Hey, we know investors certainly watching what's happening on the campaign trail audience. We've heard a lot in the last couple of weeks from some of investing in markets. Guess how they and their clients waiting election? What possibly mean on the so called and the prediction markets. I gotta tell you.
On Friday, but I was watching the prediction market and Jim stat actor from and they were moving very quickly away from this clear Trump victory over Harris and emailed John Authors. I was like, have you seen what's happening here? And sure enough, yeah, he'd been watching it too. We got John Authors with also joining us Bloomberg News markets reporter Justina Lee. She writes about the election gambling facing. Uh, it's a moment of truth. John, Justina, Welcome to the program.
Both of you writing about the prediction markets. Uh, Justina, I do want to start with you, though, because remind everyone what exactly we're talking about here. I think for a lot of people, this is the first election where they're hearing about this stuff.
Yeah.
What's really interesting is just before the start of this election, I mean, we were we had kind of a judge overturned this ban on a US legal kind of exchange that is going to offer contracts on the election. And because of this, there's more attention on election betting than ever.
And also there's also this crypto exchange off tour that's been seeing really large volumes and kind of electoral betting, and I think because of this, there's been a lot of attention on those odds, and in particular because over the past month they've they've shown like a way higher probability for Trump than we're seeing in you know, forecast models like five thirty eight or Nate Silver.
John come on in on this. You've got to calum out noting that the prediction markets are giving now Donald Trumps November surprise, not necessarily a good one.
Not necessarily a good one for Trump at all. I mean, with prediction markets, you've always got to remember there is an issue with them. Garbage and garbage out to the and Zel sip Iowa poll at face value, if it's accurate, means CAML Harris has won the election.
What does garbage in garbage out mean?
Gub it's it's it's a computer term. If that, if the data you're putting into the prediction market is bad data, right, there's no reason to produce to expect it to produce a good outcome.
So I get that. So with the predicted prediction markets, does that mean sometimes there's good data coming in, sometimes there's not, or is.
I think it's been true of any market that you know, if you got bad data from Enron and you thought it was an absolutely fantastic for company for a long time, and then you realized it wasn't right, And amazingly I looked up yesterday it was replaced in the S and P five hundred my own video.
Wow.
Okay, that's yes, yes, But that's that's why John, I think it was. I think it might have been exactly a week ago you sat in this chair. You'd written another column that talked about how the Trump trade was on, and it looked like it gave the former president about a two thirds chance. Do you do you want to update that prediction ahead of tomorrow?
The current prediction is that it gives him. I'm inclined not to trust polymarkets as much as the others because there does seem to be an oddly determined positive gloss on the on the Republican chances. The others suggest that he still has a chance, a better chance than Kamala Harris, but it's a much narrow one, like three fifty four percent. That sounds broadly accurate to me, simply because we don't know what the narratives are that here that are going
to decide things. It's possible Madison Square Garden Rally and everything around it really may decided a lot of people that know they weren't going to go vote for this guy. We don't know yet. We will know soon.
And if I recall, was it twenty sixteen that you said that initially it was the markets in favor of Hillary. Yes, And obviously we know Donald Trump exactly well.
We also and the markets will convince the prediction. Markets were convinced in Britain that Brexit was not going to succeed in the referendum earlier that year, and that one wasn't That one wasn't right either. I mean, the other thing you've got to be very careful with in real markets with capital at stake. I did just check up that S and P E mini futures were down more than five percent in the immediate wake of the network's calling twenty sixteen for Donald Trump.
Remember that, I remember watching.
It, and they's pretty deep up by the time they markets actually opened the following day. So you know, there are some fairly clear things. You would imagine Bond yields would go up a lot, and that stocks would gain a lot with a with a comfortable Trump victory tomorrow night, you don't necessarily assume that that will hold on for a terribly long time once people can begin to think about this without the uncertainty surrounding it.
Just in a polls versus we've talked a lot about the polling. Bloomberg has been involved in polling poll versus prediction markets. What do investors in Wall Street respect as we go through this process.
Yeah, what's been really interesting lately is that we've seen a lot of cell sized strategies, in particular citing the betting odds rather than the poles based forecast. And I think one edge that the betting ods definitely have is that you know, as people trade, they can more quickly in corporate you know, every new drip of information or whatever kind of you know, the vibe shifts. That might
be a bit harder for a model to quantify. But I think that the flip side of that is that you can more easily have kind of a hurting mentality, or maybe it's more easily affected by one sided bets, whereas I guess like the poles based forecasts are more grounded on data, but you really need sort of the trends to be roughly similar to history for that poles based forecast to really have any insight.
