All Episodes

February 13, 2025 27 mins

There’s something special about the US stock market these days—it’s almost beyond comprehension how it keeps kicking out consistently big returns. Sure, other markets have nice runs now and again, but they’re usually short-lived and almost microscopic compared to the US. Why is that? And how long can this level of dominance last?

On this episode of Trillions, Eric Balchunas and Joel Weber speak with Steve Hou, a quantitative researcher at Bloomberg Indices, who’s written a number of white papers on innovation, pricing power and turnaround companies. They discuss why US companies are rewarded for innovation while companies elsewhere are not, how to measure and invest in a successful strategy, which attributes make US corporate culture and its economy unique and where the competition is going to come from in the future.

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 (00:05):
Welcome to Trillions.

Speaker 2 (00:06):
I'm Joel Webber and I'm Eric Belchunis.

Speaker 1 (00:12):
This is going to be a fun episode, Eric.

Speaker 2 (00:13):
Yeah, I've been wanting to do this one for a
while a.

Speaker 1 (00:15):
While, and we had to jump through them some hoops
to make it happen. But it seems like a great
moment to put the spotlight on the United States of America.
We have President Trump back in the Oval Office. He
has signed so many executive orders so far, but underlying
it all is sort of like, you know, this attempt
to kind of reassert American dominance. When you think about

(00:39):
the equity market in particular, USA is always number one.

Speaker 3 (00:43):
Right er.

Speaker 2 (00:43):
Yeah, And you know, on our team, we have this
persistent chat and we've actually it's come down to basically
like mocking Europe. It's it's like they're the you know,
we just had a full leaders at the Super Bowl.
It's like they're the Cleveland Browns or the like, they're
just a bad team that just can never get going.
And then the index that we specifically are just marvel

(01:04):
at is the Nasdaq one hundred. We call it the
eighth Wonder of the World. It just keeps on freight
training everything year in, year out. This is the cues,
and it kind of captures like that American innovation tech
thing even better than the S and P five hundred
and so when you compare the cues to like investing
in Europe, it's just so night and day. But at

(01:27):
some point it's so much cheaper pete price to earnings
ratio wise in Europe, everybody's like, oh, it's got to
go back, but it never goes back. It might go
back for two months, but then people come right back
to the queues. And so I just think that the
US stock market in particular, that the Nasdaq stocks and
the mag seven are almost like abnormally unusually great where

(01:53):
they deserve some kind of a scientific breakdown to analyze
what's really behind all this because it almost breaks your
brain a little bit.

Speaker 1 (02:01):
Well you know who's not a scientist, me or you,
But it turns out we work with one. His name
is Steve how he's a quantitative research at Bloomberg. He
has a PhD. You started talking to him a while
ago about America and it's greatness, right, would you learn?

Speaker 2 (02:15):
Yeah, because you know, we were looking at tech and
innovation in other countries and it's just not. They have
it there, but no one cares. Why is it rewarded
in the US and not in other countries? And we
had an interesting conversation about the culture here, the regulations,
the mindset, this sort of like you can do it
and who cares if you fall in your butt? Like

(02:37):
that doesn't exist everywhere else. Like a lot of people
are just like get in line and hammer, you know
what I mean? Like America is a special place, and
we don't do everything great. We're not number one and
a lot of things, Joel, but when it comes to
like the stock market, man.

Speaker 1 (02:50):
We kick ass.

Speaker 2 (02:51):
The US has four percent of the world's population, twenty
percent of the world's GDP, and our stock market is
fifty five percent of the whole world. Right, you got
to go. I think number two is something like Japan,
where Europe is a continent, is like eight percent or
something like that.

Speaker 1 (03:08):
So joining us on this episode, Steve, how quantitative researcher
have Bloomberg in disease? This time on Trillions Captain America. Steve,
welcome on Trillions.

Speaker 3 (03:22):
Thank you very much for having me finally, and Eric, yeah,
good to see you.

Speaker 1 (03:25):
So, Steve, Bloomberg is a big place. I work in
the news group. Eric works in Bloomberg Intelligence. What is
Bloomberg indsease and what's your day job?

Speaker 3 (03:35):
So Bloomberg Indisses is part of Bloomberg's data team now
and I am a quant researcher for Bloomberg Indices. And
we create investible indices or portfolios which can be then
licensed by as a managers and as owners to track right.
We create investment products and inducees that we license, and

(03:56):
then once in a while, if we come up with
something that we've seen that we think interesting that's worth
expanding a bit more than we then run long form
white paper.

