Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio news. This is Bloomberg Business Wait inside from the reporters and editors who bring you America's most trusted business magazine, plus global business finance and tech news. The Bloomberg Business Week podcast with Carol Messer and Tim Stenebeck from Bloomberg Radio.
Well, Yes, earnings this week are about several members of the Magnificent seven group. We're talking about Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet and Meta Platforms, all laying out their businesses and outlooks. In all, nearly forty two percent of the S and P five hundred's market cap reporting results. It will also be a reveal of how well and Video is doing and whether the AI trade and enthusiasm is for real or perhaps Tim getting ahead of itself.
Well, with more on how in Vidia has so much riding on this week's earnings, Let's get to Bloomberg News Equities reporter Crimen Rynikey. She joins us here in our Bloomberg BusinessWeek Studios mentioned earlier. In Vidia doesn't report until next month, but how do the results that we get this week? Carmen give us an idea of how the company is doing in its own sales.
Yeah, so basically, the four companies that you just mentioned that are reporting this week counted for forty percent of n Video's sales in the second quarter. So what they are going to report in terms of capital expenditures is going to have huge read through for what we're going to see for Nvidia in the coming quarters. These companies are also expected to combine or to report a combined fifty six billion in capital expenditure.
It's crazy, right, Yeah, this is a record.
It's so much money, and really this is all going to AI spend, or mostly going to AI spend, which is in turn mostly going to Nvidia chips because it's really just by and far still the winner in that space.
I do wonder with the buy and spend when it comes to Nvidia's.
Chips, is there a cycle that we need to be smart about saying, Okay, so maybe there's going to be a lot of spending in a couple of quarters, and then maybe there's a bit of a pullback as they continue to build out and they go back and buy more. Like we keep hearing about, you know, shortage of supplies like that feels like that's been such a big part
of the narrative around Nvidia's chips. But help me understand so that we when we get these results, you know, can be smart about whether or not it really is bad for Nvidia.
Yeah, I mean, I think that's a great question. One thing that people are looking at is if there is going to be a slowdown, is people sort of turn over have to move to the next chip. That's why we're so focused on anything that we can hear from Nvidia or from clients about Blackwell. So far, the company has said that everything is fine, it's on track to
a ramp in the second half of next year. But you're right, if these companies aren't spend aren't needing to spend as much, if they're able to sort of keep the chips that they have, that could mean, you know, the sort of incredible revenue growth that we've seen from
Nvidia could come in. Ultimately, it's going to come in just because them, like the comps quarter over quarter over quarter are going to get more difficult, right, But obviously investors will just want to know that the still growth going forward.
Maybe one of the reasons, Carol, we saw Jensen Wong last week out in India making those big moves when it comes to tying up with Reliance Industries, Tata and the like. Yeah, kind of.
Really laying out the footprint, right to make sure that kind of the dominance I guess continues right going forward.
Yeah, exactly, and making sure that they're not you know, so reliant just on like Taiwan Semi or you know, just that part of the world.
Okay, so oh go ahead, girl.
Well among those.
Max seven, is there one in particular that you think investors should be focusing on or is it equally kind of laid out?
You know, the thing is that the stories are so different across all four of them that I do think that it's important for investors to be looking at each and every one. I mean just even the stock moves are so different. I'm looking at you know, Microsoft and Meta for later in this week, and you know, Microsoft shares of trailed the.
S and P.
But Meta is one of the best performers. So those companies are reporting on the same day. You have to look at both. You know, these are all such important companies, as you were saying, I mean a huge part.
Of the S ANDP.
Does it get to the point at some point soon, Carmen, where you know, we don't necessarily need to see these companies continue to spend because they have whatever chips they need. I know that's not great for Invidia, but is there a law of diminishing returns with this type of technology or is the idea that in video is going to come out with something after the Blackwell that these companies will then need to spend tens of billions of dollars on also.
I mean, I think that's like the million or billion or chillion dollar question, and is if Nvidia can continue to innovate and spin it forward. And I think that's really what they're trying to do. That's what we're seeing with Blackwell. I'm sure that there are plans even beyond that to just you know, continue to build compute, to continue to build speed and all of these things. But yeah, that's why people are watching the capex on these companies so so closely, right as it matters.
And then videos had the first mover advantage that's stocked, by the way, about one hundred and eighty five percent so far here four yep, just a shabby almost two hundred percent. All right, Carmen, thank you so much. Bloomberg News Equities reporter Carmen Reinicky joining us here in our Bloomberg studio. That's one focus for investors this week, Tim, we got to get to the other one.
Yeah, that's certainly US elections. Eight days until election day, both candidates hitting the campaign trail over the weekend, tapping big venues, in big celebrities, and making their final pitches to voters.
For the past nine years, we have been fighting against the most sinister and corrupt forces on earth.
With your vote in this election, you.
Could show them once and for all that this nation does not belong to them.
And I'm going to tell you as I travel around our country, there is an overwhelming call for a fresh start, for a new generation of leadership that is optimistic and excited about what we can do together.
All right.
Of course, Donald Trump and Kamala Harrison the campaign trail, both laying out their vision going forward. Safe to say it's a campaign season that has seen both focusing on those key swing states and also venture shrink to his states that are not and that they pretty much have no chance of winning. For Donald Trump, that included a big rally in New York City yesterday.
