6 (02:30):
But I love the momentum trade because I love to
be in those stocks. I love to be in those sectors.
You got to trade momentum. You can't sit in dead money.
Speaker 3 (02:36):
Ye, Well what is momentum? Fomo?
Speaker 2 (02:38):
Like you're like just tracing something without really fundamentally thinking
about it.
Speaker 6 (02:41):
Well, as long as it's a big computer game, it
doesn't matter. Well it's a big computer. Yeah, it doesn't
matter anymore. It's a big computer game. I mean, you're
trading it gets algorithms anymore. It's eighty five percent of
all the volumes.
Speaker 3 (02:50):
Don't fundamentals matter?
Speaker 6 (02:51):
Well, they're always going to end up mattering in the end.
But look at what's happening, Carol. When you look at
what's happening with a look at what's happening with with
Tesla and that robot there coming out with Optimus. How
much is that going to make an impact on so
many companies profitabilities and earnings per shuit'.
Speaker 3 (03:06):
They come out with.
Speaker 6 (03:07):
Indeed, do what that's if they do come out with
the right I think twenty twenty six, he's going to.
Speaker 3 (03:11):
You think, so, oh, yeah, he's not.
Speaker 5 (03:13):
He doesn't always meet deadlines.
Speaker 6 (03:14):
Well, but when he does, it's usually a big show.
They've got one of those things walking around Austin, Texas
right now, the cowboy hat.
Speaker 5 (03:20):
On literally walking down person inside it.
Speaker 6 (03:23):
He stops at every red light, he stops at every
stop sidne he gets out of people's way. This thing
is amazing.
Speaker 3 (03:28):
Wait, what do you think it's going to do?
Speaker 4 (03:30):
Though?
Speaker 3 (03:30):
How do you think it's going to impact our life?
Are you really?
Speaker 7 (03:32):
Come on?
Speaker 6 (03:33):
We like, yeah, here's the thing, here's how it's going
to impact your life. Let's take a bit and I
thought about this a lot with our trading team. Let's
just take Starbucks for instance. What if you got one
person worse in the cast rest and five people that
are that are robots that are serving the coffee. This
only costs fifteen to twenty grand for optimists. The robot
to make a cup of coffee, you've eliminated four or
five jobs right there. You don't have to worry about
(03:53):
somebody complaining, coming in for work, getting sick at.
Speaker 3 (03:56):
The bots go out and buy high heels. Probably not so,
Like I.
Speaker 5 (04:01):
Do think it's a really good point.
Speaker 2 (04:03):
Do you think about what robots are not going to
be spending in the economy and what that means.
Speaker 6 (04:08):
Longer Exactually right, I think you're going to see I
think you're going to see unemployment organically move higher, but
I think you're going to see corporate profits and a
lot of these companies move higher. Also, look at what
happened with Walmart. Walmart's a boring company in my opinion.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
But what happens if there isn't a lot of consumer
spending going on, which is so much the backbone of
the economy.
Speaker 3 (04:24):
Doesn't that filter through?
Speaker 2 (04:25):
And do we have lower economic growth? And are people
out of work? That's not a good thing.
Speaker 6 (04:31):
That's not a good thing. It's a terrible thing. But look,
I can't change it, and I can't stop it. Neither
can the three of us in the side of this room.
But what we do have is the HCM bylines with
stocks want to sell off.
Speaker 4 (04:40):
We got it.
Speaker 6 (04:40):
We got a mechanical system to say we need to
unwind some positions.
Speaker 5 (04:44):
Okay, so the last when was the last time I
told you to sell?
Speaker 6 (04:48):
We had a sell signal in April when we had
the tariff tantrum and DEVI and then we came back
in and it was it was a pretty It was
not a great trade for us because it was so violent,
so volatile, because it is a trend indicator, and when
the trend changes all in like forty eight hours, that's
tough to trade. So okay, so you'll remember before we
jump onto that. We remember the nasback was down twenty
eight percent in a member of days.
Speaker 3 (05:07):
Yeah, that's tough trade.
Speaker 5 (05:08):
The S and P five hundred low for the year
was back on April eighth. Did you what day did
you sell? And what did did you get back in?
Do you remember to be quite Canada?
Speaker 6 (05:17):
I don't remember.
Speaker 5 (05:17):
But did you miss did you miss some of the upside?
Speaker 6 (05:19):
We missed some of the upside we did painfully for us.
But you know when you trade.
Speaker 3 (05:23):
We found some of the downside we did, and.
Speaker 6 (05:25):
We did and it was a painful trade for us.
I'm going to admit it. It wasn't a great trade for us.
Remember the biolize everybody. It feels like it's a seventy
thirty thirty percent of the time. It's not going to work.
So we're going to get whips and.
Speaker 3 (05:36):
Do you do you go?
Speaker 5 (05:37):
Do you go all in and all out?
Speaker 6 (05:38):
At times?
Speaker 5 (05:39):
No, we scale, you scale, So because we were I mean,
we were talking with somebody just last week, a manager
who says that you know, he this was a really
interesting conversation. He basically said, I'm so tactical that I'm
willing to go to one hundred percent cash for all
of my clients at any given moment. Do you ever
(05:59):
do that?
Speaker 6 (06:00):
We have before in two thousand and eight, we're one hundred percent.
The only the only way that we'll go one hundred
percent to cash is if the banks are imploding, and
that's what was happening in two thousand and eight. So
if we're thirty percent out or sixty percent out but
all are none. Game is a tough game to trade,
it is.
Speaker 5 (06:13):
I mean, the tax implications of that are huge.
Speaker 6 (06:15):
Well, taxing maclations, but catching both sides of the trade
perfect are really tough.
Speaker 5 (06:19):
So he said, I would rather pay twenty percent taxes
than have thirty percent declines.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
I forget what that was.
Speaker 3 (06:25):
You're right like that.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
I can't remember us. I did well my the private
credit market. Oh you're ready to create something? Oh thank you,
akin to the Great Financial Crisis, because it does feel
like increasingly we're seeing things every day people are worried.
Speaker 6 (06:41):
Yeah, and I think that what's going to what should
worry people as our national debt. I think that's a
tipping point. If that cracks, I think we've got a
real problem.
Speaker 3 (06:48):
Like real, like the Great Financial criss.
Speaker 6 (06:50):
I think, like a great financial crisis. I think you're
going to make Yeah, it's to tip. Yeah, it's gona
affect everything. I mean the banks are going to lock up.
Credit is going to lock up. People are going to
be short or long term loans.
Speaker 3 (06:59):
When you say banks, I mean the big banks too.
Speaker 6 (07:01):
I think the big banks, of course. And I think
it's gonna affect everybody. I mean, what do you got
X amount of tree? And is the death that we
currently have And every day it's getting larger and larger
and larger. It's unsustainable. And if they keep printing money, Carol,
your dollar, my dollar, all of a sudden's is not
worth a dollars for a nickel. And so you got it.
That's the printing of money is going to have to
stop too.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
What about the AI bubble? I shouldn't called bubble because
we don't know if it's a bubble. We just know
it's a big spend right now, which bubble?
Speaker 6 (07:24):
The AI? Yeah, it's not a big spin. This is
different when we looked at you remember in nineteen ninety
nine and we had the three year bear market. They
had all these tech stocks that blew up. They weren't
making any money. They were not making any money. Were
going on. They're making money hand over fist. They're making
money so fast they can't spend it. What happens if
in five to seven years to ten years, Microsoft is
so profitable they're paying an eight or ten or twelve
(07:45):
percent dividend.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
So ten seconds, you're still owning the big mag seven,
the big tech, the hyperscalers.
Speaker 5 (07:50):
I am here, you're buying them.
Speaker 6 (07:51):
I am hoping that the Vidio comes out with something
that shocks the market. They drop down so I can
buy more, because five years from now, in the video
is going to be a lot higher and is today.
Speaker 3 (08:00):
Shame you're not more bullish.
Speaker 7 (08:02):
I'm just kidding.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
Vance Howard, chief executive officer portfolio manager at Howard Capital Market,
Thanks so much.
Speaker 5 (08:07):
Stay with us. More from Bloomberg Business Week Daily coming
up after this.
Speaker 1 (08:15):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Business Week Daily Podcast. Catch
us live weekday afternoons from two to five ees. During that,
listen on Apple, Karplay and Android Otto with the Bloomberg
Business app or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 2 (08:28):
All right, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Ben Salmon at the
White House with President Trump earlier today this evening. By
the way, there's a black tie dinner, not an official
state dinner, although at that dinner we did here, Elon
Musk would be there.
Speaker 5 (08:41):
Tiger Woods reportedly will be there as well.
Speaker 3 (08:43):
Yeah, a lot of officials.
Speaker 7 (08:44):
Right.
