Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News. This is Bloomberg business Week, Daily reporting from the magazine that helps global leaders stay ahead with insight on the people, companies, and trends shaping today's complex economy. Plus global business finance and tech news as it happens. The Bloomberg Business Week Daily Podcast with Carol Masser and Tim Stenebek on Bloomberg Radio.
Well, let's bring in Paul Krugman, Nobel Laureate in Economics, Research professor at the City University of New York's Graduate Center, author of a popular substack. More than a half million subscribers. People are following him. His writings are a must, he joins us remotely, Professor, good to have you with us. You argue, or ask the question, rather, is this crypto's fimble winter? Do you think it is?
Yeah? Uh, yeah, so I got a you know, we have talked about crypto winters a few times in the past, and I got carried away with the winter metaphor, and in Norse mythology, the fimble winter is the final disastrous winter before Ragnarok, the.
End of all things.
You know, Crypto, it's a it's a really weird space, right, the if you ask, how is bitcoin value compared to fundamentals? Well, what fundamentals? It's kind of all vibes, uh, And it has bounced back several times from big declines because people had faith in it and because it was you know, there was there was a lot of ideology behind it.
But this is this time looks different.
This time. A lot of the recent rise has been driven by Strategy Inc. And other you know, crypto hoarders. A lot of it has been political associated with Donald Trump. Everyone is comparing the price now to what happened when when he won the election, and those things are harder. You know, the kind of sentimental or almost mystical attachment that people have had to bitcoin itself probably doesn't apply
to shares in Strategy probably doesn't. And the kind of libertarian ideology that supported bitcoin doesn't really apply now that it's largely a political creation, and it's sort of it's in some ways tied to what you think Trump's for future prospects are.
So this is different, you know.
I think about this a lot, Professor Krugman, and I think about supply demand, certainly when it comes to trades in assets. I'm not quite sure what you call cryptocurrencies. I think we still struggle with what it really is. Having said that, if President Trump wasn't in the White House, what's your view on whether or not crypto would be you know here around sixty four thousand dollars, would it be a very different trade? Potentially?
Well, it might be.
I don't think it would have gotten up to one hundred and twenty five thousand or you know thereabouts without his election. It's possible that the day of reckoning might have waited longer. I mean, there was a in some way is the very prominence of crypto, the huge attention given to it, the all of the hype about, uh, this is a crypto friendly White House has in some ways, you know, led to a big run up, but also focused people's minds. And I think there's a lot more
so what is this actually for anyway? And there's also you know, the sell America trade, the the basement trade, which, among other things, first of all, should have benefited bitcoin if it was the kind of refuge asset that people had sold it as. But also the fact that a lot of people sold bitcoin as being the next gold. And it turns out that in the face of doubts about stability, doubts about politics. The next goal turns out
to be gold, not bitcoin. I think it's a big wake up for people that, you know, maybe this isn't actually going to be an enduring asset, so I you know, no, it's again, it's really really hard. If you ask what when people make for price forecasts for bitcoin, always wonder on what basis. Yeah, it's not like you could do a price earnings rasue on this thing, because there's no earnings, no services. It's all just pure faith. But it does feel like we're seeing a real crisis of faith right now.
What would stop this administration, in your view, from stopping from coming in and bailing out the industry. I mean, the industry spent a lot in twenty twenty four to get pro crypto politicians elected. It was successful in many different cases, particularly in the Senate race in Ohio and seating Shared Brown. Some Republicans want Scott best At, the Treasury Secretary, to buy bitcoin by selling some of the
US's gold reserves. When asked whether the US Treasury has the ability to bail out bitcoin, the Treasury Secretary said this week he doesn't have the authority to buy bitcoin with tax dollars. Could the president do that?
Well?
