Skin Tests to Detect T-Cell Immunity to Covid-19

You can also listen to our radio show at two pm Eastern Time on Bloomberg Radio or watch us on YouTube search Bloomberg Global News. The World Health Organization, they have been in China. They've been doing their own investigation after a long time of kind of wrinkling back and

forth to be able to get access. But they have found now that they've been doing this, that the coronavirus most likely jumped to humans through an animal or frozen wildlife products, and a theory that it resulted from a laboratory leak is quote extremely unlikely end quote, which is we know some people have, you know, speculated on Yeah, they have, and and look, I think that will not necessarily some of the people who think that it did come from that to rest, but it is helpful to

hear that from the World Health Organization. We're also seeing some other numbers, including a five percent Governor Andrew Cuomo saying that the White House is boosting vaccine allocation another five percent for the next three weeks. The additional five percent was announced on a White House call with governors on Tuesday, and it follows initial increase and then a

subsequent yeah, exactly. Uh. And it's interesting though, um, let's just see it says the supply will only really increase when and if J and J has approved, the governor saying Jane j would be a major and significant increase in production. There will be more information of that over the next few weeks. Listen, you know, over the next two weeks. Excuse me, but we know, uh, Timy and I have talked about it, and we've talked about with medical professionals that it's going to take many and multiple

vaccines to kind of get this all under control. And we know each vaccine, you know, comes with its own you know, caveats, two doses, one doses, extreme refrigeration not so much the case. And there's still somewhat of a debate about you know, should we just skip, you know, saving those second doses and get it out to more people. The Body administration telling governors they are adamantly opposed to

using second doses as first doses. I know from people who've gotten first dose, they're like, I want my second dose. That's when I will feel secure and confident and comfortable. Listen, let's do what the CDC says. We got a good um and we got a good a good stat here in New York today to the city has surpassed a million doses. Remember, Mayor build a Lasio had hoped to reach that by the end of January. It took a few extra days. Here we are in February nine, and

now we have surpassed that. Yeah, exactly. And just keep in mind global cases exceeding one six point five million, deaths passing two point thirty two million, and our global vaccine tracker more than a hundred and thirty four million

shots have been given worldwide. But as we know, in a world of many billions of people, one of the other things that we're watching when it comes to COVID is tonics pharmaceuticals surging yesterday rallying again to day up fifteen percent before backing off a little bit, well, actually a lot, but they're still up about five six percent today, up nearly a hundred forty two percent now this year

after a forty drop last year. Just kind of setting the scene because it's a company's story, it's a fundamental story, but it's also a stock story. Um, and let's talk about why we're seeing the big moves because apparently the company has come out and said it is developing a COVID nineteen skin test, and that has got investors interested. Dr Seth Letterman is a guest and friend of the show, co founder, CEO and chairman of the New York based

specialty pharmaceutical and clinical stage biopharmer company Tonics Pharmaceuticals. He's with us today on the phone in New Bedford, Massachusetts. Dr Letterman, good to have you back here on Bloomberg. Uh, investors very enthused about this development. Tell us about this COVID nineteen skin test. Oh, we're developing a vaccine primarily

that stimulates key cell immunity. It's based on a live viral factor that's called horsebox, and it's a one shot vaccine that we believe from historical parallels could provide decades of protection. We have monkey data supporting the vaccine, so we were very happy when we announced yesterday that we're developing a skin test that will measure T sell community to COVID. And we think that this is important because there are two arms of the immune system, antibodies and

T cells. Antibodies are transient. They can be measured for maybe three or six months. The T cells last for years or decades, so we think it will be very important to figure out how many people have T cell immunity instead of just the antibody test. How long do you think that will stick or I mean, how long

do you think we will have to know this? I mean I'm thinking about this in the context of right us being on the other side of this pandemic at some point, But how many more years do you envision us actually needing to get sted for immunity. Well, unfortunately, I think that COVID is here to stay. I think it's the majority opinion of people that of experts, that COVID will become endemic after I just want to make sure I understand this here to stay. We've only eradicated

one one thing, and that is smallpox. In around the world. Smallpox, we were very fortunate was eradicated because it was extremely deadly. Thirty percent of infected people died. But part of the success of smallpox eradication was the vaccine that was used. And the other part of the success with smallpox vaccination was that there were no animal reservoirs. And by animal reservoirs, I mean that no other non human animals got infected

with it. With COVID, we already know that's not the case. Manx, hamsters, tigers, a variety of different animals get so it's very unfortunately unlikely that this might be eradicated. So I think that the solution long term will be childhood immunization in the same way that we immunize for MMR measos moms and rebella.