Speaker 2 (08:45):
There's also an investment conference plan for tomorrow that executives
from companies including Chevron Pfizer, they will be attending. So
we wanted to kind of put this in perspective because
typically you would see these two kinds of leaders meet
and you think energy policy would come up.
Speaker 3 (08:59):
Really didn't. Let's get to it with doctor Allen Wall.
Speaker 2 (09:02):
She's president of Transversal Consulting, Senior Fellow at the Atlanta Council,
author of Saudi Inc. Joining US from Boca Raton, Florida. Ellen,
so good to have you back here. Feels like Saudi Inc.
And US Inc. Are kind of merging. Tell me about
this meeting because it was kind of fascinating. It really
wasn't about conversations around oil or the energy markets.
Speaker 8 (09:23):
It was absolutely fascinating, especially if you had an opportunity
to watch the press conference live. I think everything from
the marble fulloers to the White House, to whether or
not Sadi Ava is going to join the Abraham Accords
was covered. What's interesting is the amount of money that
Mohammed ben Salmon is talking about potentially investing in the
(09:46):
United States. And I think the big question on everyone's
mind is where are they getting this money from, given
that oil prices are pretty low. And I think the
answer really is you have to look at the Saudi
Investment Fund, the PIF, because that's really where they have
a lot of their investment dollars and ready to deploy,
(10:06):
and that fund is really independent of the price of
a barrel of oil. So I think the question of
whether Saudi can deliver this money, the answer is yes,
But whether they actually will deliver on this is another question.
And I do think that a lot of that money
is probably earmarked for defense purchases, and that really depends
(10:29):
on whether they do go through with this agreement to
sell Saudi Arabia F thirty five and other defense equipment
that is somewhat controversial and hasn't necessarily been sold to
Saudi Arabia.
Speaker 5 (10:40):
Previously, Cherl mentioned that you're the author of saudiank The
History of Saudi Arabia and a Ramco, and I wonder
now how successful the Saudi Arabian government has been the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia of diversifying its economy away from oil.
Has it been successful?
Speaker 8 (10:59):
That is a really great question, and I think the
answer is if you're looking at and you're trying to say,
have they achieved the goals that they set out to
achieve when they announced their big plan to diversify, well,
the answer is no, they have not really achieved those goals.
I think really a lot of those goals were not
achievable goals. What they have done is they have introduced
(11:20):
some very important changes that I think can certainly help
make the Saudi economy more robust over time. We're talking
about making it easier for foreigners to visit the country,
both for tourism but also to work, opening up the
workspace for women, and important societal changes like that. I
think in the long run will help diversify their economy.
(11:42):
But if you're asking whether their economy is still very
much dependent on the energy industry, the answer is yes.
A Ramco, on the other hand, has over the past
fifty years, I would say, significantly diversified itself from simply
an upstream come that sold a lot of crude oil
to a very diverse energy company that has multiple revenue streams.
(12:07):
So they're not just dependent on what the price of
a barrel of oil is. They make a lot of
oil products, they're getting into natural gas, they make money
off of trading oil in the financial sense, and so
they're making a lot of money that is not dependent
on whether the price of a barrel of oil is
sixty dollars or eighty dollars.
Speaker 3 (12:27):
So I guess what.
Speaker 2 (12:29):
This relationship that we are seeing between the United States
and Saudi Arabia. I feel like it's always been a
bit of a frenemy kind of relationship between the two nations.
Having said that, there's been times where it's been stronger
at times when it has not.
Speaker 3 (12:44):
Is this the relationship going forward in your view?
Speaker 8 (12:48):
What's so interesting about the relationship between the US and
Saudi Arabia is that Saudi Arabia has a very different
view of the relationship than the United States does. In
the Saudi mind, the US is a best friend that
they've They've always been so close, and they've cultivated an
entire kind of aura, an idea about this friendship. They
(13:09):
think the US is a huge ally. If you look
at it from the US perspective, satur Arabia is at
least it can be a strategic partner. But satur Arabia
would not be considered an ally to the United States
the same way Great Britain or Canada.
Speaker 3 (13:23):
Might be considered an ally.
Speaker 8 (13:25):
And so I think that that leads to very different
opinions about what exactly is going to go on. So
you know whether or not you know Sadi Arabi has
a defense agreement, Yes, traditionally we have had defense agreements,
but from the US perspective that's not always so guaranteed.
If it's beneficial to the US, then it will happen.
(13:45):
But you know, it's not necessarily a guarantee. It's not
necessarily this ally ship that the Saudis often perceived the
relationship to be.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
Well, it's interesting when you say Canada and the UK,
and in particular Canada, I feel like, you know, it
looks almost a friendly relationship between the US and Saudi
Arabia than it certainly does between US and Canada.
Speaker 9 (14:03):
Right now.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
I guess my question really, you know, Ellen, is are
we laying the ground for whoever is in the White
House next, be it Democrat or Republican, that this is
the relationship or could it change and get different depending again,
who is in the White House.
Speaker 8 (14:19):
I think that there's always kind of a baseline, and
you could see that when Trump was kind of fishing
for a compliment from NBS as you know, oh, well,
he's the best president. You know, they've had the best
relationship with Trump, and NBS kind of answered that with, well,
we've always had, you know, Democrat or Republican, we've always
had good relations with president of the United States, and
then he mentions Reagan as a particularly good one. So
(14:40):
I think that NBS is certainly looking at this as
he's got to lay the groundwork for his good relationships
with presidents that are going to come after Trump, whereas
Trump is seeing it as the hero and.
Speaker 5 (14:50):
Now the military balance of power in the Middle East,
the potential F thirty fives that Saudi Arabia could get
as a result of making a deal with the UNI States.
President Trump said he would approve selling the F thirty
five fighter jet to Saudi Arabia. I'm just wondering how
that changes the balance of power when it comes to
the militaries in the region, especially with regard to Israel,
(15:13):
which for years has been a US ally, And also
what US interest the US would have an interest in
selling F thirty five's apart from getting the revenue to
a US company.
Speaker 3 (15:25):
Exactly.
Speaker 8 (15:25):
I do think from Trump's perspective, he thinks that the
F thirty fives are the greatest airplane ever to be made,
and so he loves that everybody wants them, and so
it's more of an economic issue. I think from the
Pentagon's perspective, they're looking at it as more of a
strategic issue. Now. The UAE apparently got assurances they would
be able to purchase these when they signed the Abraham Accords,
(15:47):
and it was believed that this would also be a
condition for Saudi Arabia. I think it's very very clear
now that Saudi Arabia is not going to join the
Abraham Accords. They're not recognizing Israel unless they get unless
there's an absolutely there's an assured pathword to Palestinian state.
I don't see that happening anytime in the near future.
So I think we're kind of going to be at
(16:07):
a standstill here, and if the Pentagon has severe concerns
about it, I think it may not actually go through
as much as Trump wants it to go through.
Speaker 2 (16:18):
Is that more tricky or is it the AI chips
that are more tricky and Saudi Arabia need both.
Speaker 3 (16:25):
The AI chips are very tricky. I do think.
Speaker 8 (16:27):
That that's really what's going to be the focus of
this investment meeting and this dinner, is that the PIF
wants to make these investments in these firms because that's
their way of kind of getting their hands on this technology.
I think from the US national security perspective, they don't
want their chips to be in any connection with Chinese
(16:50):
technology equipment. And so there are serious concerns cybersecurity concerns
there that are going to have to be dealt with.
But I do see the PIF potentially make investments in
these firms. I don't see necessarily US producing semiconductors and
chips in Saudi Arabia, but I do think the Saudis
can make a case to try to get data centers
(17:12):
in the kingdom, particularly if they can assure the security
the equipment in their country, and also if they offer
you know, basically free land and free energy. I could
see I could see that being a very powerful draw.
Speaker 2 (17:25):
All right, great stuff, Ellen, Thank you so much, doctor
Ellen Wall, President of Transversal Consulting, Senior Fellow at the
Atlantic Council.
Speaker 5 (17:32):
Stay with us. More from Bloomberg Business Week Daily coming
up after this.
Speaker 9 (17:40):
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 eleven thirty.
Speaker 2 (17:59):
All right, we're going to stay on global relationships the
economies that drive them. And turn on over to doctor
Adam Posen. He's president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
He joins us from I believe the nation's capital on
this Tuesday, Yes, Washington, DC, Doctor Posen, good to have
you back here on Bloomberg.
Speaker 3 (18:18):
And on Bloomberg BusinessWeek Daily.
Speaker 2 (18:20):
These relationships, I first got to ask you, you know,
watching the relationship, what seems to be a very close
relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia, and I
think about their economies.
Speaker 3 (18:32):
How do you see it? What's significant for you here
in watching this?