I love this. We've got a listener saying, can Americans bet on the winner? How does someone do it?
Yes, Justina can tell you more bets can let you do it. We are in the interactive Brocus studio.
Are we not?
Are you can not the time necessarily saying you should? But you can bet on it's only attractive breakase if you like and robin Hood. Thanks to the CFTC's loss in court, a number of people will will let you do it legally, even without getting a VPN and pretending not to be American.
Well that's why, Justina. You know in your story you note that the prediction markets have entered the big leagues with the twenty twenty four presidential vote. I mean this is kind of new territory for everyone, for investors, for betting, for the betting public here in America.
Yeah, that's right. I mean, we're seeing really large volumes, especially compared to before. And one thing that I think is really interesting is, you know, when it comes to financial markets, we always think the moral liquidity the better, and so kind of by that logic, I mean, this
year's all should be especially informative. But at the same time, it's kind of funny because I spoke to an expert, you know, on Friday, and he was saying, maybe pay attention to the smallest market of all, which is predicted, because predicted kind of limits the sizes of your positions and so you don't really get kind of any of these big whale traits, so you get on the polymarket.
And of course that's kind of a really interesting question now because Predicted is the one platform that's giving even odds to the two candidates at this moment.
And it also if you look back to the summer, Predicted saw Kamala Harris coming a long way before the other prediction markets that were out there. It saw the chance that I presumably because the often the academics who are betting on Predicted are fairly well plugged in the democratic politics, they got that Joe Biden was likely to have to stand down, and that Kamala Harris would be nigh on unstoppable if he did to get the nomination
far before Polymarket did. So they're not dumb. The other thing that is, if you're trying to produce a prediction, if you're not hedging your bets, if you're not trying to make money, but you're looking for the public, get better of a good prediction on predicted everybody, including you students who are just finishing their PhDs, is worth as much as elon musk.
You guys, thank you so much. A great round the table on that. John authors of Bloomberg Markets and Bloomberg Opinion, just in the lead Markets are put her up Bloomber.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Business Week podcast. Catch us live weekday afternoons from two to five pm. Easter Listen on Apple card Play and then brod Auto with a Bloomberg Business app, or want us live on YouTube.
All right, from the ground game to the money game, we go to Yeah and the eleven thousand political groups that have spent nearly fifteen billion dollars to influence the twenty twenty four election. It brings us to a great deep dive into the money that runs the US political systems. It's an interact story. It's best read on the Bloomberg terminal or online, so I encourage everybody to do that.
It's also, Carol one story that's really important understanding who's spending to support the process and the candidates.
You've been talking about this story a lot, and we talked about it a lot on our call this morning. Let's bring in Bloomberg News campaign finance reporter Bill Allison. He is in Washington. We should note that Michael Bloomberg, the founder majority owner of Bloomberg News parent company Bloomberg LP and Bloomberg Philanthropy is has given money to several political groups, including House Majority Pack, Future Forward Pack, and
every Town for Gun Safety Victory Fund. All right, Bill, so let's get to your reporting, great and informative deep dive into all the money in the twenty twenty four election. Tell us how you went about reporting this story out, What you looked at, what you found out.
Well, first of all, it was wrangling this data was one of the hardest things we ever did, in part because committees give so much money to each other. I mean, there's you know, the if you look at the main Senate super PACs that they're spending tons of money, and the Senate battlegrounds. You know, there's a group called Win Senate which is backing Democrats, but it's actually funded by the Senate Majority Pack, which is tied closely to to
Charles Schumer. So we basically the first thing we did was to try to get all of that double counting out of the numbers and really just focus on the money that was coming in and the money that was going out and uh, and what we found is is that you know, there's there's a hundred committees that are really the most active that are spending you know, close to a third of the money in this election. And it and you know, the it's just we've just seen
blockbuster amounts of money being spent. It's going to it's most likely going to set the record, it's on track to set the record for for the most expensive election ever, even more than twenty twenty when you had a huge attic field for the primaries and uh for the general election. It's there's just the amounts of money that are being spent.
Or just staggering.
Yeah, fifteen billion dollars is just a mind boggling number. I wonder though, how we got here, Bill, Is this all a result of that twenty ten Supreme Court Citizens United decision.