Speaker 1 (04:05):
Okay, so he's written some white papers. Did you read them?

Speaker 2 (04:08):
Yeah, I mean I skimmed them.

Speaker 1 (04:10):
Okay, all right, we're gonna we're gonna learn a little
bit of.

Speaker 3 (04:13):
The pricing power. But you she said, was very good.

Speaker 2 (04:16):
Yeah. And the innovation, I mean, they're they're they're very good.
And the Index group is obviously mentally in the same
ballpark as us because we write passive.

Speaker 1 (04:26):
But he sells stuff.

Speaker 2 (04:28):
True. Yeah, you're on the revenue side of the building.

Speaker 1 (04:30):
Yeah, it's important. There's a disclaimer there, which is, you know,
we're not going to turn on the We're not going
to talk our own business.

Speaker 2 (04:35):
No, No, I'm part of the terminal value add.

Speaker 1 (04:39):
So Steve, just big picture what makes America fundamentally with
the research that you do, the data that you see,
why is American innovation greater than anywhere else in the world?

Speaker 3 (04:51):
So h if you so went real this white pipe
of because you know, we created a index to try
to capture innovation as a factor systematically, right, you know
out there there's new people talk about we try to innovation.
How do you actually do it? Right? There's the r ETF,
which is an activetf F you know would selects them
and you know it does what it does right. And

(05:11):
then there's accuse, which is actually, when you think about it,
not intentionally innovation index, just as all the companies that
happens to be listed on the NAS Exchange, which of
course has agglomeration effect, right, everybody sort of congregates that.
But so it's not intentional. So how do you actually
do it? So we start to actually look into some
systematic accounting attributes. So R and D is a natural
place to look, right, Companies spend and report R and

(05:34):
D not or always consistently, and they may sort of
attribute things a little bit differently, but generally the direction
is correct. And people previously have looked at R and
D intensity, you know, so normalized by sales so they
can compare companies in the cross section. That's one way
to do it, but we found actually was even better.
It's actually to look at persistence of R and D spending, right,
companies that grow their R and D spending three consecutive

(05:56):
years year and year right, so, and by screening for
these such as gets expensive. Yes, that gets expensive, but
but more than that, it also means that there's a
highly grow of persistence that needs to be funded by
internally generated cash flow. On top of it, you probably
soft indicative of the skills that you have the confidence
in your own ability to convert right R and D activities,

(06:18):
which is inherently very expensive and on certain into valuable
intentionibal capital.

Speaker 2 (06:25):
I want to go even deeper and just okay, you
grew up in I grew up in America. I basically
was raised outside. I went down played with people like
droll down the street. We got into football games in
the backyard. Then I entered little league games, had to
get along with teammates from all over the place. There
was also a feeling of optimism in the in my

(06:49):
upbringing at all times pretty much it was like anything's possible.
And then you go to high school and college and
you're frequently grouped with people to work on tasks and
as a team try new things, and.

Speaker 1 (07:04):
I break breakdown problems.

Speaker 2 (07:06):
Breakdown problems, and there's also credit from being the one
that does the good thing, like there's a number one
winner kind of celebrated here. Not to mention the bankruptcy
laws and the regulatory environment, it just seems like, I'm
not sure how you replicate that.

Speaker 3 (07:24):
I think recently there was a very good interview that
Jeff Bezos gave at the Old Book. You know, he
mentioned that one of the biggest, you know, I think
reasons why America manages to have such a vibrant tach
sector innovative industry is because of the presence of a
risk capital market, which is different from a banking market,
right financial markets. You know, if you think about landing

(07:45):
right banks land Europe has a very good banking industry,
but the ability to have risk capital venture right to
invest in things that has one hundred chunds or even
less to work out. That's gonna when it pays off,
pays out one to to one hundred and one to
one thousand. That is the type of risk taking that
comes with I think both culturally and also past dependence. Right,

(08:09):
some of it has to do with cultural this idea
of being encouraged as a child to try things and
not be told that you likely will not succeed, but
to be told just try it. Right. Then, there was
also the fact that Americas happened to have succeeded in
the tech industry, a bunch of people succeeded by concentrated
entrepreneurship and equity appreciating, giving them the confidence of saying, yeah,

(08:32):
I can take a risk investing in in venture.