Yeah, I mean in general, you know, Scott bestn't. His word is not good as goal, let's say, on these things. And they could, but I would say, look at the parallel. The US spend a really fairly limited sum in bailing out Malay in Argentina, Relatively, you know, it's a tiny sum compared with what it would take to bail out bitcoin,
and there was a firestorm of outrage over it. Not enough to stop them from doing it, but enough to really get pause if they tried to step in and bail out this industry, especially given all the stories about crypto as a channel of corruption, all the stories about the Trump family being enriched through crypto, all of the buying of politicians, the pardons of crypto crypto criminals, I
think the political backlash would be huge. Now, maybe they've spent enough, maybe the crypto industry has spent enough money to overrule all of that, but I think it's highly questionable.
You know, one thing I think about, Professor Kruman is transparency to investors. It's something we talk about with everything. It's one of the things we're going through with private credit, right It's why although the US market financial markets may not perfect, it is why it's in many ways the
gold standard for global investors. Having said that, on that transparency issue, does it make sense as we look at what's going on in crypto that we really have a full understanding of the White House's exposure the President and his family to cryptocurrencies, to understand what's at stake for them personally, politically, financially, especially as policies unwined, and to understand maybe how that might be from a supplied demand metric and all that that entails supporting this market at
least up until late.
Yeah, I mean that we can people are just making guesses at how much the Trump family is exposed and other government officials. By the way, let's not forget that the Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnik, you know, his firm was very close to Tether, which is very much in the in the crypto business and particularly seems to be used
for a lot of unsavory aspects of that business. But it's certainly a significant exposure, and there's a kind of shadow exposure in the sense that the crypto industry has been throwing a lot of money, not just at campaign contributions, but at the presidential family directly so, and a crypto another Crypto winter would would would be financially harmful to the first family. But again that's all sort of taken as a given that there's a stake there. I don't
even know if it's a lack of transparency. We all know that there's a large personal financial stake in how Crypto does. The question is can they really get away with it. I mean, there's lots of things have been gotten away with, but this is the kind of thing that really does get voters enraged. This is the kind of thing that leads to a lot of yelling at
at Republican members of Congress and town halls. So I'm not sure that this is something that they're going to be able to do pticularly because this is big, right, Crypto was still even with the recent foll it's still two and a half trillion dollar asset class. It takes a lot of money to build that out.
We should put out on Howard Lutnik, his sons Brandon and Kyle, now serves chief executive and executive vice chairman of, respectively, of Canter Fitzgerald and that Howard Lutnik did divest to comply with ethics agreement he signed when he joined at President Trump's cabinet. So we just wanted to kind of put that out there.
Yeah, that's right. I mean he's not personally, but you know, yeah, if my relatives were very involved in the business, people would kind of would not say that I had fully disconnected myself from it.
Hey, professor, before we let you go, the promise of bitcoin was this decentralized currency that would flow easily across borders, allow people to exchange value, and it would be you know, not tied to a single government entity. In your view, does bitcoin have any value?
No?
Or let let me give a slight qualification the places where bitcoin has actually been useful to people. I mean it's it's it's VARs. They used for essentially criminal enterprise of some kind, but not all crimes are the same. And I will say that if you're trying to smuggle money out of Iran or something like that, then bitcoin is a way around capital controls. But it's also a way, you know when it's also a way that criminals who install malware on your computer and then demand the ransom
collect the money. In terms of the original idea that this was actually a superior form of money. It's a total bust, and it's a seventeen year old bust. That's the thing that gets to me. It's this is not an idea of the future. This is not a cutting edge technology. This is something that is only slightly younger than the first iPhone, right, and if it hasn't made any inroads as an actual legitimate means of payment in seventeen years, then clearly it wasn't a great idea to start with.
Stay with us more from Bloomberg Business Week Daily coming up after this.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Business Week Daily Podcast. Catch us live weekday afternoons from two to five e's during Listen on Apple Karplay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app, or watch us live on YouTube.
