May 22, 2025 • 37 mins
Watch Carol and Tim LIVE every day on YouTube: http://bit.ly/3vTiACF.
The Trump Administration blocked Harvard University from enrolling international students, delivering a major blow to the school and escalating its fight with elite colleges to unprecedented levels.
The US revoked Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, meaning foreign students can no longer attend the university. Existing international students must transfer or lose their legal status, the Department of Homeland Security said in a statement Thursday.
“Harvard’s leadership has created an unsafe campus environment by permitting anti-American, pro-terrorist agitators to harass and physically assault individuals, including many Jewish students, and otherwise obstruct its once-venerable learning environment,” according to the statement. The blockade on international student enrollment will compound the financial pressures for Harvard. The Trump administration has frozen more than $2.6 billion of Harvard’s funding and cut off future grants in an increasingly contentious standoff over the school’s handling of alleged antisemitism on campus and government demands for more oversight.
Trump has also called for the institution to lose its tax-exempt status, a move that the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based school has cautioned would have “grave consequences for the future of higher education in America.”
Harvard responded by calling the government’s latest action unlawful.
Today's show features:
- Bloomberg Team Leader for DC Breaking News Kasia Klimashinska on US Bans Harvard From Enrolling Foreigners
- Bloomberg News Finance Reporter Max Abelson on the Bloomberg Big Take: The Trump Family’s Money-Making Machine
- Bloomberg Intelligence Consumer Finance Analyst Ben Elliott
- Drive to the Close with Kathy Jones, Chief Fixed Income Strategist, Schwab Center for Financial Research
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 Weekdaily
Podcast with Carol Masser and Tim Steneveek on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
Our most read story on the Bloomberg at this hour
has to do with the Trump administration telling Harvard University
it cannot enroll international students, so no doubt about it
delivering a major blow to the.
Speaker 4 (00:43):
School after the government, you might recall.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
Also had frozen billions of dollars of federal funding and
really escalating a fight that we are seeing between the
United States and Harvard and other elite colleges. Colleges, but
really kind of taking this to a whole other level.
Speaker 5 (00:59):
Tip we got Kleimashinkska, team leader for DC Breaking News,
joining us from our Washington DC bureau. Carol read the
headlines at Kassia, But I'm wondering about sort of we
were seeing the reaction, we're seeing the interest. Everybody's talking
about this story, right now, is this the type of
thing that is going to get legal pushback, our lawyers
already working on this to try to prevent this from happening.
(01:21):
Or can the administration actually make Harvard do this?
Speaker 6 (01:24):
Yeah? Great questions, Thank you for having me. Indeed just
currently them all throughout the story on the terminal and
really a surprising new development and major escalation where the
Trump administration is basically telling Harvard they cannot all international students.
Not only that, but also the current the currently erals
foreign students have to transfer or they will lose their
(01:47):
legal statute. Harvard has already responded on the saying that
they will that they will fight it, that they obviously
don't agree with this decision, So there will be definitely
more to come.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
You know what's interesting, Casia Like, it's you know, we've
been seeing all of this play out, and I feel
like universities have been trying to figure out what's the
right balance in terms of dealing with the administration over it.
I feel like money trumps everything, and financially we are
continuing to see.
Speaker 4 (02:14):
Impacts on universities.
Speaker 3 (02:16):
Because of what the administration is doing pulling federal funding.
Speaker 4 (02:19):
But I look at Harvard I mean, we.
Speaker 3 (02:21):
Keep reading the statistic, almost sixty eight hundred students at Harvard,
twenty seven percent of the entire student body come from
other countries. That's up from just under twenty percent back
in two thousand and six. This is looking at the
university's data. I mean, this becomes a bigger and bigger
financial blow to the university. And you do wonder at
this point do universities in general, Harvard included, you know,
(02:44):
are going to fight back even harder because this is
about money.
Speaker 4 (02:48):
It comes down to also in terms of principles.
Speaker 6 (02:51):
Yeah, exactly. So this is more than a quarter of
all their students. I think it's also interesting that this
is the Department of Homeland Security involved them. The statement
your this hour came from the DHS, which was as
citing right, the protests, the fact that they blamed the
Harvard leadersh for not being able to keep its campus
(03:13):
basically safe and putting some students at through it.
Speaker 5 (03:17):
Yeah, I'm thinking about all the Harvard alumni in Congress
right now. Harvard Law actually has an article on their
website post election touting the fact that all Harvard Law
alumni running for reelection to Congress won their races. Well,
five more alumni vied to join their ranks. They talked
about incumbents in the US House of Representatives. They also
(03:38):
talked about Republican Ted Cruz Tim Kaine who were re
elected to the Senate, in addition to other alumni from
Harvard Law School. Have we heard anything yet at this
point from either Democrats or Republicans who were alums of
Harvard University at least Stephonic for example, who's been very
critical of the school. Republican member from New York House,
(04:00):
have we heard anything from them since this came out.
Speaker 6 (04:04):
You know, it came out less than an hour ago,
so I haven't seen anything here yet. On the breaking
news desk, you might. You know, it's not only people
in Congress, it's also major donors right on both sides.
So I'm sure this story will continue to escalate.
Speaker 3 (04:18):
Talk a little bit more about this coming from the
Department of Homeland Security, Like, it's just interesting, it's kind
of playing into kind of the safety element, right, We've
seen this kind of being used, I feel like in
terms of security reasons. We've seen this with immigration in general.
Like I just that thinking and philosophy that continues to
come from the administration again that I guess will also
(04:42):
be discussed in any kind of legal arguments.
Speaker 6 (04:45):
Yes, this timing is really interesting and really strange, you know,
given what happened here in DC overnight as well, and
the statement actually specifically sites Jewish students. It's also a
kind of woo you that the statement landed just after
online let it finish her briefing, so that kind of
didn't allow us to ask her more questions, even though
obviously must have been aware of it happening, because apparently
(05:09):
there were some papers going back and forth between the
Trauma administration and the school for several days or even
weeks now. So Yes, this is definitely an interesting timing
for this announcement.
Speaker 5 (05:21):
Yeah, I'm also thinking, and i know you're covering breaking news,
but I'm also thinking about just the educational impact of
a move such as this. Given the numbers that Carol mentioned,
thousands of students there, close to thirty percent of the
entire student body, this is the type of thing that
could potentially wreak havoc on a university's finances, but also
in such a short period of time where ostensibly acceptance
(05:42):
letters have already been mailed out we understand the yield
of the class coming in the timing of this is
pretty is pretty wild.
Speaker 6 (05:50):
Yes, it's really strength and difficult. It's not only about
the new students but also existing students who will have
to transfer or lose their legals tables that me insluding
their visa, possibly being forced to go back home. Yes,
and it's not only about the finances, right, but also
about the diversity of the campus. I mean, we know
(06:12):
that the school has been previously attacked for their diversity efforts,
so there's also addresses that issue of the diversity of
the student body.
Speaker 4 (06:22):
Cassie, one last question.
Speaker 3 (06:24):
You know, it's interesting that it feels like Harvard is
being attacked big time. We've seen it also with Columbia
and some other schools, but it does feel like makes
me wonder like who didn't get into Harvard and the
administration that's like so angry. But I know it's a bigger,
broader story. Having said that, should we assume that other
schools will be targeted in a similar way as hard
as Harvard is.
Speaker 6 (06:41):
Being so I think this is what is very surprising
about this news, right, that it singles out this one's
school and goes after its leadership. So I think we
have to see we have you to find out whether
the DHS will go after other schools as well.
Speaker 3 (06:57):
Yeah, fascinating and uh, you know, just I think it's
safe to say many would would characterize it that way.
Cassia clemschinks she's team leader for DC Breaking News, joining
us from our DC News bureau.
Speaker 2 (07:09):
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 app,
or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 5 (07:24):
Well, let's talk a little bit about today's big take.
Carol Masser, I couldn't get enough of this and the
illustrations that are included in it. Max Abelson joins us
now he's Bloomberg News, a finance reporter, whether it's geopolitics, trades, tariffs,
or on more more personal level real estate, crypto corporate ventures.
Some say this second term of President Donald Trump is
(07:44):
all about the art of the deal. Some of the actions, though,
have raised ethical questions that have been addressed by White
House Press Secretary Caroline Lovitt, including earlier this month.
Speaker 7 (07:55):
The president is abiding by all conflict of interest laws.
The President has been incredibly transparent with his own personal
financial obligation throughout the years. The President is a successful businessman,
and I think, frankly, it's one of the many reasons
that people re elected him back to this office. Look,
I can assure you the President acts with only the
interests of the American public in mind, putting our country
first and doing what's best for our country full stop.
(08:17):
That's his intention, and that's what he's focused on.
Speaker 5 (08:21):
Well, today, the Bloomberg Big Take is focused on how
since the early days of the reelection campaign, President Trump
has more than doubled his net worth carol to about
five point four billion dollars.
Speaker 3 (08:31):
All right, we want to get into this and with
us to who has written this Bloomberg Big Take. It
is one of the most read and it is a
must read. It has been deemed so by our Bloomberg
editorial team. Max Abelson and Andy Massa wrote the story.