Speaker 2 (08:36):
But if you take venture capitalists could invest in the
European I mean they're not like just legally allowed to
invest in the US like they they if they thought
Europe was the better odds to get that like Unicorn,
they would go there, right.

Speaker 3 (08:48):
So, like, well, part of it I think to be
fair to Europe is that Europe. When I recently, I've
taken a few trips business trips to Europe to try
to understand how to actually get European clients to buy stocks,
and one we've noticed that there's just such a huge
amount of fragmentation of markets. It's impossible to get a
huge market right because everyone little country still has its
own language, you know, own regulation and just customs, and

(09:12):
it's impossible to scale what product. So if you're an airbnb, right,
you can have the entire US market. If you succeed here,
you become this behemoth and then go overseas. Everybody is lightweight,
you know. So I think it's a combination of issues.
I think cultural, you know, sort of is certainly at
the core of it, but you know, there are other

(09:32):
sort of institutional factors.

Speaker 2 (09:40):
This idea of international also is something Bogel I wrote
a piece about a month ago, and I was like,
Bogel was kind of right about international. In ninety three
is the first time he had written, you don't really
need international. The US has all the capitalism you need.
If you had followed his advice, man you would have
really benefitted by not going international. So a lot of

(10:02):
people that I know, advisors and portfolio managers, they're always
in this dilemma of whether to rotate internationally, but it
just doesn't ever pan out. And I think that's part
of why this matters now is that we got big
valuations here, low valuations in Europe. But does Europe have
to go up just because it's due?

Speaker 3 (10:23):
Well, so, the one thing is that if you recall
a post dot com bubble in the early few thousands,
you know that was a period when a bunch of
sort of things that we are not used to. How
did it happen?

Speaker 1 (10:34):
Right?

Speaker 3 (10:34):
International, I'll perform the US right, Europe, I'll perform the
US EM I'll perform the US value, I'll perform growth right,
and bones actually outperform stocks, you know, for many years
until things sort of then resumed. It's long run trajectory
and you have to triumph of the optimists. But you
know there are conditions in which you know.

Speaker 2 (10:55):
I think the point you're making, though, which is is
a good control. Bogo really had very deep wisdom, and
he knew US would have bad years. He was going
to stay invested. I think if you add international and
bonds and this other stuff, when they go up and
the US goes down, it gives you comfort and like
it helps you hang in there. So if you have
a behave, if you're somebody who can't have the intestinal

(11:18):
fortitude to just stick to the US. But the returns
I'm talking about are actually inclusive of those bubbles bursting
two thousand and eight, two thousand and one, International way lags.
But you're right, there's these sections of time that could
be years where you're going to underperform. But I think
in Bogel's case, he was like, I'm committed to the
S and P five hundred. I don't need the feeling

(11:41):
that something else in my portfolio is up, which is
a level of wisdom that's hard to get to.

Speaker 3 (11:45):
Yeah, I mean, part of it is exactly because the
US is such a huge economy with such a tremendous
complexity that there is everything that's happening right inside of
individual countries that's only exposed to oil or banking on
and so on and stuff forth. So this national boundary
division was always obitring the US place. I never really
like the comparison or two lines of a Europe US
up performing Europe because it's not the Apple Store comparison.

(12:06):
If you actually compared sort of sector weights adjusted or
equity duration adjusted, you will find that the difference, what
there is, a premium difference, is not as big as
one might have thought.

Speaker 1 (12:17):
Or see if I want to bring it back to
your your paper and how you think about building in
disease that can help capture investment. Right, So you brought
up persistent R and D being the data point that
is like kind of the north start for the style investing.
How do you go about getting that data? By the way,

(12:37):
it's all you know, the companies are doing this, but
like what do you see when you look at those numbers?

Speaker 3 (12:43):
So companies, first of all, that they increase, they are
required to you know, sort of disclose their R and
D and you know spending expenditures and you know for
a long time depending on or coman treatment. If R
and D spending is immediately allowed to be expensed, they
are actually incentivized, you know, to expand and so they
can reduce their textbook you know income. But more broadly,

(13:05):
we're just looking for, you know, in a systematic fashion,
metrics that can most succinctly, sort of in the sufficient
sufficient statistic way identify companies accurately that fit the profile
we're looking for. So in this case, we're looking for
innovative companies. You know, what is one metric that really
captures companies? You know ability to innovate, and we zoomed
in on the R and D spending metric in particular.