All Right. For more, it takes us to a most read story on the Bloomberg Today and why Trump's campaign came to New York back with us as Bloomberg Opinion Senior Executive Editor Tim O'Brien, he's here in our Bloomberg BusinessWeek studio. Tim also the author of Trump Nation, The Art of Being the Donald. Tim, you have a great call him out today about why Trump came back to New York City. I mean, this is a place that he left a few years ago, but it was a
place that also built his fortune. Why did Trump come back here?
I don't think it was strategy, Tim, It makes no sense to come to New York if you're at the tail end of a race in which seven swing states, New York not being one of them is going to determine the outcome. I think he came for personal reasons. You know, he is a New Yorker to his core, and I think he's decamped to Palm Beach, but it'll always be a New Yorker. He wants the city to love him. You know, he got tried in three different trials that ended up with very embarrassing judgments for him.
That sort of seemed like the end of his run here. But he clearly wasn't done with it. And I think he came back to Madison Square Garden in part to show that he was still around to New Yorkers, but probably more importantly New York's and the media capital.
Of the world.
And I think he wanted a lot of eyeballs and he wanted a lot of attention for what he had to say on Sunday. I think what came out of that convenure or out of that rally is something we should really reflect upon. But he did come I think for the media.
Scrutiny, I want to get into what we should be reflecting, But I want to go back to you have come into this studio and talked to us about Donald Trump being a master of media, and he understands right the optics of being at Medicine Square Garden and a huge crowd around him and kind of laying it out there.
And you know, sort of repeating the role call of speakers who were at the RNC in July.
I was there.
It was very similar to the RNC. Hulk Hogan showed up again to shirt off. Trump gave a closing speech that was somnan ambulent and rambling, and I don't know if it did anything for him again tactically or strategically, but it allowed him to sort of indulge his own need to be in the spotlight.
In terms of some of the folks that spoke at yesterday's rally, it does seem like, obviously there were some things that have gotten a lot of media attention, and most or many Americans would be are appalled by what was said in a nation that is, you know, the
result of immigrants. Having said that, what's your understanding of campaigns and how much the Trump team knew who was going to be there, what they were going to say in terms of what they said at the rally, well, I mean, because they seemed to be backing off saying, oh, you know a little bit.
Yeah.
The rally was a fountain of misogyny, racism, xenophobia, a lot of talk about the other. I don't think it's it's partisan or ideological to make that observation. It's just about tolerance and core values. And there were heinous, ugly things said on that stage. Whether or not Trump's political team vetted the speakers who came out, I mean, there were you know, sort of c list comedians and yeah, yeah, yeah, and who who just you know, became sort of like
fraternity bros, screeching racist rants. If they didn't fet them, they should have. If they did, then they shouldn't have let them on the stage. They were on the stage because they're they're articulating part of what Donald Trump's message is, which is that he's threatened by the other. His campaign is threatened by the other. They defind the other broadly, whether it's China, or people of color, or immigrants, or Democrats or women on down the list. And there was a lot of that last night.
Tony Hinchcliffe, the comedian that we're all talking about. His joke that did not get that is getting a lot of attention today, is about comparing Puerto Rico to a pile trash in the ocean. The Trump campaign did something rare, and they actually came out and said that that wasn't part of their view. It's not often that they'll rebuke
people who speak at their rallies to him. What was notable to me, though, and it wasn't even a rebuke, but was notable to me is that that was sort of the only part that they distanced themselves from right.
I mean, there was there was you know, equally horrific stuff said about Kamala Harris and her race and her gender and her nationality. Also, you know, Hingecliff may have been a comedian, but what he said wasn't a joke. It was just it was a racist smear. And I would argue that probably they thought it might be safe to put that in the mouth of a comedian, so there was deniability. Oh can't you just take a joke?
Who we gotten too politically correct that you just can't see something funny about slagging an entire territory.
So fair to say that the Trump campaign accomplished what it set out to do yesterday, or is the fact that we are focused on this and not his sit down with Joe Rogan that aired on Saturday the focus of what we're talking about.
Well, you know, at one point during Trump's comments at the garden, he said, you know, the Republican Party is the party of inclusion, and I really like that while everything being set around him was as divisive as imaginable. So if their goal was actually to embrace this idea that the Republican Party could be a unifying force at a moment where we have great political polarization. They failed utterly.
The other way to interpret that is they actually aren't serious about any of that, and they're willing to indulge racism or extremism in the surface in the service of trump Ism and Trump's on candidate.
There's what Donald Trump said and the other said on stage, but there's also all of the Americans and voting public that were around them that didn't necessarily Boo didn't necessarily walk out. And I guess, like him or not, Donald Trump, I constantly think about half of America who are okay with.
That is a great observation, you know, because it's a little simplistic to simply point the finger Donald Trump. He is an outcome as much as he's a cause of these things. And he represents something that's been in the United States for a very long time. We fought a civil war here with slavery existed here on and on and on, And I think people have to decide what they want to say their authentic values are, whether they're
a Democrat or a Republican. When it comes to I think racism and sexism and this kind of vitriol, no one should embrace it.
You know, that vitriol from Donald Trump directly right, you are the subject of a lawsuit from him, wrote a book on him. If there is a second term in the White House, what's your biggest fear?
Well, I mean, I think Trump has told us what that's going to be.
I think do you agree with those though tim that say, oh, it's just show and he's not going to actually do all that stuff.
Give me for interruption, No, No, that's fine.