We probably will go to a system of immunizing children, and that's why we think of vaccine like ours, a live replicating vaccine which can provide years and decades of protection, is the best solution for that post pandemic COVID problem. So you answered my question, which is you envisioned this being a vaccine that a child gets at a very young age and then they don't have to worry about

this for decades. That's the hope. But it wouldn't be infants, because a lot of our own vaccine is for um, you know, in the case of smallpox, it was administered to children about five years old or so, but not not for infants. But yes, I think that that would be the plan. But clearly, first we have to get out of the pandemic. And for this, I think we're all extremely grateful to the people who have quickly developed these vaccines, the m RNA vaccines and maybe now these

ad no valuous vaccines. Uh, they definitely have an incredibly important role and I can't wait to get mine. So you know, first we have to put out this fire and then we can go to more durable solutions. So and forgive me, I just want to go back to because I know and just reading in before you were coming on and I know you are working on the vaccine, But what about this skin test, because it does seem

like investors are very enthusiastic. Are they wrong to be so enthusiastic about that and not focus on the vaccine instead? The skin test is very important? Now is mentioning the vaccine because it tells a little bit of this story about how we got to the skin test. But the skin test is very important because we really don't know how many people have immunity and we can't measure it. So there are many cases, for example, where there's a husband or life and one of the spouses gets infected.

The other cares for them, but for example, the caregiver frequently doesn't get sick, doesn't develop antibodies, etcetera. We believe that a number of these cases actually T cell immunity develops without antibodies. There it's now known by much more complicated laboratory techniques that T cell immunity is protective of developing serious disease. So we just think this skin test is important and we think the excitement is justified because we would really get a better handle on how much

T sell immunity is in the population. And also it will be important information for people as individuals to go back to work to feel more safe knowing that even though they don't have antibodies, they may have T sell immunity. It certainly sounds like when all of said and done and we've gotten through this, we had no playbook, But we're going to certainly have a tool kit with various tools in the form of tests, vaccines, and treatments, um so that we can be ready for the next virus.

And that seems like where we're going through in terms of the skin test. In terms of your vaccine specifically, you know, when does it actually when does it actually get out there and can be used? Well, we're going to be in human trials with both of them, we

believe this year. But I think in terms of you know, getting out beyond trials hopefully, and we'll have to see what the regulatory environment is like how well the current vaccines are keeping this situation under control, because if we go to a more traditional vaccine development, you know, that could be three years or so, not for the skin test but for the vaccine. But does but does that

become does that become moot? Forgive me for interrupted, because I'm just trying to understand does that become moot though at this point because if we've got vaccines that are already out there that we're using that are working, No, it doesn't become because I think what maybe one way to think about it is we need pandemic vaccines that are very fast to develop, but may not have all the characteristics that we want, and then it will take time to refine them and make them better because we

have to be dealing with this problem for you know, centrally centuries, hopefully millennia. UM. You know, this problem isn't going away. We have to develop tools so that people can be protected for a long period of time. And also another characteristic of vaccines is to stop people from spreading it. So there's a lot to be learned, and you know, there's it's wonderful that we have some quick fixes that we need durable solutions to concern just so

I make sure I get this right. Your main concern with the vaccines that are available right now is longevity. How long for protection they allow they give to the person getting the vaccine. Is that correct? There are several concerns, but durability protection is important. Another one is do they block transmission that's not known yet um. And and there you are their concerns what type of immunity they confer.

So these are brand new technologies. No m RNA vaccine has ever been approved ever before and even these just have emergency use authorization, so we're using a much more standard technique that has a lot of known characteristics. But again I applaud the speed with which these vaccines have been developed, and I encourage everyone to get them in, you know, when their number comes up. So I'm I'm very pro vaccination, but I also think that we can't rest.

