Ukraine Call Summary, Impeachment Inquiry, & GBF

with the Ukraine. We welcome Alex Wayne, Bloomberg News based in Washington, d C. Alex, thanks so much for joining us. Just give us your kind of initial response to kind of what we're seeing here across the tape. Well, this uh, this transcript uh really supports the allegations that have been made that the President pressured Ukraine to investigate a political rival,

Joe Biden. The President brought up Biden this phone call, mentioned his name repeatedly, and asked to uk for the new Ukrainian president to reopen a an investigation that had gone dormant um back in or so uh, involving a company tied to Joe Biden's son hunter Biden. So, is there any sense, Alex that there was a threat of withholding aid to Ukraine unless these this investigation did proceed. That there's no explicit threat like that in documented in this phone call. But but let's back up just a

step before this call. According to people familiar with the matter, the President froze that that military age Ukraine had happened at least a week before the call. Uh now now that the President of Ukraine gives no indication in the call that he's aware the age has been frozen. At one point he early in the call, he thanks President Trump for US support for Ukraine and says he's uh, he's almost ready to buy more Javelin anti tank missile

systems from the United States. The President responds by saying, I would like you to do us a favor, though, because our country has been through a lot in Ukraine knows a lot about it, and he then asks Zelensky to locate this d N the server that was hacked during campaign. We're not sure what the President was getting at there, um, but that then leads into a conversation about other investigations Ukraine could conduct on the President's behalfs

including uh, including the Joe Biden probe. Yeah. Right now we're looking at SMP right now, the SMP trading lower, sharply lower on the heels of this transcript release. I'm just wondering, based on what we've heard, based on the law, is what's in the transcript enough to give further ammunition to the Democrats and their impeachment push, or is this sort of edifying for President Trump that he didn't necessarily verbatim,

threatened to withhold aid in return for further investigation. So, so, impeachment is more of a political process than a legal process. The Constitution says the president can impeach for high crimes and misdemeanors, but leaves it to Congress to decide what those are. Uh. So, I don't I don't know if

the President violated a law. Here. We y're told that the Department of Justice conducted an investigation um into whether the President violated campaign finance law by soliciting the President of Ukraine's help investigating Joe Biden, and do o J determined that he didn't. Uh. But we're also told that at the time d o J conducted this investigation, they were not aware that the president had frozen military aid

to Ukraine head of a call. UM, So I you know, I would say this is squarely within the realm of things that Congress would scrutinize. Uh. One of the Commerce's highest responsibilities is to conduct over stud of the executive branch. And UH. I think if any president had having had behaved like this in a phone call with a foreign leader, UM, it would very well rise the level of investigation by Congress. So is it the sense here? You know? The next steps?

I guess it's probably the question we have the president. I believe it's going to have a press Commerce today at four pm Eastern. UH. Any expectations here about the tax team might take, well, he's been he's been very defensive so far about his call with Lensky. He's called it a perfect call. So he did nothing wrong. I don't know why he calls it a perfect call given what is right here on on the page that I'm looking at, showing that he he asked a foreign leader

to investigate a political arrival. That's that's not a normal thing for a president to ask of a of a foreign a foreign leader. Actually, Alex, that's what I wanted to ask you, I mean, is there a president for this? I've never heard of one. I've I've never heard of something like this happening before. I'm not aware of a previous president, at least in modern US history, Uh, asking a foreign leader to get involved in a U S election.

So one of the issues that that Tim O'Brien Bloomberg opinion columnists put in a column yesterday was the big issue is to focus on the fact that don't focus necessarily on whether there was a quid pro quo asked by President Trump, focused more on the fact that the call was made to ask a foreign government to interfere in an election, and that in and of itself, is uh an impeachable or could could support an impeachment process. Is that the thinking within Washington? Or does the quid

pro quel really need to be proven? Uh? No, I think I think Democrats definitely feel like there doesn't have to be a quid per quoil, that that's simply inviting or or asking a foreign leader to to get involved in in an election. Um is enough on its face, but but let's also let's also kind of you know, you could almost you can almost say that the quid per quota is already established. The Ukraine is dependent on

