April 22, 2025 • 38 mins
Watch Tom and Paul LIVE every day on YouTube: http://bit.ly/3vTiACF.
Bloomberg Surveillance hosted by Tom Keene & Paul Sweeney April 22nd, 2025
Featuring:
1) Jeff deGraaf, Chairman and Head: Technical Research at Renaissance Macro Research, joins for a discussion on Jay Powell, market risks, and tariffs. US stocks were higher in futures trading this morning as equities are set to bounce back from Monday's losses as investors weigh progress on trade talks with India and Tesla's upcoming earnings.
2) Brian Belski, Chief Investment Strategist at BMO Capital Markets, brings us into the market open and discusses whether he remains a US equity bull. President Trump's demands on Jerome Powell to cut rates have raised concerns about the president's willingness to meddle with central bank policy and the impact on the economy.
3) Alicia Garcia-Herrero, Chief Economist for Asia Pacific at Natixis, joins for a discussion on the dollar as the globe's reserve currency and how the trade war will harm China and the US. This morning, gold topped $3,500 for the first time, and other markets such as stocks, currencies, and commodities experienced mixed movements amid ongoing trade tensions and uncertainty.
4) Warwick McKibbin, non resident Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, talks about his piece from the fall outlining the costs of Trump's tariff and deportation policies as well as his newest analysis released today on the US revenue implications of Trump's tariff plan.
5) Margaret Franklin, CEO of the CFA Institute, joins from our DC studio to discuss the CFA program, how it's evolving, and the impact of AI on the investing profession.
6) Lisa Mateo joins with the latest headlines in newspapers across the US, including a Financial Times report on the marketing campaign of plant-based eggs and the Washington Post's look into the changing economics of college football and how it's affecting the NFL draft.
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 the Bloomberg
Surveillance Podcast. Catch us live weekdays at seven am Eastern
on Apple CarPlay or Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App.
Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch
(00:25):
us live on YouTube.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Jeff to Graph joins us, Now, is that a Martin
guitar behind it?
Speaker 3 (00:31):
Right?
Speaker 4 (00:32):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (00:32):
You know it looks looks like almost like on the
edge of a deep deep maybe double. Yeah, you know,
it's very clapped it in. Jeff to Graph joins us, Now,
in the equity market, what are you learning from Neil Dada?
How do how do you take Dutta economics the great
optimist now very cautious. How do you fold that into
a market belief?
Speaker 5 (00:52):
Jeff to Graph, Well, it's a great question, Tom. You know,
I think it's important that we distinguished and David hit
on this before. Are the difference between economics and an
economic call and a market call. And while they're not
one hundred percent independent by any means, they're certainly not
brother or sister. We'd say they're probably second cousins.
Speaker 3 (01:10):
And so, you know, a.
Speaker 5 (01:12):
Lot of the data that we see a lot of
the trajectory that we see in that data is reflected
in the market, and then the question becomes, Okay, well,
at what point does that become fully priced? And is
the market's starting to look ahead from those things? So
right now I would say that that's you know, Neil
and I are more on the same page than not
in terms of the market's message, the economic message. I
(01:33):
do think that there's a tactical call here that we
have to be cognizant of.
Speaker 3 (01:38):
But you know, overall, from a trend perspective, those those
two things are aligned.
Speaker 6 (01:41):
Me.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
My head's spinning. I had Margaret Franklin to the CFA
Institute on and then I got the IMF headlines and
I got Tom morelk a Bloomberg saying it's a paradigmatic
shift in our equity market thinking, Jeff, is it thinking
as usual or is it a paradigmatic shift? And how
we have approach stocks?
Speaker 5 (02:01):
Well, that's a great question. So what you're really asking
is this is this time different? And I think what
we can conclude is that from a sentiment standpoint, all
those things that the IMF is talking about.
Speaker 3 (02:13):
I mean, the.
Speaker 5 (02:14):
Question that David asked was a great question, and I
would just simplify that and say, does the IMF make
you money? Because that's really what I'm trying to do here,
right from a look, I'm a speculator, There's no doubt
about that. So I'm not trying to call GDP. I'm
trying to look at where the S and P is
likely to be in the next one, three, six months.
And so when I look at sentiment, this is really
a reflection what the IMF is doing. It's really a
(02:36):
reflection of the policy uncertainty which is spiked, a reflection
of some of the correlations that we're seeing which are spiking,
a reflection of just the general sentiment environment that's out there.
So I would put those forecasts in that bucket. And
I think the important part of that is what do
those forecasts do well? They get people thinking differently, and
(02:57):
that includes policy makers. That gets them thinking about, hey,
how can we avert this, how can we soften this blow?
What can we do to minimize this? And so that's
where I think you want to be thinking a little
bit differently. Here is what the reaction function is. When
everybody starts to pile up on one side of the boat,
they're still fishing on the other side, and that's what
we're looking for.
Speaker 7 (03:16):
Jeff, how do you look at this kind of moment
to moment market, And that's what it seems to have
been here over these last few weeks. And we talked
at the top of the show just about this perhaps
distracting conversation about the position the Fed chair is in
right now and what the president's saying, but we know
that that is making its way into how the market
is moving. How do you kind of focus in a
more laser like way on the technicals amidst all of that. So, yes,
(03:39):
it's a distraction, but how do you see through the
fog of that and sort of chart a path forward?
Speaker 5 (03:46):
A great question, and we say this all the time.
It's in our disclaimer. This is a probability not a
prediction business. And so what we're really trying to do
is find where the mismatches are in probability and prediction.
And I think one of those that really out to me.
You know, you can look at the poly market as
an example of you know, quote unquote, will Trump removed
your own Powell in twenty twenty five, there's right now
(04:07):
about a twenty one percent chance of that given the
poly market. Now obviously you've got players here. This isn't
a perfectly well distributed probability distribution. But if you think
about that twenty one percent, the way I want you
to think about it is that's about the equivalent of
you having a sixteen at a blackjack table and the
(04:28):
dealer having a ten.
Speaker 3 (04:29):
That's not a great place to be.
Speaker 5 (04:30):
In other words, I'd much rather it be in the
dealer's hand, which says I'd much rather be in Powell's
position that I'm not going to get fired and I'm still.
Speaker 3 (04:37):
Going to be there. And that's the way that we
think about that.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
A lot of America. Jeff toographed with this folks, a
renaissances should say renaissance Macro here with futures up fifty five.
We welcome all of you on your commute across the nation.
Got some good equity chat coming up here. Is Brian
Belski size Brian Belski still scheduled with us as well.
Brian Belski's he's leaving the beach in Florida down there early.
(05:00):
We're you know, to gra We're not you know, we're
not on a beach like Belski Jeff, that's all great
and well, but a huge body of our listeners don't
want to speculate. They got a retirement account. How should
someone in conservative money, cautious money, actual assumption money, how
should that person move in this paradigmatic shift.
Speaker 5 (05:23):
Well, look, I think we run allocation models. We've run
one for about five years now, and we look at
it on a dynamic basis. It's kind of an optimization problem.
But I think the best way to explain that from
you know, kind of a general standpoint is in being
in an athletic stance, right you want to be able
to move forward, sideways, backwards, whatever the case may be.
(05:46):
And right now our allocations are about thirty five percent stocks,
twenty five percent treasuries, and about thirty percent cash, with
the remainder in some commodities. And that's really a reflection
of the trends that we see, the deterioration in the
data that we're seeing, and what we think is likely
to happen going forward. And part of that, given the uncertainty,
(06:10):
is that large commitment to cash. Now, we try to
solve for sharp races. We try to solve for risk
adjusted returns, not just absolute returns. And so that's one
of the reasons why this is a little bit more
balanced of an approach. But we certainly have seen our
allocations to equities come down here, really been cut in
half in about the last i'd say three months, at least,
probably two and a half to three months.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
David, I didn't realize this on a weekly chart apples
down thirty three that was a maximum drawing. I had
no idea was that much agony out there?
Speaker 3 (06:41):
Jeff?
Speaker 7 (06:42):
Where are you on the topic of American exceptionalism? A
lot of folks pouring one out for American exceptionalism. Given
all of this, how are you looking at it? How
much longevity does it have?
Speaker 5 (06:52):
As you see in look, I think it comes down
to where is capital treated best? And right now you
know clearly there's some question as to how capital is
going to be treated here in the US. But I
think when we take a step back, take a deep breath,
kind of get through the summer, see what's going on.
Hopefully this is I don't want to say resolve. At
(07:13):
least there's a little bit more clarity in this fog
of war here. I think people are going to look
back and say, look, where where do we have the
highest return on invested capital. Where can we really OutKick
our coverage, if you will, given the risk And I
think that that's going to take a long time to
shift that away from the US. And so I think
there's a sentiment environment here that's certainly percolating.
Speaker 3 (07:35):
It's having an impact.
Speaker 5 (07:36):
I mean, you really are getting into situations with rise
and treasuries, with the FED likely to cut rates at
the next meeting, and the decline inequities and the decline
and dollar. I mean, that's taking you back into the
Smithsonian stuff of nineteen seventy one. So you know, it's
a pretty unusual environment. But I do think that when
the dust settles, people are going to look around and say, hey,
where's my money going to return the best for its
(08:01):
risk profile?
Speaker 3 (08:01):
And I think that's still going to be the US.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
Are we in a bear market?
Speaker 3 (08:05):
We are?
Speaker 7 (08:07):
You're trying to take tea up bellski here?