Joining us right now is Bloomberg News Finance reporter Max
Abelson right here in studio. It's pretty incredible because you
guys have really laid out all that's been going on
(08:53):
in terms of business activity for the President. We should
just you know, we just heard from Caroline Levitt, who
has been asked about this at some of the press conferences,
the daily White House press conferences, and she says, the
president abiding by all conflicts of interest of laws, incredibly
transparent and so on and so forth. But it does
beg a lot of questions tell us about how you
approach this, because.
Speaker 4 (09:13):
There's been a lot of stuff going on.
Speaker 1 (09:15):
I would love to you I'm going to say something
about our project, and I'm going to say something like
this is basically the opposite of it. But you'll see
what I mean. Our project is really about being able
to step back and to say in concrete terms, factual terms,
clear terms, what is happening here when a president is
(09:35):
doing more than anyone in modern American history that we
can tell any other president in modern America to position
his family to make an astounding amount of money while
in the White House. And when I say astounding, what
we're talking about is not in the millions or in
the hundred of millions. What we're talking about is deals
that are in the billions. Whether we're talking about the
(09:57):
Trump n empowering I think more than ten bills million
dollars worth of real estate projects, the trump Na empowering
billions of dollars of value for a social media company
which which only went public last year, you know, hundreds
of millions of dollars of crypto. And then and then
I told her I was going to say something that
was the opposite of this, that this is this is
what I want to say. As I was walking here
(10:19):
from my desk in the newsroom, just on the other
side of this floor to our radio studio, I saw
that the United States government, the Trumpet administration, told Harvard
University right that that it can't enroll international students and
that and that existing foreign students are going to have
to transfer or lose their legal status. And you know,
for me personally, news like that, which I find comes
(10:39):
basically every week, maybe sometimes every day, just these really
things that I had never contemplated or never heard of.
That there has been so much tumult in the last
few months, so many things going on, tariffs alone, the
stock market alone, the economy alone, that it is so
easy to forget that what is happening on the Trump
(11:03):
business side is really important too.
Speaker 8 (11:06):
So what Ann and I we're trying to do.
Speaker 1 (11:08):
We try to just forget about politics, and forget about policy,
forget about things like Harvard, and just really focus on
the Trump money making machine.
Speaker 4 (11:17):
Can I say?
Speaker 3 (11:17):
There are folks that come in and say, you know,
we're all kind of chasing the stuff that is coming
out of the White House, and the question often arises
of like, well, wait, what are we missing?
Speaker 4 (11:26):
What is going on that.
Speaker 3 (11:27):
Maybe isn't in the headline, or what the administration is
talking about or the president's team. So take it away
because you guys did some really deep reporting.
Speaker 1 (11:36):
That is what we tried to do, so Annie Massa
and I with help from many editors. I want to
mention David Shear, who really made this happen. What we
tried to focus on is that compared to all that
tumult that I just mentioned, all the Harvard news and
the comings and goings, compared to that, there's something very
clear about the Trump empire, which is that it's approach,
and our timeline is since the reelection campaign began. Everything
(11:59):
that we're talking about here is after he announced his reelection.
Speaker 8 (12:02):
The approach is clear.
Speaker 1 (12:03):
The Trumps are selling that family name, and they're doing
it at a scale that I really do think could
could very well be the story of the day, the
story of the year, if it weren't for all these
things happening. You know, we see, we see the Trumps
going and doing things they simply did not do in
the last term when they.
Speaker 8 (12:25):
Said no to no new foreign deals.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
In the first administration, we were not talking about new
foreign deals and last of administration really because Trump essentially
said that they wouldn't happen. Now, you know, you basically
have to take out your globe because Annie and I traveled,
you know, journalistically speaking to Cutter, India, Vietnam, the United
Arab Emirates, the United States is involved too, and at
(12:48):
each point they're doing really interesting things. They're built, they're
they're they're licensing their name to really big projects, hundreds
of millions of dollars if not billions of dollars worth
worth of projects. And sometimes not all time, sometimes something
very important is happening, which is that the deal includes
arms of governments. I'm talking about you know, it may
(13:09):
not be the Trump administration, it may not be the
Trump family, I should say, signing a deal with a government,
but governments are involved, and that rubs up against what
Trump said would not happen this term. When Trump said
there would not be new deals with foreign.
Speaker 4 (13:23):
Governments, governments involved, government money involved.
Speaker 1 (13:25):
What we're really talking about is things like let's say
in Oman, for example, they announced when they when they
announced that deal, they announced as a partner the Umran Group,
and that is essentially as it's a think of it
as a state owned tourism group and they're going to
be involved in that deal. Listen, let me let me
(13:48):
point out that the Vietnamese I believe he's a prime minister.
He may be the president, but the head, one extremely
important figure in Vietnam met with basically the financial representative
representative on the Trump on the on the new Trump
project in Vietnam.
Speaker 8 (14:02):
That is what we.
Speaker 1 (14:03):
Mean when we say that these things are very big,
They're potentially very lucrative, and a lot are happening right now.
Speaker 5 (14:10):
Max real Estate is just one piece of the puzzle here.
It's certainly a global piece of the puzzle. The crypto
story is included in here as well. You talk about
world liberty, financial the Trump and Millenia mean coins as well.
I want to focus a little bit on the corporate
side of things. I think that gets a lot I
think that gets a lot less attention than everything else. Right,
there was a lot in here that I had never
(14:32):
even heard of when it came to Trump family connections.
Grab a gun for example. Talk a little bit about
the corporate connections and what you Annie and the team
uncovered here.
Speaker 1 (14:40):
I really admire any Master's ability to put her finger
on these on these corporate connections, the things that I
hadn't heard of. I mean, you know, it's it's I
think it's actually helpful to put crypto off to the
side because it can it gets so much attention. I
mean literally, tonight, Trump is scheduled to meet with the
top holders right of one of his one of his
crypto projects. I think it's the mean coin. But then
you know, so that that gets all the attention. But
(15:01):
then you see something like seventeen eighty nine Capital Donald
Trump Junior join. I think he became a partner at
seventeen eighty nine, like a matter of days after the election.
I think it was less than a week after the election.
And that's that's a group that you know, Rebecca Mercer,
if you remember the Mercer name, it was a really
that is a really important Republican mega mega donor, and
(15:23):
what they're basically doing. The way to think about it
is they're essentially monetizing the kind of Trumpian vision for
US culture by taking stakes in you know, things like
the Enhanced Games. I don't know if you've heard of that.
Basically it's been nicknamed the steroid Olympics.
Speaker 5 (15:37):
Yeah, I've heard of these, you know. But you can
athletes who can sort of they're not drug tested. You
can do whatever you want.
Speaker 8 (15:43):
And then that's right, that's right, listener.
Speaker 1 (15:45):
Listeners can't really see me right now, but I'm like
extremely jacked and steroidal.
Speaker 5 (15:49):
You know, lanning, that's exact purpose.
Speaker 8 (15:53):
I'm going to fight in the inn assterial Olympics.
Speaker 2 (15:55):
That's right, you know.
Speaker 1 (15:57):
But the list goes on and on there. It's almost
much to mention on just one interview. I want to
give a shout out to Unusual Machines, which is such
a drone component maker.
Speaker 8 (16:07):
You know. When this is how powerful the Trump name is.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
When Donald Trump Junior's role was announced in by the way,
in November November twenty twenty four, right again on the money,
the stock popped basically two hundred and fifty percent, maybe
just shy of two hundred and fifty percent in like
the two days, two trading days that followed.
Speaker 8 (16:26):
That is power.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
I tell people that my beat here is money and power.
That is money and power, and it just keeps going.
There's you know, have you ever heard of PSQ Holdings?
Do you a public square?
Speaker 9 (16:36):
Now I have?
Speaker 5 (16:37):
This is the anti woke ye. This is the anti
woke marketplace where you can go and buy items such
as these pro life diapers that you guys highlight in
the piece.
Speaker 8 (16:45):
YEP.
Speaker 1 (16:45):
I want to thank Michael Seffert, the CEO who gave
us a comment. He said that Trump Junior is an
incredible businessman, GJI partner and marketing expert and in other words,
in other words, what he's saying is that we want
Trump Junior for his mind, not necessarily for anything else.
But that's a good example of like, you know what,
three million dollars more. That was Trump Junior's twenty twenty
four compensation we found for PSQ and his board role
(17:07):
was announced once again December December of twenty twenty four.
Speaker 8 (17:11):
It keeps on going.
Speaker 1 (17:12):
There's Dominari, which listeners should should read any mass a separate.
Speaker 8 (17:16):
Story on Donor.
Speaker 1 (17:17):
We talked and We're fascinating, have you you know, do
you know the the idea of like basically events contract.
Speaker 5 (17:24):
Yeah, we interviewed the call She founders when they launched
years ago.
Speaker 8 (17:28):
Kyle She.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
I mean that role was announced January January, and that's
Donald Trump junior again Eric Trump. I don't want to
overshadow Eric Trump. Eric Trump is also involved in some
of these stuff. But it's but when you're talking about
grab a gun, for example, that's yet again, Donald Trump Junior.
Speaker 8 (17:44):
It's yet again.
Speaker 1 (17:46):
It's's essentially the last few weeks, it's yet again at
least three million dollars. And it's you know, for for
listeners who I think that I'm especially interested in talking
to listeners who sort of their minds aren't made up.