I want to bring in Urian tim Or, director of Global Macro Fidelity Investments, seventeen and a half trillion in assets under management, six point eight trillion in discretionary assets. He joins us from Boston. Urian, I want to start where we left off with Professor Krugman, and that's all about the effect of cryptocurrency, the decline and bitcoin that we're seeing, and whether or not that has a wider effect. Michael Burry certainly warned of that earlier this week. Are you worried about it?
No, I think it is. There's a few things going on. And by the way, I do disagree with Professor Krugman about the inability to value bitcoin, because you can make that same argument for gold, and even though neither of those assets generate a cash flow, you can value them, right. You can value bitcoin on the size of its network. It is a network asset. And you can value gold on the basis of you know, it being hard money,
so you can compare it to soft money. So if you do a ratio of the gold above ground value to the m to money supply, it goes in a band in a ratio if you will, And you can apply the same logic to bitcoin. So I do think you can value them, and I do that. I compare the value of both gold and bitcoin to the money supply, and they've both run a lot. You know, a few years ago they were half the size of the money supply, but even gold on its own is now thirty five trillion.
The money supply is twenty three trillion. Bitcoin is about one point seven trillion in market value, so they've come a long way and it's not that surprising that they're taking a rest. You know, Bitcoin did form kind of its fifth wave, if you will, two one hundred and twenty six thousand, it was one hundred and five percent keeger over one hundred and forty five weeks at sixty five thousand. I actually think it has some value again,
but they're different players on the same team. They take turns, and that's exactly what we've seen. So but coming back to your question, I don't think bitcoin, it's the client itself, will be a systemic event. You know, the last time it happened, it wasn't. It is getting caught up in the speculative you know, first frenzy and then unfrenzy in in you know, kind of the mean stocks and the
nonprofitable gross stocks, the other speculative names. And of course we have the treasury uh, you know those treasury companies that are that are really hurting right now. So it is part of a bigger picture. But I don't think it's going to lead to a systemic you know, sell off in assets in general.
Okay, cool, and with today's decline down nine percent. Right now, the market cap of all of bitcoin is falling pretty quickly. It's at about one point three trillion as we speak.
So you're in what would you rather own? Bitcoin, gold or stocks?
I actually like them all. I mean, the stock market is the stock market, and that is the best compounder over time. You know, they do generate cash flows and earnings, you can value them. Most of the stocks around the world are not expensive, the S and P is, but that's because of basically seven names that are trading, you know, in the mid thirties. But the equity market is a undisputed compounder over time. I think, in my view it
should always be the anchor asset in any portfolio. And then beyond that, you know, I see gold and bitcoin and commodities in general, as well as alternatives as basically diversifiers, assets that generally are uncorrelated to both equities and bonds, and certainly gold fits that bill even more so than bitcoin.
So I think they all have a place, And especially in a world of fiscal dominance, where maybe debt gets debased over time, we get maybe a closer cooperation with between the Fed under presumably soon to be Kevin Walsh and the Treasury under Scott bessened if there's going to be greater coordination in terms of managing the debt load. I can see the argument for harder assets, and I think gold and bitcoin again, I see them as different
players on the same team. But again I don't think either one of them compares to equities over the long term.
Just got thirty seconds forgive, and you've got to come back soon. But the AI trade, it does feel like we're having a little bit of a reckoning, certainly when it comes to software. Thirty seconds on your view there.
Well, so AI of course is perhaps the greatest technological innovation we've seen in a long time. And I think you know because that market has ramped up so high that whenever anything goes wrong, you can see you can see the rationale for everyone sort of exiting first and asking questions later. But we've seen this before, We saw this even last November. We've seen it before.
That you're listening to the Bloomberg Business Week Daily podcast. Catch us live weekday afternoons from two to five Eastern Listen on Apple, Karplay and Android Otto with the Bloomberg Business app, or watch us live on YouTube.
Well, cindyd does. Ken Griffin made some comments at a Wall Street Journal event this week. They're getting a lot of traction. He said, the Trump administration's tendency to reward loyalists doesn't play well with business executives. He also criticized the president's willingness to enrich his family while in office. Here's what he said. He said, President Trump has made quote missteps in making decisions that benefit his family while
in office. It raises the question of whether the public is being served, he said at the Journal event.