Speaker 2 (08:10):
Yeah, I am. I just you know, I thought i'd
get a longer answer from Jeff. I just went down
on flames there discuss.
Speaker 3 (08:17):
I could elaborate. Are we in a circuit?
Speaker 5 (08:20):
A bear market is not about being down twenty percent?
It's not some magical number. It really is about the
combination of the increase in volatility, the decrease in returns,
and what that's happening on a trend basis, and those
are all sloping downwards now. So in our book, that
is the definition of a bear market, and that really
kicked in about a month ago. So it's not this
is not a new phenomenon. This has been something that's
(08:41):
in play, and I do think that that's important as
we think about it from a longer term perspective, The
question is is has sentiment outdone itself in the very
near term to get a really nice rally, And that's
where we are. We think we can rally back to
at least fifty five hundred, probably close to fifty seven hundred,
and then the question will be how did we get there.
Did we get there with momentum? Did we get there
with a change in the attitude? If we didn't, then
(09:03):
that's a rally to sell.
Speaker 7 (09:04):
Always good to ask the follow up, Tom, that was great,
Always good to ask the follow up question.
Speaker 8 (09:09):
I.
Speaker 2 (09:11):
See de Graf. What you don't understand is when girls
in the press conference of the White House, he's like
looking for the third follow up question. Those days are gone.
Speaker 7 (09:21):
You know, you might have missed this, Jeff. But but
Tom noted that during the hockey game last night gold
hit thirty five hundred he got a push alert or
something like that. When you're watching, What do we take
away from that, Jeff gold hitting that. Let we've seen
this amazing trajectory that gold has had over the last
few months or thirty percent this year, what do you
make of that? I guess that's my dumb question.
Speaker 3 (09:42):
I'm gonna ask him, Well, I don't think it's dumb
at all.
Speaker 5 (09:45):
I think, you know, I think that's a reasonable response
to sanctions that have been in place for a long time,
kind of the weaponization of the dollar the US financial system.
I mean, look, if we were on the other side
of this trade, if we weren't, you know, US citizens
or the US government, I'd be thinking about the same
thing too, Right, How can I make sure that I'm
not just totally dependent on US dollars and treasury? So
(10:06):
that does make some sense to me, no doubt about it.
That trend has been in place for a while though,
I mean, our trend models have been bullish on gold
for at least eighteen months.
Speaker 3 (10:14):
It's probably longer than that.
Speaker 5 (10:16):
I think what's interesting about gold right here is when
we start looking at some of our rolling alpha models
and some of the things that we look at historically,
we are getting into rarefied air, so we don't yet
quite have it from a sentiment standpoint on the ETF inflows.
But the one thing that we will watch when it
comes to extremes in trend, which we're getting very close to,
(10:37):
if not there for gold, is the sentiment environment so
robust that it says to us there's a buyer's frenzy
and we want to take a step aside. I suspect
that that's we're within days of weeks of that, so
I actually think that that's a pretty good spot to
start to let some of this go again within the
context of an uptrend. So it's more of a tactical call,
but I think it is getting kind of into that
frenzy zone.
Speaker 2 (10:57):
Two shortened answers. I'm sorry, Jeff to grab Is MAG
seven broken? Is Meg seven broken?
Speaker 3 (11:03):
I think you have to strip it out.
Speaker 5 (11:04):
But for the most part, the trends for MAG seven
are bearish, and we haven't seen anything from a momentum standpoint,
and really not even from a sentiment standpoint, Yet for
those individual names to say that the trend has exhausted itself,
I would say for semiconductors for the first time, this
was about three weeks ago, maybe two weeks ago. Now
(11:25):
our seller's frenzy started to fire in semiconductors. Obviously the
weakness in Nvidia helped that. That's a stark contrast to
where we were nine months ago, which was a buyer's frenzy.
We were warning clients at the trend exactly like gold.
The trend was too frothy. And I think one of
the important parts of this from an overall sentiment standpoint
is that you've got this now repudiation of the sky
(11:47):
blue narrative.
Speaker 3 (11:48):
That was AI.
Speaker 5 (11:49):
So people are now going from protecting themselves in semis
to actually trying to profit on the downside. That's a
really important psychological change, and that tends to be a
bull of psychological change.
Speaker 2 (11:59):
Jef to Grath, thank you so much, run Us on
some macro research. He's a really really great griefing there.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Listen live each weekday
starting at seven am Eastern on Applecarplay and Android Auto
with the Bloomberg Business App. You can also listen live
on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station. Just
say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
Joining us now. Someone who's enjoyed that humility. Brian Belski,
Chief Investment Strategies at Beamo Capital Markets. Brian, how are
you framing out your inherent optimism on equities given this
time we are living?
Speaker 8 (12:37):
You know, thanks for having us. It's tough to be
bullish now, but always we always say, you know, pride
brings disgrace and humility generates wisdom. And you just brought
some humility my way. Because the very first stock that
I analyzed at William o'nial in company for William O'Neil
(12:57):
was three a m. He'd literally walk me over to
the to the file and cabinet made me pull out
the file and read it. So it is Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing. This is listen.
Speaker 2 (13:06):
I isn't that cool? Yeah?
Speaker 8 (13:09):
So I've been thinking a lot about this, and obviously,
and you know, the binary reactions of investors have never
been greater number one.
Speaker 3 (13:17):
Number two.
Speaker 8 (13:17):
I think this has a lot to do with how
we react to bullet points and emotions and things like that,
and I'm going to make a parallel, and it's probably
not going to be very popular. So I think this
is very parallel in terms of how we're reacting to
what's going on in the stock market to COVID. Now,
clearly COVID was a fright. It was a once in
every four generation event in terms of a pandemic. But
(13:40):
the emotions in COVID are similar to in the fear
of COVID, are similar to our personal feelings with respect
to what's happening politically. Then the other thing is many
of my compatriots, colleagues, and competitors are not staying in
their lane. They've become now amateur psychologists that are diagnosed
think personality disorders, where they should actually be focusing more
(14:04):
on what's happening in the economy in terms of the earnings.
Here's what we here's what we know. We don't know
exactly how long this is going to last. We've already positioned,
we meaning consensus that this is going to take years
and years and years and years to unfold. So I
believe that the majority of portfolios strategists, economists are already
positioned for the worst case scenario. What we believe in
(14:26):
our standing in terms of the investment Strategy group at
BEMO is this could all be over in a matter
of days. We're not trying to be Pollyanna or flippant.
We believe in the inherent strength of the US economy,
the US stock market, and we still believe that we
have the best assets in the world, and we're going
to take negativity to add to those assets.
Speaker 2 (14:45):
Bronze it, David, get a question in here before the
market open. I'm going to come back because folks, this
is my third rail right now. That Belski address David
Gerr with a question.
Speaker 7 (14:54):
Probably got about a minute to market opens. But yet,
so I know that you've revised your your year end target.
Are are you doing that simply because of historical trends
where you think things are going or could go? Just
in the minute we have here, explain why you decided
to make that revision down.
Speaker 8 (15:07):
Well, again, with much humility, we have to be much
more realistic, especially given the draw down that we've had, David,
and I think to have a thirty five to forty
percent move from here to get to sixty seven hundred
and be very difficult. Can we get a twenty to
twenty five percent, absolutely, and that is based on historical standards.
Speaker 2 (15:24):
Who us some vima capital markets Brian Belski, Brian, you
know I'm on your side on this. We've had a
number of guests this morning. Go back to Cooney in
theory of nineteen, I think forty nine or forty seven,
and use a dreaded word paradigm. When I see that word,
Brian Belski, I circle it with fear. Why is this
not a paradigmatic shift in the markets.
Speaker 8 (15:48):
I don't think it's a pair. I think the market
actually is acting like it's a paradynamic shift. And oh,
by the way, I have a very good fortune of
being in Europe last week, Tommy and talking to those
great investors that have had wonderful returns if they've been
investing in European stocks. And to be clear, europe investors
that have not really liked US stocks wholeheartedly and objectively
(16:12):
since the year two thousand. They've been reluctant buyers of
US stocks the last ten years, and so they're taking
victory laps with respect to what's happening now. But I
think we need to think more objectively about this Tom,
I think what's happening is more of a reversion to
the mean. If I go back to my Mary Lynch days,
I think we're reverting to the mean. I think, again,
(16:33):
to go back to what I said in the beginning,
we're making binary decisions in terms of we're not going
to go all this way, in terms of going back
to this massive paradigm shift that people are thinking position for.
I think this is simply being positioned to a shift
to the mean because we went too far the other side, Brian.
Speaker 7 (16:49):
We had Jeff DeGraf on right before you. So speaking
of binary, let me set this up one two. Tom
asked him, are we in a bear market? And he
didn't waste more than half a second in saying, yes,
how about you. What's your read on where we are?
Would you use the same the same name.
Speaker 8 (17:03):
Just from Michigan. So he has the Midwest sensibilities. So
I don't know yet. So here's what I would say,
and here's what we actually wrote in a published research report.
It doesn't matter if we're in a bear market. And
again we all like to put labels on. Let's go
back to what we said in the report. Doesn't matter
if we're down ten percent, fifty percent, or twenty five percent. Again,
(17:25):
we don't like it when people lose money. I think
it's terrible. The market was a little bit frothy heading
into the beginning.
Speaker 2 (17:30):
Of the year.