You know.
Speaker 8 (17:58):
I don't think there's much.
Speaker 1 (18:00):
To do as a journalist for readers and listeners who
just know that they despise Donald Trump, or that they
know that they adore Donald Trump. I'm interested not in
pandering to like this someone who has their mind made
up already. I'm really interested in just like focusing on
the numbers and focusing on just like what's actually happening.
And you know, whether or not you dislike this or
(18:21):
admire it. I think it's really helpful to take a
step back and to look at a family empire that
is poised to make money while while the father is
in the White House in a way that's you know,
I don't know what to compare it to.
Speaker 8 (18:35):
Obviously, obviously the.
Speaker 1 (18:36):
Biden family, the Obama family, the Clinton family, the Bushes.
I can add, all of these people are capitalists. All
of these families were familiar with their reporting around their
money making, for sure, But as a financial reporter, I've
never seen I think the keyword here is the scale
(18:57):
billions of dollars just for Trump Media and Technology Group,
which you know of because it's the true social parent, right,
that went public last year he was on.
Speaker 8 (19:06):
The campaign trail.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
This scale is what appeals to me as a finance
reporter because it feels so new.
Speaker 3 (19:11):
Listen to be fair, right, like you say, other presidents
in their families make money, whether it's.
Speaker 4 (19:18):
At they write books, they are consultants. There's a lot
of things.
Speaker 3 (19:22):
And just by right by being associated with a family
that was in the White House, right, it definitely opens doors.
But the point is, I think also is so much
of this is happening before going into the White House,
and now that he's.
Speaker 1 (19:35):
In the White House, that is that's a really good
way of saying it. You know, one of my favorite
early scoops. I think it was like in the first
five years that I was at Bloomberg, Yeah, was about
Barack Obama getting paid. I believe my memory is hundreds
of thousands of dollars, maybe three hundred thousand, maye four
hundred thousand, maybe it was less for speeches at finance firms,
including Canter Fitzgerald, which is ironic, Candorvidgel just across the
(19:58):
street from us here in our Bloomberg headquarters. Yeah, Canter Friitgherald.
Of course, the family that's in control is the Lutnik family.
Howard Lutnick, of course is our Commerce secretary now.
Speaker 8 (20:06):
And I bring that up.
Speaker 1 (20:07):
It's relatively random and relatively stale, But I bring that
up first of all because it goes to show that
the Obamas, just like many other political figures, are interested
in money making.
Speaker 8 (20:18):
But I just want to bring up the difference in
scale that as far as I.
Speaker 1 (20:23):
As my reporting showed that that was a guy making
a few hundred thousand dollars, I know that this book
deal he made it.
Speaker 8 (20:29):
What was that like sixty million dollars?
Speaker 1 (20:30):
I think, yeah, but what I would But what I
really tried to wrap my mind around, and I know
Annie felt this way too. Is that what we're talking
about now for the family since the re election campaign began?
Speaker 5 (20:41):
Right is in the billions, Max Abelson, this is a
great story. It's today's big Take. It's one of the
most read stories on the Bloomberg terminal. You got to
read it online because the illustrations in there are perfect
as well. Max, Thanks so much for joining us.
Speaker 8 (20:56):
This is the.
Speaker 2 (20:56):
Bloomberg Business Week Daily Podcast. Listen live each weekday starting
at two pm Eastern on Apple car 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 4 (21:14):
There's a lot that is once again coming out of DC.
Speaker 3 (21:17):
We have actually seen shares of Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mack surged to sixteen years sixteen year highs after President
Trump said late last night that he was giving very
serious consideration to bring the firms public after more than
a decade of being under government oversight.
Speaker 4 (21:32):
So let's get to what you need to know.
Speaker 3 (21:33):
Bloomberg Intelligence Consumer finance analyst be Elliott is with us
once again from our DC Bureau. Back to our DC
Bureau week. Go Hey, Ben, good to have you here.
First up, Fanny Freddie been around for a long time,
storied history, quasi government publicly traded endities. What do we
first need to know kind of about that history?
Speaker 10 (21:54):
Yeah, so they were founded many decades ago. Fanny May
first in the thirties, Freddie Maclear in the seventies. Actually,
they were privatized in the past, in the late sixties
by previous piece of legislation which sort of has some
echoes of what's happening today. And the company is basically
guaranteed seventy percent of US mortgages. You know, their existence
(22:16):
is unique globally and it makes the US home ownership
model possible. It's the reason that we have a thirty
year fixed rate mortgage available to homeowners today.
Speaker 5 (22:27):
So what do we need to know about what happened
potentially during the financial crisis and the government oversight that
we've seen over the last few years, and what could
change given what we heard from the President.
Speaker 10 (22:37):
Yeah, so the companies are fundamentally changed since the financial crisis.
It's important to note that they were doing all kinds
of ancillary businesses. They were basically operating the world's biggest
hedge fund, as Warren Buffett once said, and they got
over their skis taking on a bunch of additional risk
beyond just guaranteeing vanilla mortgages. So the majority of the
losses they suffered from two thousand and twenty eleven we're
(23:01):
from those activities, right, So they don't do any of
that anymore. But you know, they exist in this sort
of quasi governmental state where the FHFA and the Treasury
own and are in charge of the companies, and by
and large they function very well. They provide a huge
amount of liquidity to US housing markets. Every year, they
(23:21):
make the thirty year mortgage possible, and they earn about
thirty billion dollars a year for the Treasury Department. So
the status quo is arguably working. But they're in sort
of a bankruptcy like process that was never meant to
be permanent, and so there are a lot of observers
who think that that process should now come to an end, all.
Speaker 3 (23:41):
Right, So you've got Fanny May up forty percent in
today's session. Freddie mac is up just about thirty nine percent.
So if they do go public officially and they're publicly
held entities, what does it mean for them, What does
it mean for their role in housing?
Speaker 4 (23:56):
How might that change things from what they've been.
Speaker 10 (24:01):
Well, it's it's really important to note that there are
very few details on this right. So the President has
been has been sort of saying what he said last
night since twenty seventeen, so we don't have anything new.
And the really important detail will be how, if at all,
the US government continues to back these companies after the
exit conservatorship potentially and and start to be to trade
(24:23):
like normal public companies. And and everyone by large degrees
that there will be some form of federal government guarantee.
They hope it will be explicit, they hope it will
be defined at a certain value, and they hope that
it will be paid for. But by and large, the
companies get a huge amount of benefits from being quasi governmental.
You know, their their credit rating is tied to the sovereign,
(24:43):
for instance, so they get very they get they get
financing on par with the with the risk free rate essentially,
which allows their business model to function at the price
as it does today. So if the companies were to
exit conservatorship, you know, it's not necessarily true that mortgage
rates will arise, but there are plenty of ways in
(25:05):
which they could. One is that the companies choose to
or need to earn more profits to attract third party
private capital to replace the government's current stake. And the
other way is that agency NBS investors lose faith in
their backing and they start to see credit risk returning
(25:27):
to the securities, and therefore they demand a larger premium
over treasuries and that translates into higher mortgage rates.
Speaker 5 (25:34):
What does it mean exactly when you say that the
US has a stake in these companies, Because you know,
I go to HDS in the Bloomberg terminal to look
at these equities to see who the holders are, it
doesn't say the US government owns x percentage of these firms.
Speaker 1 (25:49):
Yeah.
Speaker 10 (25:50):
So, actually, at Bloomberg we do an interesting thing, which
is that we display the share count as though the
Treasury had already executed its warrants. It holds warrens to
buy seer of the common stuff. But they're not actually
exercised yet, so the federal government is not reflected as
an owner of the common shares. What they do own
(26:10):
is something called the senior preferred shares, which obviously as
the name implies, or senior to the common shares and
the valuation. There is something called the liquidation preference, which
is growing each quarter equal to the amount that the
companies earn, and it's approaching four hundred billion dollars. So
that's kind of the biggest impediment to this recap and
(26:30):
release process that you hear about is what does the
federal government do with this gigantic stake in the companies
and how does it get paid back?
Speaker 3 (26:37):
Yeah, because I wonder if the government is still somehow involved,
is it kind of a sure thing for investors?
Speaker 4 (26:43):
Maybe not a high flyer, but a sure thing. And
I also do think about.
Speaker 3 (26:47):
Like moral hazard, like if something goes astraight, like do
we just assume the government's going to be there to
protect things?
Speaker 6 (26:57):
Yeah?
Speaker 10 (26:57):
I think there's the biggest risk is obviously moral hazard, right, right,
if they leave conservatorship and there's a defined dollar amount
that the Treasury agrees to backstop the companies and they
pay for it. I think even then bond markets will
assume that if worst comes to worst, the federal government
is going to write a blank check. The companies are
(27:19):
absolutely fundamental to the US economy, and you know, if
they were private enterprises, there's just no way that they could,
you know, go into bankruptcy and be resolved simply. And
the evidence of that is two thousand and eight, right's
staring us right in the face. So it does seem
as though there's some circular logic here, like we'd be
going right back to.
Speaker 3 (27:37):
Where we were, Ben, fifteen seconds. How important is Fanny
and Freddy in terms of the housing market? They'll liquidity
just very quickly.