We can't think that this problem is solved by any means, and I think that we all have to work very hard to develop better vaccines so that because obviously we have to protect people who aren't even born yet. Yeah. We're talking with Dr Seth Letterman, co founder, chief executive officer and chairman of Tonics Pharmaceuticals, with us on Tuesday from New Bedford, Massachusetts. So when you think about your own vaccine um, Dr Letterman, is it more about the

viruses to come? Which bus this week? The cover story right now is get ready for the next pandemic, folks, because it's coming. So are you thinking when in terms of the development of your vaccine, that it's more about not necessarily this covid vaccine, but the next one. Oh, We're very focused on this, this covid um. But as as I'm sure you know, this covid is a moving target, correct, And already last summer there were a number of mutations

that were being noticed around the world. And now I think we should all still be bracing for the British strain which has now arrived in the United States. South African straint has arrived in the United States. And in addition to just these new variants, the variants are now

believed by some to recombine. So we have a lot of misery to go through before we are out of this so um our vaccine we believe can be important for the COVID can be adaptable to variants, and um we cannot get complacent just because we have these first few vaccines. Dr Letterman, what do you mean by these strains,

these new variants can recombine. What does that mean? Well, that means that, you know, the the so called British variant is defined by a number of mutations, and the South African mutation is defined by a number of mutations. But they're already viruses that look like they have some from some and some from another, some from one and some from the other. So all of these mutations aren't

rising spontaneously, many believe. So it just means that this this COVID two virus is diabolical and is a moving target. So I think everyone has to really focus on this for some time to come. And even I'm sure you know that even with the nation, we still recommend mask wearing, social diff and washing all the rest of it. So we're far from out of it. Hey, listen, I have to ask you just got about a minute left here

before you go. I know last month your stock kind of was the target of day traders uh touting the company on message boards for at that time no apparent reason. We we reported out here at Bloomberg UM obviously different from the trade that we're seeing today. How do you feel about that? And you're stock getting caught up in some of that, and how do you as a CEO kind of monitor it and take care of it or

just at least keep an eye on it. Well, we we've raised money yesterday from for healthcare specific institutional funds, so I think our primary investors are are funds UM. But there was a day in January when your your organization wrote a story about it. We I actually went on Reddit for the first time last weekend and tried to figure it out, and I apologize I didn't get

very far so I think it's an exciting development. Um uh, so far, to my knowledge, we haven't really been caught up in it, but I do think that one of the most exciting things about it is the transition of people to being interested in individual names, because I think we've come from a period maybe ten years where particularly younger people have just bought E T s and indexes

and things like that. So maybe if people are at home, maybe that you know, the no fee trading, but whatever, I think it's very exciting that people are getting back into the individual names instead of the indexes. And as far as I know, we're mostly an institutional stock. For example, yesterday's entire seventy million dollar financing was for institutions. All right, good to know. I just wanted to get you away in Dr Seth Ladderman, co found er, CEO and chairman

of Tonics Pharmaceuticals. This is Bloomberg Business Week with Carol Masser and Bloomberg Quick Takes Tim Stinovic from Bloomberg Radio. Carol, we talk a lot about the toll of the pandemic has taken in terms of numbers cases people who've died as a result of the pandemic. But one thing that's getting more and more focused right now is the way that we have put off going and visiting the doctor.

We've put off getting healthcare, and different communities that have been affected more than others as a result of that. And McCourt joins us now. She's healthcare reporter at Bloomberg News and she's writing about she's talking about her recent article miss doctor visits have created COVID's shadow health crisis. Emma, it's great to have you on Bloomberg Business Week Radio.

This story is really important. Take us through some of the numbers as to what we're learning about how people might not have visited the doctor like they used to during the pandemic. Right, Well, thank you so much for having me on. I'm really excited to be here. Um. Some sobering news, however, about the sort of neglect of non COVID UH conditions during this past year. Um. You know, I think a lot of us can relate for sure having pushed off you know, maybe a primary care doctor visit,

a routine dermatologist visit. Um. But you know, the big kind of takeaway here is in those early months of the pandemic in particular, there was just such profound disruption to the medical system, and it was people being told to stay home, people being afraid to go to the hospital, even in cases where they really needed emergency care. UM. And even kind of in the months since then, it's been a little harder to get in to see a doctor. They're UM sitting out their waiting rooms because they don't

want a lot of people credit in their things like that. UM. And so you know, the most dramatic change I think you see in those early weeks, it was about UM at least two point seven billion of routine healthcare spending just sort of disintegrated during that really disruptive early period it And we've seen those numbers come back. But I think the big takeaway is that even with the rise of virtual doctor business, we haven't seen UM that that

depth is that sort of being made up. M Well and so listen, we've talked about this a bunch on air with a lot of UM members of the medical community, and Emma, you know the thing is, you tell I want to drill down a little bit because you talk about one individual, specifically, tell us about Sarah strim Al. Yeah, So Sarah's story, UH, was very troubling so she UM, she's thirty nine, she's owned a New York yoga studio.