Speaker 8 (17:30):
We know that, however, why doesn't matter because when the
market bottoms, and we do think we're in a bottoming process,
we don't go straight down or strained up. It's a
process typically in historical new when we have these types
of exacerbated moves to the downside. Twelve months out, we're
not up an average of twenty nine point four percent.
So give me a twenty percent rally still gets us
(17:51):
to that sixty one hundred target by by hopefully closer
to your end. Even if we don't get there, I
think we'll get closer death than most people think. So
again I think that we'd love to put labels on
things by the way too, and I know Jeff would
probably agree to this. I've known Jeff for a long time.
Is that how many people how many people sold at
the peak?
Speaker 9 (18:10):
Huh?
Speaker 8 (18:10):
How many people sold the peak? So a lot of
this is peak to peak the trough type analysis, And
again that's more academic than anything.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
Brian Belski thank you so much, greatly appreciate. Let's do
it again and just appreciate those comments.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Catch us live
weekday afternoons from seven to ten am Eastern Listen on
Applecarplay and Android Otto with the Bloomberg Business app, or
watch US live on YouTube.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
This is exceptionally well timed Alesia Cassia Herrero out of
Hong Kong when the Texas chief economists for the Pacific Room,
if you will joins us right now. Alicia, I'm a
little upset this morning, and I'm playing off with Greg Ip,
who I think was really terse and to the point
with the Wall Street Journal. The news that we saw
in the last four or five days was Japan had
(19:03):
quote unquote negotiations with a White House, except they weren't negotiations.
And then two days later, China has come out and
said anybody that has negotiations that harm China that will
not be accepted. To me, there's a misunderstanding of teriff
war dynamics, trade war dynamics in the Pacific rim discuss
(19:26):
that how fragile are the negotiations right now?
Speaker 6 (19:30):
Well, I think the Trump administration probably thought this would
be easier. So what was the strategy. I threatened to
the point of actually imposing times on everybody, so that
they then realized how dangerous these game is, and they
did couple from China, but this came quite late. Excuse
(19:56):
me in the game why because many of these nations
already depends massively on Chinese. Japan is one of the
least dependent, and still so for Japan, for South Korea.
The US is a larger export market, but the problem
is from the import site. So if you are Vietnam,
(20:18):
which is an extreme case, you just can't export without China.
You just can't do what the US is asking you
to do. You can't impose targets on Chinese inputs, on
Chinese intermediate goods without which you cannot export to the US. So,
in a way, the US is requesting something that is
not feasible for a lot of Asian countries, I would
(20:40):
say Southeast Asia. That's why it is not going to
work in the way the Trump administration expects it to work.
Speaker 2 (20:49):
David, you know, I'm curious.
Speaker 7 (20:51):
We've seen the Chinese currency week, and we've seen the
Beijing government allow that to happen over these last many weeks.
How do you see that playing out going forward? As
kind of look at the way in which China is
I won't say weathering, but but navigating the stale might
here with the US government.
Speaker 6 (21:08):
Okay, so China has a few tools to I wouldnt
say withstand but mitigate the shock. The shock is huge,
Let's face it. This won't be said in China, but
it is a huge shock. It is even more so
if the US ultimately imposed the styles on countries through
which Chinese going to the US, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia. One
(21:35):
way to go about this is what China has already done. Actually,
China's response post COVID, response to its own weaknesses in
twenty twenty to twenty twenty three all the way to
September twenty twenty four was to weaken the currents to
allow the weakening. They didn't need to weaken themselves because
(21:56):
the market was already on a weekening cycle because the
economy was really not doing well, so capitol was leaving China,
and also US rates were very high, and therefore the
interre differential was attracting capital. So they are now doing
the same thing. But very carefully because they know the
US is watching, which wasn't the case before. I think
(22:19):
they could do much more if needed, and that will
create a competitive evaluation in Asia.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
Alicia, thank you so much for joining us. She's within
Texas and the Pacific Room. Chief Economs for Airpech Alicia
Percy her Railroad.
Speaker 1 (22:34):
This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Listen live each weekday
starting at seven am Eastern on Apple, Corplay and Android
Otto with the Bloomberg Business App. You can also listen
live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station.
Just say Alexa Play Bloomberg eleven thirty Joining us.
Speaker 2 (22:51):
Now from Australia in the Peterson Institute or mckivin. Are
they gonna work, doctor mckivin, I mean, just simple? The
President makes it sounds it's all easy, so simple. Are
we actually going to bring in revenue from tariffs?
Speaker 4 (23:05):
Great to be here? I guess the question is will
they work? Depends on what the objective is. If the
objective is to slow down economic growth, yes they'll achieve that.
If the objective is to bring in revenue, yes they
will bring in some revenue. But by our estimates and
other estimates. The revenue is nowhere near as great as
advocates of tariffs might suggests. Very narrow tax base, so
(23:26):
you have to have a very high tax to get
any revenue.
Speaker 2 (23:30):
Do you indicate or see that there's anyone within the
Trump orbit that can explain what you just said to
the president. Is there anyone that can explain this to
Donald Trump?
Speaker 4 (23:43):
Well, I haven't seen any explanation that makes sense. I
think the calculation that might have been done is how
many imports are there in the US at the moment,
three trillion, muliplied by a tariff of ten percent. How
much revenue do you get? What you get three hundred
billion a year for ten years, three trillions. So that's
a simple calculation. What it ignores is that people will
(24:04):
stop buying imports because they've become more expensive. People will
shift their consumption bundles, Inflation will go up, the economy
will slow, and you'll lose revenue from your corporate taxes
and from your household income taxes. So when you nettle
that out, you get a lot more offset than you expect.
And I haven't seen the calculations of offset being produced
by anyone in the administration.
Speaker 7 (24:25):
I was having some fun a moment ago talking about
stochastic models, and you're famous for one with Jeff Sachs.
Tom mentioned them just a moment ago. Can you just
talk in plain terms about how you conducted your analysis
and sort of what variables are there in sort of
coming to some conclusion about the effect this is going
to have.
Speaker 4 (24:42):
Yeah, What we've tried to and that's a good question.
What we've tried to do is bring both the financial
parts of the world economy, to links between countries through
asset markets, exchange rate bond markets, together with production networks.
So we're modeling the real economy, how resources flow within
the US economy and between the US and China and
other and so we try and map the physical economy
(25:03):
and the financial economy and their interaction into a very
very large, complex system which is based partly on historical
relationships and partly on observed events such as German unification,
such as NAFTA, such as events where we saw something
occur and we see whether our modeling framework can replicate
what have happened within a reasonable degree of confidence, and
(25:27):
then we use that framework to project scenarios for central banks,
for corporations for governments, simple questions as well as complex
questions like the Taroff war.
Speaker 7 (25:38):
We were talking about the IMFs revised forecast this morning
and something we heard from our chief economists from Tom
as well is this being a kind of paradigm shift.
And I wonder sort of how you are thinking about
what this portends, what's changing about the global economy visa
VI what the Trump administration has announced in terms of
trade policy.
Speaker 4 (25:56):
Well, seeing this transformation going on for decades, we've seen
the center of global economic activity moving from Europe and
the US to Asia, and so what's been announced as
a vast acceleration but still moving in that direction where
the balance of economic power is shifting away from the
advanced economies as we know them today. So this is
actually a very large economic adjustment. It accelerates something that's
(26:18):
already happening. I guess one of the interesting things is
the geopolitical adjustment hasn't caught up with the economic adjustment
we've been seeing, and so the US is very overweighted
in the international institutions like the IMF and World Bank
and UN. I think that doesn't really bother the Trump
administration at all. In fact, they're trying to move that
away from the current arrangements as well. But this is
a very major event in world history.
Speaker 2 (26:40):
I would say doctor mckifvin, thank you so much. Mckivin
there at the Peterson Institute in Washington, writing with Adam Posen,
Chad Bone and others. Just can't say enough about their
output in the recent weeks.
Speaker 1 (27:01):
This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Listen live each weekday
starting at seven am Eastern on Apple Corplay and Android
Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. You can also watch
us live every weekday on YouTube and always on the
Bloomberg terminal.
Speaker 2 (27:15):
In the year, there are few people I want to
talk to more than Margaret Franklin. Her institution changed my life.
Joining us not from Charlotte'sville, Virginia, but I believe in
Washington day, driving steadfastly the charn of Financial Analysts Institute,
the CFA Institute. Margaret Franklin joins us right now. Margaret,
(27:37):
the institution of one hundred and seventy thousand people, the
rite of passage that it is. Are you beyond COVID?
Speaker 10 (27:46):
Well, Tom, I am thrilled to say we are beyond
COVID and in fact, we're two hundred thousand members and
COVID gave us the opportunity to really evaluate and I
would say improve the CFA program so that candidates and
charterholders are as ready as ever for what lies ahead.
And it's of course interesting times for investors.
Speaker 2 (28:08):
It was hugely difficult, like at one point India was
shut down. I can't remember the details, but literally for
the level one, level two, level three exams, nations couldn't
take the test. Is it smooth going now? And particularly
the test taking on the Pacific rim It is.
Speaker 10 (28:27):
Smooth going And you're right. It was completely disjointed and
inordinately disruptive for candidates we went. When COVID hit, we
were doing paper based tests and we're now, of course
completely computer based and so it is seamless, and we
have more reach than we ever have before, so in
more markets and making it more accessible for candidates to
(28:48):
take their exams close to home.
Speaker 2 (28:50):
Margaret David wants to get in here, but I have
to ask, are you kidding me? A computer based CFA exam?