Speaker 10 (27:44):
Absolutely crucial. They backed seventy percent of all US mortgages,
and without them, the fixed year, the fixt R eight
thirty year note just just wouldn't be available the way
it is today.
Speaker 4 (27:53):
This is what you call an interview.
Speaker 3 (27:54):
Why you should care, Ben Ellie, thank you so much,
Really appreciate b leotom me intelligence consumer finance analyst, Ben
la You know the.
Speaker 5 (28:00):
Top holding is Pershing Square at two percent.
Speaker 4 (28:03):
Love this stuff. This is Bloomberg.
Speaker 2 (28:06):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Business Weekdaily Podcast. Catch US
live weekday afternoons from two to five pm Eastern. Listen
on Apple CarPlay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app,
or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 6 (28:21):
Mac.
Speaker 9 (28:22):
I'll bet you let me drive.
Speaker 8 (28:23):
Oh no, no, no no, this is not a toy hory. Please,
I'll dovels. Let's great, I want to drive.
Speaker 5 (28:32):
It's a good question.
Speaker 8 (28:39):
This is the drive to the closet plunk for.
Speaker 2 (28:42):
Me Efe Well, Drin Don on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 3 (28:46):
All right, everybody, we're just about eighteen minutes away from
the closing bell on this Thursday. Carol Master along with
Tim Stanovik live here at our Bloomberg Interactive Broker studio,
Charlie and Bill Maloney breaking down the trade, talking about
the equity trade, we're pretty much hovering o our best
levels of the set. But what we really want to
get into is what we've been talking so much on
the fixed income side of things, in particular US treasuries.
Speaker 5 (29:06):
Sometimes you have the perfect guests for the moment we
really had, and this is one of those times. We
got Kathy Jones with us. She's chief fixed income strategist
at the SHWUB Center for Financial Research, and she's here
in our Bloomberg Interactive Broker Studios. Thanks for coming in.
It is always great to see you, especially in a
week where we're talking about over five percent on the
thirty year.
Speaker 9 (29:27):
Well, thanks for having me. It's a fun time to
be to be talking about it.
Speaker 5 (29:31):
So what would you say is the underlying root cause
of what we saw happen yesterday?
Speaker 9 (29:36):
I think there are a number of things have come together.
So it didn't just happen overnight, obviously, But the initial catalyst,
or the immediate catalyst, was the budget bill, which was
kind of a final straw for the market saying Okay,
there's really no meaningful progress going to be made anytime
soon on reducing the deficit. And this comes after we've
(29:59):
seen glow yields rise, after the dollar has fallen, and
we've made all these policy changes on trade that actually
would discourage capital inflows. And so we're this policy mix
combined with the budget said Okay, if I'm going to
hold long term paper, I'm going to need a higher
(30:19):
yield to compensate me.
Speaker 5 (30:21):
But that bill is now closer or that bill is
now closer to becoming law, and we're seeing yields actually
pull back a little bit. So in my view, and
correct me if I'm wrong. Nothing is really shifted on
that front. Yet we're not seeing as much excitement or
in the words of the President, maybe yippiness in the
bond market. Yeah.
Speaker 9 (30:41):
Well, I think a lot of the yippiness happened when
we hit five percent, right, and so now we're settling
down and kind of dealing with when what's so.
Speaker 5 (30:49):
We don't stay yippy even though we're above five percent,
just the fact that we hit it is yippy.
Speaker 9 (30:53):
Well, yes, but we have a one day reprieve, so
we don't know what's coming. But I would have to
say that if nothing changes on the policy front, the
likelihood is that yields will continue to rise at the
long end, just because investors want more compensation for all
the risks that have been put together.
Speaker 1 (31:11):
Here.
Speaker 4 (31:11):
One thing I want to get into is, and what
I'm finding interesting, is this just isn't a US thing.
It's a global thing.
Speaker 3 (31:17):
And we talked about this with our John Authors, who
has a column out. He said, the bon vigilantes vigilantes
excuse me, may need a lot of rope and so,
but getting into he said, even some bigger things, not
just governments, fiscal houses, longevity costs to society and just
a different way of thinking of it, And I'm just
curious how that plays into your thinking as well, Kathy.
Speaker 9 (31:38):
Yeah, absolutely, demographics are important here because we do have
aging populations and that means the burden on government will
be higher, presumably than it has been in the past,
as a larger proportion of the population requires government services,
and we haven't done anything to kind of address that
(31:58):
in balance longer term. So that combined with you know,
we've come off twenty years of slow growth, low inflation,
and ramped up our spending, and now we're ramping it
up more at a time when the economy is actually
doing well and inflation's not low and interest rates aren't low.
We're kind of having the policy impulse, the fiscal impulse
(32:21):
is going in the wrong direction at this stage of
the business cycle. Usually it should be countercyclical, and this
is pro cyclical.
Speaker 3 (32:29):
Are you worried about these spending programs ultimately will lead
in some ways maybe to stackflation. And I'm just thinking
about if we're living in a higher rate environment, that's
going to have a cost right across the board everybody everything.
And I'm just curious as we continue to see, we're
probably going to still be in a higher tariff environment.
Things are going to cost more, and I know we'll
(32:49):
settle into it that everybody has just so much in
terms of funds to play around with.
Speaker 4 (32:54):
So do you worry about stackflation? What do you worry
about in terms of the economic scenario.
Speaker 9 (33:00):
I do worry about stagflation because it's probably one of
the most difficult things to get out of, and that's
without a lot of pain being inflicted on someone somewhere.
So policy wise, what does the FED do with stagflation?
They probably can't lower rates, right, because that will just
send inflation higher. On the other hand, if the economy
(33:24):
is weakening and unemployment is rising, they really should be
easing policy because that's part of their dual mandate. It's
not an easy process to work out. If we had
it in the seventies, you know, Arthur Berns and Nixon
and all that, We've talked about a lot, and it
was it was a long painful process to get out
(33:45):
of it. And so if we go back to an
environment like that, and particularly if we do it globally,
that is going to be a very difficult process.
Speaker 5 (33:54):
Is the risk now of that greater than at any
point you've seen before in the last let's say, since
the Great enter Crisis.
Speaker 9 (34:01):
Yeah, I think it's on a global perspective, or just
for the US globally as well. Now we're encouraging Germany
and Europe to spend more on defense. I don't know
that that's going to create for Europe, you know, this boom,
this fiscal boom, but it's more than we have asked
of them before, and it's more spending than they've done before.
(34:21):
So we have that in Europe. Japan has its own
unique set of problems, and you've seen those yields move
up very quickly. So it could become a global phenomenon.
Speaker 4 (34:32):
All right, So there's that backdrop. Keep hitting my mic,
they're gonna yell at me, but we have that backdrop.
Speaker 3 (34:37):
The other thing is, nothing is as deep and liquid
as the US treasury market. So how does that insulate
us from some of what might come?
Speaker 9 (34:46):
Yeah? I think the one thing, the thing that gives
me the most comfort is that there's no real replacement
for the US treasury market.
Speaker 4 (34:53):
And the other thing is not likely to be anytime now, right,
you know, you.
Speaker 9 (34:56):
Can't really see it on the horizon. And the other
thing is we are well healthy country with tremendous assets,
so we have the capability of funding our debt, of
spending you know where we need to spend. We have
the capability to reduce our debt and to service our debt,
even at higher interest rates. We don't seem to have
(35:19):
the willingness to deal with it.
Speaker 8 (35:21):
That's more of the issue.
Speaker 9 (35:22):
But we're not like an emerging market country, our poor
country that builds up so much debt it can't service
the debt. We have the ability to do it.
Speaker 5 (35:29):
Just a minute left. I've been asking everybody this question
today when it comes to fixed income, how do you
see corporates competing with fixed income right now?
Speaker 9 (35:35):
For money, there's been a lot of interest in investment
grade corporates. I think they're a little expensive right now, Okay,
and we like them, but you know, the spreads are
pretty tight, so i'd say up in credit quality, but
I think they look pretty good.
Speaker 5 (35:50):
Yeah, because we spoke to Sandy Villary yesterday who mentioned
he's not interested on the fixed income side when it
comes to US debt. He's looking at corporates. That's what's interesting.
Speaker 9 (35:58):
A lot of issuance in Euro now from US corporate?
Speaker 3 (36:01):
Is that where you would look overseas? Like where would
you in the fixed income commit some new money right now?
Speaker 4 (36:06):
Got about forty.
Speaker 9 (36:06):
Yeah, we like from the municipal bonds look very attractive.
We do like investment grade corporates, and some of the
Euro denominated issues could be very attractive even though the
yield's a bit lower. If you think the dollar is
going to go down as we do.
Speaker 3 (36:20):
You're someone who's seen market cycles, does this kind of
feel odd?
Speaker 8 (36:23):
Weird?
Speaker 1 (36:24):
Like?
Speaker 4 (36:24):
How do you see it? Forgive me just got about
twenty five seconds.
Speaker 9 (36:27):
Yes, it feels weirder than anything. And I've been in
this business for almost forty years. Yeah, this feels weirder
than anything that I've seen.
Speaker 4 (36:35):
And that includes GFC COVID.
Speaker 9 (36:37):
Yeah either you got it.