Speaker 7 (18:36):
Thank you Carol for having me back on Bloomberg BusinessWeek Daily.
I want to pick up on some things you discussed
with your previous guests, which is there is a huge
economic leaving aside the national security incentive for Saudi to
behave in this way in that MBS, the Crown Prince
(18:57):
has very definitely been seeing part of his agenda to
try to transition Saudi away from over dependence on export
of fossil fuelds. And it's the right thing for them
to do from the economic perspective. And obviously Saudi for
many decades has been accumulating surpluses of cash and trying
(19:20):
to invest them. They've been trying to diversify. I wouldn't
go quite as far as your previous guests did in
extolling how much a RAM cost Pirst five, but they've
been trying. I think the deeper integration with the US
is a path towards that, and it is a credible
path towards that. That's not to say they haven't been
(19:41):
doing a lot of good things in terms of domestic
investment and on the economic front on liberalization. They have,
and I know a lot of very serious money investors
who are very excited by this, but just to say
this puts them on the path. For the US, however,
I think it's less important economically. It is more about
(20:01):
the security relationship, or at least it should be. There's
never been a shortage of people willing to invest in
the US, or at least except with the exception of
a few years in the late seventies and early eighties,
not since nineteen hundred, and that remains the case, even
though things are happening to make the US a little
(20:22):
less attractive. So for the US, I think there has
to be more of the security diplomatic conditionality just simply
getting Saudi investment in the US is not that big
a game.
Speaker 5 (20:33):
What type of conditionality, especially in exchange for after thirty
five state of the r jets?
Speaker 7 (20:39):
Well, Tim, I think that's the right question, and I
would not say it necessarily needs to be tied to
Israel recognition in the abraham Ac courts, but it needs
to be tied to something of that caliber. So maybe
it's something about how they're relating to Iran, or something
about the Saudi mutual guarantees with Pakistan, some sort of
agreement on how the Saudis influenced Pakistan, or maybe it's
(21:02):
about the investment which the Saudis have indicated they're willing
to do in rebuilding Gaza and dealing with what will
be refugee issues there. All I'm saying is that it
has to be something substantial, But I also think you
want the f thirty fives of course are a big carrot,
(21:23):
but you also want to think of it in terms
of the relationship. And this is what is key, whether
it's UK or Saudi or Japan.
Speaker 2 (21:30):
Adam, Adam, you talk about relationships, And I think about
something that came up questioning by reporters of the President
and MBS while at the White House, and that is
about kind of the relationships that the Trump organization has
with Saudi Arabia on business deals. And we have a
story in the Bloomberg about the Trump organization planning a
luxury resort in the Maldives with a Saudi Arabian partner.
Speaker 3 (21:52):
It's just one case. I'm just curious.
Speaker 2 (21:57):
You've watched, You've talked about, You've analyzed different administrations, this
kind of what seems to be a mixing melding. I
know the President answered the question, he said, I have
nothing to do with family business, But how do you
see this?
Speaker 7 (22:12):
No, I appreciate your asking that, Carol, and I don't
want to be mean, but it doesn't matter whether the
president literally in the narrow sense, has nothing to do
with it or not. We had laws, and more importantly,
we had norms, and we had expectations from the press,
from the public, from the markets that the US did
(22:33):
not deal in family enrichment when you're in public office,
let alone when you're the president. Some of your viewers
might remember the old John Adams miniseries in which John
Adams alienated both his daughter and his son in law
or one of his sons and his son in law
because he wouldn't advance them while he was in the
White House. And what matters is this very strong perception
(22:56):
which is obvious and cutter in the United arabin where
in Saudi, but even with the gold that was offered
just the other day to the President, that there is
this perception that you link things. Now, I don't want
to overdramatize this. There are a lot of countries in
the world, including Saudi, including Turkey, including China, where this
(23:19):
kind of ties go on between the leaders, families and
chosen friends and foreign policy and other governments. It's not good,
it's not fair, it's wasteful and distortionary, but it's also
not the end of the world. Businesses and investors can proceed.
But for the US, this is going back to your
(23:41):
original question, this is a huge step change. We've not
seen anything like this the least since Teddy Roosevelt, meaning
one hundred and twenty years.
Speaker 2 (23:50):
So just to be fair, because we certainly get feedback
from our audience and to say that the President says
I'm not involved though, you know, and we've had any
president that walks into the White House, Republican or democrat
you know, certainly has allegiances to industries or so on.
Speaker 7 (24:07):
I agree. I agree, it's never going to be absolute.
And we all know the stories of people going back
to Jimmy Carter's brother selling beer, that there's always relatives
who try to profit on these things. But the so again,
this isn't about ascribing the levolent intent. But you want
(24:30):
to have a system in place where people expect and feel,
particularly investors but also average citizens expect and feel that
this is an exception, not the rule that you occasionally
have the rogue family member, but that on the one hand,
policy choices are not being driven and being perceived as
(24:51):
driven by these things, and on the other hand, that
economic choices are being made on a commercial basis. And
that's why, no matter how many times people of different
parties and different administrations or appointments fail on this front,
you want to have a system of scrutiny and rules
and presumptions that it discourages our elected officials from being
(25:16):
so overt about it. I think, to be fair, you know,
the Trump administration and the sons of President Trump and
Secretary Ludnik and the Middle East negotiator guy and all
these people. You know, they're being very open, and I
think that in one sense does matter, like they are
(25:38):
with crypto, But in another sense that doesn't solve the
problem because then the perception is still people are being favored,
decisions are being made on a bad basis. You have
to offer gold crowns or hotel deals to make things happen.
Speaker 2 (25:55):
And transparency doesn't necessarily gain actions, right.
Speaker 5 (26:00):
Yeah, doctor Wilson, Doctor Posen, you said it's not the
end of the world if we're in a situation such
as this or in a society such asist.
Speaker 7 (26:09):
But it's not the end of the world.
Speaker 5 (26:11):
But I'm wondering if there are potentially long term economic
repercussions that happen in societies that don't necessarily have the
same rules in place, if we can look to history
or modern history to get an understanding of what the
implications of that could be in the US.
Speaker 3 (26:27):
In your view, oh, I think they're enormous.
Speaker 7 (26:30):
I think then, because it's the US, which, as I've
argued tim has been the lynchpin of the rules based,
law based system of economy since World War Two. It
has repercussions around the world because it means the US
is not only enforcing the norms against this kind of
corruption or perceived corruption or tied political choice making. It
(26:53):
means that the US is setting an example that you
can get away with it and other people should get
away with it, and it breaks down the regimes and
the operating principles we have to attorney thinks. So when
I say it's not the end of the world, I
don't mean to suggest it's not very harmful. It will
reduce the returns on capital, it will reduce the ability
(27:14):
of average people on normal businesses to get access to opportunities.
It will divide the world. It will increase in stability
and investment markets. It will waste public money. It's bad
in a lot of ways. I just merely want to
be very clear that though it's unusual for the US
(27:35):
in the last one hundred plus years to behave this way,
in our long ago history and in other countries around
the world, this has taken place, and that there have
been much small or much less overt examples of this
by you a previous US administration.
Speaker 2 (27:51):
Well, and you know, just thinking about all you've just said,
doctor Posen, and then kind of squaring that with the
recent government shut down and the domestic issues that kind
of came to the forefront. You know, the one in
eight Americans who are on some kind of food assistance
or food stamps.
Speaker 4 (28:09):
You know the.
Speaker 2 (28:10):
Amount of Americans that are just struggling to put food
on their table, a roof over their head.
Speaker 3 (28:16):
I want to bring it down.
Speaker 2 (28:17):
Then, with so much focus on global issues, and so
leould say, when you're president, you have to look beyond
the US borders as well as within the US borders.
But having said that, what is it that you know
is being maybe being ignored in your view domestically, that's
really got to be.
Speaker 3 (28:36):
Addressed.
Speaker 7 (28:38):
Again, you're asking very profound questions. I'll just say that
in an enlightened administration, the reason you get involved in
the rest of the world is because it ultimately is
to if you set up a rest of the world
that feels safer and less corrupt and more stable unless
(29:01):
subject to disease and refugee flows and wars, that's ultimately
to the benefit of the average American. And if you
have open and free commerce on a rules based basis
that raises American opportunities and American citizens purchasing power. So
I agree with you, there's a question of how you prioritize.
(29:21):
And this goes to the point with Saudi, I'm not
sure that that should be the biggest priority of an
American administration right now. It's fine, you can walk into gum.