Yeah, he did so. This brings us to Tim O'Brien and his latest colum from Bloomberg opinion, how the President's UAE deal is a security risk. Tim joins us now here in our Bloomberg Interactive Brokers studio. Tim, It's interesting, I feel like since the Journal did this dive into this deal, or what seems to be a transactional deal could appear that way in a presidency that many agreed, there are so many transactions that go on. It is
a transactional White House. Why are we talking so much or why should we about this particular deal.
Well, the context of it is that during during the Biden administration, the export of high end computer processing chips were banned to the UAE, and they were banned because the ua is a transit port for the same chips to China, and the US isn't a foot race for
on the technological side on aie these chips. AI that these chips due will and then obviously militarily they have all sorts of military applications, and the Biden administration and a number of national security experts didn't feel it was a safe transit point.
Cause for concern in terms of US national security, yeah, and.
Our economic competitiveness both, right, both, you know, I mean one of our edges in the world is technological innovation and it's represented by chips. And I think that's an entirely non ideological, non partisan viewpoint. It's about American security and American economic growth. Within two months of Donald Trump getting inaugurated, those bands were being renegotiated and various things, and then by May an agreement was in place, and by last November it was finalized and the UAA now.
Gets those chips.
And there had been various, you know, reasons positive for this change in that position. The amoradis promised about a one point four trillion dollar investment in the United States over ten years. I believe that was given as one reason. A little further along, Bloomberg News reported that the Amoradis took a stake in World Liberty Financial, the crypto platform of the Trump's control.
And then The New.
York Times did a big deep dive in the fall last year about the apprehension within Trump's own administration about loosening these controls member of his own White House. The new element of this that then surfaced was this recent Wall Street Journal story in which we learned that actually four days before he was inaugurated, Before Donald Trump was inaugurated, Sheik tach Nun, who is one of the most powerful people in the UAE, is the brother brother of the
country's president. He oversees one of the world's biggest sovereign wealth funds, he controls two AI companies, and he oversees the nation's national security and intelligence apparatus. Made a big investment in the Trump's families company and it was about half a billion dollars, and of that, about one hundred and eighty seven million went to the Trump family, raising the obvious question of was Donald Trump bribed to loosen
Chip exports to the UAE. And I think anyone who you know sort of looks at this dispassionately, see, yes, that's certainly a possibility.
So we should note that the White House, in that Wall Street Journal story said that quote, President Trump only acts in the best interests of the American public. There are no conflicts of interest. The White House spokeswoman added that Witcoff is working to advance President Trump's goals of piece around the world. I bring that up because you know, that's that's what the White House says. Congress though, where can I just comment with us?
Yeah?
So, first off, the Whitcoff family also benefited from Shake Tanune's investment. Steve Whitcoff, who's the ENVOYD of the Middle East. His son is a co founder of World Liberty Financial. Todd blanche Is that at the Attorney General, was on the news shows last weekend. He was asked the same question. He said, what Trump is doing is neither untoward or unprecedented, but actually is untoward. And the volume of these transactions and the frequency of them is certainly unprecedented.
So I want to go to the We're going to jump around your piece a little bit, but you end this piece in a way that I think is important because it's kind of crickets right now coming from Congress. You write that it's absolutely true that Trump has hung a four cell sign on the Oval Office at a scale and frequency that is untoward and unprecedented. It's also true that a Republican controlled Congress and the courts are
unlikely to do a thing about it. You know, there's the four hundred million dollar jet from Qatar that in any other world would be like, you know, outrage from Congress. Perhaps, why are lawmakers so unwilling to push back?