American military aid. If the President of the United States calls up the president of Ukraine and asked him to do something, there is a there is even if he doesn't make the threat explicit, there is an implication that US aid maybe at risk if the Ukrainian president doesn't agree to do whatever the American President is asking me to do. So, so the quid pro quo is there. It's implied even without the President explicitly threatening the Ukrainian president. So, Alex,

what's the next step here? Well, the next step is that there's there's going to be a lot of work on on the on in the House of Representatives by multiple committees um to to apparently as symbol a case

for impeachment of of the president. Any support by Republicans there is none so far, but uh, you know, at least at least one Republican, Mitt Romney of of Utah Senter Mitt Romney of Utah has has raised some concerns about what happened in this phone call with the President of Ukraine UH and has said he would reserve judgment on on any consequences until after the facts had were gathered, and so we're we're gathering those facts now. We we think that by the end of the week will also

have uh this whistleblower complaint. Uh. An intelligence community whistle whistle blower made a complaint to the Inspector General for the Intelligence community based on in part this call between Trump and the press of Ukraine as well as other events. UH and uh and and that complaint has been demanded by by Democrats in Congress. Alex Wayne, thank you so much,

alex Wayne. White House reporter based in Washington, d C. Certainly there is a lot of interest in President Trump's phone call with Ukraine, at the transcript of which was released. Joining us now to discuss Justin sink Bloomberg News, White House reporter, Justin. Have have we gotten any responses yet from either the White House Republicans or Democrats? Uh, in

the wake of the release of this transcript. Yeah. So, I think obviously a lot of Democratic lawmakers are expressed and outrage over what they see is the President acting inappropriately by asking Ukraine to participate in this investigation of Joe Biden. The President his allies, though, have kind of insisted throughout this process that the President didn't do anything wrong. They say, uh, that it's normal operating procedure or within the bounds of acceptability for the president to um push

for an investigation when there's possible wrongdoing. And they make the argument that the five page transcript shows that the President didn't necessarily link his freezing of foreign aid or even foreign aide generally with the buying investigation, although he does discuss both topics on the on the call and Justin's isn't you know, isn't simply the fact that the president asked the President Trump asked the leader of a foreign nation to potentially interfere in a U S election.

Isn't that in and of itself? Uh problematic and maybe even enough to support impeachment. I mean, that's certainly the argument that the critics of the president are making today and that uh, you know, Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, have set our grounds for impeachment. Now, the President says and has defended himself by arguing that there was possible misconduct by by Joe Biden that hasn't been sort of substantiated. All of our reporting indicates that, uh, Joe Biden made

the call to to get rid of a prosecutor in Ukraine. Uh, not based on his son's financial interests, but based on the policy within the Obama administration. But but the White House is going to make the argument that that this was just sort of, uh an attempt by this White House to to address possible corruption. Have we already think

from Republican leaders. Republican leaders so far have have sort of downplayed the police this and are are making the argument that Democrats are sort of singularly focused on impeaching the president. It's it's a very similar um approach to what we heard in the aftermath of the Mala report coming out, where again the President engaged in some conduct that um was certainly outside the sort of norms that we we expect, but didn't rise the level of illegality.

And so they're making the areament that Democrats are uh pushing too hard for this impeachment issue. So justin many observers have suggested that the more damning piece of evidence maybe the whistleblowers report per se, is there sense of when if that will be released and will be releasing its entirety, Yeah, so we're not entirely sure when the public will get a chance to look at or if the politic will get a chance to look at this

whistle blower report. But there is an expectation that the Congress, which is holding hearings tomorrow on this issue, will will at least in a classified setting, be able to review uh some if not all, of the whistle blower report. So we we may get additional details that can help give a bigger picture of what the Trump White House was up to and what the president was up to beyond this this specific called transcript as soon as tomorrow.