(13:27):
We found that more than the intensity is the persistence
of R and D spending that really allows you to
sort of screen down to the companies that are genuinely innovative.

Speaker 1 (13:39):
Well, it's an example of the company that goes that
big on R and D but maybe isn't as persistent,
and what's that? What's that when that's more persistent?

Speaker 3 (13:46):
So like, I don't want to go into an individual company,
but more more more likely I think it's one thing
is like if you look at, for example, the art
portfolio versus the you know, sort of the queues or
or in this case, the Bloomberg be invent Index, which
which is which we created and it's comfortable to the cues.
And here I do want you I want to give
credit to my colleague Garl Panzea who who you know,

(14:09):
helped create this this metric. Uh, is that if you
go back to compare the rc ETF you know membership,
the companies in there spend a tremendous amount of money
on R and D. Right, and if you normalize by
net sales, the average ratio is perhaps higher in fact
than the companies that are contained in this portfolio. But
if you compare the performance over time sort of you know,

(14:30):
this index is tremendously outperformed the art portfolio over time.
Now why is that. It's because the companies that held
in her profile in the portfolio tend not to be
consistently profitable. As a result, they don't consistently spend the
R and D. They sort of one of those things.
They spent one year when they have profits, the next
year they spend less, and so on and so forth.
So the average is high, but the persistence is not

(14:51):
very high. And as we all know, so those of
us who are trying to innovate, it's one of those
things where you can't really just you have to get it, sticks,
stick to it. You have really you know, persevere through,
you know, uh, and that's how you menually make the discovery.
And in fact, if you compare the US you know
index and why he has performed Europe. You know, going

(15:13):
back to our discussion earlier, the biggest difference between US
and Europe is not even the level, right, is actually
the percentage of companies that have persistence a high degree
of persistence. And we started the millennium actually with the
US and Europe being at similar levels of intensity and
percent of companies that have uh, sort of three consecutive

(15:35):
years R and the growth. And it was over the
last twenty years that difference really diverged, right Uh. And
you can so in the in the paper, you have
these sort of tables. You can check out these numbers.

Speaker 2 (15:45):
That's why, in my opinion, it's not just R and
D spending. It's a U S thing. And and I
talk to people on Twitter life and they say, well,
you can get growth here. You just it's hard to
get growth other places. Sometimes there's these speculative bubbles like
in China, but pound for pound, you're just you're just
going to get more growth here in some of these

(16:06):
big companies that are in the US, they're just growing.

Speaker 1 (16:08):
But Steve's going to bring it back to persistent R
and D being that thing.

Speaker 2 (16:11):
And if you go, yeah, but that that that exists
in Europe too, but nobody cares.

Speaker 3 (16:16):
Like that, not to nearly the same extent right over.

Speaker 2 (16:19):
The last time in percent increase, that's right.

Speaker 3 (16:22):
The share of companies that sort of really remained persistent
in R and D spending just dropped, right, and bisector
of the sector, you can compare them, Whereas in the
US tech sector is you know, sort of over fifty percent.
You know, in Europe you're talking about half that and
actually peaked in twenty thirteen, and actually it is even
smaller today. In other words, I think it's a kind

(16:43):
of a in the American the case is kind of
a virtual cycle, right when you have these innovative companies,
and I show in the paper that when they invest
persistently R and D, it produces intensible capital which then
becomes truly valuable, right, and it spins out cash flow.
Right if Apple invents the iPhone, invents the AirPods, if
becomes a six of a product, and that cash flow
funds R and D. Because R and D is inherently

(17:05):
a very opaque, asymmetric information activity, right, you don't really
want to erase external financing to fund it because nobody's
going to know how you're spending it. So you want
to use internally generated cash flow, which is why what's
nice about this metrip we created is that we don't
need explicitly even screen for cash flow because these companies
that persistently invest in R and D automatically are profitable

(17:27):
and general cash flow and they invest in themselves. So
which is why today you're seeing the AI race is
all the hyperscalers that are investing capacs by the hundreds
of billions themselves. They're not boring, right, So what.

Speaker 1 (17:40):
You're describing is effectively a flywheel, right, this is the
R and D flywheel that that's what makes me.

Speaker 2 (17:46):
Let's say we decided to go into Europe. Europe had
an ice run for six months like two years ago.
Is that flywheel going to start there and keep getting rewarded?
In other words, are the European companies going to spend
it as well, our work as hard as in the US,
where that R and D is rewarded with these intangible
brands and you know, huge, great products that we have.