Speaker 3 (36:39):
Yeah, thank you, which is why we really look forward
to talking with you today as always, Kathy, Thank you.
Kathy Jones, she fixed and comes strategist over at Schwab
Center for Financial Research, joining us right here in our
Bloomberg Interactive Broker Studio.
Speaker 2 (36:52):
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
(37:12):
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 Weekdaily
Podcast with Carol Masser and Tim Steneveek on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
Our most read story on the Bloomberg at this hour
has to do with the Trump administration telling Harvard University
it cannot enroll international students, so no doubt about it
delivering a major blow to the.
Speaker 4 (00:43):
School after the government, you might recall.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
Also had frozen billions of dollars of federal funding and
really escalating a fight that we are seeing between the
United States and Harvard and other elite colleges. Colleges, but
really kind of taking this to a whole other level.
Speaker 5 (00:59):
Tip we got Kleimashinkska, team leader for DC Breaking News,
joining us from our Washington DC bureau. Carol read the
headlines at Kassia, But I'm wondering about sort of we
were seeing the reaction, we're seeing the interest. Everybody's talking
about this story, right now, is this the type of
thing that is going to get legal pushback, our lawyers
already working on this to try to prevent this from happening.
(01:21):
Or can the administration actually make Harvard do this?
Speaker 6 (01:24):
Yeah? Great questions, Thank you for having me. Indeed just
currently them all throughout the story on the terminal and
really a surprising new development and major escalation where the
Trump administration is basically telling Harvard they cannot all international students.
Not only that, but also the current the currently erals
foreign students have to transfer or they will lose their
(01:47):
legal statute. Harvard has already responded on the saying that
they will that they will fight it, that they obviously
don't agree with this decision, So there will be definitely
more to come.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
You know what's interesting, Casia Like, it's you know, we've
been seeing all of this play out, and I feel
like universities have been trying to figure out what's the
right balance in terms of dealing with the administration over it.
I feel like money trumps everything, and financially we are
continuing to see.
Speaker 4 (02:14):
Impacts on universities.
Speaker 3 (02:16):
Because of what the administration is doing pulling federal funding.
Speaker 4 (02:19):
But I look at Harvard I mean, we.
Speaker 3 (02:21):
Keep reading the statistic, almost sixty eight hundred students at Harvard,
twenty seven percent of the entire student body come from
other countries. That's up from just under twenty percent back
in two thousand and six. This is looking at the
university's data. I mean, this becomes a bigger and bigger
financial blow to the university. And you do wonder at
this point do universities in general, Harvard included, you know,
(02:44):
are going to fight back even harder because this is
about money.
Speaker 4 (02:48):
It comes down to also in terms of principles.
Speaker 6 (02:51):
Yeah, exactly. So this is more than a quarter of
all their students. I think it's also interesting that this
is the Department of Homeland Security involved them. The statement
your this hour came from the DHS, which was as
citing right, the protests, the fact that they blamed the
Harvard leadersh for not being able to keep its campus
(03:13):
basically safe and putting some students at through it.
Speaker 5 (03:17):
Yeah, I'm thinking about all the Harvard alumni in Congress
right now. Harvard Law actually has an article on their
website post election touting the fact that all Harvard Law
alumni running for reelection to Congress won their races. Well,
five more alumni vied to join their ranks. They talked
about incumbents in the US House of Representatives. They also
(03:38):
talked about Republican Ted Cruz Tim Kaine who were re
elected to the Senate, in addition to other alumni from
Harvard Law School. Have we heard anything yet at this
point from either Democrats or Republicans who were alums of
Harvard University at least Stephonic for example, who's been very
critical of the school. Republican member from New York House,
(04:00):
have we heard anything from them since this came out.
Speaker 6 (04:04):
You know, it came out less than an hour ago,
so I haven't seen anything here yet. On the breaking
news desk, you might. You know, it's not only people
in Congress, it's also major donors right on both sides.
So I'm sure this story will continue to escalate.
Speaker 3 (04:18):
Talk a little bit more about this coming from the
Department of Homeland Security, Like, it's just interesting, it's kind
of playing into kind of the safety element, right, We've
seen this kind of being used, I feel like in
terms of security reasons. We've seen this with immigration in general.
Like I just that thinking and philosophy that continues to
come from the administration again that I guess will also
(04:42):
be discussed in any kind of legal arguments.
Speaker 6 (04:45):
Yes, this timing is really interesting and really strange, you know,
given what happened here in DC overnight as well, and
the statement actually specifically sites Jewish students. It's also a
kind of woo you that the statement landed just after
online let it finish her briefing, so that kind of
didn't allow us to ask her more questions, even though
obviously must have been aware of it happening, because apparently
(05:09):
there were some papers going back and forth between the
Trauma administration and the school for several days or even
weeks now. So Yes, this is definitely an interesting timing
for this announcement.
Speaker 5 (05:21):
Yeah, I'm also thinking, and i know you're covering breaking news,
but I'm also thinking about just the educational impact of
a move such as this. Given the numbers that Carol mentioned,
thousands of students there, close to thirty percent of the
entire student body, this is the type of thing that
could potentially wreak havoc on a university's finances, but also
in such a short period of time where ostensibly acceptance
(05:42):
letters have already been mailed out we understand the yield
of the class coming in the timing of this is
pretty is pretty wild.
Speaker 6 (05:50):
Yes, it's really strength and difficult. It's not only about
the new students but also existing students who will have
to transfer or lose their legals tables that me insluding
their visa, possibly being forced to go back home. Yes,
and it's not only about the finances, right, but also
about the diversity of the campus. I mean, we know
(06:12):
that the school has been previously attacked for their diversity efforts,
so there's also addresses that issue of the diversity of
the student body.
Speaker 4 (06:22):
Cassie, one last question.
Speaker 3 (06:24):
You know, it's interesting that it feels like Harvard is
being attacked big time. We've seen it also with Columbia
and some other schools, but it does feel like makes
me wonder like who didn't get into Harvard and the
administration that's like so angry. But I know it's a bigger,
broader story. Having said that, should we assume that other
schools will be targeted in a similar way as hard
as Harvard is.
Speaker 6 (06:41):
Being so I think this is what is very surprising
about this news, right, that it singles out this one's
school and goes after its leadership. So I think we
have to see we have you to find out whether
the DHS will go after other schools as well.
Speaker 3 (06:57):
Yeah, fascinating and uh, you know, just I think it's
safe to say many would would characterize it that way.
Cassia clemschinks she's team leader for DC Breaking News, joining
us from our DC News bureau.
Speaker 2 (07:09):
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 app,
or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 5 (07:24):
Well, let's talk a little bit about today's big take.
Carol Masser, I couldn't get enough of this and the
illustrations that are included in it. Max Abelson joins us
now he's Bloomberg News, a finance reporter, whether it's geopolitics, trades, tariffs,
or on more more personal level real estate, crypto corporate ventures.
Some say this second term of President Donald Trump is
(07:44):
all about the art of the deal. Some of the actions, though,
have raised ethical questions that have been addressed by White
House Press Secretary Caroline Lovitt, including earlier this month.
Speaker 7 (07:55):
The president is abiding by all conflict of interest laws.
The President has been incredibly transparent with his own personal
financial obligation throughout the years. The President is a successful businessman,
and I think, frankly, it's one of the many reasons
that people re elected him back to this office. Look,
I can assure you the President acts with only the
interests of the American public in mind, putting our country
first and doing what's best for our country full stop.
(08:17):
That's his intention, and that's what he's focused on.
Speaker 5 (08:21):
Well, today, the Bloomberg Big Take is focused on how
since the early days of the reelection campaign, President Trump
has more than doubled his net worth carol to about
five point four billion dollars.
Speaker 3 (08:31):
All right, we want to get into this and with
us to who has written this Bloomberg Big Take. It
is one of the most read and it is a
must read. It has been deemed so by our Bloomberg
editorial team. Max Abelson and Andy Massa wrote the story.
Joining us right now is Bloomberg News Finance reporter Max
Abelson right here in studio. It's pretty incredible because you
guys have really laid out all that's been going on
(08:53):
in terms of business activity for the President. We should
just you know, we just heard from Caroline Levitt, who
has been asked about this at some of the press conferences,
the daily White House press conferences, and she says, the
president abiding by all conflicts of interest of laws, incredibly
transparent and so on and so forth. But it does
beg a lot of questions tell us about how you
approach this, because.
Speaker 4 (09:13):
There's been a lot of stuff going on.
Speaker 1 (09:15):
I would love to you I'm going to say something
about our project, and I'm going to say something like
this is basically the opposite of it. But you'll see
what I mean. Our project is really about being able
to step back and to say in concrete terms, factual terms,
clear terms, what is happening here when a president is
(09:35):
doing more than anyone in modern American history that we
can tell any other president in modern America to position
his family to make an astounding amount of money while
in the White House. And when I say astounding, what
we're talking about is not in the millions or in
the hundred of millions. What we're talking about is deals
that are in the billions. Whether we're talking about the
(09:57):
Trump n empowering I think more than ten bills million
dollars worth of real estate projects, the trump Na empowering
billions of dollars of value for a social media company
which which only went public last year, you know, hundreds
of millions of dollars of crypto. And then and then
I told her I was going to say something that
was the opposite of this, that this is this is
what I want to say. As I was walking here
(10:19):
from my desk in the newsroom, just on the other
side of this floor to our radio studio, I saw
that the United States government, the Trumpet administration, told Harvard
University right that that it can't enroll international students and
that and that existing foreign students are going to have
to transfer or lose their legal status. And you know,
for me personally, news like that, which I find comes
(10:39):
basically every week, maybe sometimes every day, just these really
things that I had never contemplated or never heard of.