Well, I mean, I think I think this was also true of his first term. And the reality is I think the Republican Party has been recast in President Trump's image, and I think that members of his party are disinclined to take him on publicly about, you know, abusing the privileges and powers of an office that's always, by design, by constitutional design, had a meaningful amount of latitude compared to all of the other federal offices. So I think
that's one factor. The other factor is that the federal agencies that would look into things like this are also beholden to trup President Trump, whether it's the Justice Department or the FBI, or the Securities and Exchange Commission, State Department, et cetera, et cetera.
You know, it's funny. We talked with Paul Krugman at the top of the hour and our top of the two pm hour, and he talked about he's looking at what's going on with crypto and he says, if we're going to have a crypto crash, best to get it over with now before the industry becomes too big or too politically powerful to fail. It's just this interconnectedness, if you will, with so many things it feels like with what appears to be in terms of the White House,
family moves and so on. That's what I'm blown away by, Tim. And maybe this sounds so naive that there are absolutely it feels like no checks and balances. And I would say the same thing if this was a democratic white House. So is our system broken or like what? I don't know. I'm thinking about what do we do on the other side of this, because I'm just wondering, could there be then whoever next comes into the White House, whatever party they might be, that are now emboldened to see the power.
The self deal.
Yeah.
Well, you know, the framers of the Constitution worried about this. You know, they were realists. And there are two so called emolument's clauses in the Constitution that forbid the president from essentially a monument. A monument is a is an eighteenth century word for bribe that basically prevents the president from accepting gifts or monies or titles in order to
make sure that the policy making process is pristine. At the same time, the conflict of interest law rules that have come into the federal government since Watergate don't apply to the presidency, and for reasons, right, for good reasons, because the president touches so many things from a policy level and a diplomatic level that once you begin circumscribing what they can touch, you actually diminish the powers of that office to act effectively.
So there's a good reason for that.
What that then means is you have to have someone occupying the office who is morally grounded, who is observant of the law, who is self regulated, who has a respect for the majesty and powers of that office, regardless of what power they powerty they come from.
We're in a midterm year right now. Could this change if Democrats take control of Congress?
What will change probably if the Democrats take control of Congress is the frequency of investigations and hearings around this. Does that mean it will change the behavior? I don't know, and you know, and I think a lot of American voters grew sick of some of the infighting and began tuning it out in the first Trump term. I don't think that means it shouldn't be examined, to be examined. Whether or not examinations alone are enough to put an end to it. I'm skeptical of that.
Yeah, I mean I do think about where this goes from here and what do we learn? I mean, are we learning also that our system there needs to be if we can't count on somebody doing the right thing, And I think about what we teach our kids and accountability. I feel like we've talked about this with you before. If we can count on an individual to do the right thing, then what then?
Congress needs a pass legislation forbidding the kind of activities that Donald Trump is engaged in an office, like entering into business transactions, even if it's once removed with your children while in the White House. This is not a complex thing to forbid, right what about the Supreme Court, Well, the Supreme Court to take action here too, But I think what the Supreme Court would say is it's up to Congress first. I think philosophically that's where they're disposed.
And I think the Biden administration had an open door to close off some of these loopholes when Joe Biden was president, and they just didn't prioritize it, and it was a huge missed opportunity.
I want to go back to the national security issue because it's interesting. I feel like in the first White House Donald Trump did some things, especially when it came to China, that President Biden continued, like the pushback, and I think we actually had some agreement on both sides of the aisle about China and its role in the world and the US's role in the world, and how the two were really competing against our are competing for
similar dominancy or dominant positions. Having said that, how would you describe our national security right now? Well, you know, US as some of these deals.
I mean, we remain the most powerful military force on the planet and that's a huge advantage. But the reality is we can be compromised in the shadows, and if the president and the President's delegates and the president's advisors aren't hewing to ethical lines themselves, and we make policy changes like admitted allowing export controls on chips to be lifted, that is flat out not in our interests.
Stay with us more from Bloomberg Business Week Daily coming up after this.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Business Week Daily Podcast. Catch us live weekday afternoons from two to five East during Listen on Apple Karplay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app, or watch us live on YouTube Amazon.