That's a big part of which got rid of soft money to the parties. We had things like Swift vet Vote Swiss, Swift Vote, Swift Vote Vets, Yeah, which was the group that went after John Kerry. We had on the left, we had a bunch of different They were called Section five twenty seven organizations, and they basically ran negative ads without using the words vote for, vote against,
which was fine under Citizens United. So, you know, I think that the amount of money in politics, you know, was always going to be I mean, it's there's so much at stake in a federal election, whether it's you know, control of Congress, control of the House, the Senate, or the White House, that you know, interests just pour tons and tons of money in.
One of the things that I always think about, you know, on a story like this, Bill is yep, I think about you know, the final dollar amount. That's serious, serious money, and we all see it in the you know, campaigns and ads that have been bombarding us. Having said that, I also think about influence, and I do wonder in terms of where a lot or the bulk of the money came from. What were those entities were it? You know,
we know about Elon Musk. Can we keep talking about the billionaires that are in the election, But where did most of the money come from? Where is most of the influence coming from in this in this campaign?
Boy?
That's you know, there's there's a huge base of small dollar donors that are giving, you know, that are accounting for you know, billions of dollars the amount of the total. And those folks really aren't you know, they're much more ideological givers. And I think at the upper end of the spectrum too. And it's kind of funny that you mentioned Elon Musk when you're talking to Ted Man. He's
he started as a very transactional giver. He gave to the Obama campaign, but relatively small amounts for him, certainly, like fifty thousand dollars I think was what he gave to the Obama Victory Fund in two thousand and eight. And he gave to politicians who could help his business estress, whether it was SpaceX or ESLA. And now he's become kind of much more of an ideological giver. The way he talks about politics. You know, it's it's and I
think you see this kind of across the board. You know, we did the story earlier on fair Shake the Crypto Superpack, and you know it's supporting Democrats and Republicans based on where you stand on Crypto. And one of the big donors to that to Fairshake was a big Democratic donor who got very angry when he found out that they were going against Shared Brown because he says that the cher Brown has to win his seat to hold the Senate,
and he stopped giving to the super pac. And I think this kind of really shows how ideological and how Democrat versus Republican and just kind of in the same way that the country is really starkly divided, donors are starkly divided between, you know, the visions for the country.
Bill big money versus small money. What's the story there? Certainly the big money from folks like Elon Musk and the Light get a lot of attention, But small money donations have powered the Trump campaign in the past. How did do this year and how did Harris' campaign do with small money donors?
Actually, Harris's campaign is doing better, I mean with with Trump. You know, in the past, he got much more support from small dollar donors. I was giving less than two hundred dollars in aggregate for the election. Maybe, you know, it's not just people. If you give like ten dollars
twenty one times, you're a you're an itemized donor. So he's gotten like a ton of support from people who don't didn't give very much in both twenty sixteen and twenty twenty, and much more from from millionaires this year. It's it's the millionaires or people making donations of a million dollars or more. Cause a lot of more billionaires we're doing that. They're the ones who are really fueling
his campaign. He's his outside money. There's about I think it's close to seven hundred million dollar dollars that are in outside money going to super packs compared to about three hundred and fifty million that he's raised for his campaign. So he's doing much better now with wealth donors than he is with the small dollar donors. Part of that might be inflation that's hit his donor base, and part of it might be that just you know, the appeal
isn't the same. You know, he's been hitting these people up in the same people since, you know, since he won the nomination in twenty sixteen. Yeah, and you know, you wonder if he's gone to the well one too many times.
Great stuff, Bill, Thank you, Thank you so much. Bill Allison, Bloomberg News Campaign Finance reporter, joining us there from Washington, d C.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Business Week podcast. Listen live each weekday. He's starting at two pm Eastern on Apple car Play and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business Ad. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station, Just say Alexa Play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
The other thing that is, you know, thinking about the election, and I feel like it's safe to say that it's been a big piece of the election, whether it's concerns or actuality of it. Is just our own Bloomberg News team reporting out how it has been permeating the US presidential election on an unprecedented scale, with online instigators escalating doubts about the integrity of the electoral process as millions
of Americans have been casting their ballots. So there's been a big question tim about can you trust the vote?