I think he deeply wants to do these things. I think he has authoritarian impulses. I think he wants to weaponize the Justice Department against his enemies. He said he's going to do that. I think he wants to silence dissent within the country. He said he wants to do that. I think he wants ideological sniff tests at public schools. He's a book banner. He is going to institutionalize things in this country that most Americans aren't used to being around.
And I think we have to really think about what that means.
Why do you think we've seen such a silence, at least this time around, from corporate America, from large media organizations. A couple in the news right now over the last week, The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times for coming out and saying we're not going to endorse anyone this time around. Why do you think we're seeing that silence right now?
Well, because you know, people become cowed by power. And I think the anticipation in recent weeks is that Trump's polling numbers improved against Harris. If he becomes president again, certainly businesses had reason to wonder whether or not he'll weaponize the powers at his disposal of the federal government against them. The media is concerned about it. Everyone's concerned about it because the presidency's a powerful office, and I
think people are hedging their bets. The issue is do you had your bets at the expense of ethics and decency and democracy and other values, or do you hedge them for just raw self interest and a lack of courage.
If Donald Trump, I always think about this, like if he hadn't come to power, if he hadn't become president, would we still have this division.
And this hate.
Well, so I think the division has always existed. I think Trump just made it more comfortable people to express it more openly. Social media gave it a place to sort of proliferate in a way that prior media environments didn't and for people to sort of live in echo chambers where they're not talking to their neighbors and getting different points of view. And I think we have to
come to terms with it as a country. And if there's a virtue to the rival of Donald Trump, is the stripped this band aid off, these myths we tell ourselves about the countries about and we should take that on in a transparent and full blooded way.
Without asking you to give a prediction, what do the next eight days look like?
A prediction, my friend?
It might be nine or ten or eleven days.
I mean, i'd sound like a broken record.
It appears, based on the polling, to be a very close race. However, I think the polls in the last few cycles have then wildly off in terms of outcome within their margins of error statistically, but not close in terms of ultimate outcomes. And I think I think this race could end up surprising people in terms of what we see next week.
Does the early voting like so much? Early votings say something to you.
Well, I think you know. The positive thing on early voting is the voters are engaging and you want that. And it appears the voters from both parties are engaging, and that's a good thing. People shouldn't sit on their couches when they have.
The ability to vote.
Agreed, Agreed, Thanks for engaging with us, always, always, Bloomberg Opinion Senior Executive Editor Tim O'Brien Brian of course, joining us in studio. You could read Tim's story more from Bloomberg Opinion. You could find it on the Bloomberg or at bloomberg dot com slash Opinion.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Business Week podcast. Catch us live weekday afternoons from two to five pm Eastern Listen on Apple car Play and then brout Otto with a Bloomberg Business act or wants us live on YouTube.
Public health tape Your life Today, but you didn't even know it.
Viruses Pathogen's threatened to bring us to our knees.
We need to tell the story of public health.
I'm really worried that any abundant you can just because we have not yet.
Pretty bad to kind of quality is our root cause of film.
Said, trust level is broken.
If the politicization that's killing public health is like the foundation of your house, and let me tell you ours is crack.
All right.
That, of course is public health, and the story of public health is the subject of a new documentary. It is called The Invisible Shield. It's a four part series that reveals a little known truth. The series, by the way, made possible by Bloomberg Philanthropies and Radical Media and airs on Bloomberg TV tonight through Thursday at six pm Wall Street Time.
We got with us doctor Josh Scharfstein, weistein for Public Health Practice and Community Engagement the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. He's in the series. He's also the author or the author of the Opioid Epidemic What Everyone Needs to Know. Doctor Scharsteina joins us from the American Public Health Conference in Minneapolis, where he and others are holding a screening event a little later today with three thousand public health professionals. Doctor Sharcin, nice to have you
back with us. You joined us regularly during the height of the pandemic, and we certainly appreciated that. We appreciate this. I want you to talk a little bit about The Invisible Shield, because I think that was a really striking clip, because yes, each and every day we're essentially protected from disease and from an early death by public health innovations that have been made over the past few thousand years. How should we be thinking about this in our day to day life.
You know, there's a saying that public health saved your life today, but you didn't even know it. We go about our daily lives, were able to do all the things we want to do, in part because we're not suffering horrible injuries or you know, tainted food poisoning, you know, choking on dirty air or contaminated water. But we sort of take those things in stride now because the public health system has been so successful, But we really can't
take it for granted. And the message of this series is how much work has gone into building up this shield and how fragile it can be, and we need to now really pay attention to it.
You know, I do think about when you talk about public health. I think there are so many things that people just take for granted about what public health has done, doctor Sharfstein. So what are those initiatives? What is it when we talk so much about public health? What are those things that we take for granted, and you know that are so important.
It used to be that most families. If they didn't have a child die in the first couple of years of life, they certainly had a relative who had a child die. It was a very very common occurrence. Children die. The pres of the United States had children die, and it was because of all kinds of preventable diseases, and those are gone, and you know, infant mortality is much much more rare. It's just one window into the kinds
of things that public health has done for us. And what we saw in the pandemic is that people can get very upset at public health and they can wonder why we even have a public health system. But that is a very dangerous way of thinking because of all the things that public health does. You know, I'm sitting in this hotel room here in Minneapolis for this big conference, and you know, I can just go to the top
and get water. You know, I can walk outside without you know, trouble breathing the air, which isn't true in other countries necessarily. And there's so many things that we need public health to keep delivering. And with the nature of the challenges that we have today, the way that viruses can traverse the world so quickly, all the other
problems out there. We need public health to keep us safe, and that's a critically important message, and really appreciating the history makes that message even stronger.