There's something about the pain in your hand?
Speaker 3 (28:59):
You can still ring out, Tom. I'm sure it would
allow you.
Speaker 2 (29:02):
I have on my desk my Hewlett Packard twelve C
with my Margaret Franklin YELLOWCFA dot.
Speaker 3 (29:08):
What has been the what is it?
Speaker 2 (29:10):
Ben? Margaret like going from handwritten agony over to computer exams.
Speaker 9 (29:15):
The people like it, Yeah, they do, and of course
you won't be surprised though, Tom, they still feel the
same amount of agony because the quality, the rigor, and
of course the content are the tough part.
Speaker 10 (29:28):
So I think it's just a tough new new medium,
new medium.
Speaker 2 (29:32):
David, Ethics is not the same computer taking market.
Speaker 7 (29:36):
I see you have these specialized pathways now private wealth,
private markets, and the traditional portfolio management path. I'm still
waiting for the pedantic amateur radio host path, which I'll
continue to wait for here. But explain how that works
and sort of what that leads to. Is it all
leading to the same thing, all to the same designation, Yeah,
so it does.
Speaker 10 (29:54):
It's all CFA. It's Margaret Franklin, Tom g comm a CFA.
But we were able to when we did that audit
and we used the COVID period to assess the program,
we were able to keep the entire core of the
program and then offer pathways in level three for half
of it to really align better with candidates desires in
(30:17):
really the core areas that are of interests, private markets,
private wealth, and then of course traditional portfolio management. And
you know, that coincided with a number of changes we
made to the program, including allowing college students to begin
twenty three months away from graduation so they could be
really prepared for the market. And in addition, we added
(30:39):
practical skills modules. We did an assessment with employers and
they were very keen to share that they valued the
rigor the quality and the knowledge, but they wanted candidates
to be much more job ready, and so we added
our practical skills modules and I think that that has
been very well received as well as you know, the
learn the way we know that learners learn is changing.
(31:01):
So we've set candidates up for success with a great
learning ecosystem and great ways for them to learn.
Speaker 2 (31:08):
The curricula is better. It's much more formalized now, folks.
It used to be a three foot pile of books
that you'd try to get through. The accounting book alone,
John Dee Accounting would kill you. So the curriculum is better,
Margaret Franklin, But is it the kids? Are they coming
out as smart? Equally or is it actually on a
quantitative basis more rigorous now, Well, I.
Speaker 10 (31:31):
Think Tom, if you and I went back to go
write it, we would find it pretty difficult because, as
you know, the course is very very comprehensive, and so
there are things that when we wrote just weren't part
of the curricula. But the curricula of course keeps up
with what the employers are looking for because we have
always on assessment through a practice analysis. So I'd say
(31:53):
it remains very challenging. You know, about one in seven
who started will complete it, and the assess and validation
of the candidate's knowledge, skills and ability is a critical
component and that's what differentiates it from so many programs
and why it remains as valued today as it did
sixty years ago.
Speaker 2 (32:10):
One final question off Michael Mobison was here and his
contribution to the you know, Abby, Joseph Cohen, everybody that
supported the program here over the years, the great George
VanDerHeyden years ago at Fidelity. Margaret wearing God's Name is
CFA Level four on derivatives and the Greek letters. Bruno
de Pierre emails in from Bloomberg Derivatives and says Margaret,
(32:32):
when do we get level four derivative Greek letters strategy.
Speaker 10 (32:36):
Well, everybody who's writing and everybody who's air Charter knows
that we will. I can confirm we will not be
doing a level four And Tom I will say, you
mentioned Frank Fobosi earlier before we came on the line,
so you've got you've got all the legends there counted.
Speaker 2 (32:53):
Well we do, Margaret Franklin, thank you so much. And
again the level three pass rate Catherine Doherty writing in
Bloomberg today for thirty nine percent, and David, what you
heard there? One in seven and started it's through and it's.
Speaker 7 (33:05):
What is the what is the former surveillance intern pass rate?
Speaker 3 (33:08):
You keep tabs on that. It's pretty huge.
Speaker 2 (33:10):
Actually, it sounds like, you know, we're humbled by that,
Margaret frank And out of showsvill Virginia a moment. There
an annual review of the Charter financial Analyst designation.
Speaker 1 (33:20):
This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Listen live each weekday
starting at seven am Eastern on Applecarplay and Android Auto
with the Bloomberg Business app. You can also listen live
on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station Just say,
Alexa play Bloomberg eleven.
Speaker 2 (33:37):
Thirty, Lisa Matteo, what do you have to do?
Speaker 4 (33:40):
Oh?
Speaker 11 (33:40):
All right, into the newspapers.
Speaker 12 (33:41):
Okay, so we've all written in an uber right, But
have you signed up for the uber one service?
Speaker 4 (33:47):
Okay?
Speaker 11 (33:48):
It costs nine to ninety nine a month.
Speaker 12 (33:50):
The company said it's going to help you save some
money on ride bookings, food deliveries.
Speaker 11 (33:53):
So here's the thing.
Speaker 12 (33:54):
The FTC is saying that canceling the subscription is too difficult,
so it's filing a law suit now. So they promote it, right,
they do all these push notifications while while you're using
the app. But to cancel it, here's what you have
to do. You have to go through about seven different
screens that will require at least twelve different actions. And
they say it's so tough that there's even these tutorials
(34:15):
that have been sparked online getting so many things, so
many views, and then some consumers are even saying they're
getting charts for it without even signing up for it.
Speaker 11 (34:24):
So that's the problem. It's Uber one. I do not
have that service, but.
Speaker 7 (34:28):
I see I'm getting the push alert right now.
Speaker 12 (34:30):
You see I don't have its simple, They have done
push it out to you, I know, but to cancel it.
Speaker 11 (34:35):
They're saying it's a little bit too tough.
Speaker 12 (34:36):
Uber says, you know, it's it's clear and simple, you
can cancel it.
Speaker 2 (34:39):
But this is part of a lot of It's like
you get an email and you try to unsubscribe, and
so many places are wonderful about it, you know, Okay, goodbye,
and then some places you can just tell they just
do not want you to go.
Speaker 12 (34:53):
Yeah, like the streaming some of the streaming ones are
pretty easy. You just kind of click a button and
you can unsubscribe. But yeah, it's Uber one.
Speaker 2 (34:59):
What do you most?
Speaker 12 (35:00):
Okay, I thought we were done talking about this, but
apparently not.
Speaker 11 (35:02):
We're talking about.
Speaker 12 (35:02):
Egg prices again, not as high as they once were,
but they're still high of course, stir and and so
I'm out of stock. But the Financial Times is saying
the makers of those plant based eggs they're kind of
trying to take advantage. So they're expanding production, launching these
fancy marketing campaigns. We're talking about, like I think they're
(35:24):
called Mungman based liquids.
Speaker 7 (35:29):
Here, please please plant based egg and I've broken bread
with you many a time time I've never seen your
order of vegetable based eggs.
Speaker 3 (35:38):
I've seen you order of vegetable once.
Speaker 2 (35:41):
Beyond me and.
Speaker 12 (35:43):
Now you have eate just it's a maker of just egg,
just egg, just egg. So that's the one that there
are sales of like five times higher than you know
over last year.
Speaker 2 (35:52):
These ideas people you know, fancy people from Cornell. I
don't know.
Speaker 12 (35:56):
The people are looking for alternatives, so they have to
for the money sumer demand for it.
Speaker 2 (36:01):
So yeah, yeah, just beyond me gone away?
Speaker 3 (36:04):
No, still around?
Speaker 12 (36:05):
No, But that's the thing, like, is this gonna go
away because it's not as popular, like the beyond Me
going to go down?
Speaker 2 (36:12):
Eggs still out of stock? Is it just a demand thing?
Speaker 9 (36:14):
Still?
Speaker 12 (36:15):
The bird flow was still so yeah, I was surprised.
Speaker 2 (36:19):
I wrote this weekend I couldn't get eggs.
Speaker 3 (36:22):
It was easter. That's triple them up.
Speaker 7 (36:24):
That's true.
Speaker 2 (36:25):
Use potatoes.
Speaker 12 (36:27):
You can use other substitutes like apple, sauce, mashed bananas, yogurt.
Che see and is seed morning here?
Speaker 1 (36:36):
Still?
Speaker 2 (36:36):
Is that how you say?
Speaker 11 (36:38):
Yes?
Speaker 6 (36:41):
Next?
Speaker 11 (36:42):
Okay, this is actually an interesting look.
Speaker 12 (36:44):
So the Washington Pos had this into the changing economics
of college football affecting the NFL Draft because players have
the option they can make more money by staying in
college with the NIL deals, the transfer portal, things like that.
So they're putting off entering into the draft.
Speaker 11 (37:00):
So they gave this example.
Speaker 12 (37:02):
So there's a after five years at Georgia quarterback Carson Beck. He'
said in December he's going to answer the draft. But
then in January he came back and he said, you
know what, I'm going to stay in college. He will
earn an NIL package at Miami estimated to be at
least three million dollars a million for college kid, so
not too bad. And for him it made sense because
he had an injury, Like, his performance wasn't as well
(37:23):
as the previous year, so it kind of made sense
for him to stay in college a little bit longer.
But they spoke with agents like and they're saying, it's
it's it's a different world.
Speaker 2 (37:31):
You know, we protect the children of the innocent here,
but you are living this. Lisa Matteo, you have a
very gifted child. Yes, basically your young child's age. It's
professional sports, isn't it.