That there has been so much tumult in the last
few months, so many things going on, tariffs alone, the
stock market alone, the economy alone, that it is so
easy to forget that what is happening on the Trump
(11:03):
business side is really important too.
Speaker 8 (11:06):
So what Ann and I we're trying to do.
Speaker 1 (11:08):
We try to just forget about politics, and forget about policy,
forget about things like Harvard, and just really focus on
the Trump money making machine.
Speaker 4 (11:17):
Can I say?
Speaker 3 (11:17):
There are folks that come in and say, you know,
we're all kind of chasing the stuff that is coming
out of the White House, and the question often arises
of like, well, wait, what are we missing?
Speaker 4 (11:26):
What is going on that.
Speaker 3 (11:27):
Maybe isn't in the headline, or what the administration is
talking about or the president's team. So take it away
because you guys did some really deep reporting.
Speaker 1 (11:36):
That is what we tried to do, so Annie Massa
and I with help from many editors. I want to
mention David Shear, who really made this happen. What we
tried to focus on is that compared to all that
tumult that I just mentioned, all the Harvard news and
the comings and goings, compared to that, there's something very
clear about the Trump empire, which is that it's approach,
and our timeline is since the reelection campaign began. Everything
(11:59):
that we're talking about here is after he announced his reelection.
Speaker 8 (12:02):
The approach is clear.
Speaker 1 (12:03):
The Trumps are selling that family name, and they're doing
it at a scale that I really do think could
could very well be the story of the day, the
story of the year, if it weren't for all these
things happening. You know, we see, we see the Trumps
going and doing things they simply did not do in
the last term when they.
Speaker 8 (12:25):
Said no to no new foreign deals.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
In the first administration, we were not talking about new
foreign deals and last of administration really because Trump essentially
said that they wouldn't happen. Now, you know, you basically
have to take out your globe because Annie and I traveled,
you know, journalistically speaking to Cutter, India, Vietnam, the United
Arab Emirates, the United States is involved too, and at
(12:48):
each point they're doing really interesting things. They're built, they're
they're they're licensing their name to really big projects, hundreds
of millions of dollars if not billions of dollars worth
worth of projects. And sometimes not all time, sometimes something
very important is happening, which is that the deal includes
arms of governments. I'm talking about you know, it may
(13:09):
not be the Trump administration, it may not be the
Trump family, I should say, signing a deal with a government,
but governments are involved, and that rubs up against what
Trump said would not happen this term. When Trump said
there would not be new deals with foreign.
Speaker 4 (13:23):
Governments, governments involved, government money involved.
Speaker 1 (13:25):
What we're really talking about is things like let's say
in Oman, for example, they announced when they when they
announced that deal, they announced as a partner the Umran Group,
and that is essentially as it's a think of it
as a state owned tourism group and they're going to
be involved in that deal. Listen, let me let me
(13:48):
point out that the Vietnamese I believe he's a prime minister.
He may be the president, but the head, one extremely
important figure in Vietnam met with basically the financial representative
representative on the Trump on the on the new Trump
project in Vietnam.
Speaker 8 (14:02):
That is what we.
Speaker 1 (14:03):
Mean when we say that these things are very big,
They're potentially very lucrative, and a lot are happening right now.
Speaker 5 (14:10):
Max real Estate is just one piece of the puzzle here.
It's certainly a global piece of the puzzle. The crypto
story is included in here as well. You talk about
world liberty, financial the Trump and Millenia mean coins as well.
I want to focus a little bit on the corporate
side of things. I think that gets a lot I
think that gets a lot less attention than everything else. Right,
there was a lot in here that I had never
(14:32):
even heard of when it came to Trump family connections.
Grab a gun for example. Talk a little bit about
the corporate connections and what you Annie and the team
uncovered here.
Speaker 1 (14:40):
I really admire any Master's ability to put her finger
on these on these corporate connections, the things that I
hadn't heard of. I mean, you know, it's it's I
think it's actually helpful to put crypto off to the
side because it can it gets so much attention. I
mean literally, tonight, Trump is scheduled to meet with the
top holders right of one of his one of his
crypto projects. I think it's the mean coin. But then
you know, so that that gets all the attention. But
(15:01):
then you see something like seventeen eighty nine Capital Donald
Trump Junior join. I think he became a partner at
seventeen eighty nine, like a matter of days after the election.
I think it was less than a week after the election.
And that's that's a group that you know, Rebecca Mercer,
if you remember the Mercer name, it was a really
that is a really important Republican mega mega donor, and
(15:23):
what they're basically doing. The way to think about it
is they're essentially monetizing the kind of Trumpian vision for
US culture by taking stakes in you know, things like
the Enhanced Games. I don't know if you've heard of that.
Basically it's been nicknamed the steroid Olympics.
Speaker 5 (15:37):
Yeah, I've heard of these, you know. But you can
athletes who can sort of they're not drug tested. You
can do whatever you want.
Speaker 8 (15:43):
And then that's right, that's right, listener.
Speaker 1 (15:45):
Listeners can't really see me right now, but I'm like
extremely jacked and steroidal.
Speaker 5 (15:49):
You know, lanning, that's exact purpose.
Speaker 8 (15:53):
I'm going to fight in the inn assterial Olympics.
Speaker 2 (15:55):
That's right, you know.
Speaker 1 (15:57):
But the list goes on and on there. It's almost
much to mention on just one interview. I want to
give a shout out to Unusual Machines, which is such
a drone component maker.
Speaker 8 (16:07):
You know. When this is how powerful the Trump name is.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
When Donald Trump Junior's role was announced in by the way,
in November November twenty twenty four, right again on the money,
the stock popped basically two hundred and fifty percent, maybe
just shy of two hundred and fifty percent in like
the two days, two trading days that followed.
Speaker 8 (16:26):
That is power.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
I tell people that my beat here is money and power.
That is money and power, and it just keeps going.
There's you know, have you ever heard of PSQ Holdings?
Do you a public square?
Speaker 9 (16:36):
Now I have?
Speaker 5 (16:37):
This is the anti woke ye. This is the anti
woke marketplace where you can go and buy items such
as these pro life diapers that you guys highlight in
the piece.
Speaker 8 (16:45):
YEP.
Speaker 1 (16:45):
I want to thank Michael Seffert, the CEO who gave
us a comment. He said that Trump Junior is an
incredible businessman, GJI partner and marketing expert and in other words,
in other words, what he's saying is that we want
Trump Junior for his mind, not necessarily for anything else.
But that's a good example of like, you know what,
three million dollars more. That was Trump Junior's twenty twenty
four compensation we found for PSQ and his board role
(17:07):
was announced once again December December of twenty twenty four.
Speaker 8 (17:11):
It keeps on going.
Speaker 1 (17:12):
There's Dominari, which listeners should should read any mass a separate.
Speaker 8 (17:16):
Story on Donor.
Speaker 1 (17:17):
We talked and We're fascinating, have you you know, do
you know the the idea of like basically events contract.
Speaker 5 (17:24):
Yeah, we interviewed the call She founders when they launched
years ago.
Speaker 8 (17:28):
Kyle She.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
I mean that role was announced January January, and that's
Donald Trump junior again Eric Trump. I don't want to
overshadow Eric Trump. Eric Trump is also involved in some
of these stuff. But it's but when you're talking about
grab a gun, for example, that's yet again, Donald Trump Junior.
Speaker 8 (17:44):
It's yet again.
Speaker 1 (17:46):
It's's essentially the last few weeks, it's yet again at
least three million dollars. And it's you know, for for
listeners who I think that I'm especially interested in talking
to listeners who sort of their minds aren't made up.
You know.
Speaker 8 (17:58):
I don't think there's much.
Speaker 1 (18:00):
To do as a journalist for readers and listeners who
just know that they despise Donald Trump, or that they
know that they adore Donald Trump. I'm interested not in
pandering to like this someone who has their mind made
up already. I'm really interested in just like focusing on
the numbers and focusing on just like what's actually happening.
And you know, whether or not you dislike this or
(18:21):
admire it. I think it's really helpful to take a
step back and to look at a family empire that
is poised to make money while while the father is
in the White House in a way that's you know,
I don't know what to compare it to.
Speaker 8 (18:35):
Obviously, obviously the.
Speaker 1 (18:36):
Biden family, the Obama family, the Clinton family, the Bushes.
I can add, all of these people are capitalists. All
of these families were familiar with their reporting around their
money making, for sure, But as a financial reporter, I've
never seen I think the keyword here is the scale
(18:57):
billions of dollars just for Trump Media and Technology Group,
which you know of because it's the true social parent, right,
that went public last year he was on.
Speaker 8 (19:06):
The campaign trail.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
This scale is what appeals to me as a finance
reporter because it feels so new.