But it also comes at a time, doctor Sharfstein, where trust in these so called institutions isn't necessarily high, or it's deteriorating quite a bit over the last few years. We certainly saw that during the pandemic, and we see that with that the way that's playing out in the election right now, with who different candidates want to appoint to certain positions, and the way that some of them are skeptics of institutions and also of vaccines, for example.
How do you do that at a time where there is this skepticism, where is there is this mistrust of institutions.
Well, that is what we'll be talking about today at the conference. It's something on a lot of people's minds in public health. One of the answers is to essentially go analog, to not just rely on on messages you're posting on the web or press releases you're putting out, but to be meeting people in communities with people that
they already trust. So it's their doctor, it's their faith leader, a local business really making sure that people are hearing messages not just online because online you're competing against just a flood of falsehoods on many of these issues like vaccines, but actually in the real world, people they trust, and the public health community has to really adapt to that reality, both in terms of the humility that we have and the transparency that we offer, but also in the kinds
of partnerships that we can develop so that people really understand they're getting good information from people who care about them. In public health, we care that you get to live the life you want to live, that you're healthy, to see your children grow up, and that you're children and can grow up. And having that message delivered not just by the person who's for the government. That is, you know, people are being told not to believe, but that message
is also being delivered by people in your community. That's I think one of the solutions.
You know, one thing I wanted to ask you, doctor Sharstein, is you know what is your biggest concern when it comes to the US election outcome and what it may mean for public health spending and work or attention and the impact that it could ultimately have on the US public Safe to say, there are many that already feel like the US system or the US government leaves them behind.
So I'm just curious what could happen on this front.
Well, you know, I can tell you, as someone on the advisory committee to the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, that this challenge that we're talking about is very well understood right now, and that there are a lot of changes being put into place to try to address it, to try to build trust through partnerships,
a good information and transparency. I'll be frank I'm little concerned about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Walking around and saying, you know, he's going to be in charge of all the public health agencies. This is someone who is just a bond of conspiracy theories and lies about public health and who I think could do grave damage to not just how people perceive public health, but the actual work of public health and the consequences of that are the
consequences that Frankly, Robert F. Kennedy Junr. Has been involved in causing, which are massive outbreaks of preventable disease. And so I'm worried. I'm worried the outcome of the election and what could happen afterwards.
I'm glad you brought up Robert F. Kennedy junior doctor Sharfstein. What, in your view could he do if he were put in a position of power over health and human services, for example, what could he do? What could he undo? And what could be the consequences of that?
Well, you know, I think that it's good that we have different kinds of checks and balances. There's some really great people, many really great people who work in federal agencies who are obligated under the law to do the
right thing, you know, for the public. But we certainly have heard claims that a new administration should revoke the approval of vaccines, revoke the approval of abortion medications, revoke the approval really without any meaningfully you know, persuasive scientific justification. And so, you know, we all take it for granted that we can send our kids to school and they're not going to get measles there. But if you revoke the approval of a vaccine, then you know that's going
to happen. And when there are enough kids getting measles, kids start to die from measles, and it's like, you know, that's why we have a measles vaccine, so that there's a lot of potential risks. I can't handicap how likely they'd be, but I can tell you that it is very concerning to have someone who has been so hostile and so conversant with falsehoods saying that you know he's going to be bossing people around at agencies that we all rely on to protect our health.
All right, going to leave it on that note, Doctor Scharstein, as always, thank you so much. Feistein for Public Health Practice and Community Engagement at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Also talking to us about the new documentary series The Invisible Shield, made possible by Bloomberg Philanthropies and Radical Media the Bloomberg School of Public Health, by the way, supported by Michael R. Bloomberg, the founder of
Bloomberg LP and Bloomberg Philanthropies. The series airing on Bloomberg TV tonight through Thursday at six pm Wall Street Time. All right, folks, Now, let's get to a region of the world that we are seeing increasingly catch the attention of investors.
And that is India. JP Morgan, CEO Jamie Diamond says there's a substantial opportunity for India as companies look to diversify their supply chains away from China. That's according to an interview with US CNBC TV eighteen. He did caution, though, that the transition will take years as firms navigate the complexities of relocating operations. Increasingly, Carol, we see a growing number of stories about companies expanding their presence in India and investors certainly making that's there.
Yeah, I printed out a bunch of them with a view on the Indian economy. We are delighted to have with us the chairman of the Same Peak of India CSSET, which is the largest public sector bank and the biggest lender in India. He joins us here in studio, chair CETI so nice to have you here on Bloomberg Television and Radio.
You were in DC.
Let's start there for the IMF meetings. What if the meetings gave you optimism for India and the world more broadly, and what did not?
Yeah, thanks for having me on the show. I think the positive news which are mudged and the IMF meetings is that the global inflation is coming down. Say it's a good news, while the growth rate seems to be moderate still in the range of three to three point five percent. The bright spark, obviously is India, which is expected to grow out around seven percent to seven point two percent. Even the IMF places the growth rate out of seven percent, the Central Bank of India believes that
the growth rate could be seven point two percent. I think it's a it's a really interesting story which is unfolding in India, both in terms of growth trajectory which the country is taking on, and the equity market is doing well and the inflation is also moderating there, while the food inflation is still a matter of concern.