Speaker 12 (37:44):
Yes, But for my child to make three million, that's
like kind of scary.
Speaker 2 (37:49):
Well, if she takes. She makes eight hundred thousand. Lisa,
we'll cash that check.
Speaker 7 (37:54):
We hope you're still here.
Speaker 2 (37:56):
Yes, Lisa, thank you so much for the name. Image
like this offspring, we should say that's doing better than
good in the sport of her choice.
Speaker 1 (38:07):
This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast, available on Apple, Spotify,
and anywhere else you get your podcasts. Listen live each weekday,
seven to ten am Eastern on Bloomberg dot com, the
iHeartRadio app tune In, and the Bloomberg Business app. You
can also watch us live every weekday on YouTube and
(38:28):
always on the Bloomberg terminal
Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. This is the Bloomberg
Surveillance Podcast. Catch us live weekdays at seven am Eastern
on Apple CarPlay or Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App.
Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch
(00:25):
us live on YouTube.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Jeff to Graph joins us, Now, is that a Martin
guitar behind it?
Speaker 3 (00:31):
Right?
Speaker 4 (00:32):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (00:32):
You know it looks looks like almost like on the
edge of a deep deep maybe double. Yeah, you know,
it's very clapped it in. Jeff to Graph joins us, Now,
in the equity market, what are you learning from Neil Dada?
How do how do you take Dutta economics the great
optimist now very cautious. How do you fold that into
a market belief?
Speaker 5 (00:52):
Jeff to Graph, Well, it's a great question, Tom. You know,
I think it's important that we distinguished and David hit
on this before. Are the difference between economics and an
economic call and a market call. And while they're not
one hundred percent independent by any means, they're certainly not
brother or sister. We'd say they're probably second cousins.
Speaker 3 (01:10):
And so, you know, a.
Speaker 5 (01:12):
Lot of the data that we see a lot of
the trajectory that we see in that data is reflected
in the market, and then the question becomes, Okay, well,
at what point does that become fully priced? And is
the market's starting to look ahead from those things? So
right now I would say that that's you know, Neil
and I are more on the same page than not
in terms of the market's message, the economic message. I
(01:33):
do think that there's a tactical call here that we
have to be cognizant of.
Speaker 3 (01:38):
But you know, overall, from a trend perspective, those those
two things are aligned.
Speaker 6 (01:41):
Me.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
My head's spinning. I had Margaret Franklin to the CFA
Institute on and then I got the IMF headlines and
I got Tom morelk a Bloomberg saying it's a paradigmatic
shift in our equity market thinking, Jeff, is it thinking
as usual or is it a paradigmatic shift? And how
we have approach stocks?
Speaker 5 (02:01):
Well, that's a great question. So what you're really asking
is this is this time different? And I think what
we can conclude is that from a sentiment standpoint, all
those things that the IMF is talking about.
Speaker 3 (02:13):
I mean, the.
Speaker 5 (02:14):
Question that David asked was a great question, and I
would just simplify that and say, does the IMF make
you money? Because that's really what I'm trying to do here,
right from a look, I'm a speculator, There's no doubt
about that. So I'm not trying to call GDP. I'm
trying to look at where the S and P is
likely to be in the next one, three, six months.
And so when I look at sentiment, this is really
a reflection what the IMF is doing. It's really a
(02:36):
reflection of the policy uncertainty which is spiked, a reflection
of some of the correlations that we're seeing which are spiking,
a reflection of just the general sentiment environment that's out there.
So I would put those forecasts in that bucket. And
I think the important part of that is what do
those forecasts do well? They get people thinking differently, and
(02:57):
that includes policy makers. That gets them thinking about, hey,
how can we avert this, how can we soften this blow?
What can we do to minimize this? And so that's
where I think you want to be thinking a little
bit differently. Here is what the reaction function is. When
everybody starts to pile up on one side of the boat,
they're still fishing on the other side, and that's what
we're looking for.
Speaker 7 (03:16):
Jeff, how do you look at this kind of moment
to moment market, And that's what it seems to have
been here over these last few weeks. And we talked
at the top of the show just about this perhaps
distracting conversation about the position the Fed chair is in
right now and what the president's saying, but we know
that that is making its way into how the market
is moving. How do you kind of focus in a
more laser like way on the technicals amidst all of that. So, yes,
(03:39):
it's a distraction, but how do you see through the
fog of that and sort of chart a path forward?
Speaker 5 (03:46):
A great question, and we say this all the time.
It's in our disclaimer. This is a probability not a
prediction business. And so what we're really trying to do
is find where the mismatches are in probability and prediction.
And I think one of those that really out to me.
You know, you can look at the poly market as
an example of you know, quote unquote, will Trump removed
your own Powell in twenty twenty five, there's right now
(04:07):
about a twenty one percent chance of that given the
poly market. Now obviously you've got players here. This isn't
a perfectly well distributed probability distribution. But if you think
about that twenty one percent, the way I want you
to think about it is that's about the equivalent of
you having a sixteen at a blackjack table and the
(04:28):
dealer having a ten.
Speaker 3 (04:29):
That's not a great place to be.
Speaker 5 (04:30):
In other words, I'd much rather it be in the
dealer's hand, which says I'd much rather be in Powell's
position that I'm not going to get fired and I'm still.
Speaker 3 (04:37):
Going to be there. And that's the way that we
think about that.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
A lot of America. Jeff toographed with this folks, a
renaissances should say renaissance Macro here with futures up fifty five.
We welcome all of you on your commute across the nation.
Got some good equity chat coming up here. Is Brian
Belski size Brian Belski still scheduled with us as well.
Brian Belski's he's leaving the beach in Florida down there early.
(05:00):
We're you know, to gra We're not you know, we're
not on a beach like Belski Jeff, that's all great
and well, but a huge body of our listeners don't
want to speculate. They got a retirement account. How should
someone in conservative money, cautious money, actual assumption money, how
should that person move in this paradigmatic shift.
Speaker 5 (05:23):
Well, look, I think we run allocation models. We've run
one for about five years now, and we look at
it on a dynamic basis. It's kind of an optimization problem.
But I think the best way to explain that from
you know, kind of a general standpoint is in being
in an athletic stance, right you want to be able
to move forward, sideways, backwards, whatever the case may be.
(05:46):
And right now our allocations are about thirty five percent stocks,
twenty five percent treasuries, and about thirty percent cash, with
the remainder in some commodities. And that's really a reflection
of the trends that we see, the deterioration in the
data that we're seeing, and what we think is likely
to happen going forward. And part of that, given the uncertainty,
(06:10):
is that large commitment to cash. Now, we try to
solve for sharp races. We try to solve for risk
adjusted returns, not just absolute returns. And so that's one
of the reasons why this is a little bit more
balanced of an approach. But we certainly have seen our
allocations to equities come down here, really been cut in
half in about the last i'd say three months, at least,
probably two and a half to three months.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
David, I didn't realize this on a weekly chart apples
down thirty three that was a maximum drawing. I had
no idea was that much agony out there?
Speaker 3 (06:41):
Jeff?
Speaker 7 (06:42):
Where are you on the topic of American exceptionalism? A
lot of folks pouring one out for American exceptionalism. Given
all of this, how are you looking at it? How
much longevity does it have?
Speaker 5 (06:52):
As you see in look, I think it comes down
to where is capital treated best? And right now you
know clearly there's some question as to how capital is
going to be treated here in the US. But I
think when we take a step back, take a deep breath,
kind of get through the summer, see what's going on.
Hopefully this is I don't want to say resolve. At
(07:13):
least there's a little bit more clarity in this fog
of war here. I think people are going to look
back and say, look, where where do we have the
highest return on invested capital. Where can we really OutKick
our coverage, if you will, given the risk And I
think that that's going to take a long time to
shift that away from the US. And so I think
there's a sentiment environment here that's certainly percolating.
Speaker 3 (07:35):
It's having an impact.
Speaker 5 (07:36):
I mean, you really are getting into situations with rise
and treasuries, with the FED likely to cut rates at
the next meeting, and the decline inequities and the decline
and dollar. I mean, that's taking you back into the
Smithsonian stuff of nineteen seventy one. So you know, it's
a pretty unusual environment. But I do think that when
the dust settles, people are going to look around and say, hey,
where's my money going to return the best for its
(08:01):
risk profile?
Speaker 3 (08:01):
And I think that's still going to be the US.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
Are we in a bear market?
Speaker 3 (08:05):
We are?
Speaker 7 (08:07):
You're trying to take tea up bellski here?
Speaker 2 (08:10):
Yeah, I am. I just you know, I thought i'd
get a longer answer from Jeff. I just went down
on flames there discuss.
Speaker 3 (08:17):
I could elaborate. Are we in a circuit?
Speaker 5 (08:20):
A bear market is not about being down twenty percent?
It's not some magical number. It really is about the
combination of the increase in volatility, the decrease in returns,
and what that's happening on a trend basis, and those
are all sloping downwards now. So in our book, that
is the definition of a bear market, and that really
kicked in about a month ago. So it's not this
is not a new phenomenon. This has been something that's
(08:41):
in play, and I do think that that's important as
we think about it from a longer term perspective, The
question is is has sentiment outdone itself in the very
near term to get a really nice rally, And that's
where we are. We think we can rally back to
at least fifty five hundred, probably close to fifty seven hundred,
and then the question will be how did we get there.