She realized over the summer that she had a lump in her breast and you know, immediately had a visit with her physician as quickly as she could to consult with her doctor about it. She was referred for a scan UM, but was told, you know, the stud disappointment you can have is three months away. And she ended up actually finding a private firm that could do it much sooner. She paid out of pocket for it UM and was diagnosed with these two breast cancer UM you know,

days later. So her physician actually told her that taking such quick action and probably saved her life because she her cancer could have progressed a lot further in those UM in those months if she had just waited to get the scan. And I think that kind of illustrates, how, you know, one of the most dramnast dramatic scenarios in which UM, not having easy ready access to a physician

UM can really affect people's health. Now, we hope that all these UM mispreventative care or routine care or even scans like with Sarah, that all these kind of disruptions to the system don't have such dramatic effects for people's help, but it's likely that it will, especially in situations where it's a chronic chronic conditions like diabetes, hypertension, and you really do need to have ready continuous monitoring of those um of those conditions. Otherwise you can have complications and

it can enforcetion your quality of life. That can even you know, right, right, and listen, right, there's implications for someone's individual personal health, but there's also you know, if we think about it down the road, maybe also how it will add to overall health care costs in this nation. Listen this, I think everybody can relate to this story where things were put off during the pandemic, partly because she didn't want to go near your health facilities and

partly because health facility says, don't come near me. And so now we're all playing catchup, right, Tim, I kidded with you about even going to the dentist for a while, but you know what, it worked. I went to the dentists and it was all good. I'm kind of tough. Uh, Emma, this is a really smart story. Um, thank you for bringing to us. Uh, we really appreciate it. Am a Court, she's healthcare reporter at Bloomberg News on the phone in New York City, and I know as soon as things

were open, I was like, all right, let's go back right. Yeah, it absolutely makes sense. I mean, think about the way that people change their behavior on the pandemic and continue to as well. Really important. This is Bloomberg Business Week with Carol Masser and Bloomberg Quick Takes. Tim Stinovic from Bloomberg Radio. Do you want to get to among our most read stories on the Bloomberg Love Love love this story. The headline for it, Uh, it really says so much, Tim.

It's about the mastermind behind one of the world's richest companies, a two point three trillion dollar fortress. Reporting for Bloomberg Business Week with another deep dive amazing one is Bloomberg News Technology Report to Austin card joining us on the phone in Los Angeles, and Austin, I love this star story and I think about you know, when we think about the genius behind this company, we understandably and rightfully

think typically of Tim Cook's predecessor at Apple. We think about Steve Jobs, and yet Tim Cook has really taken Apple to a whole other level totally. Um, what the

story really dives into is a different exploration of Apple. Traditionally, every look at Apple is about its product, about the mythology of Steve Jobs, about it design DNA, and what we really wanted to show was in fact equally important to that trajectory of this company is the operational, the supply chain DNA that that Tim Cook had baked into the into the company, as well as sort of the political and diplomacy skills he brings as a leader of

the company, which is definitely you know, we have someone in there just describing his personality as a you know, a tag boring perhaps compared to the Steve Jobs, but but that's what Apple needed in the last year's, last ten years, especially during the the drump era. Do weeber you're also with us, joining us and this is like one of those stories. I just love that you you learned something else about a company that we cover so much, but yet here you go you find out something new. Yeah.

So I have just been amazed by how good this story was because you know, I think there's a moment here that we found ourselves in where we're ten years after Steve Jumps, and you know, this tenure moment that Tim Cook has basically um lead this company through is basically unrivaled in this capitalism. Um we've seen this thing, this company go from a really important player to to something whose market camp is two point three trillion dollars.