There in India. So let's talk about some different sectors of the economy. You heard me mention the comments by Jamie Diamond over at JP Morgan Chase about supply chains transitioning to India on the ground, what can you tell us about that actually happening in India right now?
Yeah, I think there's a most visible success stories of course, Apple twenty five percent of Apple sixteen is produced in India. A couple of things which are very seriously being pursued by the Government of India is a performance linked incentive for various industries. More than sixteen to twenty industries, particularly
in the areas of electronics and you know semiconductors. So these are the sectors which are getting the performance linked incentive from the Government of India, and there's a good amount of foreign capital which is coming into these sectors.
What yeah, and what in particular tell us a little bit about that. I think I'm not kidding when we say the ton of stories. I have a pile stock stories India clipsing China and MSCI Global stock ages to dry flows.
That was back in mid September.
Blackstone sees Asia as growth engine, has scale in India.
Juans and Wong was there last week.
Brookfield to add to its thirteen billion dollar bet on India's projects.
So there's so much going on. You point that out.
We're in particular give us some insight for our Bloomberg audience, who's a global audience, but where the money has picked up dramatically.
So the money is mainly coming in the couple of sectors, particularly in the renewables. I think there's a huge amount of focus with the commitment what India has given under the twenty six that you know by twenty thirty, the addition in the renewbr entergy would be almost five hundred gigabytes. That is attracting a lot of attention. And the largest
sticks is another area the warehousing, roads, sports. These are all the areas which are attracting the global investment, you know, in a big banner.
You know.
I was in India now like ten, ten, twelve years ago and one of the things that I found so dramatic, and it was a trip that I took it like two in the morning with my team.
We were going to Agara to see the taj Mahal.
But what was fascinating is that's when you saw everything moving around, because that's when the roads were less busy and just so much infrastructure moving around. What can you tell us too about the infrastructure build out that many have deemed so necess sorry to take India to the next level.
Absolutely, I think one of the most important requirements for Indian economy to continue to grow is strengthening the infrastructure. And there are two things which are happening. I think there's a significant government expenditure capital expenditure which is focused on the infrastructure building up, and there's a private investment also is coming in in a big manner in terms
of infrastructure. We see a lot of airports being built, seaports being strengthened, and road network of course is one of the best now in India, and we have dedicated freight corridors which are coming in, you know, to enhance the speed of moving ruths from one place to another.
So I think, yeah, I was just going to say we only have a few units left, but I want to move from the macro to the micro and talk a little about your plans over at SBI and where you're thinking about expansion in terms of parts that you're focused on growing, goals for growth over the next six months two years.
So as you know, I think in terms of the reach, we have one of the best reaches. We have the largest network of branches, largest network of ATMs, We have served almost five hundred million customers, and every Indian family in some way you know, is engaged with SBI. We have significantly invested in the technology and digitalization in the last two three years and we would like to leverage that technology and digitalization to reach the underserved unserved across
the country. Still, I think, you know, there are a lot of banking needs which are unmet in India. Which we want to reach them, and this investment in technology and digitalization has helped us to reach the bottom of the pyramid in a much lower cost, which means that you know, the investment in technology helped us to increase
over operational efficiency. My focus in the next six months would be that how do I leverage the investments of what we met in technology to increase the operational efficiency and productivity for employees.
I am curious too that you know, we've noticed too that deposits have been challenging for a lot of really all Indian lenders for the past few quarters. So your strategies that have worked and what else do you plan to do what's really worked in terms of building out deposits.
Yeah. One thing of course is you know, in India, despite so much digitalization, Yeah, the physical presency is very much important in terms of deposit mobilization. And we have the largest physical presence there number two we have.
Does that mean you continue to build out the physical presence we do.
We want to enter into areas where we know we don't have a branch, we would like to set up that physical branch. And we have a very strong mobile application, which is you know, currently you will be surprised that every day we opened fifty to sixty thousand says bank account to d WOW. So we have twenty seven percent market share in Savings Bank, which is the low cost deposits.
So our focus would be, you know how to be strength in this franchise and start mobilizing more and more low cost deposits.
And increasingly just got about fifteen seconds. Are they wealthier deposits too? That you're noticing a lot of wealth.
Creation we're seeing in Indias And we.
Have largest number of clients who qualify to be wealth management customers and we are investing in a wealth management technology to reach out to them.
AI AI too, just correct.
Yeah, of course there's a large scale adoption of THEI. You can't speak about banking without talking about THEI.
You can't speak about anything it assumes without talking about AI.
Cher Seti, thank you so much. We really appreciate it. C Us Seti, Chairman of the State Bank of India, Frances.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Business Week podcast. Listen live each weekday is starting at two pm Eastern on Apple car Play and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business and you can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station Alexa playing Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Republican Vice president for candidate and Ohio Senator Jadie Vance said Donald Trump would keep the US in NATO if re elected, though it's important to note that the Transatlantic Alliance isn't quote, just a welfare client. Van spoke on NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday.
I think it's important, Kristen that we recognize that NATO is not just a welfare client. Donald Trump wants NATO to be strong. He wants US to remain in NATO, but he also wants NATO countries to actually carry their share of the defense.
Bird.
That was Republican Vice presidential candidate and Ohio Senator Jadie Vance on Meet the Press on Sunday. No question. Doctor Angela Stent is watching this closely. She's Senior Fellow at the Brooksings Institution and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. She's a former National intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia at the National Intelligence Council. Earlier, she was
in policy planning at the US Department of State. She's also a professor Emerita of Government and Foreign Service at Georgetown University. She's also the author of Putin's World, Russia Against the West and with the Rest. She joins us from London.