Just and is there any precedent that we can look to in terms of how the president's phone call went or didn't go according to the way it should have I mean, in other words, uh, does the law or

precedent offer any guidance for us. So another interesting kind of piece of information that came out today is that the Justice Department, because of this whistleblower um flagging concern over the call, did do a legal review of it to see if if President Trump had violated campaign finance law, as as he encouraged them to look into into Joe Biden. The Justice Department ultimately concluded that there was not um

that the president didn't break the law. That they didn't see anything necessarily improper, but um senior administration who official told us that that that that did not include a consideration of the freezing of Youkran's aid. And so I think a lot of critics of the White House are also going to pot not that the Justice foreman is, of course um run by Attorney General Barr, who has mentioned in this transcript and who is a close political ally of the president. Justin what's the sense of next

steps here? Yeah, So I think we're looking at two big kind of events on the very short term horizon. One is the President is actually meeting with the Ukrainian president later this afternoon, so I'm sure he's going to feel questions and talk about this then, and especially at a press conference schedule for four pm at the end of the United Nations later this afternoon. So we're going to hear a lot from the President later today as

he tries to explain his actions. And then, of course we've got these congressional hearings going forward on the next couple of days, where we're more information, particularly from the mouth of the whistleblower, may might start to come out. Justin if we look at the market response. Initially, there was a leg lower in the SMP and NASDAC that has bounced back since. So basically, people in the market seem to be suggesting this is not that big of a deal, or at least it doesn't move the needle

materially more toward impeachment. Does that cohere with what people who you speak with seem to think. Yeah, I mean, I think that there's obviously a lot of political attention on this entire controversy, but the basic math hasn't changed here in Washington, which is the Republicans continue to control, uh, the United States Senate, and that there's nowhere near the votes that you would need to actually remove Donald Trump

from office. So while Democrats might want to sort of send a political message that they find this behavior to be unacceptable, uh, something that would actually remove the president from office and thereby potentially change policy and impact markets is not something that that seems likely at this point,

Justine think thanks so much for joining us. Justin sink as a Bloomberg News White House reporter giving us the latest reporting on the call summary that was made public between the of the call between President Trump and the

President of the Ukraine. We are broadcasting Alive from the Bloomberg Global Business Forum here in New York City at the Plaza Hotel, hob nobbing with the world's leaders, frankly as well as the leaders of the major corporations as well as the largest asset management and managers in the world. Among them Dylan Play a chief executive officer of Temasek International, which manages two thirty five billion dollars, and we actually had an opportunity to sit down and speak with him.

Let's take a listen. We want to start with the theme of the Global Business Forum, which is sustainability. And I'm wondering how much you have shifted your investments with E s G sorts of parameters to sustainability in mind. So this is a journey that we've started. We started about three years ago and now we're looking at it in a very listic manner. There are three parts to it.

I would say first is, uh, we're put in place at E s G framework for each of the investments that we're looking at right now from the time that we it first come to the pipeline to evaluation to eventual execution. And it's very clear in our minds. Unless it passes in the e s G framework. Where either we've identified problems that can be resolved or the company is largely in line with the framework, we won't proceed

with investment. Now we have six hundred investments intomastic, so we're now extending the framework into our existing investments so that we see improvement and whatever we can do with respect to e s G factors. The third element has to do with what we're trying to do for sustainable investments that include sustainable living for example, alternative proteins, anything to do with water efficiency, to look at resource efficiency. The second is to consider the issue of the carbonization.

How we can go about reducing the cuboon footprints of the companies that we control, reduce our own cuboon footprint, trying to see how we can influence companies in which we are minority shareholdings to think about reducing their carbon footprint. Would review towards seeing how our corvered footprint for the entire portfolio can be halved by twenty And the final thing is to look at sustainable solutions. That includes things

like environmental entering. Solutions which are relevant in the context of Asia, include sustainable finance because so much what Asia needs infrastructure and the and there's always a tension between affordability and what you need to do for climate change. And so we think that the key part of this is to make sure that there is a form of blended finance. It's brought to to the needs of the region. And we are looking now to see how we can

plate that. So the companies that you've invested in, how typically how receptive other management teams and the boards to some of the your sustainability and and e s g in initiatives. Increasingly so because I think they see the winds of change. Uh their customers are asking for it. They have to look at their production methods to see whether it's in line with what their customers will expect them to do. Uh. So most of them realize that they have to start their journey, some of them further

along the process. Some are of obviously thinking about how best approach it. So I think these days we find it as we talked to him about this, as much as you talked to about you know, their business strategies and so on, We're getting a more receptive audience with these companies right now. UM, I want to shift gears a little bit, because we've heard a lot about the groundswell of cash just pouring into a lot of markets and particularly private markets around the world in time. Second,