It can be one of the things. So when you
say what's in the domestic front, I think the removal
of health care support subsidies and access to Medicaid and
(29:42):
to all these Obamacare related things is going to materially
affect the health and well being of millions of human
beings in the US. And that is bad economically, but
it's bad in human terms. I think the reduction of
options through the anti migration policies, through other policies that
(30:05):
make it so more people, mostly women in late middle age,
have to stay home to be caregivers to elders and
to children and to disabled people, is materially bad for
humans and is a huge pressure on people. And I
think the combination of anti migration policy, attacks on the
FED tariffs deal making, some of which looks corrupt, all
(30:31):
adds to a more inflationary environment, which reduces real incomes
for people. So there's a whole bunch of things on
the domestic front. But I just want to say that
it's not about choosing the global versus domestic. It's about
choosing the self interested versus the public welfare.
Speaker 3 (30:50):
I think we need to leave it there that I
got to say.
Speaker 2 (30:53):
Sometimes I'm in awe of our guests, and I certainly
am on this Tuesday, Doctor Posen, thank you so much,
Really appreciate okay for having me same here. Thank you
for joining us, Doctor Adam Posen, president of the Peterson
Institute for International Economics.
Speaker 5 (31:08):
Stay with us. More from Bloomberg Business Week Daily coming
up after this.
Speaker 1 (31:16):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Business Week Daily Podcast. Catch
us live weekday afternoons from two to five e's During
this listen on Applecarplay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg
Business app, or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 3 (31:30):
A lot to talk about with our next guest.
Speaker 2 (31:32):
It is our weekly discussion on women, Money and Power,
where we explore the economic implications of the wealth shift
of money to women and really how to navigate them.
We welcome Stephanie gil She's chief investment officer at robin
Hood Market. She's here in studio. Stephanie, good to have
you here. There's a lot going on. I kind of
say that Tim and I say that it feels like
almost every day. Let's start broadly with the market environment.
(31:55):
We've seen quite a pullback and a lot of risk
on assets, whether it's the mag seven, whether it's Nvidia,
whether it's semiconductors, whether it's bitcoin. Is this a market reset,
a sellof or market crush that we're kind of getting
near or neither.
Speaker 3 (32:12):
I think, or none of the But of the above,
I think it's correction.
Speaker 10 (32:15):
So I don't know if one of those was part
of that, but I think it's a healthy correction. You
get them every once two years. Sometimes we forget that,
and we just got off of a period of no data.
Valuations had gotten really high, and there is a legitimate
question around how much companies are spending versus how much
(32:35):
they're making in terms of cash flow, and in the
largest company, so that's going to affect the broader.
Speaker 3 (32:40):
Mar about big tech, and I'm talking about big tech.
Speaker 10 (32:42):
And AI and obviously Amazon's borrowing outsizing it to fifteen
billion doesn't.
Speaker 3 (32:47):
Necessarily help that narrative.
Speaker 10 (32:49):
So I think you just need to start seeing proof
that there's a return on invested capital. There are other
things that are working though in the market.
Speaker 5 (32:57):
We'll get to some of the things that are working,
but I want to know what the proof would look
like in your view, what do you need to see
from some of these companies to show, Okay, the money
that we're spending is actually paying off.
Speaker 10 (33:07):
I think you need to start seeing money from the
actual investments that they're making in terms of like AI investments,
how it actually reaches the consumer, how it reaches enterprise.
Speaker 3 (33:18):
Like we know in the private area.
Speaker 10 (33:20):
Anthropic is doing a little bit more revenue right because
there enterprise focus versus like an open AI that's more
consumer focused. So I think if people are investing money
in places that are going to prove out that revenue comes.
I think the other thing is that you're the change
in the one big beautiful bill right gave that one
hundred percent expensing, And that's kind of something that I'm
(33:41):
looking forward to in the future as well, which is
like that's not just AI investing, but also in other
tech and infrastructure and like that can start to lift
the market too.
Speaker 3 (33:49):
One of the things I want to ask you about.
Speaker 2 (33:51):
You shared some notes with our producer Arielagami, and you
said or you noted global markets are fundamentally changed. Individual
investors are now a corporate part of the financial ecosystem,
reshaping how capital markets function. What was once the domain
of institutions is now open and accessible to millions of
individuals worldwide. I understand where you're coming from, but I
was thinking about what doctor Adam Posen, president the Peterson
(34:13):
Institute for International Economics, said coming off of the meeting
between President Trump and Mohammed bin Saman of Saudi Arabia,
that this idea that capital flows actually are being controlled
to some extent by moves out of the White House,
whether it's taking stakes in companies, or it's the AI
spend that is controlling so much, or it's what some
(34:34):
say is a transactional White House where invest here and
you get this, it's very different in some regard in
a lot of ways from what we've had in the past.
Speaker 10 (34:45):
I've personally never watched so many political shows in my
career of over twenty years.
Speaker 3 (34:49):
Like that is part of what you have to know
as an investment.
Speaker 2 (34:52):
Makes me question, like do individual investors really still have
a lot to say here?
Speaker 10 (34:57):
I think they do, but not necessarily in the biggest
companies like I, you know, I think there's they actually
are seeing some of the individual investors, I think are
seeing things before the institutional investors, and that they many
are so aligned with the White House and what they're
doing that they're like, this is what I think the
future is. I also think that it's not necessarily showing
up in the largest companies. There are other companies, smaller
(35:17):
ones that they kind of gather together and sort of
community invest and those aren't the biggest companies, but they
are ones that are more volatile, but they have a
longer time horizon. And most of the people on our
platform are average age of thirty five. You know, more
than two thirds of our company is one Nails and
gen Z, So that's what you know. I think it's
(35:38):
the same as thing as Sorry, the thing is being
on a trading desk and kind of talking about investment
ideas together.
Speaker 3 (35:44):
Now they're in X doing the same thing and stuff.
Speaker 5 (35:46):
They're probably watching crypto closely too. Bitcoin down twenty five
to thirty percent, depending on when you look at it
from those all time highs just last month. Yeah, what
does that do not for your customer and not for
the robinhood user, but what does that do for sentiment
or does it give any indication of sentiment.
Speaker 10 (36:02):
I think it does because you have seen actually some
really big institutions sell some large positions too recently, not
just in bitcoin, but obviously in video and other names.
Speaker 3 (36:12):
I think.
Speaker 10 (36:13):
But then there is buyers too from Berkshire Hathaway.
Speaker 9 (36:16):
I think.
Speaker 10 (36:18):
I think those that play in the crypto space are
very used to large swings and they're you know, I
think there's kind of a meme out there that says
if you're invest like when stock investors have a big
drag down, they're like, you know, the crypto investors are like,
welcome to the way it feels. So I actually think
they're kind of used to it. We haven't really seen
a huge shift of anything. Most of our customers when
(36:39):
they're investing, they play the volatility in that when it
goes up a lot, they'll trim their positions.
Speaker 3 (36:44):
When it gets down a lot, they do add we.
Speaker 2 (36:46):
Have to jump so much going on, come back soon
because we would like to continue that. Stephanie Guild, chief
investment Officer at robin Hood Markets.
Speaker 1 (36:53):
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
(37:14):
and always on the Bloomberg terminal
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News. This is Bloomberg business
Weekdaily 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
(00:23):
as it happens. The Bloomberg Business Week Daily Podcast with
Carol Masser and Tim Stenebek on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
We did, though, also kick off today with something that
just kind of is staying with us, a warning from
JP Morgan Chase Vice chairman Daniel Pinto. He said and
kind of gave us all our heads up that valuations
in the AI industry are due for a reassessment. It's
something Tim and I've been trying to get into today
which could reverberate across the stock market.
Speaker 3 (00:51):
Here's what he said.
Speaker 4 (00:52):
It is possible there is probably a correction there, and
that correction will also create a correct in the rest
of the segments in the SMPN in the industry, because
you are probably in order to justify these valuations, you
are considering a level of productivity that it will happen,
(01:14):
but it not. It may not happen as fast as
the market is pricing.
Speaker 5 (01:19):
Y A a JP Morgan Chase's vice chair Daniel Pento
earlier today, that was at the Bloomberg Africa Business Summit
in Johannesburg. Curious what buyer sells signals. Our next guest
is seeing great to have back with us Vince Howard,
CEO and portfolio manager at Howard Capital Management, about six
billion dollars in assets under management. He joins us here
in the Bloomberg Interactive Brokers studio. This is the question
(01:40):
we've been wanting to ask you since, you know, last
time we spoke to you. Is the HCM byline model
telling telling you to buy or sell? Right now?
Speaker 6 (01:48):
It's telling us to buy? The HTM byline's positive. Any
pullbacks bible till it changes trend and you know, sort
of discard the noise and just about what's actually happening.
The market's very very healthy. That six great months, I
mean not get it. Hey, do you not have a
pullback after six months?
Speaker 5 (02:02):
Just one step back? Explain the HCM byline model and
it's a data it takes into account and then what
it tells you to do.