Speaker 3 (19:11):
Listen to be fair, right, like you say, other presidents
in their families make money, whether it's.
Speaker 4 (19:18):
At they write books, they are consultants. There's a lot
of things.
Speaker 3 (19:22):
And just by right by being associated with a family
that was in the White House, right, it definitely opens doors.
But the point is, I think also is so much
of this is happening before going into the White House,
and now that he's.
Speaker 1 (19:35):
In the White House, that is that's a really good
way of saying it. You know, one of my favorite
early scoops. I think it was like in the first
five years that I was at Bloomberg, Yeah, was about
Barack Obama getting paid. I believe my memory is hundreds
of thousands of dollars, maybe three hundred thousand, maye four
hundred thousand, maybe it was less for speeches at finance firms,
including Canter Fitzgerald, which is ironic, Candorvidgel just across the
(19:58):
street from us here in our Bloomberg headquarters. Yeah, Canter Friitgherald.
Of course, the family that's in control is the Lutnik family.
Howard Lutnick, of course is our Commerce secretary now.
Speaker 8 (20:06):
And I bring that up.
Speaker 1 (20:07):
It's relatively random and relatively stale, But I bring that
up first of all because it goes to show that
the Obamas, just like many other political figures, are interested
in money making.
Speaker 8 (20:18):
But I just want to bring up the difference in
scale that as far as I.
Speaker 1 (20:23):
As my reporting showed that that was a guy making
a few hundred thousand dollars, I know that this book
deal he made it.
Speaker 8 (20:29):
What was that like sixty million dollars?
Speaker 1 (20:30):
I think, yeah, but what I would But what I
really tried to wrap my mind around, and I know
Annie felt this way too. Is that what we're talking
about now for the family since the re election campaign began?
Speaker 5 (20:41):
Right is in the billions, Max Abelson, this is a
great story. It's today's big Take. It's one of the
most read stories on the Bloomberg terminal. You got to
read it online because the illustrations in there are perfect
as well. Max, Thanks so much for joining us.
Speaker 8 (20:56):
This is the.
Speaker 2 (20:56):
Bloomberg Business Week Daily Podcast. Listen live each weekday starting
at two pm Eastern on Apple car 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 4 (21:14):
There's a lot that is once again coming out of DC.
Speaker 3 (21:17):
We have actually seen shares of Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mack surged to sixteen years sixteen year highs after President
Trump said late last night that he was giving very
serious consideration to bring the firms public after more than
a decade of being under government oversight.
Speaker 4 (21:32):
So let's get to what you need to know.
Speaker 3 (21:33):
Bloomberg Intelligence Consumer finance analyst be Elliott is with us
once again from our DC Bureau. Back to our DC
Bureau week. Go Hey, Ben, good to have you here.
First up, Fanny Freddie been around for a long time,
storied history, quasi government publicly traded endities. What do we
first need to know kind of about that history?
Speaker 10 (21:54):
Yeah, so they were founded many decades ago. Fanny May
first in the thirties, Freddie Maclear in the seventies. Actually,
they were privatized in the past, in the late sixties
by previous piece of legislation which sort of has some
echoes of what's happening today. And the company is basically
guaranteed seventy percent of US mortgages. You know, their existence
(22:16):
is unique globally and it makes the US home ownership
model possible. It's the reason that we have a thirty
year fixed rate mortgage available to homeowners today.
Speaker 5 (22:27):
So what do we need to know about what happened
potentially during the financial crisis and the government oversight that
we've seen over the last few years, and what could
change given what we heard from the President.
Speaker 10 (22:37):
Yeah, so the companies are fundamentally changed since the financial crisis.
It's important to note that they were doing all kinds
of ancillary businesses. They were basically operating the world's biggest
hedge fund, as Warren Buffett once said, and they got
over their skis taking on a bunch of additional risk
beyond just guaranteeing vanilla mortgages. So the majority of the
losses they suffered from two thousand and twenty eleven we're
(23:01):
from those activities, right, So they don't do any of
that anymore. But you know, they exist in this sort
of quasi governmental state where the FHFA and the Treasury
own and are in charge of the companies, and by
and large they function very well. They provide a huge
amount of liquidity to US housing markets. Every year, they
(23:21):
make the thirty year mortgage possible, and they earn about
thirty billion dollars a year for the Treasury Department. So
the status quo is arguably working. But they're in sort
of a bankruptcy like process that was never meant to
be permanent, and so there are a lot of observers
who think that that process should now come to an end, all.
Speaker 3 (23:41):
Right, So you've got Fanny May up forty percent in
today's session. Freddie mac is up just about thirty nine percent.
So if they do go public officially and they're publicly
held entities, what does it mean for them, What does
it mean for their role in housing?
Speaker 4 (23:56):
How might that change things from what they've been.
Speaker 10 (24:01):
Well, it's it's really important to note that there are
very few details on this right. So the President has
been has been sort of saying what he said last
night since twenty seventeen, so we don't have anything new.
And the really important detail will be how, if at all,
the US government continues to back these companies after the
exit conservatorship potentially and and start to be to trade
(24:23):
like normal public companies. And and everyone by large degrees
that there will be some form of federal government guarantee.
They hope it will be explicit, they hope it will
be defined at a certain value, and they hope that
it will be paid for. But by and large, the
companies get a huge amount of benefits from being quasi governmental.
You know, their their credit rating is tied to the sovereign,
(24:43):
for instance, so they get very they get they get
financing on par with the with the risk free rate essentially,
which allows their business model to function at the price
as it does today. So if the companies were to
exit conservatorship, you know, it's not necessarily true that mortgage
rates will arise, but there are plenty of ways in
(25:05):
which they could. One is that the companies choose to
or need to earn more profits to attract third party
private capital to replace the government's current stake. And the
other way is that agency NBS investors lose faith in
their backing and they start to see credit risk returning
(25:27):
to the securities, and therefore they demand a larger premium
over treasuries and that translates into higher mortgage rates.
Speaker 5 (25:34):
What does it mean exactly when you say that the
US has a stake in these companies, Because you know,
I go to HDS in the Bloomberg terminal to look
at these equities to see who the holders are, it
doesn't say the US government owns x percentage of these firms.
Speaker 1 (25:49):
Yeah.
Speaker 10 (25:50):
So, actually, at Bloomberg we do an interesting thing, which
is that we display the share count as though the
Treasury had already executed its warrants. It holds warrens to
buy seer of the common stuff. But they're not actually
exercised yet, so the federal government is not reflected as
an owner of the common shares. What they do own
(26:10):
is something called the senior preferred shares, which obviously as
the name implies, or senior to the common shares and
the valuation. There is something called the liquidation preference, which
is growing each quarter equal to the amount that the
companies earn, and it's approaching four hundred billion dollars. So
that's kind of the biggest impediment to this recap and
(26:30):
release process that you hear about is what does the
federal government do with this gigantic stake in the companies
and how does it get paid back?
Speaker 3 (26:37):
Yeah, because I wonder if the government is still somehow involved,
is it kind of a sure thing for investors?
Speaker 4 (26:43):
Maybe not a high flyer, but a sure thing. And
I also do think about.
Speaker 3 (26:47):
Like moral hazard, like if something goes astraight, like do
we just assume the government's going to be there to
protect things?
Speaker 6 (26:57):
Yeah?
Speaker 10 (26:57):
I think there's the biggest risk is obviously moral hazard, right, right,
if they leave conservatorship and there's a defined dollar amount
that the Treasury agrees to backstop the companies and they
pay for it. I think even then bond markets will
assume that if worst comes to worst, the federal government
is going to write a blank check. The companies are
(27:19):
absolutely fundamental to the US economy, and you know, if
they were private enterprises, there's just no way that they could,
you know, go into bankruptcy and be resolved simply. And
the evidence of that is two thousand and eight, right's
staring us right in the face. So it does seem
as though there's some circular logic here, like we'd be
going right back to.
Speaker 3 (27:37):
Where we were, Ben, fifteen seconds. How important is Fanny
and Freddy in terms of the housing market? They'll liquidity
just very quickly.
Speaker 10 (27:44):
Absolutely crucial. They backed seventy percent of all US mortgages,
and without them, the fixed year, the fixt R eight
thirty year note just just wouldn't be available the way
it is today.
Speaker 4 (27:53):
This is what you call an interview.
Speaker 3 (27:54):
Why you should care, Ben Ellie, thank you so much,
Really appreciate b leotom me intelligence consumer finance analyst, Ben
la You know the.
Speaker 5 (28:00):
Top holding is Pershing Square at two percent.
Speaker 4 (28:03):
Love this stuff. This is Bloomberg.
Speaker 2 (28:06):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Business Weekdaily Podcast. Catch US
live weekday afternoons from two to five pm Eastern. Listen
on Apple CarPlay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app,
or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 6 (28:21):
Mac.
Speaker 9 (28:22):
I'll bet you let me drive.
Speaker 8 (28:23):
Oh no, no, no no, this is not a toy hory. Please,
I'll dovels. Let's great, I want to drive.
Speaker 5 (28:32):
It's a good question.
Speaker 8 (28:39):
This is the drive to the closet plunk for.