Doctor stan Angela, so great to have you back with us. What do you think depending on the outcome of the US election, if it is Donald Trump for second term, what will be likely the relationship between US and NATO.
Well, President Trump and of course price presidential candidate Jati E. Vance have both been very critical of NATO, but particularly former President Trump, you know, saying that these countries don't carry the full share of the defense burden, as if this is totally a one way relationship and that NATO is some kind of protection racket. You know, our allies
do things for us too. But I do think what will happen is countries will be under pressure to spend more on defense, and not all NATO members even spend the required two percent on defense. Some like Poland spend much more. And I think what Presidents Trump has also said is that maybe the US wouldn't agree to defend countries who don't spend enough on defense. So there'll be a lot of uncertainty. You know, the last time around. Apparently, former President Trump wanted to pull the US out of NATO.
There's now legislation saying that he can't do that. It'll be a much rockier relationship with NATO, But NATO wanted the stands that and the other NATO countries have been taking measures to try and insulate themselves against some big.
Break right, and also NATO certainly watching closely as this war continues to rage on what are we getting to our third winter here between Russia and Ukraine. Having said that, later on the recent news that Russia made a decision to bring North Korean troops to Shorebitz war weary forces, what does that say to you? We constantly talk about interesting geopolitical alliances in today's environment, but that move in particular says what you're the expert here.
Well, first of all, it says that the Russians, you know, they're having a mobilization problem, so are the Ukrainians, but Therussians feel that they need more troops. The Ukrainians did invade the Korsk region of Russia. They've taken some of the territory. Russia has been pushing them back. But apparently what these ten thousand troops if we're to believe the Pentagon will do North Korean troops is actually go to the Korsk region and fight to try and take back
all of this territory from Ukraine. And in fact, the Ukrainian Army is now published given its soldiers a phrase book of Ukrainian North Korean Korean phrases in the hope that maybe some of these North Korean troops will not continue fighting. So I think it's quite serious, it really, you know, this is the first time you have these foreign troops fighting on Russian soil, and I think that
it could lead to greater instability. I mean, depending on what happens, it could also be quite detrimental to the Ukrainians if these North Korean soldiers are able to push them back further from the Krosk region, because this was an element that the Ukrainians hope would be a bargaining leaverage for them if and when there are negotiations with Russia.
I want to point out South Korea is considering whether to send weapons directly to Ukraine, reversing a policy banning lethal aid to the country. It was according to a senior South Korean official. Soul has previously backfilled the US for shipments that has made and our reporting noting that if some of Seoul's vast stores of artillery shells started heading directly to Kiev alongside pyongyang supplies to Russia, that would result in the war drawing upon two of the
world's largest artillery forces. To me, that would say a broadening out. Is that a fair assessment, Angela, and makes me wonder what, Yes, I think so, And I.
Think yeah, And I think that we also understand that the South Koreans are not going to give much more intelligence help to the Ukrainians in their fight with Russia, but it does I think it could broaden it out. And I think I'm not sure that the Chinese are very happy about this. But you know, Putin has justified this by saying, we have a strategic partnership relationship with North Korea and we've been attacked our territory, therefore they can help us. And this really raises the prestige of
North Korea. You know, our country where many of these soldiers are very short because they're malnourished, a country that can't feed its own people, and yet you know, has nuclear weapons and is now fighting in Russia.
We're in a very interesting moment where we have the world's wealthiest person, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, has been in contact with Vladimir Putin. I'm talking about that bombshell report last week from the Wall Street Journal that reported that Elon Musk have been in regular contact with the Russian president since late twenty twenty two. The discussions, according to the journal, were confirmed by several current and
former US, European and Russian officials. A reminder that he has security clearance due to a lot of the government work that SpaceX does. Doctor stent to what extent should we be concerned about Elon's conversations with Putin?
Well, I think we should be very concerned, you know, wonder what the motivation behind this is. Putin has said, well, we just talked once and it was about space. But even if they're talking about space exploration, as you yourself said, mister Musk has high security clearances, he knows a lot.
What's he telling the Russians? Apparently he wants to make sure that, you know, Starling will be able to use whatever terrestrial stations it needs to continue operating, and that Russia, you know, could be an important part of it is the largest country in the world, but it raises very serious questions. And then of course you have Elon Musk's
support of former President Trump. You know, he's paying people to register to vote, and of course you have the reports of former President Trump's conversations with Putin that have happened since he was president, and you just wonder where all this is leading. You know, Musk is a very wealthy man. Putin is reportedly also a very wealthy man. So I don't know if this is part of the club of billionaires, but there should be security concerns here.
You know. It's interesting.
We use interesting a lot this year, or the last couple of years, or the last decade. But what I'm thinking about is we kid but not kid about these romances, whether it's Donald Trump and Elon Musk or whether it's Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. You've studied Putin. I think we've talked about this before. Is there a real relationship there?
Or I think we've talked about Putin in the past and kind of playing with Trump or playing Trump specifically, But help me understand this relationship between the two or what it is.