Speaker 6 (02:08):
It's a non emotional, mechanical, repeatable process. Because I want
to take as much emotion out of as I possibly can,
which is incredibly challenging with the amount of things that
are throwing it at each and every one of us
every day. But it's a math based tool, and it's
just a trend indicator, and we think it's a very
good trend indicator. It's been very well for us. Perfect No,
but good. Yes.
Speaker 3 (02:26):
Does momentum though the momentum trade mess it up at all? No,
not at all.
Speaker 6 (02:30):
But I love the momentum trade because I love to
be in those stocks. I love to be in those sectors.
You got to trade momentum. You can't sit in dead money.
Speaker 3 (02:36):
Ye, Well what is momentum? Fomo?
Speaker 2 (02:38):
Like you're like just tracing something without really fundamentally thinking
about it.
Speaker 6 (02:41):
Well, as long as it's a big computer game, it
doesn't matter. Well it's a big computer. Yeah, it doesn't
matter anymore. It's a big computer game. I mean, you're
trading it gets algorithms anymore. It's eighty five percent of
all the volumes.
Speaker 3 (02:50):
Don't fundamentals matter?
Speaker 6 (02:51):
Well, they're always going to end up mattering in the end.
But look at what's happening, Carol. When you look at
what's happening with a look at what's happening with with
Tesla and that robot there coming out with Optimus. How
much is that going to make an impact on so
many companies profitabilities and earnings per shuit'.
Speaker 3 (03:06):
They come out with.
Speaker 6 (03:07):
Indeed, do what that's if they do come out with
the right I think twenty twenty six, he's going to.
Speaker 3 (03:11):
You think, so, oh, yeah, he's not.
Speaker 5 (03:13):
He doesn't always meet deadlines.
Speaker 6 (03:14):
Well, but when he does, it's usually a big show.
They've got one of those things walking around Austin, Texas
right now, the cowboy hat.
Speaker 5 (03:20):
On literally walking down person inside it.
Speaker 6 (03:23):
He stops at every red light, he stops at every
stop sidne he gets out of people's way. This thing
is amazing.
Speaker 3 (03:28):
Wait, what do you think it's going to do?
Speaker 4 (03:30):
Though?
Speaker 3 (03:30):
How do you think it's going to impact our life?
Are you really?
Speaker 7 (03:32):
Come on?
Speaker 6 (03:33):
We like, yeah, here's the thing, here's how it's going
to impact your life. Let's take a bit and I
thought about this a lot with our trading team. Let's
just take Starbucks for instance. What if you got one
person worse in the cast rest and five people that
are that are robots that are serving the coffee. This
only costs fifteen to twenty grand for optimists. The robot
to make a cup of coffee, you've eliminated four or
five jobs right there. You don't have to worry about
(03:53):
somebody complaining, coming in for work, getting sick at.
Speaker 3 (03:56):
The bots go out and buy high heels. Probably not so,
Like I.
Speaker 5 (04:01):
Do think it's a really good point.
Speaker 2 (04:03):
Do you think about what robots are not going to
be spending in the economy and what that means.
Speaker 6 (04:08):
Longer Exactually right, I think you're going to see I
think you're going to see unemployment organically move higher, but
I think you're going to see corporate profits and a
lot of these companies move higher. Also, look at what
happened with Walmart. Walmart's a boring company in my opinion.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
But what happens if there isn't a lot of consumer
spending going on, which is so much the backbone of
the economy.
Speaker 3 (04:24):
Doesn't that filter through?
Speaker 2 (04:25):
And do we have lower economic growth? And are people
out of work? That's not a good thing.
Speaker 6 (04:31):
That's not a good thing. It's a terrible thing. But look,
I can't change it, and I can't stop it. Neither
can the three of us in the side of this room.
But what we do have is the HCM bylines with
stocks want to sell off.
Speaker 4 (04:40):
We got it.
Speaker 6 (04:40):
We got a mechanical system to say we need to
unwind some positions.
Speaker 5 (04:44):
Okay, so the last when was the last time I
told you to sell?
Speaker 6 (04:48):
We had a sell signal in April when we had
the tariff tantrum and DEVI and then we came back
in and it was it was a pretty It was
not a great trade for us because it was so violent,
so volatile, because it is a trend indicator, and when
the trend changes all in like forty eight hours, that's
tough to trade. So okay, so you'll remember before we
jump onto that. We remember the nasback was down twenty
eight percent in a member of days.
Speaker 3 (05:07):
Yeah, that's tough trade.
Speaker 5 (05:08):
The S and P five hundred low for the year
was back on April eighth. Did you what day did
you sell? And what did did you get back in?
Do you remember to be quite Canada?
Speaker 6 (05:17):
I don't remember.
Speaker 5 (05:17):
But did you miss did you miss some of the upside?
Speaker 6 (05:19):
We missed some of the upside we did painfully for us.
But you know when you trade.
Speaker 3 (05:23):
We found some of the downside we did, and.
Speaker 6 (05:25):
We did and it was a painful trade for us.
I'm going to admit it. It wasn't a great trade for us.
Remember the biolize everybody. It feels like it's a seventy
thirty thirty percent of the time. It's not going to work.
So we're going to get whips and.
Speaker 3 (05:36):
Do you do you go?
Speaker 5 (05:37):
Do you go all in and all out?
Speaker 6 (05:38):
At times?
Speaker 5 (05:39):
No, we scale, you scale, So because we were I mean,
we were talking with somebody just last week, a manager
who says that you know, he this was a really
interesting conversation. He basically said, I'm so tactical that I'm
willing to go to one hundred percent cash for all
of my clients at any given moment. Do you ever
(05:59):
do that?
Speaker 6 (06:00):
We have before in two thousand and eight, we're one hundred percent.
The only the only way that we'll go one hundred
percent to cash is if the banks are imploding, and
that's what was happening in two thousand and eight. So
if we're thirty percent out or sixty percent out but
all are none. Game is a tough game to trade,
it is.
Speaker 5 (06:13):
I mean, the tax implications of that are huge.
Speaker 6 (06:15):
Well, taxing maclations, but catching both sides of the trade
perfect are really tough.
Speaker 5 (06:19):
So he said, I would rather pay twenty percent taxes
than have thirty percent declines.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
I forget what that was.
Speaker 3 (06:25):
You're right like that.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
I can't remember us. I did well my the private
credit market. Oh you're ready to create something? Oh thank you,
akin to the Great Financial Crisis, because it does feel
like increasingly we're seeing things every day people are worried.
Speaker 6 (06:41):
Yeah, and I think that what's going to what should
worry people as our national debt. I think that's a
tipping point. If that cracks, I think we've got a
real problem.
Speaker 3 (06:48):
Like real, like the Great Financial criss.
Speaker 6 (06:50):
I think, like a great financial crisis. I think you're
going to make Yeah, it's to tip. Yeah, it's gona
affect everything. I mean the banks are going to lock up.
Credit is going to lock up. People are going to
be short or long term loans.
Speaker 3 (06:59):
When you say banks, I mean the big banks too.
Speaker 6 (07:01):
I think the big banks, of course. And I think
it's gonna affect everybody. I mean, what do you got
X amount of tree? And is the death that we
currently have And every day it's getting larger and larger
and larger. It's unsustainable. And if they keep printing money, Carol,
your dollar, my dollar, all of a sudden's is not
worth a dollars for a nickel. And so you got it.
That's the printing of money is going to have to
stop too.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
What about the AI bubble? I shouldn't called bubble because
we don't know if it's a bubble. We just know
it's a big spend right now, which bubble?
Speaker 6 (07:24):
The AI? Yeah, it's not a big spin. This is
different when we looked at you remember in nineteen ninety
nine and we had the three year bear market. They
had all these tech stocks that blew up. They weren't
making any money. They were not making any money. Were
going on. They're making money hand over fist. They're making
money so fast they can't spend it. What happens if
in five to seven years to ten years, Microsoft is
so profitable they're paying an eight or ten or twelve
(07:45):
percent dividend.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
So ten seconds, you're still owning the big mag seven,
the big tech, the hyperscalers.
Speaker 5 (07:50):
I am here, you're buying them.
Speaker 6 (07:51):
I am hoping that the Vidio comes out with something
that shocks the market. They drop down so I can
buy more, because five years from now, in the video
is going to be a lot higher and is today.
Speaker 3 (08:00):
Shame you're not more bullish.
Speaker 7 (08:02):
I'm just kidding.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
Vance Howard, chief executive officer portfolio manager at Howard Capital Market,
Thanks so much.
Speaker 5 (08:07):
Stay with us. More from Bloomberg Business Week Daily coming
up after this.