Did we get there with momentum? Did we get there
with a change in the attitude? If we didn't, then
(09:03):
that's a rally to sell.
Speaker 7 (09:04):
Always good to ask the follow up, Tom, that was great,
Always good to ask the follow up question.
Speaker 8 (09:09):
I.
Speaker 2 (09:11):
See de Graf. What you don't understand is when girls
in the press conference of the White House, he's like
looking for the third follow up question. Those days are gone.
Speaker 7 (09:21):
You know, you might have missed this, Jeff. But but
Tom noted that during the hockey game last night gold
hit thirty five hundred he got a push alert or
something like that. When you're watching, What do we take
away from that, Jeff gold hitting that. Let we've seen
this amazing trajectory that gold has had over the last
few months or thirty percent this year, what do you
make of that? I guess that's my dumb question.
Speaker 3 (09:42):
I'm gonna ask him, Well, I don't think it's dumb
at all.
Speaker 5 (09:45):
I think, you know, I think that's a reasonable response
to sanctions that have been in place for a long time,
kind of the weaponization of the dollar the US financial system.
I mean, look, if we were on the other side
of this trade, if we weren't, you know, US citizens
or the US government, I'd be thinking about the same
thing too, Right, How can I make sure that I'm
not just totally dependent on US dollars and treasury? So
(10:06):
that does make some sense to me, no doubt about it.
That trend has been in place for a while though,
I mean, our trend models have been bullish on gold
for at least eighteen months.
Speaker 3 (10:14):
It's probably longer than that.
Speaker 5 (10:16):
I think what's interesting about gold right here is when
we start looking at some of our rolling alpha models
and some of the things that we look at historically,
we are getting into rarefied air, so we don't yet
quite have it from a sentiment standpoint on the ETF inflows.
But the one thing that we will watch when it
comes to extremes in trend, which we're getting very close to,
(10:37):
if not there for gold, is the sentiment environment so
robust that it says to us there's a buyer's frenzy
and we want to take a step aside. I suspect
that that's we're within days of weeks of that, so
I actually think that that's a pretty good spot to
start to let some of this go again within the
context of an uptrend. So it's more of a tactical call,
but I think it is getting kind of into that
frenzy zone.
Speaker 2 (10:57):
Two shortened answers. I'm sorry, Jeff to grab Is MAG
seven broken? Is Meg seven broken?
Speaker 3 (11:03):
I think you have to strip it out.
Speaker 5 (11:04):
But for the most part, the trends for MAG seven
are bearish, and we haven't seen anything from a momentum standpoint,
and really not even from a sentiment standpoint, Yet for
those individual names to say that the trend has exhausted itself,
I would say for semiconductors for the first time, this
was about three weeks ago, maybe two weeks ago. Now
(11:25):
our seller's frenzy started to fire in semiconductors. Obviously the
weakness in Nvidia helped that. That's a stark contrast to
where we were nine months ago, which was a buyer's frenzy.
We were warning clients at the trend exactly like gold.
The trend was too frothy. And I think one of
the important parts of this from an overall sentiment standpoint
is that you've got this now repudiation of the sky
(11:47):
blue narrative.
Speaker 3 (11:48):
That was AI.
Speaker 5 (11:49):
So people are now going from protecting themselves in semis
to actually trying to profit on the downside. That's a
really important psychological change, and that tends to be a
bull of psychological change.
Speaker 2 (11:59):
Jef to Grath, thank you so much, run Us on
some macro research. He's a really really great griefing there.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Listen live each weekday
starting at seven am Eastern on Applecarplay and Android Auto
with the Bloomberg Business App. You can also listen live
on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station. Just
say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
Joining us now. Someone who's enjoyed that humility. Brian Belski,
Chief Investment Strategies at Beamo Capital Markets. Brian, how are
you framing out your inherent optimism on equities given this
time we are living?
Speaker 8 (12:37):
You know, thanks for having us. It's tough to be
bullish now, but always we always say, you know, pride
brings disgrace and humility generates wisdom. And you just brought
some humility my way. Because the very first stock that
I analyzed at William o'nial in company for William O'Neil
(12:57):
was three a m. He'd literally walk me over to
the to the file and cabinet made me pull out
the file and read it. So it is Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing. This is listen.
Speaker 2 (13:06):
I isn't that cool? Yeah?
Speaker 8 (13:09):
So I've been thinking a lot about this, and obviously,
and you know, the binary reactions of investors have never
been greater number one.
Speaker 3 (13:17):
Number two.
Speaker 8 (13:17):
I think this has a lot to do with how
we react to bullet points and emotions and things like that,
and I'm going to make a parallel, and it's probably
not going to be very popular. So I think this
is very parallel in terms of how we're reacting to
what's going on in the stock market to COVID. Now,
clearly COVID was a fright. It was a once in
every four generation event in terms of a pandemic. But
(13:40):
the emotions in COVID are similar to in the fear
of COVID, are similar to our personal feelings with respect
to what's happening politically. Then the other thing is many
of my compatriots, colleagues, and competitors are not staying in
their lane. They've become now amateur psychologists that are diagnosed
think personality disorders, where they should actually be focusing more
(14:04):
on what's happening in the economy in terms of the earnings.
Here's what we here's what we know. We don't know
exactly how long this is going to last. We've already positioned,
we meaning consensus that this is going to take years
and years and years and years to unfold. So I
believe that the majority of portfolios strategists, economists are already
positioned for the worst case scenario. What we believe in
(14:26):
our standing in terms of the investment Strategy group at
BEMO is this could all be over in a matter
of days. We're not trying to be Pollyanna or flippant.
We believe in the inherent strength of the US economy,
the US stock market, and we still believe that we
have the best assets in the world, and we're going
to take negativity to add to those assets.
Speaker 2 (14:45):
Bronze it, David, get a question in here before the
market open. I'm going to come back because folks, this
is my third rail right now. That Belski address David
Gerr with a question.
Speaker 7 (14:54):
Probably got about a minute to market opens. But yet,
so I know that you've revised your your year end target.
Are are you doing that simply because of historical trends
where you think things are going or could go? Just
in the minute we have here, explain why you decided
to make that revision down.
Speaker 8 (15:07):
Well, again, with much humility, we have to be much
more realistic, especially given the draw down that we've had, David,
and I think to have a thirty five to forty
percent move from here to get to sixty seven hundred
and be very difficult. Can we get a twenty to
twenty five percent, absolutely, and that is based on historical standards.
Speaker 2 (15:24):
Who us some vima capital markets Brian Belski, Brian, you
know I'm on your side on this. We've had a
number of guests this morning. Go back to Cooney in
theory of nineteen, I think forty nine or forty seven,
and use a dreaded word paradigm. When I see that word,
Brian Belski, I circle it with fear. Why is this
not a paradigmatic shift in the markets.
Speaker 8 (15:48):
I don't think it's a pair. I think the market
actually is acting like it's a paradynamic shift. And oh,
by the way, I have a very good fortune of
being in Europe last week, Tommy and talking to those
great investors that have had wonderful returns if they've been
investing in European stocks. And to be clear, europe investors
that have not really liked US stocks wholeheartedly and objectively
(16:12):
since the year two thousand. They've been reluctant buyers of
US stocks the last ten years, and so they're taking
victory laps with respect to what's happening now. But I
think we need to think more objectively about this Tom,
I think what's happening is more of a reversion to
the mean. If I go back to my Mary Lynch days,
I think we're reverting to the mean. I think, again,
(16:33):
to go back to what I said in the beginning,
we're making binary decisions in terms of we're not going
to go all this way, in terms of going back
to this massive paradigm shift that people are thinking position for.
I think this is simply being positioned to a shift
to the mean because we went too far the other side, Brian.
Speaker 7 (16:49):
We had Jeff DeGraf on right before you. So speaking
of binary, let me set this up one two. Tom
asked him, are we in a bear market? And he
didn't waste more than half a second in saying, yes,
how about you. What's your read on where we are?
Would you use the same the same name.
Speaker 8 (17:03):
Just from Michigan. So he has the Midwest sensibilities. So
I don't know yet. So here's what I would say,
and here's what we actually wrote in a published research report.
It doesn't matter if we're in a bear market. And
again we all like to put labels on. Let's go
back to what we said in the report. Doesn't matter
if we're down ten percent, fifty percent, or twenty five percent. Again,
(17:25):
we don't like it when people lose money. I think
it's terrible. The market was a little bit frothy heading
into the beginning.
Speaker 2 (17:30):
Of the year.
Speaker 8 (17:30):
We know that, however, why doesn't matter because when the
market bottoms, and we do think we're in a bottoming process,
we don't go straight down or strained up. It's a
process typically in historical new when we have these types
of exacerbated moves to the downside. Twelve months out, we're
not up an average of twenty nine point four percent.
So give me a twenty percent rally still gets us
(17:51):
to that sixty one hundred target by by hopefully closer
to your end. Even if we don't get there, I
think we'll get closer death than most people think. So
again I think that we'd love to put labels on
things by the way too, and I know Jeff would
probably agree to this. I've known Jeff for a long time.
Is that how many people how many people sold at
the peak?
Speaker 9 (18:10):
Huh?