We one of those sources in the story says within another twelve months, we're going to see it at three trillion. So the revenue really does look endless. And you know, I think the one of the more um significant parts here and I think Austin did a good job UM showing this is you know, even with all that revenue and and all the innovation that they've had, you know, the other thing that they've really been able to do

is doubled down on on themselves. And I think what we're seeing now is this um, you know, this privacy battle that they found they found themselves locked in with Facebook. You know, Tim Cook is very effective at wielding the public's uh focus and effectively has has really turned this into a conversation about privacy, which really benefits Apple and

is a challenging one for Facebook and Austin. What are the stakes when you think about what that means not only for for the two sides and how they've been kind of waging war publicly, but but where it might unfolds going forward. Yeah, the really brilliant thing we've seen is sort of Apple apply its marketing uh strength to

the political realm. Um. You know, there's this public messaging battle not just between Apple and Facebook, Tim Cook and Mark Zuckerberg, but essentially Apple and every software maker out there, from Spotify to Epic Games and one are the clever things that they've really done when it comes to anti trust scrutiny. Um. When you know, we're we're sort of in the early stages of whether we'll see the Biden

administration support congressional increase into that. Um. But Cook has really repositioned the company as this privacy forward, um, you know, advocate for for uh the Silicon Valley, and really uh you know, rather than being on the defensive, is really attacked Facebook and other social media companies and just wanted to to push all that anti trust scrutiny on them.

And it's a really difficult messaging war because on the one hand, they're saying, we want to protect privacy and that's why you should focus on section two thirty and all these other issues. Uh, And if you're Mark Zuckerberg or anyone at Facebook, it's so hard to make the argument against that because you just sound like you're against privacy.

So it's a really clever UH diplomacy attacked. And and that's one of the things that we saw now in the Biden administration, which we learned tons of lessons about during the Trump administration. Well, how we handled that administration and considering how disruptive it could have been to uh to Apple with their supply, the reliance on on China. Yeah, Austin, what about when it comes to actually manufacturing in the US. There's this this great anecdote about President Trump form of

President Trump and Tim Cook together in Texas. Take us take us back there, what happened and why what President Trump said at the time was not at all accurate about Apple's manufacturing in the US. So, yeah, there was this big event in November nineteen, about a year before the presidential election, and Tim Cook joins President Trump, who you know, on the surface have very differing personal politics. But at the same time, what uh you know, sources tell us is that uh, Tim was extremely good at

trading optics. You know, uh, you know, Trump is a guy who wanted to have his sort of business credentials validated, and what better than attached himself to one of the more beloved American brands when it comes to innovation or job creation. Uh. And and they come to this this tour at Texas and sort of presented as this, uh, you know, the future of US manufacturing, a sign that this reshoring effort that that Trump has has taken on with the trade war is working. But internally over the years,

sources just said that factory was quite a disappointment. Um, it was sort of an early experiment to see whether the US supply chain could compete with China's and one

source to set it failed miserably. So the irony was that even with those struggles at the plant, Tim Cook was still us able to to repurpose that to use the Apple brand and reposition that factory to sort of, uh you know, help solidify his relationship with Trump, which who knows, could have uh you know, led to more terrefully less disruption to their their supply chain and generally speaking, just let's you know, fire uh from Trump, you know,

from tweets like you've seen him criticize other CEOs, particularly Jeff Bezos. Tim Cook never received that, and it's light it it's because of this diplomacy efforts that he he did in Texas as well as in Washington over the past four years. Yeah. I think what's interesting too, as you write about just this kind of unlikely, but it really kind of makes sense, this combination between Tim Cook of Apple and President Donald Trump, and a lot of it had to do as you write about this kind

of the president really craving a mainstream business validation. It is an amazing story. Like Joel, Joel mentioned, really just a lot of information and just give us some more insight into the man who's you know, leading one of the biggest companies out there. Uh, Joel Weber, thank you so much. Editor of Bloomberg Business Week, Austin Carr, Tech reporter of Bloomberg News on the phone in l A. You're listening to Bloomberg Business Week with Carol Messer and

Bloomberg Quick Takes. Tim Stinovik on Bloomberg Radio. All right, everyone, just about sixty minutes left in today's trading session, and one of the top stories today is how House Democrats are proposing to limit the next round of COVID nineteen relief payments, and they're talking about households are making the limitations to households earning less than two hundred thousand dollars. We know that there's been a fair amount of pushback on both sides of the aisle when it comes to