Speaker 1 (08:15):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Business Week Daily Podcast. Catch
us live weekday afternoons from two to five ees. During that,
listen on Apple, Karplay and Android Otto with the Bloomberg
Business app or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 2 (08:28):
All right, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Ben Salmon at the
White House with President Trump earlier today this evening. By
the way, there's a black tie dinner, not an official
state dinner, although at that dinner we did here, Elon
Musk would be there.
Speaker 5 (08:41):
Tiger Woods reportedly will be there as well.
Speaker 3 (08:43):
Yeah, a lot of officials.
Speaker 7 (08:44):
Right.
Speaker 2 (08:45):
There's also an investment conference plan for tomorrow that executives
from companies including Chevron Pfizer, they will be attending. So
we wanted to kind of put this in perspective because
typically you would see these two kinds of leaders meet
and you think energy policy would come up.
Speaker 3 (08:59):
Really didn't. Let's get to it with doctor Allen Wall.
Speaker 2 (09:02):
She's president of Transversal Consulting, Senior Fellow at the Atlanta Council,
author of Saudi Inc. Joining US from Boca Raton, Florida. Ellen,
so good to have you back here. Feels like Saudi Inc.
And US Inc. Are kind of merging. Tell me about
this meeting because it was kind of fascinating. It really
wasn't about conversations around oil or the energy markets.
Speaker 8 (09:23):
It was absolutely fascinating, especially if you had an opportunity
to watch the press conference live. I think everything from
the marble fulloers to the White House, to whether or
not Sadi Ava is going to join the Abraham Accords
was covered. What's interesting is the amount of money that
Mohammed ben Salmon is talking about potentially investing in the
(09:46):
United States. And I think the big question on everyone's
mind is where are they getting this money from, given
that oil prices are pretty low. And I think the
answer really is you have to look at the Saudi
Investment Fund, the PIF, because that's really where they have
a lot of their investment dollars and ready to deploy,
(10:06):
and that fund is really independent of the price of
a barrel of oil. So I think the question of
whether Saudi can deliver this money, the answer is yes,
But whether they actually will deliver on this is another question.
And I do think that a lot of that money
is probably earmarked for defense purchases, and that really depends
(10:29):
on whether they do go through with this agreement to
sell Saudi Arabia F thirty five and other defense equipment
that is somewhat controversial and hasn't necessarily been sold to
Saudi Arabia.
Speaker 5 (10:40):
Previously, Cherl mentioned that you're the author of saudiank The
History of Saudi Arabia and a Ramco, and I wonder
now how successful the Saudi Arabian government has been the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia of diversifying its economy away from oil.
Has it been successful?
Speaker 8 (10:59):
That is a really great question, and I think the
answer is if you're looking at and you're trying to say,
have they achieved the goals that they set out to
achieve when they announced their big plan to diversify, well,
the answer is no, they have not really achieved those goals.
I think really a lot of those goals were not
achievable goals. What they have done is they have introduced
(11:20):
some very important changes that I think can certainly help
make the Saudi economy more robust over time. We're talking
about making it easier for foreigners to visit the country,
both for tourism but also to work, opening up the
workspace for women, and important societal changes like that. I
think in the long run will help diversify their economy.
(11:42):
But if you're asking whether their economy is still very
much dependent on the energy industry, the answer is yes.
A Ramco, on the other hand, has over the past
fifty years, I would say, significantly diversified itself from simply
an upstream come that sold a lot of crude oil
to a very diverse energy company that has multiple revenue streams.
(12:07):
So they're not just dependent on what the price of
a barrel of oil is. They make a lot of
oil products, they're getting into natural gas, they make money
off of trading oil in the financial sense, and so
they're making a lot of money that is not dependent
on whether the price of a barrel of oil is
sixty dollars or eighty dollars.
Speaker 3 (12:27):
So I guess what.
Speaker 2 (12:29):
This relationship that we are seeing between the United States
and Saudi Arabia. I feel like it's always been a
bit of a frenemy kind of relationship between the two nations.
Having said that, there's been times where it's been stronger
at times when it has not.
Speaker 3 (12:44):
Is this the relationship going forward in your view?
Speaker 8 (12:48):
What's so interesting about the relationship between the US and
Saudi Arabia is that Saudi Arabia has a very different
view of the relationship than the United States does. In
the Saudi mind, the US is a best friend that
they've They've always been so close, and they've cultivated an
entire kind of aura, an idea about this friendship. They
(13:09):
think the US is a huge ally. If you look
at it from the US perspective, satur Arabia is at
least it can be a strategic partner. But satur Arabia
would not be considered an ally to the United States
the same way Great Britain or Canada.
Speaker 3 (13:23):
Might be considered an ally.
Speaker 8 (13:25):
And so I think that that leads to very different
opinions about what exactly is going to go on. So
you know whether or not you know Sadi Arabi has
a defense agreement, Yes, traditionally we have had defense agreements,
but from the US perspective that's not always so guaranteed.
If it's beneficial to the US, then it will happen.
(13:45):
But you know, it's not necessarily a guarantee. It's not
necessarily this ally ship that the Saudis often perceived the
relationship to be.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
Well, it's interesting when you say Canada and the UK,
and in particular Canada, I feel like, you know, it
looks almost a friendly relationship between the US and Saudi
Arabia than it certainly does between US and Canada.
Speaker 9 (14:03):
Right now.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
I guess my question really, you know, Ellen, is are
we laying the ground for whoever is in the White
House next, be it Democrat or Republican, that this is
the relationship or could it change and get different depending again,
who is in the White House.
Speaker 8 (14:19):
I think that there's always kind of a baseline, and
you could see that when Trump was kind of fishing
for a compliment from NBS as you know, oh, well,
he's the best president. You know, they've had the best
relationship with Trump, and NBS kind of answered that with, well,
we've always had, you know, Democrat or Republican, we've always
had good relations with president of the United States, and
then he mentions Reagan as a particularly good one. So
(14:40):
I think that NBS is certainly looking at this as
he's got to lay the groundwork for his good relationships
with presidents that are going to come after Trump, whereas
Trump is seeing it as the hero and.
Speaker 5 (14:50):
Now the military balance of power in the Middle East,
the potential F thirty fives that Saudi Arabia could get
as a result of making a deal with the UNI States.
President Trump said he would approve selling the F thirty
five fighter jet to Saudi Arabia. I'm just wondering how
that changes the balance of power when it comes to
the militaries in the region, especially with regard to Israel,
(15:13):
which for years has been a US ally, And also
what US interest the US would have an interest in
selling F thirty five's apart from getting the revenue to
a US company.
Speaker 3 (15:25):
Exactly.
Speaker 8 (15:25):
I do think from Trump's perspective, he thinks that the
F thirty fives are the greatest airplane ever to be made,
and so he loves that everybody wants them, and so
it's more of an economic issue. I think from the
Pentagon's perspective, they're looking at it as more of a
strategic issue. Now. The UAE apparently got assurances they would
be able to purchase these when they signed the Abraham Accords,
(15:47):
and it was believed that this would also be a
condition for Saudi Arabia. I think it's very very clear
now that Saudi Arabia is not going to join the
Abraham Accords. They're not recognizing Israel unless they get unless
there's an absolutely there's an assured pathword to Palestinian state.
I don't see that happening anytime in the near future.
So I think we're kind of going to be at
(16:07):
a standstill here, and if the Pentagon has severe concerns
about it, I think it may not actually go through
as much as Trump wants it to go through.
Speaker 2 (16:18):
Is that more tricky or is it the AI chips
that are more tricky and Saudi Arabia need both.
Speaker 3 (16:25):
The AI chips are very tricky. I do think.
Speaker 8 (16:27):
That that's really what's going to be the focus of
this investment meeting and this dinner, is that the PIF
wants to make these investments in these firms because that's
their way of kind of getting their hands on this technology.
I think from the US national security perspective, they don't
want their chips to be in any connection with Chinese
(16:50):
technology equipment. And so there are serious concerns cybersecurity concerns
there that are going to have to be dealt with.
But I do see the PIF potentially make investments in
these firms. I don't see necessarily US producing semiconductors and
chips in Saudi Arabia, but I do think the Saudis
can make a case to try to get data centers
(17:12):
in the kingdom, particularly if they can assure the security
the equipment in their country, and also if they offer
you know, basically free land and free energy. I could
see I could see that being a very powerful draw.
Speaker 2 (17:25):
All right, great stuff, Ellen, Thank you so much, doctor
Ellen Wall, President of Transversal Consulting, Senior Fellow at the
Atlantic Council.
Speaker 5 (17:32):
Stay with us. More from Bloomberg Business Week Daily coming
up after this.
Speaker 9 (17:40):
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 eleven thirty.
Speaker 2 (17:59):
All right, we're going to stay on global relationships the
economies that drive them. And turn on over to doctor
Adam Posen. He's president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
He joins us from I believe the nation's capital on
this Tuesday, Yes, Washington, DC, Doctor Posen, good to have
you back here on Bloomberg.