I know has been involved in that. I mean you have to be as you seek out bigger returns. How concerned are you about some of the evaluations that you're seeing in markets today? So I think the first thing we have to bear in mind we're in a low inflation, lower interest rate, lower growth, lower return environment. So your traditional instruments for returns, for example, fixed income and so on, I'm not going to give you the same returns that you're you're used to. So more and more money is

going to alternatives. Sopping wealth funds are shifting more of all of the capital in terms of as an allocation to alternatives. So there is a lot of capital looking for real and two returns. Now there may be too much capital out there looking at the same range of investments that we're looking at um And are we going

to reduce our investment return framework? Monswers No. Uh, does that mean there's gonna be very difficult for us to source investments that we need to see to get a better returned answers Yes, so valuations are a key part to that, and we're more than prepared to walk away. We feel it doesn't mean a return fessial for the long term. So give us the sense of kind of the environment out there. I know you you guys are

invested very aggressively around the Asia. Given the trade tensions that we continue to see between the US and China. What are you seeing in in your part of the world, in some of the opportunities that you're looking at. So the number one destination for our capital in the last five years has been United States. Number two destinations China. So the US China issue, it's not exactly a friendly one to US um but look, we have to take

the wall as it is. You know, we have to find our way through the difficulties that that the current relationship puts forward to all of us as investors, and we have to find a way in which we can continue to look for good investments in the areas that we are focused on, whether they be in the United States or where do they be in China? All for that ment, in Europe and India and elsewhere. What's the one area that you've been adding your adding to your

allocation The most technology. So maybe I'll put it this way. We have five focus areas. Technology is one life sciences, biotech, the second financial services, non bankings, The third to insurance, fintech, payments, asset management, consumer because it's such a big thing with rising affluence is the fourth and the fifth actually which is the most recent and the most exciting. First is

agribios Sciences. Gives an example of agri bios sciences. So for example, you know we're investing in possible foods, you know, so alternative proteins. I think you all know about it beyond me. Well, we chose impossible foods of a beyond time will tell. We'll probably that we be be two witness maybe more. Um that we looking at ways in which we look at vertical farming, uban farming, look at ways in which that could be substitutes for hubicides pesticides where

less chemicals can be used. So just real quick, here, is there any area completely avoiding right now? Well, I don't think we're going to be investing fossil fuels as you continue path to sustainability. Yeah, and ergo, that's why I'm sure you're at this conference. Delon Pila, Thank you so much, for joining us CEO of Timasak International, giving his thoughts on his the global investment of Tamasak and some of the investments and sustainability and E s G

and and how that factors into their investments. Indeed, thank you so much, thank you for having me. That was delon Play. We spoke to him earlier this morning, CEO of Timasak International, some very interesting commentary here as we're here at the Bloomberg Global Business Form Conference here in New York. Right now, it's shift focus to We Work. It lost its chief executive officer and co founder Adam Newman.

It's bonds, it does not have stocks because it has not been able to do it's initial public offering at the value that it would like to do it or anywhere close. Bonds trading down significantly as we look ahead to the future share of Ada. Bloomberg opinion columnist joining us in our interactive broker studios, Shira, how much does the departure of Adam Newman really change the landscape for

We Work? I mean it doesn't. Look it does change things, right, because he was one element, a significant element of both We Work success and ultimately it's um kind of self dealing and bad management, oversight and business model. So changing horses does matter. But at the same time, everybody who enabled We Work to get to the point where it is today is still there. That includes Newman himself. He

is a significant shareholder, remains a significant shareholder. He's going to be on the board, right He's a non executive chairman. All the investors are still there, the bankers, the lawyers, all the executives. The company is now being run by these two insiders. So We Work has a lot of questions to answer about both its business model and the structure of the company, and that's being those decisions are being made by more or less the same people who

were there all along. So sure, one of the key figures for me is Masa Yoshi san of soft Bank. Um is there any sense of how committed he and the fund is to this company given some of the

term ra what we've seen. I think that's a key question, and I think we still don't really have a good answer as to what made sown and soft Bank apparently turned against We Work literally at the last minute, right in the last few days, it seems, and I at least noticed that in We Work statement yesterday about Adam Newman's departure and the changes in the management team there.