Speaker 2 (28:42):
Me Efe Well, Drin Don on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 3 (28:46):
All right, everybody, we're just about eighteen minutes away from
the closing bell on this Thursday. Carol Master along with
Tim Stanovik live here at our Bloomberg Interactive Broker studio,
Charlie and Bill Maloney breaking down the trade, talking about
the equity trade, we're pretty much hovering o our best
levels of the set. But what we really want to
get into is what we've been talking so much on
the fixed income side of things, in particular US treasuries.
Speaker 5 (29:06):
Sometimes you have the perfect guests for the moment we
really had, and this is one of those times. We
got Kathy Jones with us. She's chief fixed income strategist
at the SHWUB Center for Financial Research, and she's here
in our Bloomberg Interactive Broker Studios. Thanks for coming in.
It is always great to see you, especially in a
week where we're talking about over five percent on the
thirty year.
Speaker 9 (29:27):
Well, thanks for having me. It's a fun time to
be to be talking about it.
Speaker 5 (29:31):
So what would you say is the underlying root cause
of what we saw happen yesterday?
Speaker 9 (29:36):
I think there are a number of things have come together.
So it didn't just happen overnight, obviously, But the initial catalyst,
or the immediate catalyst, was the budget bill, which was
kind of a final straw for the market saying Okay,
there's really no meaningful progress going to be made anytime
soon on reducing the deficit. And this comes after we've
(29:59):
seen glow yields rise, after the dollar has fallen, and
we've made all these policy changes on trade that actually
would discourage capital inflows. And so we're this policy mix
combined with the budget said Okay, if I'm going to
hold long term paper, I'm going to need a higher
(30:19):
yield to compensate me.
Speaker 5 (30:21):
But that bill is now closer or that bill is
now closer to becoming law, and we're seeing yields actually
pull back a little bit. So in my view, and
correct me if I'm wrong. Nothing is really shifted on
that front. Yet we're not seeing as much excitement or
in the words of the President, maybe yippiness in the
bond market. Yeah.
Speaker 9 (30:41):
Well, I think a lot of the yippiness happened when
we hit five percent, right, and so now we're settling
down and kind of dealing with when what's so.
Speaker 5 (30:49):
We don't stay yippy even though we're above five percent,
just the fact that we hit it is yippy.
Speaker 9 (30:53):
Well, yes, but we have a one day reprieve, so
we don't know what's coming. But I would have to
say that if nothing changes on the policy front, the
likelihood is that yields will continue to rise at the
long end, just because investors want more compensation for all
the risks that have been put together.
Speaker 1 (31:11):
Here.
Speaker 4 (31:11):
One thing I want to get into is, and what
I'm finding interesting, is this just isn't a US thing.
It's a global thing.
Speaker 3 (31:17):
And we talked about this with our John Authors, who
has a column out. He said, the bon vigilantes vigilantes
excuse me, may need a lot of rope and so,
but getting into he said, even some bigger things, not
just governments, fiscal houses, longevity costs to society and just
a different way of thinking of it, And I'm just
curious how that plays into your thinking as well, Kathy.
Speaker 9 (31:38):
Yeah, absolutely, demographics are important here because we do have
aging populations and that means the burden on government will
be higher, presumably than it has been in the past,
as a larger proportion of the population requires government services,
and we haven't done anything to kind of address that
(31:58):
in balance longer term. So that combined with you know,
we've come off twenty years of slow growth, low inflation,
and ramped up our spending, and now we're ramping it
up more at a time when the economy is actually
doing well and inflation's not low and interest rates aren't low.
We're kind of having the policy impulse, the fiscal impulse
(32:21):
is going in the wrong direction at this stage of
the business cycle. Usually it should be countercyclical, and this
is pro cyclical.
Speaker 3 (32:29):
Are you worried about these spending programs ultimately will lead
in some ways maybe to stackflation. And I'm just thinking
about if we're living in a higher rate environment, that's
going to have a cost right across the board everybody everything.
And I'm just curious as we continue to see, we're
probably going to still be in a higher tariff environment.
Things are going to cost more, and I know we'll
(32:49):
settle into it that everybody has just so much in
terms of funds to play around with.
Speaker 4 (32:54):
So do you worry about stackflation? What do you worry
about in terms of the economic scenario.
Speaker 9 (33:00):
I do worry about stagflation because it's probably one of
the most difficult things to get out of, and that's
without a lot of pain being inflicted on someone somewhere.
So policy wise, what does the FED do with stagflation?
They probably can't lower rates, right, because that will just
send inflation higher. On the other hand, if the economy
(33:24):
is weakening and unemployment is rising, they really should be
easing policy because that's part of their dual mandate. It's
not an easy process to work out. If we had
it in the seventies, you know, Arthur Berns and Nixon
and all that, We've talked about a lot, and it
was it was a long painful process to get out
(33:45):
of it. And so if we go back to an
environment like that, and particularly if we do it globally,
that is going to be a very difficult process.
Speaker 5 (33:54):
Is the risk now of that greater than at any
point you've seen before in the last let's say, since
the Great enter Crisis.
Speaker 9 (34:01):
Yeah, I think it's on a global perspective, or just
for the US globally as well. Now we're encouraging Germany
and Europe to spend more on defense. I don't know
that that's going to create for Europe, you know, this boom,
this fiscal boom, but it's more than we have asked
of them before, and it's more spending than they've done before.
(34:21):
So we have that in Europe. Japan has its own
unique set of problems, and you've seen those yields move
up very quickly. So it could become a global phenomenon.
Speaker 4 (34:32):
All right, So there's that backdrop. Keep hitting my mic,
they're gonna yell at me, but we have that backdrop.
Speaker 3 (34:37):
The other thing is, nothing is as deep and liquid
as the US treasury market. So how does that insulate
us from some of what might come?
Speaker 9 (34:46):
Yeah? I think the one thing, the thing that gives
me the most comfort is that there's no real replacement
for the US treasury market.
Speaker 4 (34:53):
And the other thing is not likely to be anytime now, right,
you know, you.
Speaker 9 (34:56):
Can't really see it on the horizon. And the other
thing is we are well healthy country with tremendous assets,
so we have the capability of funding our debt, of
spending you know where we need to spend. We have
the capability to reduce our debt and to service our debt,
even at higher interest rates. We don't seem to have
(35:19):
the willingness to deal with it.
Speaker 8 (35:21):
That's more of the issue.
Speaker 9 (35:22):
But we're not like an emerging market country, our poor
country that builds up so much debt it can't service
the debt. We have the ability to do it.
Speaker 5 (35:29):
Just a minute left. I've been asking everybody this question
today when it comes to fixed income, how do you
see corporates competing with fixed income right now?
Speaker 9 (35:35):
For money, there's been a lot of interest in investment
grade corporates. I think they're a little expensive right now, Okay,
and we like them, but you know, the spreads are
pretty tight, so i'd say up in credit quality, but
I think they look pretty good.
Speaker 5 (35:50):
Yeah, because we spoke to Sandy Villary yesterday who mentioned
he's not interested on the fixed income side when it
comes to US debt. He's looking at corporates. That's what's interesting.
Speaker 9 (35:58):
A lot of issuance in Euro now from US corporate?
Speaker 3 (36:01):
Is that where you would look overseas? Like where would
you in the fixed income commit some new money right now?
Speaker 4 (36:06):
Got about forty.
Speaker 9 (36:06):
Yeah, we like from the municipal bonds look very attractive.
We do like investment grade corporates, and some of the
Euro denominated issues could be very attractive even though the
yield's a bit lower. If you think the dollar is
going to go down as we do.
Speaker 3 (36:20):
You're someone who's seen market cycles, does this kind of
feel odd?
Speaker 8 (36:23):
Weird?
Speaker 1 (36:24):
Like?
Speaker 4 (36:24):
How do you see it? Forgive me just got about
twenty five seconds.
Speaker 9 (36:27):
Yes, it feels weirder than anything. And I've been in
this business for almost forty years. Yeah, this feels weirder
than anything that I've seen.
Speaker 4 (36:35):
And that includes GFC COVID.
Speaker 9 (36:37):
Yeah either you got it.
Speaker 3 (36:39):
Yeah, thank you, which is why we really look forward
to talking with you today as always, Kathy, Thank you.
Kathy Jones, she fixed and comes strategist over at Schwab
Center for Financial Research, joining us right here in our
Bloomberg Interactive Broker Studio.
Speaker 2 (36:52):
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
(37:12):
and always on the Bloomberg terminal
Hosts And Creators
Tim Stenovec
Carol Massar
Popular Podcasts
Amy Robach & T.J. Holmes present: Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial
Introducing… Aubrey O’Day Diddy’s former protege, television personality, platinum selling music artist, Danity Kane alum Aubrey O’Day joins veteran journalists Amy Robach and TJ Holmes to provide a unique perspective on the trial that has captivated the attention of the nation. Join them throughout the trial as they discuss, debate, and dissect every detail, every aspect of the proceedings. Aubrey will offer her opinions and expertise, as only she is qualified to do given her first-hand knowledge. From her days on Making the Band, as she emerged as the breakout star, the truth of the situation would be the opposite of the glitz and glamour. Listen throughout every minute of the trial, for this exclusive coverage. Amy Robach and TJ Holmes present Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial, an iHeartRadio podcast.
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
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!