Speaker 3 (18:18):
And on Bloomberg BusinessWeek Daily.
Speaker 2 (18:20):
These relationships, I first got to ask you, you know,
watching the relationship, what seems to be a very close
relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia, and I
think about their economies.
Speaker 3 (18:32):
How do you see it? What's significant for you here
in watching this?
Speaker 7 (18:36):
Thank you Carol for having me back on Bloomberg BusinessWeek Daily.
I want to pick up on some things you discussed
with your previous guests, which is there is a huge
economic leaving aside the national security incentive for Saudi to
behave in this way in that MBS, the Crown Prince
(18:57):
has very definitely been seeing part of his agenda to
try to transition Saudi away from over dependence on export
of fossil fuelds. And it's the right thing for them
to do from the economic perspective. And obviously Saudi for
many decades has been accumulating surpluses of cash and trying
(19:20):
to invest them. They've been trying to diversify. I wouldn't
go quite as far as your previous guests did in
extolling how much a RAM cost Pirst five, but they've
been trying. I think the deeper integration with the US
is a path towards that, and it is a credible
path towards that. That's not to say they haven't been
(19:41):
doing a lot of good things in terms of domestic
investment and on the economic front on liberalization. They have,
and I know a lot of very serious money investors
who are very excited by this, but just to say
this puts them on the path. For the US, however,
I think it's less important economically. It is more about
(20:01):
the security relationship, or at least it should be. There's
never been a shortage of people willing to invest in
the US, or at least except with the exception of
a few years in the late seventies and early eighties,
not since nineteen hundred, and that remains the case, even
though things are happening to make the US a little
(20:22):
less attractive. So for the US, I think there has
to be more of the security diplomatic conditionality just simply
getting Saudi investment in the US is not that big
a game.
Speaker 5 (20:33):
What type of conditionality, especially in exchange for after thirty
five state of the r jets?
Speaker 7 (20:39):
Well, Tim, I think that's the right question, and I
would not say it necessarily needs to be tied to
Israel recognition in the abraham Ac courts, but it needs
to be tied to something of that caliber. So maybe
it's something about how they're relating to Iran, or something
about the Saudi mutual guarantees with Pakistan, some sort of
agreement on how the Saudis influenced Pakistan, or maybe it's
(21:02):
about the investment which the Saudis have indicated they're willing
to do in rebuilding Gaza and dealing with what will
be refugee issues there. All I'm saying is that it
has to be something substantial, But I also think you
want the f thirty fives of course are a big carrot,
(21:23):
but you also want to think of it in terms
of the relationship. And this is what is key, whether
it's UK or Saudi or Japan.
Speaker 2 (21:30):
Adam, Adam, you talk about relationships, And I think about
something that came up questioning by reporters of the President
and MBS while at the White House, and that is
about kind of the relationships that the Trump organization has
with Saudi Arabia on business deals. And we have a
story in the Bloomberg about the Trump organization planning a
luxury resort in the Maldives with a Saudi Arabian partner.
Speaker 3 (21:52):
It's just one case. I'm just curious.
Speaker 2 (21:57):
You've watched, You've talked about, You've analyzed different administrations, this
kind of what seems to be a mixing melding. I
know the President answered the question, he said, I have
nothing to do with family business, But how do you
see this?
Speaker 7 (22:12):
No, I appreciate your asking that, Carol, and I don't
want to be mean, but it doesn't matter whether the
president literally in the narrow sense, has nothing to do
with it or not. We had laws, and more importantly,
we had norms, and we had expectations from the press,
from the public, from the markets that the US did
(22:33):
not deal in family enrichment when you're in public office,
let alone when you're the president. Some of your viewers
might remember the old John Adams miniseries in which John
Adams alienated both his daughter and his son in law
or one of his sons and his son in law
because he wouldn't advance them while he was in the
White House. And what matters is this very strong perception
(22:56):
which is obvious and cutter in the United arabin where
in Saudi, but even with the gold that was offered
just the other day to the President, that there is
this perception that you link things. Now, I don't want
to overdramatize this. There are a lot of countries in
the world, including Saudi, including Turkey, including China, where this
(23:19):
kind of ties go on between the leaders, families and
chosen friends and foreign policy and other governments. It's not good,
it's not fair, it's wasteful and distortionary, but it's also
not the end of the world. Businesses and investors can proceed.
But for the US, this is going back to your
(23:41):
original question, this is a huge step change. We've not
seen anything like this the least since Teddy Roosevelt, meaning
one hundred and twenty years.
Speaker 2 (23:50):
So just to be fair, because we certainly get feedback
from our audience and to say that the President says
I'm not involved though, you know, and we've had any
president that walks into the White House, Republican or democrat
you know, certainly has allegiances to industries or so on.
Speaker 7 (24:07):
I agree. I agree, it's never going to be absolute.
And we all know the stories of people going back
to Jimmy Carter's brother selling beer, that there's always relatives
who try to profit on these things. But the so again,
this isn't about ascribing the levolent intent. But you want
(24:30):
to have a system in place where people expect and feel,
particularly investors but also average citizens expect and feel that
this is an exception, not the rule that you occasionally
have the rogue family member, but that on the one hand,
policy choices are not being driven and being perceived as
(24:51):
driven by these things, and on the other hand, that
economic choices are being made on a commercial basis. And
that's why, no matter how many times people of different
parties and different administrations or appointments fail on this front,
you want to have a system of scrutiny and rules
and presumptions that it discourages our elected officials from being
(25:16):
so overt about it. I think, to be fair, you know,
the Trump administration and the sons of President Trump and
Secretary Ludnik and the Middle East negotiator guy and all
these people. You know, they're being very open, and I
think that in one sense does matter, like they are
(25:38):
with crypto, But in another sense that doesn't solve the
problem because then the perception is still people are being favored,
decisions are being made on a bad basis. You have
to offer gold crowns or hotel deals to make things happen.
Speaker 2 (25:55):
And transparency doesn't necessarily gain actions, right.
Speaker 5 (26:00):
Yeah, doctor Wilson, Doctor Posen, you said it's not the
end of the world if we're in a situation such
as this or in a society such asist.
Speaker 7 (26:09):
But it's not the end of the world.
Speaker 5 (26:11):
But I'm wondering if there are potentially long term economic
repercussions that happen in societies that don't necessarily have the
same rules in place, if we can look to history
or modern history to get an understanding of what the
implications of that could be in the US.
Speaker 3 (26:27):
In your view, oh, I think they're enormous.
Speaker 7 (26:30):
I think then, because it's the US, which, as I've
argued tim has been the lynchpin of the rules based,
law based system of economy since World War Two. It
has repercussions around the world because it means the US
is not only enforcing the norms against this kind of
corruption or perceived corruption or tied political choice making. It
(26:53):
means that the US is setting an example that you
can get away with it and other people should get
away with it, and it breaks down the regimes and
the operating principles we have to attorney thinks. So when
I say it's not the end of the world, I
don't mean to suggest it's not very harmful. It will
reduce the returns on capital, it will reduce the ability
(27:14):
of average people on normal businesses to get access to opportunities.
It will divide the world. It will increase in stability
and investment markets. It will waste public money. It's bad
in a lot of ways. I just merely want to
be very clear that though it's unusual for the US
(27:35):
in the last one hundred plus years to behave this way,
in our long ago history and in other countries around
the world, this has taken place, and that there have
been much small or much less overt examples of this
by you a previous US administration.
Speaker 2 (27:51):
Well, and you know, just thinking about all you've just said,
doctor Posen, and then kind of squaring that with the
recent government shut down and the domestic issues that kind
of came to the forefront. You know, the one in
eight Americans who are on some kind of food assistance
or food stamps.
Speaker 4 (28:09):
You know the.
Speaker 2 (28:10):
Amount of Americans that are just struggling to put food
on their table, a roof over their head.
Speaker 3 (28:16):
I want to bring it down.
Speaker 2 (28:17):
Then, with so much focus on global issues, and so
leould say, when you're president, you have to look beyond
the US borders as well as within the US borders.
But having said that, what is it that you know
is being maybe being ignored in your view domestically, that's
really got to be.
Speaker 3 (28:36):
Addressed.
Speaker 7 (28:38):
Again, you're asking very profound questions. I'll just say that
in an enlightened administration, the reason you get involved in
the rest of the world is because it ultimately is
to if you set up a rest of the world
that feels safer and less corrupt and more stable unless
(29:01):
subject to disease and refugee flows and wars, that's ultimately
to the benefit of the average American. And if you
have open and free commerce on a rules based basis
that raises American opportunities and American citizens purchasing power. So
I agree with you, there's a question of how you prioritize.