President Biden's one point nine trillion dollar stimulus package. So let's get into it, Tim. Let's bring in Bloomberg News Congressional tax reporter Laura Davison. She's on the phone in d C. So Laura, tell us about the latest and what you're hearing and maybe what's likely to happen in

order to get this COVID nineteen relief package through. Yeah. So, last night UM House Democrats put out a series of different composals, and one of the things that we were really watching for was you know where exactly are these uh, these stimulus payments going to go on. This has been a point of contention between Republicans and Democrats and even

without among Democrats for for several days. Where they landed on this proposal is that if you are a single person earning UM seventy five thousand dollars, a year, you get that full fourteen hundred dollar payment. Same a couple married couple making uh up to her hundred and fifty thousand dollars will get a hunt fourteen hundred dollars each. Those payments will then phase out for singles earning up to a hundred thousand dollars or couples earning up to

two hundred thousand dollars. And and this was sort of a compromise between what some Senate Democrats had wanted. They kept those caps, but they basically phased the payments out more quickly than they did in previous in previous bills. Um, so what's next? Uh, they will go and do what's called a markup. This is basically going through the legislation

line by line um in the House all this week. Uh. It was basically they'll wrap everything up by the end of this week, looking to vote on the legislation potentially as soon as next week. And then Pelosia said she'll send it over to the Senate um as soon as they're done in the House and looking to pass this, you know fully through Congress by mid March. Okay, So how does this compare, Laura to what Republicans wanted to see.

So basically, Republicans wanted to have a lower cap. So instead of fifty thousand dollars, they wanted forty thousand dollars instead of you know, a hundred thousand sorry instead of a sorry, I miss quoted those numbers, instead of seventy five thousand dollars, they wanted them capped at fifty thousand dollars. And instead of having um couples earning up to two hundred thousand dollars, Democrats proposed, they wanted to to phase

those out around eighty thousand dollars. So the limits were, uh, we're pretty stark. And also Republicans were proposing only one thousand dollars per person versus that fourteen hundred that Democrats have been talking about. So, does this indeed make it a more make these payments more targeted? Does it? Does it indeed help per and this from benefiting the wealthy?

Or are there still some issues to work out? They have really cut off, you know, sort of the issues that we saw with some previous rounds or kind of issues that we're discussed. If they hadn't put these caps on, you know, these payments going to you know, three hundred thousand dollar, you know a year. Households that won't happen under here. Basically the difference, uh though kind of on the lower side of the income spectrum. It's very similar

to what we've seen. The big difference when you look at the numbers comparing you know, like the payments from the Cares Act versus this proposal is that households with children will just get a lot more money. So under the Cares Act, it was only five hundred dollars per kid. This would have it at fourteen hundred dollars per kids. So you know, a family of four under that under that one hundred and fifty dollar income threshold will get

fifty six hundred dollars. So it's a pretty large check, particularly for households that have you to three or four children. So what they're trying to do it sounds like Laura's like trying really hopefully make sure our money is going to people who might be most likely struggling, and we know folks with kids. Um, you know, I was looking at a story that you also put out um with

Katerina Sarajeva about US child poverty crisis. I mean, more than eight million Americans, including many children falling into poverty during the second half of last year. I mean, you know, it's hard to look away from that, and it's hard not to think about, all right, how do we best make sure that kids are being taken care of, that there's food on their table, and that the parents that

are overseeing them can do that. Yeah, but this is another key portion of the Democrat's proposal is to do this child tax credit um and this would essentially work a sort of a separate round of of stimulus payments versus kind of the child tax credit. How we thought about it for years. You know, it's just something that you either get added onto your tax refund, it's used offset tax liability. What this proposal will do would send out a payment, a monthly payment, spreading out the total

value of the credit throughout the year. So for you know, a single child would be you know, between the pending on the age of the child, between two hundred and fifty or three hundred dollars a month. So this is something they're proposed to do for the rest of this year. But Democrats are already thinking about how could we make this a permanent proposals so that households had a little bit of extra infusion to pay for for expenses throughout the year. Can I just imagine a chart, more than