Speaker 3 (18:07):
Yeah, I think that's probably a challenge. I mean, France,
I think just announced one hundred billion euro projects try
to replicate or to to emulate America Stargate AI project.
I think their challenge there is I think again, all
these factors that are not pointing in the right direction, right,
so they don't have a you know, sort of unified
single market. The language is not English. It's hard for
them to draw talent. They have a lot of you know,

(18:29):
so well trained French engineers from their cause, but you know,
sort of it's hard for them to I think, get
your scale. You talk about the work culture, they don't
have as much. I think the text code probably makes it,
you know, such the people are not as incentivized to
work those long hours, sleep on the factory floors and
so on. I mean I'm generalizing here. I mean they
are really genuinely creative, ingenious, hardworking people in Europe. Like

(18:52):
there's the Mistraw model, AI model that's really I think
the state of the art. But I think, what if
you're sort of, so to speak, generalizing there is think
those factors that work against them?

Speaker 1 (19:02):
Okay, So I used to take meetings a number of
years ago with Huawei. Do you know what Huawei? The
stat that they would point to persist in R and D. Yeah,
and it was a big number, and they would like
show it how much bigger they spent, how much more
money they spent on R and D than American companies.
So let's bring China into this. China spins a ton

(19:24):
on R and D. What is that? How does that
challenge your assumptions.

Speaker 3 (19:28):
In so so you got cleary. You know, so this
episode is a cuptain in America, right, and the last
time years, America is far and away the biggest, most
successful you know, spender and creative innovation.

Speaker 1 (19:41):
By the way, see you're Captain America. That's that was
That was the joke.

Speaker 2 (19:45):
Yeah, that was the nickname you got.

Speaker 3 (19:48):
That's funny, even though I'm not.

Speaker 2 (19:52):
I know it adds to the humans run with it.

Speaker 3 (19:54):
So so so if you look in the paper and
Fogus figure travel, like I was sort of doing a
tabulation of like what percentage of the companies you know,
in various national stock markets that are persistent R and
D spenders and what market share they take up in
the overall stock market. America is you know, obviously number one,
right in terms of both accounts, but number two is China.

Speaker 1 (20:15):
Right.

Speaker 3 (20:15):
They started a decade negligibly low, right close to zero
asserted they started the millennium right in the early two
thousand when China was much so further behind in terms
of economy development. But they caught up in a very
spectacular fashion. So if you look at the chart of
you know, sort of that pay figure twelve, that that
ascend and rise in R and D expenditures and the

(20:38):
degree of persistence, you know, almost catching up with America,
you know, a sector bisector.

Speaker 1 (20:44):
Right when we started talking about this, there was this
great email exchange that led into an eventful weekend. I
just want to like look back on that for a second.
The email that you sent was a couple of weeks ago,

(21:06):
January twenty fourth, and you said there should be a
fun one with all the hysteria about Chinese AI kneecapping
American AI. And then on Monday that was Deep Seek Monday,
when everybody woke up and was like, what is Deep Seek?
So you sent that email and I was like, you know,
it's great to have that time set stamp because now
we're going to go back and revisit it. How does

(21:27):
your thesis hold up from before the Deep Seek Monday
to the after Deep Seek week.

Speaker 3 (21:35):
So within the context of what we are talking about today,
you know, innovation systematic, you know, innovation factor. I think
it is actually ties in perfectly and we'll see later
why this entire phenomenon actually ties in very naturally to
what we were talking about, the American culture. American culture
of innovation. And two the ex time we have this
great geopolitical rivalry between US and China. What people don't,

(21:56):
I think often appreciate, fully appreciated in America, is that
China is really copies itself in America's mirror image. Right. China,
my generation represents a generation where we grew up looking
up to America when we when we first grew up,
we used to say thing of the world as the West, right,
the outside world, that the abroad, and then we realized

(22:17):
not all Western countries are born equal.

Speaker 1 (22:19):
Right.