(29:21):
And this goes to the point with Saudi, I'm not
sure that that should be the biggest priority of an
American administration right now. It's fine, you can walk into gum.
It can be one of the things. So when you
say what's in the domestic front, I think the removal
of health care support subsidies and access to Medicaid and
(29:42):
to all these Obamacare related things is going to materially
affect the health and well being of millions of human
beings in the US. And that is bad economically, but
it's bad in human terms. I think the reduction of
options through the anti migration policies, through other policies that
(30:05):
make it so more people, mostly women in late middle age,
have to stay home to be caregivers to elders and
to children and to disabled people, is materially bad for
humans and is a huge pressure on people. And I
think the combination of anti migration policy, attacks on the
FED tariffs deal making, some of which looks corrupt, all
(30:31):
adds to a more inflationary environment, which reduces real incomes
for people. So there's a whole bunch of things on
the domestic front. But I just want to say that
it's not about choosing the global versus domestic. It's about
choosing the self interested versus the public welfare.
Speaker 3 (30:50):
I think we need to leave it there that I
got to say.
Speaker 2 (30:53):
Sometimes I'm in awe of our guests, and I certainly
am on this Tuesday, Doctor Posen, thank you so much,
Really appreciate okay for having me same here. Thank you
for joining us, Doctor Adam Posen, president of the Peterson
Institute for International Economics.
Speaker 5 (31:08):
Stay with us. More from Bloomberg Business Week Daily coming
up after this.
Speaker 1 (31:16):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Business Week Daily Podcast. Catch
us live weekday afternoons from two to five e's During
this listen on Applecarplay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg
Business app, or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 3 (31:30):
A lot to talk about with our next guest.
Speaker 2 (31:32):
It is our weekly discussion on women, Money and Power,
where we explore the economic implications of the wealth shift
of money to women and really how to navigate them.
We welcome Stephanie gil She's chief investment officer at robin
Hood Market. She's here in studio. Stephanie, good to have
you here. There's a lot going on. I kind of
say that Tim and I say that it feels like
almost every day. Let's start broadly with the market environment.
(31:55):
We've seen quite a pullback and a lot of risk
on assets, whether it's the mag seven, whether it's Nvidia,
whether it's semiconductors, whether it's bitcoin. Is this a market reset,
a sellof or market crush that we're kind of getting
near or neither.
Speaker 3 (32:12):
I think, or none of the But of the above,
I think it's correction.
Speaker 10 (32:15):
So I don't know if one of those was part
of that, but I think it's a healthy correction. You
get them every once two years. Sometimes we forget that,
and we just got off of a period of no data.
Valuations had gotten really high, and there is a legitimate
question around how much companies are spending versus how much
(32:35):
they're making in terms of cash flow, and in the
largest company, so that's going to affect the broader.
Speaker 3 (32:40):
Mar about big tech, and I'm talking about big tech.
Speaker 10 (32:42):
And AI and obviously Amazon's borrowing outsizing it to fifteen
billion doesn't.
Speaker 3 (32:47):
Necessarily help that narrative.
Speaker 10 (32:49):
So I think you just need to start seeing proof
that there's a return on invested capital. There are other
things that are working though in the market.
Speaker 5 (32:57):
We'll get to some of the things that are working,
but I want to know what the proof would look
like in your view, what do you need to see
from some of these companies to show, Okay, the money
that we're spending is actually paying off.
Speaker 10 (33:07):
I think you need to start seeing money from the
actual investments that they're making in terms of like AI investments,
how it actually reaches the consumer, how it reaches enterprise.
Speaker 3 (33:18):
Like we know in the private area.
Speaker 10 (33:20):
Anthropic is doing a little bit more revenue right because
there enterprise focus versus like an open AI that's more
consumer focused. So I think if people are investing money
in places that are going to prove out that revenue comes.
I think the other thing is that you're the change
in the one big beautiful bill right gave that one
hundred percent expensing, And that's kind of something that I'm
(33:41):
looking forward to in the future as well, which is
like that's not just AI investing, but also in other
tech and infrastructure and like that can start to lift
the market too.
Speaker 3 (33:49):
One of the things I want to ask you about.
Speaker 2 (33:51):
You shared some notes with our producer Arielagami, and you
said or you noted global markets are fundamentally changed. Individual
investors are now a corporate part of the financial ecosystem,
reshaping how capital markets function. What was once the domain
of institutions is now open and accessible to millions of
individuals worldwide. I understand where you're coming from, but I
was thinking about what doctor Adam Posen, president the Peterson
(34:13):
Institute for International Economics, said coming off of the meeting
between President Trump and Mohammed bin Saman of Saudi Arabia,
that this idea that capital flows actually are being controlled
to some extent by moves out of the White House,
whether it's taking stakes in companies, or it's the AI
spend that is controlling so much, or it's what some
(34:34):
say is a transactional White House where invest here and
you get this, it's very different in some regard in
a lot of ways from what we've had in the past.
Speaker 10 (34:45):
I've personally never watched so many political shows in my
career of over twenty years.
Speaker 3 (34:49):
Like that is part of what you have to know
as an investment.
Speaker 2 (34:52):
Makes me question, like do individual investors really still have
a lot to say here?
Speaker 10 (34:57):
I think they do, but not necessarily in the biggest
companies like I, you know, I think there's they actually
are seeing some of the individual investors, I think are
seeing things before the institutional investors, and that they many
are so aligned with the White House and what they're
doing that they're like, this is what I think the
future is. I also think that it's not necessarily showing
up in the largest companies. There are other companies, smaller
(35:17):
ones that they kind of gather together and sort of
community invest and those aren't the biggest companies, but they
are ones that are more volatile, but they have a
longer time horizon. And most of the people on our
platform are average age of thirty five. You know, more
than two thirds of our company is one Nails and
gen Z, So that's what you know. I think it's
(35:38):
the same as thing as Sorry, the thing is being
on a trading desk and kind of talking about investment
ideas together.
Speaker 3 (35:44):
Now they're in X doing the same thing and stuff.
Speaker 5 (35:46):
They're probably watching crypto closely too. Bitcoin down twenty five
to thirty percent, depending on when you look at it
from those all time highs just last month. Yeah, what
does that do not for your customer and not for
the robinhood user, but what does that do for sentiment
or does it give any indication of sentiment.
Speaker 10 (36:02):
I think it does because you have seen actually some
really big institutions sell some large positions too recently, not
just in bitcoin, but obviously in video and other names.
Speaker 3 (36:12):
I think.
Speaker 10 (36:13):
But then there is buyers too from Berkshire Hathaway.
Speaker 9 (36:16):
I think.
Speaker 10 (36:18):
I think those that play in the crypto space are
very used to large swings and they're you know, I
think there's kind of a meme out there that says
if you're invest like when stock investors have a big
drag down, they're like, you know, the crypto investors are like,
welcome to the way it feels. So I actually think
they're kind of used to it. We haven't really seen
a huge shift of anything. Most of our customers when
(36:39):
they're investing, they play the volatility in that when it
goes up a lot, they'll trim their positions.
Speaker 3 (36:44):
When it gets down a lot, they do add we.
Speaker 2 (36:46):
Have to jump so much going on, come back soon
because we would like to continue that. Stephanie Guild, chief
investment Officer at robin Hood Markets.
Speaker 1 (36:53):
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
(37:14):
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.
Ruthie's Table 4
For more than 30 years The River Cafe in London, has been the home-from-home of artists, architects, designers, actors, collectors, writers, activists, and politicians. Michael Caine, Glenn Close, JJ Abrams, Steve McQueen, Victoria and David Beckham, and Lily Allen, are just some of the people who love to call The River Cafe home. On River Cafe Table 4, Rogers sits down with her customers—who have become friends—to talk about food memories. Table 4 explores how food impacts every aspect of our lives. “Foods is politics, food is cultural, food is how you express love, food is about your heritage, it defines who you and who you want to be,” says Rogers. Each week, Rogers invites her guest to reminisce about family suppers and first dates, what they cook, how they eat when performing, the restaurants they choose, and what food they seek when they need comfort. And to punctuate each episode of Table 4, guests such as Ralph Fiennes, Emily Blunt, and Alfonso Cuarón, read their favourite recipe from one of the best-selling River Cafe cookbooks. Table 4 itself, is situated near The River Cafe’s open kitchen, close to the bright pink wood-fired oven and next to the glossy yellow pass, where Ruthie oversees the restaurant. You are invited to take a seat at this intimate table and join the conversation. For more information, recipes, and ingredients, go to https://shoptherivercafe.co.uk/ Web: https://rivercafe.co.uk/ Instagram: www.instagram.com/therivercafelondon/ Facebook: https://en-gb.facebook.com/therivercafelondon/ For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iheartradio app, apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com