Speaker 8 (18:10):
How many people sold the peak? So a lot of
this is peak to peak the trough type analysis, And
again that's more academic than anything.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
Brian Belski thank you so much, greatly appreciate. Let's do
it again and just appreciate those comments.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Catch us live
weekday afternoons from seven to ten am Eastern Listen on
Applecarplay and Android Otto with the Bloomberg Business app, or
watch US live on YouTube.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
This is exceptionally well timed Alesia Cassia Herrero out of
Hong Kong when the Texas chief economists for the Pacific Room,
if you will joins us right now. Alicia, I'm a
little upset this morning, and I'm playing off with Greg Ip,
who I think was really terse and to the point
with the Wall Street Journal. The news that we saw
in the last four or five days was Japan had
(19:03):
quote unquote negotiations with a White House, except they weren't negotiations.
And then two days later, China has come out and
said anybody that has negotiations that harm China that will
not be accepted. To me, there's a misunderstanding of teriff
war dynamics, trade war dynamics in the Pacific rim discuss
(19:26):
that how fragile are the negotiations right now?
Speaker 6 (19:30):
Well, I think the Trump administration probably thought this would
be easier. So what was the strategy. I threatened to
the point of actually imposing times on everybody, so that
they then realized how dangerous these game is, and they
did couple from China, but this came quite late. Excuse
(19:56):
me in the game why because many of these nations
already depends massively on Chinese. Japan is one of the
least dependent, and still so for Japan, for South Korea.
The US is a larger export market, but the problem
is from the import site. So if you are Vietnam,
(20:18):
which is an extreme case, you just can't export without China.
You just can't do what the US is asking you
to do. You can't impose targets on Chinese inputs, on
Chinese intermediate goods without which you cannot export to the US. So,
in a way, the US is requesting something that is
not feasible for a lot of Asian countries, I would
(20:40):
say Southeast Asia. That's why it is not going to
work in the way the Trump administration expects it to work.
Speaker 2 (20:49):
David, you know, I'm curious.
Speaker 7 (20:51):
We've seen the Chinese currency week, and we've seen the
Beijing government allow that to happen over these last many weeks.
How do you see that playing out going forward? As
kind of look at the way in which China is
I won't say weathering, but but navigating the stale might
here with the US government.
Speaker 6 (21:08):
Okay, so China has a few tools to I wouldnt
say withstand but mitigate the shock. The shock is huge,
Let's face it. This won't be said in China, but
it is a huge shock. It is even more so
if the US ultimately imposed the styles on countries through
which Chinese going to the US, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia. One
(21:35):
way to go about this is what China has already done. Actually,
China's response post COVID, response to its own weaknesses in
twenty twenty to twenty twenty three all the way to
September twenty twenty four was to weaken the currents to
allow the weakening. They didn't need to weaken themselves because
(21:56):
the market was already on a weekening cycle because the
economy was really not doing well, so capitol was leaving China,
and also US rates were very high, and therefore the
interre differential was attracting capital. So they are now doing
the same thing. But very carefully because they know the
US is watching, which wasn't the case before. I think
(22:19):
they could do much more if needed, and that will
create a competitive evaluation in Asia.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
Alicia, thank you so much for joining us. She's within
Texas and the Pacific Room. Chief Economs for Airpech Alicia
Percy her Railroad.
Speaker 1 (22:34):
This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Listen live each weekday
starting at seven am Eastern on Apple, Corplay and Android
Otto with the Bloomberg Business App. You can also listen
live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station.
Just say Alexa Play Bloomberg eleven thirty Joining us.
Speaker 2 (22:51):
Now from Australia in the Peterson Institute or mckivin. Are
they gonna work, doctor mckivin, I mean, just simple? The
President makes it sounds it's all easy, so simple. Are
we actually going to bring in revenue from tariffs?
Speaker 4 (23:05):
Great to be here? I guess the question is will
they work? Depends on what the objective is. If the
objective is to slow down economic growth, yes they'll achieve that.
If the objective is to bring in revenue, yes they
will bring in some revenue. But by our estimates and
other estimates. The revenue is nowhere near as great as
advocates of tariffs might suggests. Very narrow tax base, so
(23:26):
you have to have a very high tax to get
any revenue.
Speaker 2 (23:30):
Do you indicate or see that there's anyone within the
Trump orbit that can explain what you just said to
the president. Is there anyone that can explain this to
Donald Trump?
Speaker 4 (23:43):
Well, I haven't seen any explanation that makes sense. I
think the calculation that might have been done is how
many imports are there in the US at the moment,
three trillion, muliplied by a tariff of ten percent. How
much revenue do you get? What you get three hundred
billion a year for ten years, three trillions. So that's
a simple calculation. What it ignores is that people will
(24:04):
stop buying imports because they've become more expensive. People will
shift their consumption bundles, Inflation will go up, the economy
will slow, and you'll lose revenue from your corporate taxes
and from your household income taxes. So when you nettle
that out, you get a lot more offset than you expect.
And I haven't seen the calculations of offset being produced
by anyone in the administration.
Speaker 7 (24:25):
I was having some fun a moment ago talking about
stochastic models, and you're famous for one with Jeff Sachs.
Tom mentioned them just a moment ago. Can you just
talk in plain terms about how you conducted your analysis
and sort of what variables are there in sort of
coming to some conclusion about the effect this is going
to have.
Speaker 4 (24:42):
Yeah, What we've tried to and that's a good question.
What we've tried to do is bring both the financial
parts of the world economy, to links between countries through
asset markets, exchange rate bond markets, together with production networks.
So we're modeling the real economy, how resources flow within
the US economy and between the US and China and
other and so we try and map the physical economy
(25:03):
and the financial economy and their interaction into a very
very large, complex system which is based partly on historical
relationships and partly on observed events such as German unification,
such as NAFTA, such as events where we saw something
occur and we see whether our modeling framework can replicate
what have happened within a reasonable degree of confidence, and
(25:27):
then we use that framework to project scenarios for central banks,
for corporations for governments, simple questions as well as complex
questions like the Taroff war.
Speaker 7 (25:38):
We were talking about the IMFs revised forecast this morning
and something we heard from our chief economists from Tom
as well is this being a kind of paradigm shift.
And I wonder sort of how you are thinking about
what this portends, what's changing about the global economy visa
VI what the Trump administration has announced in terms of
trade policy.
Speaker 4 (25:56):
Well, seeing this transformation going on for decades, we've seen
the center of global economic activity moving from Europe and
the US to Asia, and so what's been announced as
a vast acceleration but still moving in that direction where
the balance of economic power is shifting away from the
advanced economies as we know them today. So this is
actually a very large economic adjustment. It accelerates something that's
(26:18):
already happening. I guess one of the interesting things is
the geopolitical adjustment hasn't caught up with the economic adjustment
we've been seeing, and so the US is very overweighted
in the international institutions like the IMF and World Bank
and UN. I think that doesn't really bother the Trump
administration at all. In fact, they're trying to move that
away from the current arrangements as well. But this is
a very major event in world history.
Speaker 2 (26:40):
I would say doctor mckifvin, thank you so much. Mckivin
there at the Peterson Institute in Washington, writing with Adam Posen,
Chad Bone and others. Just can't say enough about their
output in the recent weeks.
Speaker 1 (27:01):
This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Listen live each weekday
starting at seven am Eastern on Apple Corplay and Android
Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. You can also watch
us live every weekday on YouTube and always on the
Bloomberg terminal.
Speaker 2 (27:15):
In the year, there are few people I want to
talk to more than Margaret Franklin. Her institution changed my life.
Joining us not from Charlotte'sville, Virginia, but I believe in
Washington day, driving steadfastly the charn of Financial Analysts Institute,
the CFA Institute. Margaret Franklin joins us right now. Margaret,
(27:37):
the institution of one hundred and seventy thousand people, the
rite of passage that it is. Are you beyond COVID?
Speaker 10 (27:46):
Well, Tom, I am thrilled to say we are beyond
COVID and in fact, we're two hundred thousand members and
COVID gave us the opportunity to really evaluate and I
would say improve the CFA program so that candidates and
charterholders are as ready as ever for what lies ahead.
And it's of course interesting times for investors.
Speaker 2 (28:08):
It was hugely difficult, like at one point India was
shut down. I can't remember the details, but literally for
the level one, level two, level three exams, nations couldn't
take the test. Is it smooth going now? And particularly
the test taking on the Pacific rim It is.
Speaker 10 (28:27):
Smooth going And you're right. It was completely disjointed and
inordinately disruptive for candidates we went. When COVID hit, we
were doing paper based tests and we're now, of course
completely computer based and so it is seamless, and we
have more reach than we ever have before, so in
more markets and making it more accessible for candidates to
(28:48):
take their exams close to home.
Speaker 2 (28:50):
Margaret David wants to get in here, but I have
to ask, are you kidding me? A computer based CFA exam?
There's something about the pain in your hand?
Speaker 3 (28:59):
You can still ring out, Tom. I'm sure it would
allow you.
Speaker 2 (29:02):
I have on my desk my Hewlett Packard twelve C
with my Margaret Franklin YELLOWCFA dot.
Speaker 3 (29:08):
What has been the what is it?
Speaker 2 (29:10):
Ben? Margaret like going from handwritten agony over to computer exams.
Speaker 9 (29:15):
The people like it, Yeah, they do, and of course
you won't be surprised though, Tom, they still feel the
same amount of agony because the quality, the rigor, and
of course the content are the tough part.
Speaker 10 (29:28):
So I think it's just a tough new new medium,
new medium.
Speaker 2 (29:32):
David, Ethics is not the same computer taking market.