children the US are in poverty in December. That's just that's just rough. That's for a time. The timeline for these checks. You know, we we talked a lot about the one point a trillion dollar stimulus package. Unclear the timeline there, but but how quickly could people get relief? So the I R S has said that they are are prepared, uh and ready to go if the if Congress passes another round. Um. In December, when they passed the stimulus bill, they got those checks really out within

a matter of days. Um, they started sending them and you know, kind of over the course of three or four weeks they got into the vast majority of those payments out. Same thing here. We could see that, you know, if they are able to pass this bill mid March, sort of by you know, mid to late March, people could start seeing the direct deposits for the child tax credit. That will take longer. Congress is going to give the I R S and told jo Lie to start sending

those out. Yeah, it's interesting, Um, are you anticipated all right? So, I mean, something's going to happen, right, and it's obviously going to be a little bit different from what President Biden put out there, but it's moving along. Bottom line,

it certainly is you know. The question really is when they move it over to the Senate, that's when all the funky rules about the special budget process that they're using, and that's what we could see parts getting stripped out of this bill as they run a foul of this budget reconciliation process. Hey, Laura, one last quick question. Is impeachment going to get in the way of any of this? Do you think, um, impeaching? It looks like it will wrap,

you know, by um early next week. If they're able to kind of stick to the time and lean out, it should be done soon. All right, Good to know, um, Laura, Thank you so much, really appreciate it. Laura Davison and Congressional tax reporter at Bloomberg News on the phone from Washington, d C. Tim. You know, I'm looking at her story and you know what you could get versus what you

could get under the Cares Act. I mean, it does sound like they're trying to figure out how to make sure that the money gets to the right hands, and it's hard to argue with that. So right. The criticism, of course, is that it's not targeted enough. Right, It's correct. Stimulus payments are going to people who are working, people

who don't necessarily need the money. And when that happens, we've learned, they might save it, they might not spend it, and it won't have that stimulating effect that economists are looking for exactly, which is why it's so tricky, and which is why we kicked off the top of the show talking to Mike about you know, some of these things we have to think about longer term investments and longer term impact romal a journal. Yeah, but you let me drive. Oh no, no, no no, no, honey, please, I'll

do the riding drivel. I want to drive it. Just drive, baby, it's the question. This is the drive to the globe. Thanks. We'll try us down on Bluebird Radio. All right, folks, Just about eleven minutes left in today's trading day. We're hovering near our haws of the session. But little changed. As Charlie just mentioned on the SNP Dowd just up about eleven nasty act the app performer, but just by a hair up about thirty nine points or at point

three percent. Let's get to a top performing fund manager, someone we've had on before. Eric Clark, back with us, portfolio manager at Rational Dynamic Brands Fund. His Rational Dynamic Brands Fund, by the way, continuing to beat just about all of its peers this year and over the last five years. Over the past five years check it out up on average nearly annually, putting his fun in the ninety percentile according to our data here at Bloomberg. Eric's

back with us on the phone from San Diego. So, Eric, nice to have you back with us. How are you. I'm doing great. Happy New Year. Yeah, although it feels a lot like in many ways. Well, so listen, you dig into different brands. A lot of them are names that we know, we've talked about it before, whether it's an Amazon and Apple, a Master, Hard and Nike, um,

these are some of your top holdings. Has this year changed at all in terms of how you're thinking about your portfolio versus what we saw that might have been some some very strong pandemic plays in it really has?

You know, We've we're probably as balanced by the winners of last year that we think still have a lot of room to run with some of the laggard's turned to leaders of particularly areas where we we think consumers are really pent up and and travel is certainly right at the top of my list getting out rather than staying in and and we're we're still it's obviously still winter.

We're in February. But it won't shock me soon if you get to hear from from mayor BnB and Marriott and Hilton, some of those brands, and they talk about the reservations being, you know, kind of building as people get excited for spring and summer travel. And I don't think that's in the stocks yet. So we're building that big travel basket, if you will, of great brands. Okay, so explain now. You can be bullish both on on Airbnb and on on Hilton, right because somebody could argue

that Airbnb is disrupting Hilton. That's true. I I you know, to be honest with you, I think there's gonna be so much demand it's gonna overflow. I mean, certainly the Airbnb and the v R b OH and we own Expedia for the v r b OH exposure. Um, that's an area that's really become popular because of covid, and I think it will continue, but in many cases, I mean, Airbnb is extremely expensive relative to the to the other companies.