You continue to see this stock, it's off its lows. It was down as much as eleven percent here in the aftermarket. Now Tim just down about seven percent.
I want to bring in James Chalkmark, partner and chief investment officer at Clockwise Capital. Have got about seventy million in assets under management. Also, they've got the Clockwise US Core Equity ETF. Ticker is Time and Amazon is the third biggest holding in the fund, more than five percent of the fund. James, with shares down seven and a half percent, are you buying more tomorrow.
I don't think we'll be increasing our positions, on increasing the size of any of our positions at this juncture, with the exception of the semiconductor space.
You know, we see that the capex.
Numbers continue to come in ahead of expectations across all the hyperscalers, and we think you just have to follow the money in this market. And you know, we're equal weight roughly with the index with respect to Amazon. See no urgency in the grossing of Amazon or any other of the megacap names.
Are you concerned about the two hundred billion dollars that Amazon will spend this year?
Obviously it's a concern for them and for everybody else.
I mean, we're living in a world now, in a market now where you know, earnings, free cash flow, return on spend, all those things are important again. You know, just a couple of quarters ago, you couldn't spend enough and be rewarded for it. And now you know, there's the market's kind of getting religion again as it relates to the financial performance and the financial expectations and projections
for these companies. And you know it was bound to become relevant again at some point and you know, it really started last quarter with broad cop in the month of December, and now you're seeing it perclaid across all the companies reporting in January February.
I want to ask you about what the details are that matter, and I'm looking at some other highlights from
the press release from the last earnings they announced. This is Some of the highlights since the company's last earnings announcement include that Amazon announced new AWS agreements with open Ai, Visa, the NBA, black Rock, Perplexity, Lift, United Airlines, DoorDash, Salesforce, US air Force, Adobe, Thompson, Reuters, AT and T, S and P Global, National Bank of Canada, London, Stock Exchange, Group,
Choice Hotels, Accenture, Indeed, HSBC, CrowdStrike, and more. The reason I went through the list is because I feel like, you know, we have this question. Is it just about the hyperscale are spending and building out? But what we're increasingly seeing, right is more businesses tap into this. Can we make the assumption at this point, James, that these are businesses that are going to continue to have to spend with an Amazon, or for that matter, with an Alphabet.
Absolutely, I think you have to make that assumption I mean, the world is only going in one direction. Productivity is only going to get grow, and you need to leverage the infrastructure that these companies have built in order to
achieve those goals and capitalize on those opportunities. That being said, you know, the money and the profits do matter, and we're going through a transition period right now where kind of growth assumptions are being revisited, valuations assumptions are being revisited. You look at all the companies that are reported thus far, and a lot of them are traded down.
I think Meta being kind of the main exception.
Estimates have gone up for the most part, however, I mean Palleteers actually the poster shop of this. Estimates came up materially. However, the stock has since fallen back a lot. And what that means is when estimates go up and the stock goes down, that means there's valuation compression. And you're seeing the market right now north or three time sales valuations are at or near all time highs, and you know they have to come in and that's why you got to stay nimble, you got to stay hedged.
And I don't think any of these companies are going to be immune with the exception of semiconductor companies, which are probably the only area of the market where you can likely see our performance relative to expectations by the biggest margin on earnings versus other text companies and other sectors.
So when you know when metaplt forms, was it he was met at earlier? This?
No, it is Alphabet.
I'm losing losing track here, James, Thank.
You, Carrol C.
Matt Miller not the only one who forgets.
What dat it is when Alphabet. You know, when when other companies report higher than expecting cap ax, like Alphabet yesterday, you see at least the knee jerk reaction you could see like a Broadcom moving higher for example, who's the beneficiary of this two hundred billion dollars?
I mean, it's all the companies that you you'd consider, you know, within the AI ecosystem from Envideon down. But really what we're focused on in terms of our holdings is.