And that's exactly that Bloomberg News technology reporter Austin Carr tried to answer. He's set to figure it out. It's all in his Bloomberg BusinessWeek story about how US voting machines became safer than ever. Austin joins us from the Bloomberg News bureau in Boston. Austin tell us about Chip Troutbridge and the Clear Ballot Group. So Clear Ballot is
a startup that's based in Boston. It's about a decade holl It's backed by Best Summer Ventures, and it's one of the companies that's trying to compete with Dominion, the sort of larger incumbent in the space, which you would think would make them a very tech forward sort of player in the voting machines. But it actually turns out
that I spent some time with the team. They're both their office in Boston as well as their factory in New Hampshire, and it turns out they're really pushing a paper centric approach, just as a lot of election vendors
are doing themselves. It's actually turns out that paper marking things physically and keeping an audit trail is incredibly safe, and so a lot of the technology that's being invested into this industry is really around tabulating votes rather than changing actually how we're marking them in a very old school way with pens and paper, so meaning that we are going to be using paper ballots for the foreseeable future.
Correct.
I mean, it's really funny you hear. You hear a lot of noise from you know, people like Elon Musk saying that, you know, voting machines are super vulnerable to hacking and connected to the Internet, and we should move back to paper, and a lot of people I talk to you say, you know what I mean, These voting machines are, for the majority of them, are not connected to the Internet, and about ninety eight percent of ballots
will be cast on paper tomorrow. So it's actually a very paper centric approach, which I think sort of cuts against a lot of the noise you hear around how much hacking and manipulation and all these that are apparently going to corrupt the election, just as they did in twenty twenty from some of the more conspiratorial voices we heard.
All Right, so I'm just playing Devil's advocate. Why do we care what Chip has to say? And what Clear Ballot group has to say as we think about how safe our voting process is.
So Chip Troutbridge is the CTO of Clear Ballot. He came from a company called in Deco, which was later acquired by Oracle. They're very good at data analytics, and in fact Clear Ballot got it start auditing elections. What their technology originally does is sort of scan all the paper ballots. You know, when you get to a voting booth and you mark it down with a sharpie and a kind of gleat bleach to the paper. Maybe you just check it off, maybe you scribble, maybe you're a
person who inadvertently circles the choice of the candidate you want. Well, this technology scans all those ballots and provides a visualization of all of them digitally, so if there are votes that are a little bit less clear, they can actually view them on a computer. But it's just sort of a corresponding sort of representation, a digital image of the
physical paper ballot. That's just helping to speed up the process so there aren't long delays when they have to do recounts or post election audits.
No no, no, yes, and forgive me go ahead, please?
Oh just so the longer there is between sort of the time that votes are cast and when election results are given, that's what a lot of conspiracies fill that void. People start thinking something must be nefarious happening when actuality is just there's a lot of bureaucracy and slow moving of mechanisms that keep canvassing very slow. So this technology is designed to speed it up and make it a lot faster. But again it's still fundamentally a paper based voting system.
So if paper based is the thing, I mean the idea, is hanging chads something that we have to be worried about in the future. We all remember or not everybody maybe remembers, right, it's twenty twenty four. That was back in two thousand, but that was quite a fiasco, unexpected and some say we it played out differently, we might have had a different president in the White House. But do we have to be worried about something like hanging chads? Though?
No, so that actually after the two thousand Florida fiasco. Those were based on mechanical levers. So those are the punch cards that you have, those hanging chads from physically punching in. This is just your marking a ballot. There's basically two approaches. You're marking a ballot with a sharpie, then you submit it into a scanner. It keeps the paper, and then the tabulator just provides a digital image of it and just counts it. The other system that Dominion
has gotten some controversy for is a touch screen. You enter your choices and then it prints out the physical ballot and that's what you submit. It has your candidates that you selected printed out with clear legible texts. You can review it. There's a QR code that the scanner scans and that's what you submit. So both their paper based approaches and that represents about ninety eight percent of voting. But again, unless you're really messing with your sharpie, i'd
say the vast majority of votes are inputed pretty properly. Again, I'm not questioning your penmanship. I'm sure you're gonna do a great job. But that's the fundamental issue is there's no hanging chads. That's going to be the issue. It's most likely disinformation registration issues and just sort of larger disruption at the pole places themselves than actual hacking of these these sort of computer tabulators.
Well, Austin.
What about the process of actually keeping track of how many votes each candidate gets, because yes, you know, at the precinct level, we understand that there are paper ballots, but then when they're added up, that number gets sent in some sort of format to a bigger place where things are being kept tracked, where the stuff is being kept track of. Is there any opportunity there for malfeasons?