So I would think from former President Trump's point of view, he admires strong men, and we certainly know that he admires Vladimir Putin. Ladima Putin is a former KGB agent who used to be a case officer, and he understands how to manipulate people, and from some of the reports we've seen, he knows how to flatter people. He said very flattering things about former President Trump. Former President Trump really likes that it does Putin view Trump as someone
who's a friend. I doubt it. I think this is all instrumental for him, but it's very useful for him. He would like to have a Trump victory in November because he then will see a more chaotic America. So I think there's a very different, great difference between the way that these two men view each other and what they view as the point of their relationship.
Why, in your view, we're not hearing more from members of Congress who might understand that it's an issue the relationship here, but aren't coming out and saying that, hey, this is the type of thing that, at least in your view, doctor stun is dangerous.
Well, I think we're probably hearing from Democratic members of Congress. They're speaking up. But as you know, people who elected officials in the Republican Party aren't really saying anything because no one wants to criticize what's happening there. Oh, I think that's probably, but it's not as if no one's talking about.
This all right, So how are you thinking about? Man?
How many times have we had this conversation, you know, when we might see an end to this war? But here we are, you know, getting ready, as I said, the third winter, and it's just pretty remarkable. Ukrainian President Zelenski saying today he had arrived in Iceland to talk about the Russian invasion, with leaders of several Nordic countries wanting to.
Talk and rally allies around.
His victory plan is a victory anytime soon in your view? And what gets us there and what won't get us there?
Yeah. So I was at a meeting last month in Ukraine, and clearly the Ukrainian leadership is very concerned about the outcome of our own election because from what former President Trump has said, I mean, he said he'll end the war in twenty four hours. We obviously had no idea
how we would plan to do that. But I think what we do know and again listening to J. D Vance is that support for Ukraine would possibly probably end with a Trump victory, a financial support, probably weapons support, and the Ukrainians would be under great pressure to negotiate a settlement with Russia, which really would not be in
their interests. That is to say, if former President Trump offers President Putin, who we have to acknowledge has no interest in negotiations at the moment, but if he's offered something that would make it worth his while, and former President Trump has said that would include lifting sanctions against Russia, which of course Trump can't.
Do on his own.
There is a US Congress, So I think that's one scenario, and I do think with a Trump victory, the war probably will end sooner and it will end with a settlement. If there is a settlement that's not favorable to Ukraine. If there's a Democratic victory, if Vice President Harris wins, then I think you would have a reevaluation of the policy. You probably have a continuation of support for Ukraine. But I also think there will be less finite actual support
coming from the United States in the next year. So I think either way we are looking at the possibility of negotiations happening sooner rather than later. But the question is when we have an administration that will give Ukraine more than you know, than it has at the moment.
Doctor Angelis Stent, thank you so much. Always appreciate it.
Author of Putin's World and of course over at Workings Institution.
This is bloombokmark.
A journal.
How about you let me drive?
No no, no, no's.
Honey, please gravels. I want to drive.
It's a good question.
Try This is.
The Drive to the Globe.
Punk me effect well Byron jot.
It on on Bloomberg Radio.
All right, tiktack everybody about eighteen and a half minutes ago until we wrap up the find a trading session does feel like, Yeah, we're seeing definitely some enthusiasm.
We're going to get.
Into some of the sectors and the winterers and gain winters and losers.
I should say a little bit later on.
I'm just looking.
I'd like to think of them as declining, as not losers. But for bringing that, what.
Is it like the category ward and the winner is yeah, I can't even say that.
Get the winners, I get the runners up.
Almost four hundred names, three hundred and seventy six names in the S and P five hundred higher today one hundred and twenty seven to the downside.
Yeah, we're certainly seeing some strength when it comes to the equity market today, more buyers than sellers. Let's see what our drive to the closed guests has to say about this. Back with us, as David Bonston, CIO over at the Bonson Group, He joins us here in the Bloomberg Interactive broker's studio, what do you make of this relentless move higher?
Well, I think a lot of things are getting quite stretched, and that valuation story has has kind of confounded things all year long. You have expensive things getting more expensive. You do not have organic earnings growth. They already priced in really robust earnings growth and it's lived up to it, but it's not going above and beyond that.
You have valuations are expanding.
So if you're getting new money right now, how are you putting it to work? If things are expensive.
So we're not index investors and we're not big tech investors, and so within a dividend growth, very concentrated portfolio, we never own more than about thirty companies at a time. We think there's good pockets of value in some of the consumer staples. We've got a very good year in both financials and even energy. Energy as a sector hasn't done well, but midstream has done quite well, and it's still really well valued. But we also are going in slowly,
we're tethering. If we're getting brand new cash in, we're not putting every dollar of it to work on day one.
How much new cash are you bringing in?
How much new cash we bring it in in terms of just new moneies that come in. Yeah, well, we bring in anywhere from fifty to one hundred million dollars a month of new money every month.
Is that pretty regular?
I'm just curious if it's different from what you've seen over the last six months or so.
It's been very consistent for us for a few years now.
A bad month is fifty, a good month is one hundred and twenty. And right now we're kind of tethering it in. And again, some of them are undervalued things. If we get a company has disappointing earnings, it gives us a chance to add more. So what you guys are calling the losers of the decliners, that's what we like.
We like those things when they take a check back.
Where's the new money coming from?
Well, look, there's still a lot of m and a activity. We've had a lot of clients have sold businesses. You have a lot of people that have had bonds and different things mature. The one thesis I don't agree with is this money market balance and all this cash on side. I don't think that money's coming back into equities.
Where do you think it's going to go bonds?
I think most of it was either reserved savings money that was previously zero interest deposit that went to money market to get a little yield, or it came out of the bond market where you could get rid of duration risk and get the same yield.