Speaker 3 (22:20):
There is Europe, which is the Old World, and then
there's America, in particular the Silicon Valley. And gradually we
have had millions of Chinese students coming over the study
in America. They acquired that American sort of can do spirit,
the entrepreneurship, the ability to reinvent the wheel and not
be afraid, not be laughed in your face. And that's

(22:40):
why shan Zen is China's Silicon Valley. And that's why
you as increasingly seeing sort of Chinese Chinese innovation success,
which we will talk about how China sort of succeeded
sort of by copying America, not just you know, in
terms of literally the blueprints, but also more importantly in
a cultural sense. And that's the reason why I think

(23:01):
China has Actually it's one of those things where you
you know, you can't really catch up overnight, right, you
have to sort of practice and practice and practice, just
with any sport, right for you to hashman to get
get to get onto the game, actually shoot with a
high degree of percentage, you know. So I think that's
what we are looking at. So America still has a
tremendous lead, but China presents a formidable challenge.

Speaker 1 (23:24):
So let's bring it back to AI specifically. US has
obviously been at the lead of this. The deep seek
moment sort of suddenly suggests maybe there's different ways to
go about making better AI models. How does that sit
with your research?

Speaker 3 (23:39):
So to the extent, you know, so my research is
well identifying you know, innovative companies, you know, and we
indeed actually sort of find the same cuss out of
companies that are succeeding here in America through our index
and people can look at the membership. And we have
also using applied the same methodology to China identified you know,
sort of similarly creative and you know it come in

(24:00):
China that are doing well. That with respect to Deep Seak,
I think it's actually a very good illustration that, you know,
innovation is one of those things where you're sort of
paddling upstream, right, you are always sort of persevering and
so that so you can make progress and you otherwise
you'd be caught up. The Deep Sick moment is really
nothing special other than the fact that we are continuing,
continuing along the scaling law. Right, you know, sort of

(24:21):
costs of compute has always gotten cheaper. When you guys
were first entering, you know, the workforce and computers were
much slower, right today computers are tiny and on the
phone on the phone much faster. And then there's nothing
special about it other than the fact that you have
happened to have come from China and further innovation will
take place in America. What Deep Sick actually has actually
done was not even necessarily novel in the sense of

(24:44):
the invented brand new techniques. Those techniques have actually been
already published by Google right a year and a half ago.
Google didn't manage to actually make it sort of commercially
work as well as Deep Sick did, but generally the
idea is that one thing we've learned. Hardware advantage is
one thing, but you know, human capital is still ultimately

(25:04):
the most valuable.

Speaker 2 (25:07):
At the beginning, I mentioned that the US stock market
is fifty five percent of the global market cap. Do
you see that, you know, growing to sixty seventy. I mean,
given how small we make up four percent of the population,
that is a big disparity. Obviously, where do you see
that number going. Do you see the money consistently rewarding

(25:27):
the US like the flywheel, or do you think that
the valuations will just get too wide and you just
have to go to Europe for like, just because it's cheap.

Speaker 3 (25:36):
Well, I think I think of it in the two
waysn't fundamentally, I don't think it's an accident. Right, stock
market is not magic? Right America? I think, even though
has such a tiny population, is one of the world's
unique immigration country. Right is the immigration system is a
funnel the hye B system, which was much talked about
a few weeks ago. Essentially it's a funnel to funnel
for the world's I think, sort of finest talents. Right, So,

(26:00):
even though you know the population is very big, you
manage to attract the world's brightest, most best educated population
that's been excited by other countries' expense. Right, so, whilst
that doesn't change, I see in America having a structural advantage.
Now where that change, we don't know. Right there are
seemed to be some political winds shifting and with respect

(26:20):
to whether or not so we can have a stock
market bubble crash, and that's always possible. But this is
what happens afterwards when America continue to have that structural
advantage with respected the rest of the world. That remains
to be seen over the next few years.

Speaker 1 (26:33):
Steve Hown, this has been fascinating. Thanks so much for
joining us on Trillions.

Speaker 3 (26:37):
Thank you very much for having.

Speaker 1 (26:43):
Thanks for listening to Trillions. Until next time. You can
find us on the Bloomberg Terminal, Bloomberg dot com, Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
or wherever else you'd like to listen. We'd love to
hear from you. We're on Twitter, I'm at Joel Weber Show,
He's at Eric Baltuno's. This episode of Trillions was produced
by Magnus Hendrickson. Bye
Advertise With Us

Popular Podcasts

Crime Junkie

Crime Junkie

Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.

24/7 News: The Latest

24/7 News: The Latest

The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.

Stuff You Should Know

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.

Music, radio and podcasts, all free. Listen online or download the iHeart App.

Connect

© 2025 iHeartMedia, Inc.