Where the scarcity is.
You know, we think there's scarce city in two aspects of the semiconductor industry, and that's memory and and manufacturing. You know, that's why we actually took up our Intel position today. You know, Micron continues to be one of our top holdings, and.
You know, we follow.
We think that the other areas of the semiconductor landscape will increasingly become commoditized over time, and that includes Nvidia, A, D and others. So we're focused on the areas of scarcity and we think those will continue to approve a disproportionate amount of the benefits. But as far as where this capex spend goes, you know, I think it will
be a rising times lifts all both situations. But who has the pricing power of that and the most material upside testaments that's where we are focuses.
We should point out shares of Nvidia in the aftermarket are just up about one quarter of one percent. I'm going to look at something like a micron and that stock. Let me just pull it up here to see if there's any movement. It's actually down about one point three percent.
Hey.
One of the things I want to just ask you about. It's in the press release Amazon writing that it introduced AWSAI factories to transform customers existing data centers into higher performance AI environments, which accelerates AI buildouts by months or years compare to building independently. So it sounds like they've got a little service, like you've got a data center, we can help get you up to speed. Is that kind of what that's about.
Well, I'm hearing it real time from you right now, so I need to look into it. But you know, services are a big part of the AWS offering and Amazon offering, and that's because it's all about how do I increase utilization of my platform? And you know, if you can educate, train and build awareness of the capabilities and the trajectory of offerings, that will only increase utilization and stickiness and customer attention over time. So not surprised
that they're doing something like that. Specifics of it, I need to.
Look you know.
That's okay. I'm getting up to speed too. I just looked at a press release. This is back in December, and they talked about by combining the latest a WS Trainium accelerators and Nvidia GPUs and so on and so FORAR They're talk about how they can accelerate these factories. I'm just curious about aws's own chips and accelerators. That's that's an important business to them.
I think it increasingly will become an important business to them. Google as well. I think there's a lot of opportunity there. It's very early days. Obviously there's a balancing ad with Nvidia and other players, so not stepping on toes, but I think it will. That's an area of optionality for the business that is right now not getting an incredible.
Hey, Jame's just an overall sentiment. You say you're not adding to any positions except semiconductors right now. I'm just wondering how you're looking at an overall sentiment in an environment where we're seeing, you know, a decline of more than one percent and tech stocks on the day today we're seeing decline of seven and a half percent on Amazon right now, Bitcoins down fifty percent from its October highs It's it's down today eighty nine thousand dollars. What
sentiment look like? Is bitcoin of leading indicator to you?
Yeah, Well, I'll take the first part first.
The as far as where we're adding, that was with respect to technology stocks. You know, within technology we're exclusively adding, but add we are adding other areas. You know, aerospace defense continues to be an area that we're.
Increasing our weight.
We're increasing our sizing of utilities and staples you know, we think that you know, any money we can pull out of stocks that have run and the non scarce components of technology, we will we're putting into value, with the exception of seven conductors. As far as bitcoin is concerned, you know, we think that this is all about leverage in the system. You know, Bitcoin crypto has more leverage than pretty much arguably any other part of the market
right now. So you're seeing disproportionate hits from that unwinding, and as that leverage on winds, you're seeing it trickle down into and proliferate into the other aspects of the market. And and we're not really un sure, you know, how much leverage there is ultimately, how much more is left to unwind. So I've seen some headlines that suggest that, you know, is this, uh, does this negate the whole
debasement argument, the digital gold argument for bitcoin. I would venture to say the answer to that is still no. But at the same time, there's a lot of leverage in the system and that's unwinding and that's gonna, I think, exacerbate pressures in the market over the short term.
This is the Bloomberg Business Weekdaily podcast, available on Apple Spotify, and anywhere else you get your podcasts. Listen live weekday afternoons from two to five pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com, the iHeartRadio app, tune In, and the Bloomberg Business app. You can also watch us live every weekday on YouTube and always on the Bloomberg terminal