Well, I think that the sort of physical safeguards and redundancies that are in place make the process very slow and hard to change, but also ironically makes it very safe.
And that's the one thing that I with the clear Ballot CTO chip that I spent a lot of time talking to just growing through all those mechanisms from sort of you know, when they have to open these machines, there's people from opposite political parties that have to unlock the machines and tear off security seals to Actually, when you're talking about transferring the vote counts of the end of the night, those are sometimes transferred on a USB stick.
Now you might think, oh, couldn't that USB stick be switched, Well, again, you'd have to. That would be quite a feat just to get by all the people who are looking at you'd somehow have to replace the USB stick, the logs that you plug it in and out of a computer. You'd have to change those. And then again, these ballots, those are unofficial results. The physical ballots are the official count.
So even if you did change the sort of somehow hacked into a USB stick that was being transferred to a central location, I don't know, you'd have to corrupt both the scans at the precinct and at a county level. You'd have to replace the paper ballots. It's just there's a lot of redundancies, analogue offline redundancies in place that make it sort of fantastical and really hard to play
out this sort of scenario. I think we said in the piece that it's not so much that you'd have to have mission impossible cunning, but really the logistical omnipresence of Santa Claus to pull off something like this at scale.
Yeah, yeah, exactly. Hey, Austin, thank you so much. Austin Carr Technology or putter up Bloomberg New's joining us from our Boston bureau. You can check out that story at Bloomberg BusinessWeek story. You can find out more just head to the Bloomberg terminal and at Bloomberg dot com.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Business Week podcast. Catch us live weekday afternoons from two to five pm. Easter Listen on Applecarplay and and Broyd Auto with a Bloomberg Business app, or watch us live on YouTube.
Blomarco Journal, Now about you let me drive?
Oh no, no, no, no, please.
Honey, please travels, I want to drive.
The question.
This is the drive to the clothes? Do we'll buy around it?
On Bloomberg Rady all right, everybody, we've got just about eighteen minutes left to go until we wrap up the trading day. Ways shaking your head.
That's time flies when you're having fun.
It's been a little bit crazy.
It's been a little crazy. Well, you know, part of it is just because things are crazy right now.
Yeah, it is. I think you can feel, you know, it feels like a day before an election. Actually, I want to say it feels like a day before a very close election based on polling and where things have changed dramatically. It's been an unusual election cycle to say the least. And so yeah, here we are and a market that's been bouncing around. We were just talking with our Bill Maloney here about what brought the markets down around eleven o'clock or so, and a story I think
it was in the Wall Street Journal or the Washington Post. No, it's the Journal. It was a journal forgive me about Russia maybe putting some devices, in sundiary devices into some planes coming into the United States.
Yeah.
Reading from the journal, Western security officials they believe that too, and sendiary devices shipped via DHL. We're part of a covert Russian operation that ultimately aimed to start fires aboard cargo or passenger aircraft flying to the US and Canada. This is Moscow steps up a sabotage campaign against Washington.
Yeah, the devices ignited DHL logistics hubs in July, one in Germany, another in England. The explosion set off a multinational race to find the culprits. So just you know, stuff going on behind the scenes. And so anyway, that was Bill's thinking that would dragged the market.
Down, not just an election to contend with. So Kara Murphy's chief investment officer at Kestra Investment Management. Kara joins us from Austin, Texas. Right now, Kara, what are you hearing from clients as we get closer and closer to election day.
Tomorrow, there's a lot of hand ringing. And you know, when I think back to the beginning of the year, we were sort of prepping ourselves to get ready to talk a lot about elections, and at that time people were like, oh, we're not really focusing on it. But over the last couple of months that has very definitely changed.
There's a lot of concern and it doesn't matter what side of the that you're on, and so we've just been repeating the mantra that go vote, it's important, but it's not necessarily important for your portfolio.
Well that's interesting. So are you anticipating I don't know when we have the election outcome that you're going to get a lot of calls of investors saying, hey, now we're thinking, all right, we know what's going on, we know what the composition of Congress is, We're going to start making some changes. Is that what's going to happen or not necessarily?
Well, I think we all look forward to the time when we know what the composition of Congress and the White House looks like. So we're all excited about when that will happen, But I think no, for most people, it's really about getting back to that conversation, what are your long term goals, what's the long term trajectory of the US economy, what's corporate earnings power?