We still love it, but but the demand is going to kind of outstrip supply between the house sharing as well as the hotel. So I just think the whole group, as well as the platforms of expedient booking, are just gonna experience some epic demand across the board. So, Eric, have you been doing any buying or paring back of some of your positions and just curious about any kind

of logistical move that you've been making in your portfolio. Yeah, mean, what we've we've certainly done some trimming of the higher valuation winners of uh you know, we had a much bigger position in PayPal. Still love it, uh Square, still love it, but we've we've kind of paired back some of those high valuation names. I mean, everybody's kind of over their skis lathered up with with tech, but everybody

is underweight the consumer brands, particularly in consumer discretionary. So I love being in an area that isn't crowded when when the valuations are much better and we see some some great demand and and you know, we're still with a vix still stubbornly over twenty We're still using tactical trading, active trading as a way to to kind of use some cash, get in, get paid, and then get back

to the cash and then wait for another opportunity. So between that and just avoiding some of the higher valuation names that we think comparisons year over year are just gonna be too too difficult. I love the balance that we have now that when the old winners in the in the kind of laggards to turn to turn leaders this year. Okay, so you guys own Uber. Uh you you say that you love the stock. Why we have Lift earnings after the bell today? Why Uber and not Lift?

And what do you think of that one point one billion dollar acquisition of Drizzly that was announced last week. I think it's great. On the Drizzly acquisition, I mean, I think it just fills up their ability to kind of control the last mile. And I like Lift and Uber. I just think Uber has a lot more optionality with all the other subsidiaries that they have and have UH

exposure to through jvs around the world. But I you know, for the same reason that Travel should do well the things that are tied to travel, like an uber like a lift should do well as a recovery theme. And I like, you know that they have the Uber eats um that I you know, let's face it, we got used to certain things. Some of that will continue on the Uber eats. With the Drizzly, you got a new

revenue stream. And then you have the ride the ride sharing as well that that will that will eventually come back and has already I'm sure seen lots of loss of recovery. So I just not to mention from a technical perspective, that's not looks like it's just on the verge of breaking out. So that's kind of an early breakout sign for that for that group when some of the other tech stocks have run and in my opinion

are pretty extended to the ups. Well, having said that, are you I hate to use this expression keeping some powder dry, um, but are you holding back because there's been such a run up and waiting for a better entry point. I'm just curious if you have up your cash positions at all so that when we do see a pullback, which many predict that you can kind of

get in there at some lower rates. Well, we are I mean, we we were tending to trend some things that are at the top end of the range and adding to some things that are kind of at the bottom end of the range. And it's not getting a lot of news, but we've had a bit of a rolling corruption over the last couple of months. It hasn't been a very even everything going up at the same time.

So I love the ability to sell something that's that's up and to the right into the top, and then buy something that's already experienced a five or ten percent pullback and and just keep recycling that that cash allocation into names that have much bigger upside to keep this thing rolling. Hey, Andy Jesse at Amazon, I know Amazon is one of your top holdings. What do you make of Jeff Bezo stepping down later this year. Well, I think it's I think it's the normal succession that happens.

I mean, he's still young, but he's been there a long time, and I'm sure he has other aspirations philanthropic and space and all that stuff. But to have a guy who's been there for twenty five years and understands the culture was part of building the culture, to me, that's a much better m a much better decision than bringing somebody from the outside, because you know, I have a lot of friends that work there, and it's a unique culture. Let's just put it that way. If you're

ingrained in the culture, that's probably a good extension. And Andy's been, you know, a part of all of the decisions, so it's not like you have an outsider coming in without that. With that, that that Amazon view of the world. All right, listen. Always love checking in with you, Eric, Thank you so much. I love all the specificity in terms of talking names. Eric Clark, he's portfolio manager at

the Rational Dynamic Brands Fund. Check it out the performance, as I said, short term, longer term five years, beating pretty much all of its peers, returning on average about annually over the past five years. Thanks for listening to Bloomberg Business Week. Download the podcast on iTunes, SoundCloud, or Bloomberg dot com, and you can also listen to our radio show at two pm Eastern on Bloomberg Radio or watch us on YouTube search Bloomberg Global News