Soft Bank was not mentioned. They were not quoted, so soft Bank has not said anything, but look, this company needs money urgently, and soft Bank is certainly one of the more obvious candidates to provide that financing. And there was some reporting today from Bloomberg and others that soft Bank is looking at potentially additional UM loans and an equity infusion, either from soft Bank or from real Estate. And how much a shift in leadership hurt potentially we work.

I mean, we're talking about Adam Newman as being a highly flawed leader. Certainly he was, but he also led the expansion of the company and had the vision and there was a certain cult of personality. Is it a liability that he's leaving at all? I think right now that we work as we know it is over, and whatever emerges is going to be a very different kind

of company top to bottom. Right, I don't think they're going to be able to continue in you this kind of breakneck office office expansion they've had for the last few years under Newman, this kind of sprawl of the company into all these ancillary Uh, we related activities right as a kids school, a coding academy, a m communal living apartment complexes that may no longer be viable. And those were things that were part of Newman's vision for

the company, and I don't think they're viable anymore. And so that means that Newman may not be the right leader. If we were going forward, is going to be less ambitious and less we worky. So here I know there's some financial issues here in the relatively near term. I think they were going to get some big funding round a debt round, a credit facility from a bunch of banks, but that was continguent upon an I p O. Now it looks like the IPO was shelved, at least for

the near term. So what's the sense of the near term liquidity of this company? Yes, we Work needs money, it needs it soon. It is on roughly a three billion dollar annual burn rate this year cash burn rate this year, and that meant it was going to need

money by next year. And as you said, the plan was to sell several billions of dollars in stock in the I p O. And there were loans, loan agreements in place for six billion dollars that was tied in part to the completion of the I p O. And you're right that right now it doesn't look like that an I p O is is going to happen, at least not in the next few months. So yeah, the

company is going to need cash. Again, there's been reporting that the company may significantly pairback expenses and cut its workforce. That will certainly ease the cash burn, although that would be a significant blow to the company and those employees as well. And again there's been reporting of the company is talking about additional loans and and equity sales to

kind of keep the company going. Shia. I think this takes us to a broader conversation about valuations because we work sort of comes after the Uber issues and as a ton of money pours into tech startups pretty broadly, and I'm just wondering what are we hearing from people in terms of how much venture capitalists are sort of gut checking themselves and what they're willing to accept in terms of private valuations for some of what they're investing in.

You know, the venture capital industry has been in a really weird place the last few years. I think almost everybody who's in the business of backing technology startups will say that there's too much money slashing around chasing too few good companies, and that has made valuations get too big and companies get funded excessively, But no one is No one is willing to say that they're part of

the problem, right that it's always the other guy. And the other guy recently has been soft Bank with this hundred billion dollar Vision Fund that they've poured into companies like we Work in Uber and others. So there is definitely too much money slashing around chasing too few good companies and um. And yet I don't know that anything is going to change in the near term because of what's happened at We Work, because there's always this tendency to say, well, we Work is kind of a one off.

That was a soft Bank thing, they overinflated this company, or Uber was a one off thing. Everything is a one off thing. That's somebody else's fault. I certainly hope that in the corners of Silicon Valley, where that your capitalists live and work, that there's been some rethinking about what they personally need to do to prevent companies like We Work from happening again, whether that's over capitalization or entrenching too much, too much power in these founders without oversight,

sure of a day. Thanks so much for joining us talking to us about what is the latest on we work. Here is a Bloomberg Opinion technology columnists for Bloomberg Opinion. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg P and L podcast. You can subscribe and listen to interviews at Apple Podcasts or whatever podcast platform you prefer. Paul Sweeney, I'm on Twitter at pt sweeney A. Lisa brom It's I'm on Twitter at Lisa Abramo. It's one before the podcast. You can always catch us worldwide on Bloomberg Radio