Right?
So I think the conversation shifts from what's happening at the ballot box to what are those things that are really important for stocks and bonds?
What are those things?
So earnings, right, that's a big one, and we're in the thick of earning season right now. Last week we had five of this of the seven reporting, and i'm incredibly important for the near term move in the market. And what was interesting is that we saw with those individual companies pretty good reports on both earnings and revenues,
but the stocks didn't perform so well. And I think that's because what we're seeing right now is the beginning of this handoff from the mag seven, which has driven the market for the last two ish years to everybody else. And we need to start to see some of that earnings pick up into next year for some of those smaller names in order to be able to sustain this rally, which we think will happen. But it's the sort of delicate handoff.
In the meantime, you know, when it comes to something like, as you said, earnings fundamentals, these are all important, you know, recession, no recession. Do you think it matters who's in the White House or do you think something like that For the US economy specifically, it doesn't matter who's in the White House whether or not we dip into a recession, maybe sooner rather than later.
I think it would be rare that a policy does decision would trip the whole economy into recession. So certainly there are certain economic policies that have a big impact on certain areas of the economy. But when you think about what's driven you know, the last few recessions, they were big, huge macro events that were not driven by policies. Think COVID, global financial crisis, bursting of the Internet bubble.
These are things that had very far reaching effects that were not driven by a single individual.
How about though, if you've got, you know, a candidate who might want to tinker with the Federal Reserve.
So I think the.
Federal Reserve and the independence of those policy decisions is really critical to keeping the economy on solid footing. And I often say that, you know, the part of the reason why I don't worry so much about who's in the White House is because we are very fortunate to
live in the United States that has very strong political institutions. Now, typically the Federal Reserve is not included in those, but from an economic perspective, the Federal Reserve and its independence is really critical to being able to write the ship and be able to help manage the volatility and the economic cycle.
Okay, so help us think past the election, because I think a lot of us are focused too.
Yeah.
I mean, one thing that we've been hearing from folks like you is that, Okay, maybe the risk isn't necessarily with the presidential election. It's with who else is elected in terms of the House and the Senate and the makeup there. But also how long this drags on for And I'm wondering what happens to the markets if it drags on.
Again.
I mean, this gets back to the strength of the US institutions. And I was looking back at this earlier today, and we've had occasions where we didn't know who the official was or what the makeup of Congress was for some time. So we can actually manage through those things fairly well. And I think you know, even we hear a lot about you know, blue sweep or red sweep
on one side or the other. And I think even in those instances where we have one party takes all, all of the margins are going to be raised or thin, whether it's the White House, House of Representatives, or Senate, that even once we get those numbers, there's not all that much that's going to be able to get done because no party is going to have that strong a majority in any one of those institutions.
Anything interesting that you're noticing in terms of investment flows coming in coming out for some of your client base, So it's been interesting.
So there have been some people who have been sort of positioning for a really dire situation, right moving more into commodities in order to be able to hedge against a really sort of volatile outcome coming out of tomorrow. But for the most part, what we see is that people are able to sort of pick themselves up out of the election results tomorrow and look beyond that and start thinking about what's right for them and their long term goals.
All right, So I am Tim and I are both looking beyond the results, and we're thinking about, Yes, the FED meeting very important this week, but also Nvidia earnings which come at the end of this month. How big a deal is that for you in terms of how you think about sentiment, market sentiment and a big investment play which has been AI for the last you know, we're coming up almost on two years, but easily a year and a half. Yeah, for sure.
I mean, this is one name that has largely carried the market for almost two years and has become this bellweather as you suggested, for AI and its implications in the broader economy. And so I think if last week was any lesson it's that Nvidia has to come out and not just be positive on revenues and earnings in the rearview mirror, but also has to be positive going forward. And so certainly all eyes will be on that earnings report.
All right, good stuff, Thank you so much, Kara, look forward to talking to you next time. Kara Murphy, Chief investment Officer Kestra Investment Management, joining us from Austin, Texas.
This is the Bloomberg Business Week Podcast. I'll a little of Apple, Spotify and anywhere else you get your podcast listen live weekday afternoons from two to five pm Eastern, on Bloomberg dot Com, the iHeartRadio app, tune In, and the Bloomberg Business. You can also watch us live every weekday on YouTube and always on the Bloomberg terminal.