I wonder why that number keeps getting higher.
I think a lot of it is because people are confusing bank deposit and money market.
That you had a lot of money market.
Which is really short term te bills, commercial paper, and it just became a surrogate for bonds. Because after twenty twenty two, which twenty three is when bulk of this money moved, and you had the risk at Silicon Valley Bank and some of those things, money markets are paying five five and a half percent yields. People said, well, bonds are down ten percent fifteen percent, why do I need to go into bonds. I can go to money
mark and get a higher yield. So it just kind of reallocated a lot of that positioning.
In terms of treasury. And you look at the USL curve. I mean, do you think that we could once again test five percent here potentially on the ten percent.
On the ten year. I do not know.
I mean, obviously you could, but it would not be our thesis. I think that, look, there's been very little move up and tip spreads at all. It's been entirely real GDP expectations. So the real growth expectations are not good enough to get the ten year up to five percent. If it did, I wouldn't see it as a negative because it's not coming from higher inflation expectations.
It's coming from higher.
Real growth expectations. And I think that it's gotten quite stretched here. We were at three seventy, it's gotten up to the four twenty five for thirty. I would be very surprised if it goes much about four fifty. But that's because I'm long term bearish on structural growth.
The tenure does not measure the FED.
Every day I'm hearing someone say, why if the fedce cutting is a tenure going higher. The FED can't control the long end of the curve short end of it's a short that is all they can control. The tenure really does price in trillions of dollars of real people's expectations for nominal GDP growth.
Inflation isn't moving. Real growth has moved up a.
Bit, but doesn't the longer end of the yield curve potentially also factor in what the US government does in terms of debt on their balance sheet. And that is something that once again for those of us who have been around a long time, we remember all those arguments and concerns about the deficit, and then it went away, and now it's back again.
And this is where I'm a contrarian from the lessons of Japan and the lessons of the US for fifteen years after our own financial crisis, I do not believe that growing deficits pushes the yields higher, puts downward pressure on yields because.
It suppresses growth.
And so Japan went to two hundred and fifty percent debt to GDP and ended up with negative yields forever. Central banks that manipulate and intervene at that stage, but the point being that real growth expectations go lower, not higher, from increased deficit spending. We're far past the point of a multiplier on this fiscal stimulus.
I want to talk a little bit about a comment from Edi Ard Danny a little earlier today on Bloomberg TV. He talked about bond vigilantes mustering as the US and the UK prep debt sales. Are you concerned about a potential return of bond vigilantes.
No, I'm kind of amused that we're talking about thirty or forty basis points, so that's supposed to be bond vigilantes. The tenures come all the way up to four point three percent, which is still seventy seventy five basis points less than it was a year ago. There's no bond vigilantes now. Ed is Defense, who's a brilliant guy and a friend. He's talking about the potential for it to happen. But again, the bond vigilanti thesis has been out there
since post financial crisis. We've run up these deficits and it has done nothing to put downward pressure on bondial.
That said, this election, what happens if one of these parties sweeps and they get this blank check to spend Either both can I don't care who you're talking about, they're both talking about spending a lot of money.
Neither candidate is going to have a blank check to spend what they want even First of all, I think it's very unlikely that Harris ends up with a Democrat House and Senate. It would be a real miracle for her to win and that the Senate move in that direction. But let's say she has a fifty to fifty control, there's one or two Democrats that won't approve a lot
of the spending as well. In Trump's case, a lot of the projections for deficit blowouts have to do more with the lost revenue side than increased spending.
I still think he'll spend a lot. I don't think he minds spending or big debt and deficits.
But the red side of the Senate and House I think will have to hold him in. They won't to the degree I need us to. All were debating is whether not the deficit goes up a trillion or a trillion and a half, But The biggest thing is going to bring deficits down a few hundred billion is rates coming lower. The term structure a treasury debt is so loaded to the short end of the curve that if you go from a five percent T bill to a two or three percent T bill, you're pulling out hundreds
of billions of dollars of debt service cost. That's going to be some of the relief there.
What do you make of a lost decade in stocks? You know that this has been something we've been everybody's been kicking around. A cost In of Goldman Sachs, chief US equity strategist, published a paper and basically what he said is suggesting the index S and P five hundred well gain only three percent nominal terms one percent in real terms per year over the next decade, which would be one of the worst on record.
You buy that completely, But I feel like he plagiarized it for me.
But I'm joking. David Costin is brilliant. His name almost rhymes with David Bonsen. And I've been saying this for several years. I believe the post crisis bull market ended November twenty twenty one, and we started at that point a period of what effectively could be a last decade. I think he said three percent real growth, and I could see it.
Four or five there, three percent nominal, one percent in.
Real, Right, that will feel like a lost decade to most people. Even if you get let's say three percent real five percent nominal, even then you're talking about a tiny fraction of.
What investors got used to.
Investors aren't even right now prepared for historical returns nine or ten in the SMP. They're used to fourteen or fifteen to fourteen or fifteen without down years along the way.
Well, some would say that about rates, this is historically more normal, and you.
Just cannot get the earnings growth, and you certainly can't get the multiple expansion to make that possible.
All right, David Bonson, thank you so much, CEO of the Bonson Group, joining us right here in our Bloomberg Interactive Brokers.
Studio for This is the Bloomberg Business Week podcast of a little on Apple, Spotify and anywhere else you can 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 Jomy alone