Speaker 7 (29:36):
I see you have these specialized pathways now private wealth,
private markets, and the traditional portfolio management path. I'm still
waiting for the pedantic amateur radio host path, which I'll
continue to wait for here. But explain how that works
and sort of what that leads to. Is it all
leading to the same thing, all to the same designation, Yeah,
so it does.
Speaker 10 (29:54):
It's all CFA. It's Margaret Franklin, Tom g comm a CFA.
But we were able to when we did that audit
and we used the COVID period to assess the program,
we were able to keep the entire core of the
program and then offer pathways in level three for half
of it to really align better with candidates desires in
(30:17):
really the core areas that are of interests, private markets,
private wealth, and then of course traditional portfolio management. And
you know, that coincided with a number of changes we
made to the program, including allowing college students to begin
twenty three months away from graduation so they could be
really prepared for the market. And in addition, we added
(30:39):
practical skills modules. We did an assessment with employers and
they were very keen to share that they valued the
rigor the quality and the knowledge, but they wanted candidates
to be much more job ready, and so we added
our practical skills modules and I think that that has
been very well received as well as you know, the
learn the way we know that learners learn is changing.
(31:01):
So we've set candidates up for success with a great
learning ecosystem and great ways for them to learn.
Speaker 2 (31:08):
The curricula is better. It's much more formalized now, folks.
It used to be a three foot pile of books
that you'd try to get through. The accounting book alone,
John Dee Accounting would kill you. So the curriculum is better,
Margaret Franklin, But is it the kids? Are they coming
out as smart? Equally or is it actually on a
quantitative basis more rigorous now, Well, I.
Speaker 10 (31:31):
Think Tom, if you and I went back to go
write it, we would find it pretty difficult because, as
you know, the course is very very comprehensive, and so
there are things that when we wrote just weren't part
of the curricula. But the curricula of course keeps up
with what the employers are looking for because we have
always on assessment through a practice analysis. So I'd say
(31:53):
it remains very challenging. You know, about one in seven
who started will complete it, and the assess and validation
of the candidate's knowledge, skills and ability is a critical
component and that's what differentiates it from so many programs
and why it remains as valued today as it did
sixty years ago.
Speaker 2 (32:10):
One final question off Michael Mobison was here and his
contribution to the you know, Abby, Joseph Cohen, everybody that
supported the program here over the years, the great George
VanDerHeyden years ago at Fidelity. Margaret wearing God's Name is
CFA Level four on derivatives and the Greek letters. Bruno
de Pierre emails in from Bloomberg Derivatives and says Margaret,
(32:32):
when do we get level four derivative Greek letters strategy.
Speaker 10 (32:36):
Well, everybody who's writing and everybody who's air Charter knows
that we will. I can confirm we will not be
doing a level four And Tom I will say, you
mentioned Frank Fobosi earlier before we came on the line,
so you've got you've got all the legends there counted.
Speaker 2 (32:53):
Well we do, Margaret Franklin, thank you so much. And
again the level three pass rate Catherine Doherty writing in
Bloomberg today for thirty nine percent, and David, what you
heard there? One in seven and started it's through and it's.
Speaker 7 (33:05):
What is the what is the former surveillance intern pass rate?
Speaker 3 (33:08):
You keep tabs on that. It's pretty huge.
Speaker 2 (33:10):
Actually, it sounds like, you know, we're humbled by that,
Margaret frank And out of showsvill Virginia a moment. There
an annual review of the Charter financial Analyst designation.
Speaker 1 (33:20):
This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Listen live each weekday
starting at seven am Eastern on Applecarplay and Android Auto
with the Bloomberg Business app. You can also listen live
on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station Just say,
Alexa play Bloomberg eleven.
Speaker 2 (33:37):
Thirty, Lisa Matteo, what do you have to do?
Speaker 4 (33:40):
Oh?
Speaker 11 (33:40):
All right, into the newspapers.
Speaker 12 (33:41):
Okay, so we've all written in an uber right, But
have you signed up for the uber one service?
Speaker 4 (33:47):
Okay?
Speaker 11 (33:48):
It costs nine to ninety nine a month.
Speaker 12 (33:50):
The company said it's going to help you save some
money on ride bookings, food deliveries.
Speaker 11 (33:53):
So here's the thing.
Speaker 12 (33:54):
The FTC is saying that canceling the subscription is too difficult,
so it's filing a law suit now. So they promote it, right,
they do all these push notifications while while you're using
the app. But to cancel it, here's what you have
to do. You have to go through about seven different
screens that will require at least twelve different actions. And
they say it's so tough that there's even these tutorials
(34:15):
that have been sparked online getting so many things, so
many views, and then some consumers are even saying they're
getting charts for it without even signing up for it.
Speaker 11 (34:24):
So that's the problem. It's Uber one. I do not
have that service, but.
Speaker 7 (34:28):
I see I'm getting the push alert right now.
Speaker 12 (34:30):
You see I don't have its simple, They have done
push it out to you, I know, but to cancel it.
Speaker 11 (34:35):
They're saying it's a little bit too tough.
Speaker 12 (34:36):
Uber says, you know, it's it's clear and simple, you
can cancel it.
Speaker 2 (34:39):
But this is part of a lot of It's like
you get an email and you try to unsubscribe, and
so many places are wonderful about it, you know, Okay, goodbye,
and then some places you can just tell they just
do not want you to go.
Speaker 12 (34:53):
Yeah, like the streaming some of the streaming ones are
pretty easy. You just kind of click a button and
you can unsubscribe. But yeah, it's Uber one.
Speaker 2 (34:59):
What do you most?
Speaker 12 (35:00):
Okay, I thought we were done talking about this, but
apparently not.
Speaker 11 (35:02):
We're talking about.
Speaker 12 (35:02):
Egg prices again, not as high as they once were,
but they're still high of course, stir and and so
I'm out of stock. But the Financial Times is saying
the makers of those plant based eggs they're kind of
trying to take advantage. So they're expanding production, launching these
fancy marketing campaigns. We're talking about, like I think they're
(35:24):
called Mungman based liquids.
Speaker 7 (35:29):
Here, please please plant based egg and I've broken bread
with you many a time time I've never seen your
order of vegetable based eggs.
Speaker 3 (35:38):
I've seen you order of vegetable once.
Speaker 2 (35:41):
Beyond me and.
Speaker 12 (35:43):
Now you have eate just it's a maker of just egg,
just egg, just egg. So that's the one that there
are sales of like five times higher than you know
over last year.
Speaker 2 (35:52):
These ideas people you know, fancy people from Cornell. I
don't know.
Speaker 12 (35:56):
The people are looking for alternatives, so they have to
for the money sumer demand for it.
Speaker 2 (36:01):
So yeah, yeah, just beyond me gone away?
Speaker 3 (36:04):
No, still around?
Speaker 12 (36:05):
No, But that's the thing, like, is this gonna go
away because it's not as popular, like the beyond Me
going to go down?
Speaker 2 (36:12):
Eggs still out of stock? Is it just a demand thing?
Speaker 9 (36:14):
Still?
Speaker 12 (36:15):
The bird flow was still so yeah, I was surprised.
Speaker 2 (36:19):
I wrote this weekend I couldn't get eggs.
Speaker 3 (36:22):
It was easter. That's triple them up.
Speaker 7 (36:24):
That's true.
Speaker 2 (36:25):
Use potatoes.
Speaker 12 (36:27):
You can use other substitutes like apple, sauce, mashed bananas, yogurt.
Che see and is seed morning here?
Speaker 1 (36:36):
Still?
Speaker 2 (36:36):
Is that how you say?
Speaker 11 (36:38):
Yes?
Speaker 6 (36:41):
Next?
Speaker 11 (36:42):
Okay, this is actually an interesting look.
Speaker 12 (36:44):
So the Washington Pos had this into the changing economics
of college football affecting the NFL Draft because players have
the option they can make more money by staying in
college with the NIL deals, the transfer portal, things like that.
So they're putting off entering into the draft.
Speaker 11 (37:00):
So they gave this example.
Speaker 12 (37:02):
So there's a after five years at Georgia quarterback Carson Beck. He'
said in December he's going to answer the draft. But
then in January he came back and he said, you
know what, I'm going to stay in college. He will
earn an NIL package at Miami estimated to be at
least three million dollars a million for college kid, so
not too bad. And for him it made sense because
he had an injury, Like, his performance wasn't as well
(37:23):
as the previous year, so it kind of made sense
for him to stay in college a little bit longer.
But they spoke with agents like and they're saying, it's
it's it's a different world.
Speaker 2 (37:31):
You know, we protect the children of the innocent here,
but you are living this. Lisa Matteo, you have a
very gifted child. Yes, basically your young child's age. It's
professional sports, isn't it.
Speaker 12 (37:44):
Yes, But for my child to make three million, that's
like kind of scary.
Speaker 2 (37:49):
Well, if she takes. She makes eight hundred thousand. Lisa,
we'll cash that check.
Speaker 7 (37:54):
We hope you're still here.
Speaker 2 (37:56):
Yes, Lisa, thank you so much for the name. Image
like this offspring, we should say that's doing better than
good in the sport of her choice.
Speaker 1 (38:07):
This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast, available on Apple, Spotify,
and anywhere else you get your podcasts. Listen live each weekday,
seven to ten am Eastern on Bloomberg dot com, the
iHeartRadio app tune In, and the Bloomberg Business app. You
can also watch us live every weekday on YouTube and
(38:28):
always on the Bloomberg terminal
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!